Sigi_BC84

While taking the risk of starting to sound like Claus, I have to say that this is highly unethical if done systematically, if not on the verge of cheating. I think you absolutely must disclose such a meaning to your opps (BTW the "tactical bid" mentioned above over W2-(X) is called McCabe convention and should be noted as such on your CC if you use it at all). --Sigi

Sigi, this is already there. At any point of point of time, after you make the bid, you feel that the FD explanation is wrong, you can always Click on Alert I wasn't overly clear in my original post. What I meant was that you don't get to see the meaning of the bid you are about to make in advance, before having submitted the call. Then you see the explanation. If it's not correct you then have the possibility to step in and inform the opps. --Sigi

Yeah, but if we had the agreement that we do this kind of thing frequently, and that you will never raise me on three cards, and have some kind of "asking drury" in place where the first-step response shows this garbage... then it's not a psych (and should be alerted). If I recall, you did raise me to the three level on three cards when I made this bid, and somehow it still worked out. :) Now I have to echo Gerben: If you agree to do this frequently you are playing a HUM. --Sigi

I guess it often is discussed in the context of NT openers ("now partner is boss") but in the teaching I received it was not emphasized enough that this applies in many situations all across the system, either. I've got this feeling because -- although not having a genuine "lightbulb experience" -- when reading this I realized that never anybody taught me this in such clear words. Bob's article is really good and should be given to new students per default IMHO. --Sigi

Significant typo in the original reply now corrected Now it makes sense, thanks :-). --Sigi

I really like your concept, it seems very well thought through to me. I'm surprised that you didn't get more support so far. I also found the "prisoner's dillemma" idea from earlier on (page 5 or so on this thread) highly intriguing. This might actually work. Maybe one could combine this with your approach, Todd, what do you think? Actually I'd really like to see something like this implemented, just to see how well it works. We won't find out if we don't give it a shot! --Sigi

Since it has by now been suggested several times on this thread that the Lehmann system was designed to measure individual performance, I want to quote one of Lehmann's articles where he explains the system: (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/oksimple.html) I'll leave that uncommented because the article really explains it quite well already. --Sigi

OK, forgot about that. He just might or might not be there, since you can see the 6QP already. I'm sorry, but I don't understand, can you elaborate further? Really interested in this matter. --Sigi

You've placed all the controls including Jacks. Why do you have relay responder declare 7♦ instead of declaring 7NT yourself (with the obvious advantages)? --Sigi

This is nice. Can you give the full structure after 2NT that you are playing? Our system sucks in this regard, so we need help for improvement. Thanks, Sigi

If the suit is your longest suit (i.e. you are 4432 or 4333) than with 8 HCP you are certainly way below SAYC opening strength. So such an opener would not be a deviation but a psyche in my eyes. The rule of 18 is considered minimum for a constructive opening by many regulators, so if you have that you are usually not psyching a standard opening bid in my eyes (at least if your methods generally allow these kinds of light openers). Of course it also depends on what your CC says, if it says never with less than rule of 20 fulfilled then you should be prepared for psyching accusations if you open lesser hands. The WBF says 10+ HCP is not weak anymore, but I think that's not flexible enough, so I would rather apply Bergen points (rule of 18) or Zar Points even (26+) if I was a TD and had to decide. Just my two cents, I'm neither an expert nor a TD (but I'm a light opener :-). --Sigi

That's reasonable, I suppose. Not my preference, but I can hardly enforce my preference on the world. :o It's not my preference either. I prefer to stay as close to real life bridge as possible. Real life bridge disallows the use of memory aids (somebody else has already quoted the Laws in this regard), therefore I don't want to allow (or encourage the use of) memory aids in online bridge, unless for specific reasons such as teaching etc. Even if there is a large agreement between a pair's agreements and the FD card, there is potential for slight discrepency, which can be picked up upon if one can see one's own auto-alerts. I may be remembering the same incident as David here: [...] This should not happen if you play with a regular partner where you both really know the system; in that case you will usually play with a custom-made FD card of your own, so misinformation going unnoticed won't be the issue. In all other cases I guess it should be OK to have self-disclosure anyway. Also there would be the option to show the meaning of the bid you just made after you have submitted the call. That will help you spot mistakes in the FD cards (and in your bidding), but at least you won't have the memory aid beforehand. So in a way a compromise between the two approaches being discussed here. Hopefully the GUI will get better over time so it will be easier to get a grasp of the entire system in a few minutes, that way you could spot and correct discrepancies in time before playing with a new partner. --Sigi

