Trinidad

Fred, Just for clarification: Are you talking about misinformation (which is what your last post seems to be about) or about opponents who have a misunderstanding about their agreements (which invariably will lead to misinformation when screens are in use). For a TD these are two entirely different things: - Misinformation is an infraction covered by the Laws - A misunderstanding about agreements is not an infraction (in itself) And, I must add, usually for scientists the difference between the two is entirely clear while for artists the difference is often fuzzy. As to your last comment: Isn't this exactly the difference between the scientist and the artist? The scientist being the one who knows what he is doing (and easy to check by a TD, since it is documented in the 100+ page system book) and the artist who vaguely relies on partnership experience (which often deviates from standard) without any explanation or documentation other than "I felt like it" (knowing very well that he and his partner "felt" exactly the same the last time this situation occured). If you say: "Let's go after the artists who claim they play "just natural" but whose bidding is consistently different from that of the field while they aren't able to explain simple bidding sequences and don't have any decent documentation." then I am 100% behind you. If you say: "Let's go after the scientist who explains all his bids and has them documented, but who has a lapse in concentration and shows a 5143 with the ♠A, ♦KQ and ♣9, while he holds a 5134 with the ♠A, ♦KQ and ♣9 and is lucky enough to make 6♦ in the 4-3 fit." then I am not with you. Rik

Scientists have a lot of explicit agreements. They are nicely documented in their 100+ page system book. The problem is that the "artists" also have a vast arsenal of agreements. But their agreements are implicit rather than explicit. These agreements are not documented. But somehow the artist gets his message across to the "connoisseur" (his partner). The reason is that the formal, simple system that the artists use is full of holes. But during the years that they have played together, the system holes have been fixed "on the fly". Since people (even artists) tend to repeat their behavior when it was succesful, the artist is developing a pattern of "system hole fix methods". The partner knows this pattern, since he was present during the development. The problem is that the artist thinks that this pattern is "general bridge knowledge" and that it therefore doesn't need to be disclosed, while in fact it is knowledge, specific for the partnership and has to be disclosed. To state it clearly, the artists know exactly when a bid can be made on a three card suit, since they recognize the situation. They also know which bids are reliable. Not disclosing these tendencies is err well... , since you already used the "c-word", err... an infraction. Just as much as it is an infraction when scientists do not disclose their methods. Rik

I strongly agree with Helene. Are there really many (any?) pairs in serious tournaments who frequently screw up basic auctions? If not, why are we discussing this? The answer that I see: Because the real problem isn't with opponents screwing up their system. We wouldn't care, we take the good result. The real problem is with people alledgedly screwing up disclosing their system. And that is a communication problem with cultural (what is 'standard'?) and linguistic aspects. (And keep in mind that 'communication' involves the 'sender' as well as the 'receiver'.) Rik

I don't think that you entirely agree with me. My point was that whilst miscounting a hand and forgetting your system are both bridge errors, I don't want to play against opponents who do either. We find ways to separate weak players from strong players, and I'd be happy if we could also separate serial system-forgetters from the rest of us. What is a serial system forgetter other than 'a type of weak player'? The system that separates the miscounters from the correct counters is the same one that separates the system forgetters from the pairs with solid agreements. Rik

I don't understand this attitude at all. Unless you have a financial interest in winning, what on earth do you get out of having a match thrown at you? I probably didn't phrase this right. Indeed, I don't get anything out of having matches thrown at me, other than the possibility to qualify to play against better opponents. However, opponents are going to make mistakes. And the real question is: Should I be picky about which mistakes they make? Do I care whether they misbid, miscount, or forget their system? My answer: No, I don't. Would you feel better qualifying for the Bermuda Bowl because an opponent miscounted the hand or because they had a bidding misunderstanding? My guess is that you don't consider it your problem. Rik

I agree with sfi. In fact, I would go further: You already have a ton of UI from the fact that partner passed 5♦ without asking what it meant. Partner's not asking means that he: - truely does not want to bid anything, regardless of what 5♦ means or - thinks that the opponents don't know what 5♦ means. Rik

