debrose

"On Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg criticised Eric Rodwell for playing out 6N, where he had 12 winners but no sensible prospect of a thirteenth. Some argued that Eric was justified, in theory and practice, when exasperated opponents misdefended to give jim an overtrick." This is backwards. It was Michael Rosenberg who played the hand out as declarer, and Eric Rodwell who was one of the defenders. Edit: Just saw that Michael Bodell beat me to this.

Justin, The solution you describe above didn't address how you handle the unbalanced 5-card spade hand when partner bids 3H instead of 3D. Presumably, you must bid 3S (either 5 spades unbalanced or artificial heart slam try?), so this system does have the drawback of wrong-siding spades sometimes.

Correction - Michael-Zia don't (didn't) make an exception when leading partner's suit in their partnership, and Michael doesn't with other partners. The exception would only be the obvious - when having already denied a doubleton, one leads high. There is no case where Michael, playing MUD leads, would lead low from xxx. When I first played with Michael, it took a while for him to convince me to give MUD a try. Since then I played it for years in two other regular expert partnerships, and have become very comfortable with it (though one of those partners did insist on low in partner's unsupported suit, the exception suggested in the above quote and by others). Edited: Here's a link to a Bridgewinners article where Michael made a few comments on why he prefers 4th best w/ MUD to 3rd/5th: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-basic-why-question/ I'm pretty sure he's written more about this elsewhere, including the falsecarding potential with MUD, but can't say where right now.

Sounds like a blast. Wish I were going to be in St. Louis........... oh yes, and that I were still eligible. Have fun!

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case. I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts. Note: Attempted to edit my original post to include full quote, but couldn't figure out how, so started again. My "this statement" refers to the first sentence.

My apologies. I obviously missed, and am still missing, how the first sentence related to the rest of the post. I'm often unsure how much of things to quote. I'll try to edit my post if I can.

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts. Sorry for failed attempt to edit. Redid post below.

Penalty, presumably with four trumps, is completely standard in a forcing auction

Sam Harris, one of the most outspoken (and in my opinion well-spoken) atheists of our time, tried in his first book, "The End of Faith" to downplay the term atheist. He made similar points to yours above. However, I don't think non-belief in God is comparable to any of your examples above. The simple reason is that I live in a society where nobody assumes I am an airline pilot, that I play the piano, or that I speak Swahili. Almost nobody would have a problem with the fact that I do none of those things. Yet the majority of the U.S. population not only believes in the Judeo-Christian God, they assume others do. Our currency says "In God We Trust." Schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to a flag, which include the words, "One nation, Under God" There is a consensus that professed belief in God is a prerequisite to any high elected office (certainly the presidency). People who recognize my name as Jewish have often made assumptions, such as what holidays I'd be celebrating, or that my son would have a "Bar Mitzvah". My son has often been asked what his religion is, with an implication that he is part of one. When on occasion he told kids in school that he didn't believe in God, he heard things such as "You will go to hell." Nobody says that about not playing the piano (well, perhaps a few music teachers have) This is true even though I've spent my life in very liberal parts of the country. I know enough to easily imagine what an outcast I would be in most of the U.S. Non-belief in God is a big deal to many, whether we atheists want it to be or not. If some people want to devote much of their lives to working towards eventually changing this, perhaps they indeed need to act in ways that cause others to consider them "fanatic atheists"

Helene, When I lived in NY, I attended several meetings of NYC Atheists. There were some lectures and discussions I found quite interesting. Their mission statement is as follows: NYC Atheists Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational association with the purposes/goals: To promote total and absolute separation of church and state. To educate and inform the public about atheism. To provide a forum for examination and discussion about atheism. To develop and engage in educational, cultural, charitable, and social activities that are beneficial to the members of NYC Atheists Inc., the atheist community, and the community at large. If you'd like to know more about what they do, check out: http://www.nyc-atheists.org/drupal5/