On a related note, the German tournament regulations have special alert rules for games behind screens. Maybe the ACBL has something similar. When playing with screens you make self-alerts, like on BBO. Also you are not using the Stop card. I think it is reasonable to apply the screen rules for online play, since the situation is very similar. So in my opinion playing online the rules should require self-alerts of all calls through 7NT. Thinking about it, it would be a nice to have the equivalent of the Stop card for jump bids on BBO, at least for really serious sessions where you can expect the players to bid in tempo. This could even be made an automatic feature (bidding is stopped for a few seconds after a jump bid). Another possibility would be to simulate a bidding tray (i.e. the calls are passed through a virtual screen in pairs). That way you couldn't collect information from your partner hesitating before making a call. --Sigi

In the Netherlands you need to play in a certain league or higher (level 2nd Bundesliga) or take a test in which you show you can play this game. No MP nonsense. I've been in Germany for 3 years now, don't have enough MP to make a Silver certificate yet, of course, although I cannot imagine it would be "too hard" for me. I think in Germany the situation is similar. One of my friends who is waiting for his certificate because he is still lacking some MPs has told me that you are required to hold at least 50 MPs or need proof of a "comparable playing strength". Now, that they are relating the number of MPs to playing strength in this context is completely and utterly ridiculous but I think if you are playing in 2nd Bundesliga you certainly will receive your Bronze-Zertifikat (he's only in Regionalliga, so that might be the reason why he has to wait). You need to take the exam in any case, however. Edit: The situation is not similar of course, but you get the point. The Dutch system is a lot more sensible. --Sigi

Nah, no more quoting of laws etc. End of discussion. Not giving comprehensive system information to your opponents is bad bridge, if not against the rules. We agree on that and there's nothing to argue about here. Calling people cheaters because they don't disclose out of laziness or because they are in a pickup partnership with no clear agreements is against the rules as well. I'm sure you know that. These people might be guilty of bad conduct or be called unpolite, but they are not cheaters. Cheaters are the likes who are talking on the phone to play the hands double dummy etc. That is where I draw the line. So please don't throw them all into the same bucket. --Sigi

In Germany you need a certain amount of Masterpoints in order to get a TD certificate (in addition to taking an examination of course). This is the only reason some of us are trying to collect their MPs as quickly as possible. Lately it has been decided that you can get MPs for two-table team tournaments as well, which is quite nice because we're having one each week in the club (there's not much else happening in that club, it's more a stub of a club) and the other team is weaker, so we're getting MPs basically for nothing. How's the situation in your country? Do TDs need a certain amount of Masterpoints in order to qualify? --Sigi

If I actively conceal agreements while claiming that I am disclosing everything to the opponents, surely that would be a way of cheating. I have said that in another paragraph of the post you have quoted. Nobody will argue against that. If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater). You are just way too fanatic about this issue. Like Richard said, people will stop taking you and your postings seriously if you continue to make oversimplified statements like "not posting a CC is cheating". You are free to do that, but don't be surprised if nobody will listen or you will make people angry. --Sigi

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited Thanks for the comprehensive analysis. So if I conceal agreements I'm not following the Laws, but that doesn't make me a "cheater". Claiming that my entire system has been disclosed while having additional agreements with partner that I deliberately did not disclose, that would make me a cheater. Please note the emphasis on "deliberately". Simply having no CC at all might be impolite or not in accordance with the sponsoring organization's/host's regulations, but it's not a form of cheating. This is for the simple reason that you are not claiming that you have no agreements at all with your partner by not submitting a CC. Therefore, you are not actively concealing anything. Therefore, you are not cheating. I think you are not very objective concerning this issue, Claus. Let's start calling you a "thief" because you keep stealing from mother nature on a daily basis, depriving our children from their future... --Sigi