I certainly understand Fred's point of view and I have sympathy for it too. However, Fred was wise enough not to define the key points (serious tournament, frequent and basic auctions). I am with Fred that I would not enjoy the game if I would play in The Cavendish and meet a pair that twice in a row is not capable of explaining their 1NT range properly. And yes, something should be done about that. At the same time, it should be clear that in a long, complicated auction the agreements get vague. And if the opponents are also in the auction, the agreements start to depend on the meaning of the opponents' bids. There will be agreements that start to contradict each other. Which agreement is trumping the other? Therefore, you can expect explanations like: "I don't know, in situation A we play like this and in B we play like that, but this is C and I don't remember that we have an agreement." I am sure that Fred knows of these situations too and that he would never want to impose penalties on not knowing your system in these situations. But the consequence of this is that the key points: "serious tournament", "frequent" and "basic auctions" need to be defined to some extent to separate the cases that we shouldn't accept from the cases that we will have to live with. Where do we draw the line? I think that it will be very hard (read impossible) to come up with a regulation that puts the dividing line consistantly near the place where bridge players more or less want to have it. On top of that, there is disagreement among the players about where the line should be. Frankly, I just like it when I play against opponents who truely do not know what NT range they are playing. And yes, aside from the good results, I have gotten a few bad results because of that too (see below). So for me, while I recognize that poor agreements will have a randomizing effect, I don't really care. After all, the main effect is that the poor agreement players will not make it to the next round. And the randomization usually doesn't effect the pairs that normally easily make the cut to the next round. I am sure that Bobby Wolff wouldn't put the dividing line at the same place as I would. Rik Anecdote I was playing in a pairs tournament against a a good friend who frequently was my partner. This time, she was playing with a guy whose play resembled that of the Rueful Rabbit (RR). The auction: Pass-Pass-1♦-1NT; Pass-3NT-Pass-Pass; Pass The RR made the 1NT overcall. I lead and the dummy (my friend) comes down with 11 HCPs. Not surprisingly, the contract is cold. But during the play, I notice that declarer only has 11 HCPs. And still the game is cold as the cards lie. Obviously, the field is playing a part score battle and we get a cold bottom. My friend was slightly curious and asked RR why he had overcalled 1NT with only 11 HCPs. As a reply, he pointed at the convention card: "Here it clearly says that a 1NT overcall in fourth seat shows 11-14." Rik

2♠ is easy for me, since it shows about 8-11. (With the same distribution and less strength, I would bid 2♥.) Thus, according to the agreement that I like to have, pass and (false) preference are the weakest possible actions. Rebidding your suit is somewhat stronger and the fourth suit followed by rebidding your own suit (or rebidding the fourth suit) is forcing to game. This style works very well with weak jump shifts (about 4-7 HCPs), but it is not necessary to play weak jump shifts for this style to work well. Rik

Mikhail Gorbatsjov, for deciding single handedly that the cold war should stop and finding a way to actually stop it. My fifth grade teacher and my high school chemistry teacher for teaching me the value of integrity. My father for his ability to handle difficult situations, his sharp insight and complete lack of selfishness. Rik

I did think that was possible. But the question he asked is a good one, just the sort of question this forum is for. While thread drift is inevitable, who should and should not play bridge is not a matter for this forum. Ok. I will follow your suggestion and focus on the OP's question: My answer: Yes, see law 80B2e and the relevant article(s) in the screen regulation. Or to make it concrete, if the screen regulation mandates written explanations, then yes, there is a problem. In practice, if I were the TD, I would solve this problem by asking a third person (screen mate, kibitzer, etc.) to write down the explanations. I would not allow the players to walk away from the table since it will transfer too much UI across the screen. Rik

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with? I find the comparison with disabled people sick. It's very much like your comment that religious people shouldn't participate to begin with, which I find reprehensible. Saying later that you are very accomodating to such people may help you sleep at night, but it's obviously not true if you don't even think they should play. But I'm glad to see you took the opportunity to rationalize away your statement by saying people can choose their religion, and then using that to imply it's ok to discriminate against them. Maybe that sick feeling you have came from typing that part of your response instead of from my comparison. Josh, Don't even try to suggest that I have written that jewish players should not play bridge. And don't even try to suggest that I think it is ok to discriminate against jews. Either you are misunderstanding me completely or you are deliberately twisting my words. I will assume the former and therefore I will try to clarify the misunderstanding. I have never written that religious people shouldn't participate in bridge to begin with. For me, people of every possible faith, skin color or shoe size are welcome to play bridge, on every day of the week, as long as they adhere to the rules of bridge. I have written (or at least intended to write) that if a player's religion prohibits him from playing bridge with screens on the Sabbath then he shouldn't participate in a session of bridge with screens on the Sabbath (if he wants to adhere to his religion). I am not limiting this player's possibility to play bridge with screens in any way. Now this player asks if we can bend the rules on the Sabbath to do him a favor. The formal position is: "Obviously not. Rules are rules." But my position (and that of most TD's) is: "Yes, we should do that, but in such a way that we follow the spirit of the regulations." (He suggested to walk away from the table. I say whisper the explanation in someone's ear, so that this person can write it down.) And I explained why walking away goes against the spirit of the regulations whereas whispering doesn't. Tell me, how am I discriminating? Rik

