Trinidad

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI? Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more. Why is that so? F-Z didn't have anything at stake. They had every reason to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. That doesn't make them timid children. I hope Josh enjoyed his lunch with his "lunch partner with insufficient reliability". When it comes to how convincing his argument was, Josh had indicated already quite properly in his reply to Hanoi5 that heresay is not the most reliable source of information. This means that it was not necessary for you to point that out. And neither was it necessary to accuse Josh' lunch partner of not being sufficiently reliable. Rik

True story. I am a scientist who was supposed to meet some fellow scientists in a building in the Heisenberg street, a small street in the city of Münster, Germany. One of these came over 20 minutes late. His taxi driver couldn't find the Heisenberg street. This scientist joked: "How can you possibly schedule any meeting in the Heisenberg street? You know that there will be uncertainty about the precise location!" Another scientist replied: "I know precisely where my hotel is. It is on the Einstein street. I just never know when I am there." Rik

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme. Playing that 2♦-2♠ promises enough to beat 4♠ is as bad as using it to deny enough to beat 4♠. You should bid 2♠ on both hand-types, and also on hands where you don't know whether 4♠ is making or not. It's probably true that as played by many people 2♠ is more likely to be a weak hand than a good one. I suppose what Jansma means is that the 2♠ response allows opener to double 4♠ if he has a defensive trick. Or something like that. Having the agreement that "this call shows that my next call will be (...) and I am not involving my p in the decision" would be silly. Just a guess. Don't worry. Jan Jansma isn't that silly. It is just me who is silly. I edited my post. Rik

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme. He doesn't. My sentence about willingness to double 4♠ was mine and certainly not Jan's. My apologies, I will edit it out. Rik

That is why I put the if... part prominently in my two recent postings. However, given that Fred said that the TD told him that the BIT was after 1♥, whereas the players, the VuGraph operator and the VuGraph audience saw that West was thinking over 3NT, it seems that the TD wasn't "100% spot on about all the details as they happened at the table" either. Rik

Assuming Josh' account of the story is true then the VuGraph operator didn't do much wrong, the rules were perfect, the fact that one pair is even more famous than the other is irrelevant and the observations of the VuGraph operator were confirmed. The full blame goes to the TD: He established that there was UI when the regulations clearly state that there can't have been any. And I can't find any words for a TD at the level of the Cavendish who tells a pair that they don't have a chance with an AC when the situation was such that he should have encouraged an appeal (or even appeal his own ruling). Rik

If these were the facts as the TDs had them, it is clear that the ruling should have been: No irregularity, next board please. Rik

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠. Thus, with a weak hand, short spades and 3♥, Jan would respond 2♥. He claims that he gets to play that quite often, since no one knows that there is a fit. I think Jan has a good point. Rik

By making the normal response to Stayman. (Do I need to say that that should be 2♠?) After: 1NT-Pass-2♣-X; 2♠-Pass-4♣ we are pretty much in slam already. Rik

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling. I forgot what recent international championship (last year) it was that suffered from this problem. The TD didn't give a ruling but moved the case to the AC immediately. It seem to recall that one of the parties involved (Italy?) wasn't even aware that there was an AC meeting. Even if the TD is going to appeal his own ruling, he has to make his ruling first (otherwise there is nothing to appeal). The opinion of the TD also matters to the AC. Rik

In the UK, and I thought most jurisdictions nowadays, TDs are told to make what they believe is the right ruling. They will not make a ruling that is clearly generous to one side (usually the non-offenders) and then encourage an appeal - although this was the practice in past. This is why appeals in WBF, EBL, ACBL and UK tournaments where the top TDs are present are less successful nowadays. Trying to come up with the right ruling rightaway and encouraging an appeal aren't excluding each other. As you say, a TD should try to give the correct ruling rightaway. But there can be instances where a TD knows that it is a borderline case. In that case he can encourage a side to appeal. Already just the fact that a TD writes on a form that he encouraged the players to appeal makes it pretty much impossible for the AC to rule that the appeal has no merit. A TD can also feel that his bridge judgement is insufficient. At the Cavendish, that is not really a problem since there are enough top players to poll. But if you are a TD at a local bridge club (and a mediocre player) and have to rule on a judgement question between the top rated pairs at the club, this can be a problem. In that case, a TD can make a ruling and appeal his own ruling, usually to the AC of the national bridge league. They will have the necessary bridge judgement. A side effect of appealing his own ruling is that the TD will improve his own bridge judgement. That can't be bad either. Rik

No. Which is one of the reasons why it is attractive. If the TD thinks that one side should appeal (in the interest of justice or something similar) and they don't, the TD can decide to appeal himself without any barrier (other than that a TD who would do this an awful lot will get somewhat of a reputation). Rik

