ulven

One thing I'd like to see is some kind of browser addon/plugin for messages. The reason for this is that I believe I'm not alone in working or doing other stuff while having BBO active in the background. At times I switch and watch a deal or two (or vugraph results) and switch back. Being in an office landscape, sound is of course off. Then I might discover that a friend has tried to reach me a while ago. Got me thinking maybe there could be an add-on for such stuff? Maybe to notify for messages on your friends list (or all, being able to filter out random request for team games). Like there is for Gmail in Chrome (to pick a random example). Anyone else wanting this kind of functionality? /Ulf

Edit by Rubens (probably intended pun by him). 1C- 1NT 2C - 2H 2S - 3S etc Unbalanced hand should not pass 1NT, unless minimum 4441. But note that with your example, AKxx KQxx xxx xx, you can (should) still reply 1H.

I've used this treatment in various system frameworks since the mid 90's. The gains are fairly frequent and you don't need any further notes to use it. The point is to use it vs the opening bid that includes the weak balanced handtype to stay low. I even used it vs the nebulous 1D in a strong club system in the 2008 Europeans (you can probably find my CC in ecats document store). Although the article used the 10-12 range (at Rubens suggestion) I've always used 11-13 myself, with my partnerships opening almost all 11's. Btw, I did notice at the US 2011 Trials that Garner-Weinstein also plays 1C-1NT as 11-12. You can also do some extended stuff with the 1NT reply to an always unbalanced 1D-opening, which I do in my current system, but this particular treatment is not the one I use. I'll be in Toronto if anyone wants to discuss more. [ I submitted a batch of articles to The Bridge World last year. Most have now reached publication (think there's one on cuebidding technique left), so maybe I'll write some more this fall. Seeing that someone likes them helps motivation. :-) ]

J of hearts. Edit: Win the ace of clubs was omitted ;)

Sometimes we have to choose among "equal alternatives". The club would convey length in that suit and possibly suggest only 3 hearts, with the low heart for 4H-5C instead of 3H-6C.

I'd lead a low H. I expect a discouraging H without A/K/Q and an encouraging H with A/K. Absence of H discard = Queen. When partner's Q holds, it's obvious I have a stiff club. Low club discard is count, suggesting original even number (UDCA). Location of K of clubs is known in the auction.

Just got back from Orlando. Discussed this with Fantoni at length. They asked the Federation well before the event and got an email back confirming participation was ok. What else can you do? You ask, it's ok, you play - and you get disqualified...?

Using the web-client, when starting a table for bidding practise, is there a reason why those deals can't be added to the My hands records? It's much more convenient/effective to able to rattle off a number of deals and review and discuss them later. Now each deal has to be saved individually, which is very impractical.

Standard [expert] agreement here is 2C nat over poss short 1C and using 2D as Michaels.

Brings up a funny memory. I played in the Omar Sharif Individual 1990 (the one Zia won and writes about in his book) and when I partnered David Berah ("bridge immortal" in Victor Mollo's 1968 book, also mentioned in the Bridge Bum) all he said to me when we sat down as partners was "X of 2NT shows the majors!". I wouldn't spend too much energy on a countermeasure. I haven't seen a hand for this convention in the 20 years since then... B)

As someone who played against Multi's for my whole bridge life (and played it myself a fair number of years) I must say that I think all this fear and need for detailed defences is an over reaction. Yes, you sometimes run into auctions where the multi gets you because the is no known suit. But this happens so infrequently at the table IRL that you shouldn't worry so much about it. And when it happens, it's not guaranteed that any amount of written defences would have helped you. The whole attitude thing and written defences and all just takes you out of your comfort zone and will 'tense you up'. That is going to cost you more in the long run. Maybe just not as visibly as that one disaster result you had in some match. When you send your kid off to school you know there's a chance s/he might get hit by a car or have some freak incident. The chance is small and it's too impractical to protect your children from all bad that can happen and you take some base measures to avoid danger (instructions, spell out the route, check traffic intensity at critical times etc) and move on. With the multi (and any smilar), you should get some base agreements (which takes about 3 sentences in my own notes) and don't worry. Adopt the same practical attitude. Yes, you might get hit. You might get hit in the office too. I can't even remember the last time I had a bad result against the Multi that could have been avoided if I could've brought a complex set of agreements to the table. (I do remember get a bad result vs Brogeland at the 2008 Europeans (on BBO vugraph to boot) but no amount of agreements would have made any difference.) Just my [Euro] 2 cents.

I didn't - and I thought I clarified that in my third post earlier. I guess I have to spell it out. I'm surprised btw you think (assume?) I would do something like that in a BBO forum post based on a deal in bulletin writeup. Playing a European championship takes its toll and there are many unsual bidding decisions by even the best players. It must be possible to report or discuss some of these without cheating allegations being thrown around. If I wanted to insinuate something on this deal I would probably have chosen a poll with the 5-6 hand and asked people what they would bid. Now I wrote it was an amusing read and stated the page in the bulletin it appeared and as it turned out we now got clarification from RMB1 about the actual meaning of double. Great! Off-topic: This actually reminds me about the discussion about Fantoni's psychic 2S overcall in the Cavendish the other year, when the opps could make a grand if I remember correctly. When I later ran into Fulvio I asked him about the hand. He said I was the first to ask him in person about it all and was totally fine about discussing it. No problem and a rational explanation (almost grateful of my inquiry). He said everyone else just wrote a lot of stuff and thought this and thought that....