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with? I find the comparison with disabled people sick. Disabled people never choose to be disabled. But religious people make a deliberate, free and conscious choice. And in your example, there is nothing in the laws that bars us from getting a few people to carry the wheel chair up the stairs. The OP's question was: Are there any laws issues? The simple answer is: Yes. And I referred to some of the relevant laws (whereas most posters before me acted as if there were no issues with the laws). I also went on to explain that I would try to find a working compromise between the laws and the religion and I wrote how I would do that (since the suggested walking away from the table doesn't work). So, I am very accomodating to religious people. End of part 1. ____________________ Apart from part 1, the real question is how we (as society and as bridge community) deal with religion. In this case, the religion is trying to impose itself on the other players. These other players do not ask for that. Where are we going to draw the line with religion interfering with bridge? How do we deal with: - players who only want to play against women if they wear a vail? - players who demand that their same sex opponents assure them that they are not a married gay couple? - players who hand their opponents a copy of their convention card together with a copy of the Watchtower while quoting "some inspiring words"? Are we going to get a scarf from somewhere or are we going to state the likely: "No, we are not a married gay couple?" After all, it would be easy to accommodate. In fact, it is hardly any trouble at all. And it's not even really an infraction of the bridge laws, is it? Or are we going to say anyway that people's religious believes should stay outside the world of bridge and are we asking the religious players to refrain from "spreading the message"? Religion is fine with me, but it comes with consequences. And these consequences are for the religious and not for the rest of the world. The rest of the world can be asked politely to be accommodating, but that's the limit. One cannot demand that they will be accomodating, certainly not when it would violate the rules that we all (the religious included) agreed to (see the laws that I referred to). Rik

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with. Unfortunately, the player decided to participate anyway, but refused to play according to the laws and regulations. That is a violation of law 90B8 for which the TD will award a PP. When the player still refuses to write down the explanation, the TD can suspend the player for the duration of the session (91A) and, if necessary, he can expell the player if the organization allows him to do that. I expect that the player in question will accept these consequences with grace and maybe even pride since it will solidify his religious basis. Of course, in practice, I would be willing to look for a compromise between the laws and regulations on the one hand and the religious restrictions of the player on the other hand. However, I wouldn't allow them to walk away from the table to do the explaining elsewhere, since the shuffling with chairs, etc. would give tons of UI to the other side of the table. And presumably this event was played with screens to prevent precisely this sort of UI. But I could certainly think of other compromises. I could suggest that the player would get someone to do his writing for him. He could whisper the meaning in the secretary's ear and the secretary would write it down. I could imagine that the screen mate or a kibitzer would act as the secretary. Given the fact that the player is playing with a partner and two opponents who are required to write down explanations and fill out score cards, I can't imagine that there would be a religious reason that would ban him from getting a third person to do the writing. But, then again, I am a TD and not a rabbi. Rik

An interesting question. I play reverse Flannery responses with one partner. As a consequence, I can play a really simple checkback structure. After 1m-1♠; 1NT, we play 2♣ as a simple checkback, only focussing on spades and the range. (This is similar to 1m-1♥; 1NT, where opener should not have spades and we can focus on the hearts.) If we have a GF hand with 5(+)♠ and 4(+)♥, we can just bid 1m-1♠; 1NT-2♥. With another partner, I play xy NT (or xyz as you call it), but no reverse Flannery responses. While I like both conventions a lot, I don't really see the need to play both conventions simultaneously. But if I would, I would play: 1m-1♠; 1NT-2♥ as natural and game forcing 1m-1♠; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♥ as the equivalent of 1m-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠, but with spades instead of hearts. What meaning do you have for 1m-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠? Rik

Don't worry. The US are not alone in this. :( Our democracies are in fact "representocracies". And representatives often rely on believes (or wishful thinking), because they aren't always able to interpret the facts. One way to give the "facts" more power over the "believes" would be to blend a little more technocracy into the democracy. But the "representocracy" is against that. Rik

I can open a 2 suited 2♥ (both majors). If I couldn't I would pass. Having passed the first round, I think you have an obvious pass after 3NT. I agree with Helene that 4♥ is a slam try. Rik

Yes. And yes. How long does it take before it's out of my system? Like I assume if I sleep 8 hours I'm fine. What about 4 hours? How do I know (because it feels different from being normal drunk)? 8 hours of sleep is not enough. I am not Swedish, but I have lived there for quite a while. One Saturday morning, I noticed that there were some police cars, hiding around the corner of the parking lot to the grocery store. I was wondering what they were doing there. Well, they were checking alcohol levels. All shoppers that drove in were tested. I asked them why they checked alcohol levels at 10:30 AM on Saturday. Do they really think that people are drinking large amounts of alcohol for breakfast? They could hear from my accent that I was a foreigner and they explained that they didn't aim for breakfast drinkers. They were rather aiming for "extended desserts" from the night before and were catching large amounts of them, mostly regular family guys (and galls). They also said that, though they tested all drivers (Swedish equality culture), it was very easy to recognize from the driving style who would be over the limit. One of my friends told me the Swedish police did this regularly and I have been tested several times since while doing my weekend grocery shopping. Rik