Um.... lol? No, no LOL. In many jurisdictions, TD's can (and on occasion will) appeal their own decisions. They will typically do that on bridge judgement rulings in cases where the side that should (could) appeal has no interest to do so, since they can't gain anything (and would risk losing a deposit or getting an AWM penalty), but where the outcome could affect other pairs. Actually, this case would be typical if it weren't for the fact that the TD already polled a number of players. But I guess you answered my question. It seems like this is not common in the ACBL. Rik

16. Any Director’s ruling (other than penalties under sections 4, 5, 6 and 7) may be appealed to the Appeals Committee designated by the Tournament Committee. If a pair or team wishes to lodge an appeal, it must post US $50 which will be forfeited if the Appeals Committee deems the appeal to be substantially without merit. Decisions of the Appeals Committee are not subject to further appeal; however see 20 below. http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/index...id=16&Itemid=39 So yes, the offending side could have appealed if they had wished. Roland Given the fact that the (alleged) offending side didn't have anything at stake (other than forfeiting their $50 deposit) whereas the side that profited from the ruling placed in the money, I think the TD could have appealed his own decision. I don't know how common that is in the ACBL, though. However, from the perspective of the TD, he didn't have any reason to do this. He established (possibly wrongfully) that there was UI transmitted. An AC can't change much about that decision. Then, he ruled that the heart lead was suggested by the UI and that a club lead was a LA. This part of the ruling, an AC could do something about, but here the TD had polled a number of players, so it was unlikely that an AC would do something about that. (And this part of the ruling was correct anyway, even if the fact that the TD told the polled players that the huddle was after 1♥ doesn't earn him a lot of bonus points.) Rik

I could imagine that 'should' would precede an opinion, but I can't imagine that 'should' should be followed by an opinion nor that an opinion should be preceded by 'should'. But I could be wrong. What would I know? Rik

I play 4♣ as a splinter and 4NT as quantitative. But I do have a method to show the fit and force to game on hands without small singletons. I play 4♣ as a splinter and 4NT as quantitative. Again, I think it is important to be able to show a GF hand without shortness. In a vanilla system you could do that with 1NT-3♠. In a complex system, you can use something funky. I assume G..... is "standard". :lol: Rik

Yes, I think so too. The part "UI was transmitted" is really the tough part with screens. When the wrong side calls, he can ask spectators like the operator if the hesitation was long enough that the other side would have noticed a significant delay. I agree that this is tough, but the key thing is (and I am glad we agree on this): Was UI transmitted through the screen? (As you say, the TD could have asked the VuGraph operator this question, but this question is pretty hard to answer for the operator if he has just been looking at the player who tanked.) And it should be clear that this tough part could have been avoided if the other side of the screen had drawn attention to the BIT, in any way. In my opinion, but I can easily see that others see this differently, it doesn't really matter that we are talking about the last bid of the auction. It happens very frequently that the deal is passed out in normal tempo but that the tray remains on the other side for a while. There are several reasons for this: - It is the proper procedure to hold the tray. (This should end the discussion, but I know that it won't since players violate proper procedure all the time. :lol: ) - Various trivial things may be going on on the other side of the screen ranging from moving coffee cups or pencils to asking questions about the auction while all the bids are still in view. Therefore, while the VuGraph operator may have clearly seen that a player was thinking, this may not have dawned on the other side of the screen. When I started playing with screens myself, it happened quite often that I was wondering why it took so long to finish a trivial auction (of the type 1NT-Pass-3NT-Pass; Pass-Pass). But the fact is that some players do follow proper procedure. I have had several screen mates who held the tray in trivial situations like that. While we are waiting they start entering the contract on the score sheet, lay out the dummy or do something else useful to save time. Personally, I like playing against this type of players. Rik

As a TD, I think that many are going after the wrong question. Everyone seems to be interested in the question: "Was there a BIT?". The answer to that question is easy: "Yes, there was. We can believe the VuGraph operator. And he had a clear view on the player who tanked." But this question is completely irrelevant. The relevant question is: "Was there UI transmitted through the screen?" If there is no UI transmitted through the screen, there cannot be any use of UI. That is one of the reasons we use screens in the first place. Since the player(s) on the one side of the screen did not draw any attention to a BIT on the other side (and Lev-Pszscola are more than experienced enough to know that they should do that if UI was transmitted through the screen), the conclusion must be that there was no UI transmitted. And if the UI wasn't transmitted, it cannot have been used. Players of the level of Lev and Pszscola should be familiar with the basics of the screen regulations. TD's are emphasizing over and over again that pointing out a BIT on the same side of the screen defies the idea behind using screens in the first place. The conclusion should be that the player on the other side of the screen had not noticed the BIT, otherwise he would have done something anything. But he didn't. Hence no UI, no AS. Next board. Therefore, whether the VuGraph operator saw a BIT is irrelevant. A relevant question to the VuGraph operator could have been: "Did you see a player on the other side of the screen pointing out to the other that there was a BIT?" but I think that question wasn't asked. In a way, this is a very sad case. Organizers are trying to invent methods (bidding boxes, screens, etc.) to prevent UI. In this case, the method worked. There was a BIT but, thanks to the screen, no UI was transmitted. Hooray! Except that it seems that the TD has overlooked the fact that there is no evidence that the UI made it to the other side of the screen. Sad. Rik