5♦ is not some asking bid in your methods? --Sigi no... it can be in some methods, i suppose, but there's also a need for responder to be able to sign off Won't you be able to sign off using the 4♦ end signal? That would free the bids above 4♦ for further asking schemes. I was assuming that this is pretty standard for symmetric relay systems. --Sigi

That doesn't sound like much fun. An explanation for his behaviour might be that he was afraid to lose control over his carefully prepared lesson if other people (or students even) start to propose different methods to approach the hand. It would certainly be interesting to hear his own position. --Sigi

Could you, for a change, prove this statement by referring to the Laws of Bridge? I'd like to see the rules concerning "cheating" (i.e. deliberately giving and using unauthorized information) and "disclosure of agreements" be connected in a meaningful way that proves your statement. Failing to do so might disqualify you for participating in further discussion about this issue. --Sigi

Agree that this is a problem. It is also a good argument for being able to see your own alerts: if you can't see what the explanation is, then you will not be able to correct it if it's wrong. This is not that big of a dilemma as you make it seem to be. People should not use an FD file out-of-the-box without having a look first that it actually reflects the methods they are playing. This applies to regular partnerships. If they want to use FD they have to make sure their CC is correct. If they don't that constitutes false disclosure which doesn't confirm to the rules (Claus, this should finally make you happy). For pickup-partnerships this does not apply, but the fact that players can see what their own bids are supposed to mean is not a problem in this case. I have no problem in an Indy or when playing against a random partnership if they are saying "we are using BBO basic FD with self-disclosure, is that ok?". I'd prefer that over getting gift-after-gift from these opps because they keep messing up BW responses, NT defense, SJS vs WJS and so on. If the TD of a given event decides that self-disclosure is not a problem at all for him and allows it that's fine for me too. I can decide not to play in that event in this case. Only currently a TD who does want to prevent regular partnerships to "practice their system" while playing in his tournament has no means to do so apart from making a tourney rule that disallows FD completely. Not very benificial towards increasing use of Full Disclosure... --Sigi

5♦ is not some asking bid in your methods? --Sigi

Fair enough, but he is also saying: Safety is the most important thing for a beginning player. The game is much too complex to bother people who just begin to understand the foundations of bidding theory with ideas that go against anything they have learned before. The beginner gets safety from having a mentor he or she can trust and listen to -- and I think it's a really good idea to just follow the "rules" your mentor has given you until you begin to understand what's going on. This usually takes quite a long time playing Bridge unless you are very gifted and put a lot of time into the game. Stating that this gives you an easy way to blame any accident on the rules is very simplistic. A good teacher will tell you that on a given hand a deviation from the rules would have been appropriate, and after you've played enough of these hands you will be ready to deviate more freely from the beaten track. If you chose to learn the game on your own and if you are in the lucky position to be surrounded by experts who readily bear with your experimental style, you don't have to listen to "solid teachers" like Bob. You being an exceptional player in this regard doesn't make the tried-and-true teaching style of the likes of Bob wrong. I have read a few of Bob's articles and I must say that I really like them. They are just about right for players at the intermediate skill level. --Sigi

I was waiting for Gambling 3NT to be mentioned. I also think that it's not a very sound convention from a theoretical point of view. But its so damn rare, so you won't lose much because of it. Also I haven't seen a really convincing alternative for that 3NT bid yet (is there any?). How freely do you open a Gambling hand? I think if you take it really seriously, a proper Gambling hand is much too rare to be bothered by any shortcomings of that opening (compare that to Stayman, which gives away unnecessary information all the time). BTW my least favourite "convention" is the natural 2NT opener. I get the feeling that it's almost a guarantee for a bad result... --Sigi