I would just bid 6NT. I assume RHO has something like ♦AQxxxxx. That is 6 hcp. I have 15 myself, leaving 19 for partner, LHO and RHO's other cards (e.g.♦J). I think it is reasonable to assume that partner has at least 15, so it is not very likely that we are missing two aces. And with my 8 spade tricks, partner's ♥A, ♣A, my ♣K and the ♦K on a finesse, I can count to 12 tricks. And should partner have 3 aces (when RHO is color blind) she can raise me to 7NT. Rik

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're certain people) rudeness is not forbidden in the forums or IRL bridge. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're certain people) rudeness is not forbidden in the forums or IRL bridge. * or IRL * How true. Just to clarify: Rudeness may not be forbidden IRL, but it is forbidden IRL bridge. Players who have forgotten that should write Law 74A 1 and 2 10 times over. They can take it to their parents and have them sign it after which they can hand it in to the TD. Law 74 A 1 and 2 state: I am fairly sure that the BBO management is of the opinion that this law is applicable, without any restrictions, to online bridge at BBO. Rik

I would bid 3♣, which I play as a mixed raise in diamonds. But you don't give that option. If I am not allowed to bid 3♣, I would bid just 2♦ and would bid 3♦ when the opponents are competing. Rik

Some European countries use trials. But in many European countries there are no trials. The teams are selected by a captain/coach/committee. Typically, a selector will be thinking of about 5-6 candidate pairs. These are the players that are good in international competition with the occasional addition of young upcoming talents. But, then again, you will need to keep in mind that these countries have a regular league competition. This functions as a non formalized trial. The selector has all the stats that he needs. They can check the cross-IMP results of the past season in the top division. That is about the same as checking the batting averages and pitching stats in baseball. These stats show which of the candidate pairs are in form. Of course, there is always a vague line between the third and the fourth pair. If there is little difference between those two pairs, one may be send to the European tournaments and the other to the world tournament. Of course, the selector can also choose to ask the other four players who they would prefer as a third pair. Rik

I think that Ken is making a good point here. Whereas the actual case may be ridiculous, it is easy to see that it opens the door to genuine discrimination. Having said that, there are other ways to deal with this than suing. A law suit blows this thing out of proportion. And it is one of those unwritten rules that your reaction should be in proportion. If you are of the opinion that it is fundamentally wrong to give a present to the first N mothers, voice your opinion. Write a letter to the Oakland A's management, write a letter to the editor of your newspaper, or whatever. Do not waste enormous amounts of everybody's money over getting a fishing/sun hat as a present. But I think the Oakland A's could have handled this better too. If I would have been the Oakland A organisation, I would have given Mr. Rava a hat rightaway when he started to make trouble. I would have a news reporter take a picture of Mr. Rava getting his well deserved hat and the Macey's coupon, with the compliments of the Breast Cancer Association and I would let the reporter do the rest of the work. That is how unwritten rules work. Rik

Not sure if this is a slight against the ACBL[]. No, it isn't, at least not intentionally. I just wanted to point out that psychic (or mistake-ic) controls are not banned by the Laws, but that the decision is in the hands of Regulating Authorities and tournament organizers. I just took ACBL and the Bridge Club of Lake Wobegon as examples, but feel free to read "SBF" and "Bridgesällskap Katthult", 'VBL' and "BV 't Pleintje" or "EBU" and "Royal Whist Society of Upper-Uncton" instead. It wasn't a slight against Lake Wobegon, or its bridge club, either. ;) Rik

There is nothing in the bridge laws that forbids the use of psychic controls. The bridge laws (80B2f and 40B2a) just give the Tournament Organizer and the Regulating Authority the opportunity to regulate certain agreements. This makes it possible for ACBL or the Bridge club of Lake Wobegon to ban psychic controls or mistakeic controls in its tournaments by publishing regulations. The ACBL has banned psychic controls, but not mistakeic controls. Therefore, mistakeic controls are entirely legal in ACBL tournaments. I am not sure about the regulations in the Bridge club of Lake Wobegon. :( Rik

I agree with Josh. With proper explanations, East could have doubled 3♥. And with proper explanations West could have led a heart regardless of what East did. I would assign 3NT-1 at any form of scoring. As an aside, if you want an unbiased and objective ruling, write your post as neutral and objective as possible. I know that it is hard to be objective. But is is easy to avoid comments such as "NS mysteriously play 3♥ as ...", "It's a free world." and "Perhaps dreaming partner had...". Rik