If we would know what we are doing, I would think this hand is worth a slam try with 4♠. If we are not sure what we are doing, I don't see any reason for partner to start arguing whether we bid 5♣ or take a shot at 6♣. Rik

I more or less agree with Han, but: Pass, partner can bid his own hand. (Works better if partner didn't have 5 clubs. :)) Rik

I can't speak for anyone else's perceptions, but I certainly perceive that designing a good bidding system is an important bridge skill. It seems fairly clear to me that you did not understand my use of the word "random"... Hi Fred, I think that I understand perfectly well what you mean by "random", i.e. pretty much what you describe below. (BTW, I wasn't aware that you were using the term "random" in this thread.) I fully agree. One simple example of such a convention are the upside down suit preference signals that Meckstroth-Rodwell (used to?) play. No theoretical advantage (other than confusion), no drawback either, only adding randomness. Another example is the 12-14 2NT opening that you played against. I will not go into the theoretical advantages and drawbacks. :) But it surely adds randomness. Again, I fully agree. But what if the numbers are changed slightly? A pair has devised a bidding system where they will win 300 IMPs 55% of the time and lose 300 IMPs 45% of the time? There are various examples of pairs who were forced to modify their system to an inferior version because they weren't allowed to play the better, original system. One such example is the Swedish group of players around Anders 'Carrot' Morath, who had to modify their Carrotti system (a forcing pass system) to Magic Diamond (a strong diamond system) or Carrot club (a two way club system) to be able to participate in international tournaments. (And they were fairly successful.) Ask any of these players and they will say that Carrotti was theoretically sounder than Magic Diamond or Carrot club. If we can believe them, one can conclude that they would have been even more successful if they had been allowed to play Carotti. I am sure that you will find similar examples in Poland and currently in New Zealand. I used to live in Sweden, so I know a little about the situation there. At the top of the list of requirements for participating in the team trials in Sweden you could find that you have to play a system that can be played in international competition. From the point of view of the Swedish Bridge League, that obviously made a lot of sense. Why would one select a team with players that is not allowed to play their system? But what did it do to the ambitious Swedish players who play these, at least in their views, superior systems? In Swedish competitions, they regularly beat the internationalists, but they had no chance to show the world how good they (and their systems) were. And (OK, I am putting it on thick now) all of that is caused by the strange perception that it is normal to open strong hands with 2♣ (?!?, SA, Acol) or if necessary with 1♣ (?!?, Precision, Polish type Club), 1♦ (?!?, Strong Diamond systems) or 1NT (?!?, Vienna), but that opening them with 'Pass' is 'Highly Unusual'. 'Highly unusual' to whom? The American Bridge Teachers Association? Rik

Oh, I absolutely agree with this. I don't object at all to having a big tournament where only the simplest of bidding systems are allowed. If someone once wants to organize a tournament where only 100% natural bids are allowed (no Stayman, no Blackwood, no TO doubles, four card majors only), that is also fine with me. I might well participate. However, as everybody with a little more than average interest in bridge knows, this part of the discussion extends beyond the Cavendish. It is about bidding restrictions in general. The faulty arguments that are used to restrict bidding systems in those discussions are copied here (see below). I think it is necessary to point out every now and then that these arguments are flawed. Otherwise people might take them for granted and might actually start to believe them. Rik (who, for the record, plays 2/1 GF with a few of the standard gadgets and every now and then a strong club system) Some of the flawed arguments used are: - Artificial systems are unfriendly to the general public. They will repell people from bridge. - Artificial systems require an enormous amount of work to defend against. - Artificial systems are randomizing the field, making it hard to recognize the players with the best 'skill' in bridge. (In this sence 'skill' is defined as skill in card play, you know: the type of skills that you use in dozens of other trick based card games like whist or hearts. Designing a good bidding system is not perceived as a bridge skill.)