Why didn't I post that? Well, I thought 4S was a preempt and that 'double is optional against preempts' meant that double was optional in this auction. I didn't know their CC was incomplete or that my wording in this regard would make a difference. My mistake. Still think you are overreacting.

Optional or penalty, regardless I find this deal amusing. Finding partner with AKQxx under a 4S-opener is pretty rare. I'd imagine there are many other holdings that constitutes a penalty/optional double that would make slam playable when I have a decent 5-6 in two other suits. X as 'to play' is a rather unusual agreement and even 'penalty' in an auction like this often means partner is allowed to remove with extreme shape. hanp: Aren't you overreacting? I did check their CC before posting and I have not accused anyone of cheating. What other facts are you refering to? I do find this deal weird and amusing. Aren't we allowed to discuss or share unusual bidding decisions in championship matches? I'm pretty sure passing the double would be a minority choice. RMB1: Could you judge if Wladow did seem to consider bidding or it was clear to pass?

I checked their CC. It says double is optional vs preempts.

This was a really amusing read form todays EC bulletin (p15). You have: ♠6 ♥AQ764 ♦K96432 ♣9 Red/white. (4♠) - pass - (pass) - X (pass) - ? Double is 'optional'. What would you bid? I'd imagine lots of 4NT, WTP, optional X or not. Elinescu passed vs Norway for +800! Wladow had: ♠AKQ74 ♥5 ♦A875 ♣KQ3 Now that's what I call bridge... :D

The way I see it is that this is in many ways a situation comparable to the "hesitation" auction in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry466361 My point is, and I fail to see any support for an opposite view, that all actions should be made on the premises that no infraction has taken place. There may be some responsibility to try to asertain what is going on, but to use the example in the initial post, partner of the opening hand did ask about 2D despite no alert because this is a somewhat frequent source of misunderstandings. In the eyes of the law there can be no burden on the non-offending side to "know" something is amiss (perhaps unless the cards in their hands very clearly indicate things doesn't add up). There is merit in calling the TD and sending one opponents away but failure to recognize the need for this should not damage the non-offending side. The situations I've used this possibility (which is maybe 5-6 times) is typically when the answer to a question is indecisive or of the "I don't know" kind. I've never done it after a clear and to-the-point reply. To do it in the latter case might be a source of UI to partner (my partner questions the reply because he sees it doesn't add up). The judgement whether any additional call is "wild and gambling" should therefore be made with the information the player in question had available ussuming to infraction. As in Rik's post in referenced thread above. This gives the ever suspicious some "double-shots" but this is legal as I understand it. So AC/TD can not claim "you should/could have known" in itself as a valid reason for declaring an action "wild and gambling". They can only claim "wild and gambling" if their bridge judgement says the call made was not a logical alternative if everything was legit. Any objections? If so, on what grounds (using the example in this thread)?

Ok. Fair enough. Let's isolate the question to "hesitation" auctions with no conventional calls, possible wrongful explanations or failures to alert. Comparable to the one in the initial post.

I don't care about this particular ruling now. No use beating a dead horse :ph34r:. I want to know if it had any basis in the law if I would find myself in this situation in the future. Can AC/TD claim "you should/could have known" as a valid reason for declaring an action "wild and gambling"?

Just to be clear, you're saying one should always base further action on the assumption that no infraction has occured, even if it's likely (perhaps very likely) it has? [which is the only sensible way to go, but not stated in the laws today] I just want to make this very clear, so excuse me for repeating myself (a simple yes/no will suffice).

How do you feel about thinking when discarding on a long suit? Assuming that it only occurs once (and not repeatadly each trick), would you call this "a tempo sensitive situation" and say that is is not "a demonstrable bridge reason" to consider falsecarding? For my money there's a big difference between when: a/ you follow suit, where which card you can play is limited and it's relatively easy to spot "a tempo sensitive situation" and b/ when you can't follow suit and have wide option of cards to play and it's hard to know whether "a tempo sensitive situation" exists in another suit at all. In case b/ declarer forces the defence to discard on a long suit it's rare for the defence to immediately recognize the existence of a sensitive layout without thinking about the hand.

Thanks for comments. I'd like to see comments about this also: "Most importantly: Are you required to realise an infraction have taken place?" What if you don't realise that something might have happened? Reiterating: You play against a regular partnership and it doesn't enter your mind that it was perhaps Michaels. Now you can no longer call the TD in the middle of the auction, get someone sent away, and figure out what's going on. Will this have any impact on a later ruling whether my action is "wild and gambling"? Say I double, the contract makes (55 M's) and I honestly say "I didn't suspect this, they're regular partnership, firm explanantion, no 'maybe'". TD says: "I don't believe you, you must have realised what was going on and still decided to double. That was certainly "wild and gambling" because you knew". Therefore, in the eyes of the Law, am I required to realise something might have happened and could this affect the ruling? Is it enough that I may have realised... as in when partner's UI prohibits me from choosing a logical alternative because I may have been influenced? My take would be no to these questions but there has been a ruling in Sweden by the "supreme" Appeals Committe a few years back, that they didn't believe that the player had failed to know something was amiss and therefore was struck with the "wild and gambling" argument for that very reason. Not because the action was wild and gambling due to information assuming no infraction had been committed, but it was wild and gambling because "he had to have known". Is this correct? Are you required to realise something has happened and if you don't, are you fried?

Somewhat related to previous topic. Say the auction goes: 1D - (2D) - X - (3D) pass - (3H) - pass - (pass) ? 1D is 11-15, could be singleton (Precision-style). No alerts, your partner still asked about 2D before doubling and that was natural. X was therefore T/O and 3D a natural raise. RHO look a long time before passing on 3H. What should you now base your final action on? That the opponents had a misunderstanding (regardless if misbid or wrong explanation) and that LHO misbid and has 55 M's (Michaels)? That RHO thought they had a misunderstanding and banked everything on that (by passing in the middle of the auction)? That everything is ok but RHO decided that prospects for higher contracts were bleak given the fact that his opponents both opened the bidding and made a voluntary T/O X, simply breaking discipline and passed a forcing bid? Once again, should I assume no infraction has taking place and base any potential further action on that (even if giving me a double-shot) or not? Say I can see that diamonds are breaking badly and would have doubled 4D, what about doubling 3H in matchpoints? A decision that is correct if no infraction has taken place (i.e. natural overcall and raise). But double would be very clearly a "wild and gambling" call if 2D bidder has 55 in majors. What happens now when this indeed was the case? Yes, it was wild and gambling IF LHO had the majors. In fact a call you wouldn't consider a logical alternative given THAT information. What if the thought of an infraction, for some reason, didn't even enter one's mind? If I was playing a against a regular partnership and didn't even consider a misunderstanding? IF they had diamonds, the call wasn't "wild and gambling". If I have an easy pass regardless, no problem, and the maybe an score adjustment. But if I have an easy pass in one case (infraction) and a possible bid in the other case (no infraction). If I take action and there was an infraction I now may have to live with the table result because my action was deemed "wild and gambling". Sure it was, when they didn't have those cards. What responsibility/rights do you have here? Most importantly: Are you required to realise an infraction have taken place? What if you didn't? I think the laws are seriously lacking in describing rights and responsibilities for the non-offending side when an infraction MAY have occured in the auction. No whistle is blown and offense or no offense can't be judged until after we have concluded the auction. The non-offending sides choice of bids if frequently highly dependent on that ruling when anything other than pass is an option (given that no infraction has occured). Just saying "wild and gambling" isn't allowed isn't guideline enough neither for players who may find themselves in this situation, nor for TD's and jurors who may be unable to comprehend how reasonable the chosen bid may have been if the information was "correct". Comments?

Say the auction starts (white/red): (1H) - pass - (2H) - 3C (3H) - 4C - (hesitation pass) - pass (4H) - ? Say you have a choice of sacrifing in 5C or not. You didn't bid 5C immediately because there was a chance you'd be able to buy 4C and partners 3C in 4th seat is kind of wide-range, perhaps a pre-balance, perhaps a good hand. What are you supposed to base further action on? Should we always assume that our RHO (4H-bidder) did not have a correct 4H given the facts that he didn't invite and our LHO tanked? This is clearly the most likely scenario but taking a view on the assumption that an infraction has taken place without hard evidence is debatable IMO. Does the quality of your opponents matter? What if your RHO opponent is Brogeland? Did he 'walk the hand' with a clear 4H-bid, just trying to stop a sacrifice? If I now assume in infraction has taken place and don't sac, and RHO walked the hand, opp's gain from the hesitation. I think it's proper that in all situations like this, I must base my further actions on the assumption that no infraction has taken place, that the 4H-bid (in the example above) is legit, no matter how unlikely that is. Further action by our side should not be deemed "wild and gambling" if it is a logical alternative under that assumption. Of course I'm gonna call the TD if RHO's hand doesn't hold up. Yes, this gives us a "double-shot" but one that the opponents has given us with UI on their part, and that seems legal. Comments?

The discussion mentioned by the intitial poster did not pertain to tempovariations when following suit. One example was that the contract was 6NT and declarer was about to run off a long suit. Defender took a while to figure out the situation and how to discard. From that point on there were no hesitations but declarer decided to play for the squeeze based in the initial 'tank'. Defender tried to figure out the hand, what signals to make to his partner and if he should false-card or not. Is that a demonstrable bridge reason? Does thinking carry a responsibility to hold key honors? How should defenders know without analysing the deal...? (The hen or the egg? :lol:) I can't see any reason why this 'tank' isn't allowed, with the tank being within reason (i.e. not 5-10 min). 73E allows you to try to deceive declarer with the order you play your cards.