IMO if you really believe this then you are completely out of touch with reality. The general public are people who barely know (or don't know at all) how to count their points. If they understand concepts like takeout doubles or Stayman then they qualify as "advanced" members of the general public. Probably upwards of 90% of the world's bridge players have neither played a single hand of duplicate bridge nor are they this "advanced". Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Maybe I am out of touch, but I truly believe this. In my experience, one of the things that fascinates the general public about bridge is the possibility to bid a hand with different systems. Obviously, in the USA, this fascination is completely absent since basically there is only one system that is played and the general public will see only one system when they read about bridge. The idea that lives with the organizers of the Cavendish (among others) is that simplicity is attractive to the general (or potential) bridge public. I think that is misguided. If this audience would find simplicity attractive, they wouldn't be interested in a complicated game like bridge to begin with. They would go for Freecell, Yathzee or nothing at all. Of course, a beginner in bridge won't understand what a strong 1♣ (or a forcing Pass for that matter) means. But when a VuGraph commentator explains that for this pair 1♣ promises 16+ HCPs and that the 1♥ response shows a game forcing balanced hand, this beginner will be fascinated by the fact that there are bidding systems other than SA (or whatever system he learned) and that later, he may design his own bidding system, if he wants to. This is one of the beauties of bridge and it is one of the things that makes bridge unique. Whenever I explain bridge to non bridge playing friends and colleagues, it actually is this part that intrigues them and gets their attention. But followers of 'Simplicity makes bridge attractive' completely ignore this (as well as the fact that it's the complexity of bridge that makes it attractive). Rik P.S. When it comes to your 90% of the world's bridge players have never played duplicate bridge, I think you are missing the mark. (I cannot claim to have an overview over the world's bridge population, but I have lived and played bridge in the USA, and a couple of European countries.) A large part of the world's bridge population has learnt to play bridge in a course organized at a duplicate bridge club. They have basically started duplicate from day 1. If you ask them what '100 honors' means, they don't have a clue. I know for a fact that my mother doesn't know it, but she can tell me everything about Stayman, transfers, and how to misuse Gerber, Blackwood and fourth suit forcing, as well as the bidding tricks that she devised herself. And she can tell me how her partner earned them a cold bottom on board number 13. :)

Of course I agree that clear regulations can only be good, but the nervousness situation you describe is absurd. If the regulations are fuzzy and if playing a given convention is going to make a pair nervous, there is an easy answer: confine your nervousness to before the tournament starts and ask a TD if the convention is question is legal or not. The Cavendish employs some of the best TDs in the world and these TDs have a strong tendency to consult with one another in fuzzy cases. Still, it sounds like you have a basic distrust of TDs. Again there is an easy answer: if they tell you your convention is legal ask them to put it in writing. If you take these simple steps (and I personally believe the "in writing" step is not necessary in the Cavendish context) then there is no need to be nervous. I will take your word for that. I will also admit that I exagerated a little bit to get the point across. (Not unlike yourself when you painted the horror picture of having to study 47 systems for 3 board rounds. You have probably played against 95% of the players before, leaving very few systems to study). Just to clarify: I do not have a basic distrust for TD's. I happen to be one myself. I do have a basic distrust for organizers who write fuzzy regulations. You don't have to search very long on BBF to find the horror stories of how fuzzy regulations are misused in the ACBL (e.g. requirements for approved defenses, but then not approving any defense). You also read stories over and over again how one TD allows a certain system where another disallows it. Here again, I don't blame TD 1 or TD 2. I blame the authors of the regulations. These regulations are a pain for players from outside ACBL. They are used to regulations that are reasonably clear and then enter a culture where they cannot rely on the regulations because they are inconsistent. Then they need to ask the organizers (who wrote these regulations) up front whether the system is allowed. Do you think that they will expect a clear and definite answer? Rik

For me, this auction is not fundamentally different from 3♣-Pass-3♠-Pass; ?? On that auction, many experts have the agreement that opener is not allowed to bypass 3NT unless he has support for responder. (Some would allow for a 4♣ bid to mean: "Sorry I opened, partner.") Therefore, I think that many experts play that 3NT means: "I don't have a fit for you. If you think 3NT is right, then you can be happy that I didn't bypass it." 4♣ could mean: "I am sorry that I opened 3♣, now I am stuck." Other bids agree responder's suit. Translate that to this auction (2♠-Pass-3♥-Pass; ??) and you get the following meanings: 3♠: I don't have support and I don't have any values. (Please pass while you still can B)) 3NT: I don't have support, but I do have some values. If you think 3NT is right, you can pass. 4♣♦: I have heart support! And something to show (whatever that is)! 4♥: I have heart support! But nothing to show. Therefore, to me, 3NT is the choice of game bid. For the simple reason that it gives partner the option to choose 3NT, as well as 4♥ and 4♠. Rik