I am an atheist, and I am also anti-religious. When I read fluffy’s post, I thought it was silly and ill-informed, but I wasn’t personally offended. I fully support Mikeh’s reply, even though I did not share his angry reaction. However, I disagree with the accusations of bigotry made by Cthulhu D and MBodell, and their suggested “substitutions” to demonstrate why Fluffy’s statement was bigotry. I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made. It says something about how I think, and perhaps even implies a greater than average degree of rationality. That said, ascribing characteristics to an individual, simply because they are part of a group in which such characteristics are prevalent, is not something I approve of. As a rule, I abhor all stereotypes and generalizations. Still, some of them make more sense than others do, and not all are bigotry.. To me, Fluffy’s assertion is actually plausible on the surface. After all, isn’t one of the main reasons men invented gods to get people to “behave?” If there were not so much evidence to the contrary, it might seem logical to accept that people who don’t believe in any god, are less likely to “behave.” Fortunately, there is indeed much evidence to the contrary. Edit: As a mother and a human, I find it unbearable to focus on what actually happened. So debating the semantics of the use of the word bigotry is a distraction, but now strikes me as unseemly. Please forgive the insensitivity of implying that what happened was a failure of someone to "behave." I wasn't thinking.

I'm wondering if it's primarily just the handful of us who post about this on the internet who care whether or not ACBL CC regulations are improved and enforced. While I'm pretty sure most top level players don't care, I don't have any sense of the percentage of players overall. Perhaps the ACBL could conduct a poll, and act accordingly. If the membership doesn't want this, then stop the "Daily Waste of Ink" at the Nationals, and the occasional penalties. I'd much rather see CC requirements scrapped altogether than the status quo. The status quo is too annoying. Even when the opps have a legible card, it's so often proven inaccurate in the past, that I usually need to ask (about carding) to clarify anyway. The current card lacks much of the info one would want, and has tons opps don't care about. If the card is intended primarily as an aid to forming partnership agreements, let's stop pretending it's even theoretically for the opponents' benefit. It never has been, in my almost 30 years of ACBL bridge.

Perhaps pairs that are likely victims of such theft will know themselves well enough to carry extra copies.

Those two examples were something of an experiment by me, since I've been thinking about, and discussing this issue quite a bit lately. I've long suspected that no penalties are ever awarded for non-compliance with CC regulations at high levels, but haven't made much attempt to find out (i.e., play Secretary Bird). Of course I still don't have much a sample size, but it is galling that (apparently) players are being penalized for lesser offenses in regional pair games than NABC events. The daily waste of ink in the Daily Bulletin is an embarrassment. It is grossly unfair to the players who work hard to comply, and perhaps even more so to those who actually are penalized for minor infractions, when most experts in high level events make little or no attempt at full compliance. Something needs to change here.

You are right that there will certainly be no enforcement if the opponents don't bring the problem to the director's attention, but even then it's questionable. Two examples from SF where I did play Secretary Bird a bit: First session of LM Pairs - last round: Opponents have two convention cards on the table with lots of bidding agreements filled out, but zero about leads and carding. I'm declarer, and one of them has an attitude problem when I question this, so I call the director. Director's reaction: "Get it filled out by the next session" So it's no problem that their opponents didn't have access to this all session, or that we don't for the last two boards. They were playing upside down carding, btw. I didn't find out about their honor leads. Second day of Blue Ribbons we had a non-alerting issue which required the presence of the director. I mentioned as a side point to the director (not in opps presence) that my opponents apparently had only a WBF convention card - no ACBL card in sight. I played the same pair in the second session of the final day, and there was still just one folded up WBF card in sight. Why bother requiring an ACBL card if the director isn't even going to do anything when non-compliance is called to their attention?

In my experience, this regulation is not enforced at all in Nationally rated events. It sounds from the experience of others like it is at least sometimes enforced in lesser events. I refer to the above announcement as the "Daily Waste of Ink"

Maybe it makes sense to teach rubber scoring. My problem is discomfort with introducing the idea of part-scores carrying over, if people are eventually headed toward duplicate bridge. It seems like an unnecessary complication in learning a game already complicated enough. Perhaps this is just my bias. I learned to play Chicago with duplicate scoring from my grandfather. You can still play for bragging rights (or a small stake). You can still learn the rationale behind the absolute scores (100+ point trick score for a game bonus). Just teach 50 point bonus for a part-score, instead of having them carry over. That way each deal is independent of the others. It's simpler, and since I don't think any bridge book they are likely to pick up will address bidding strategy with a part-score (is there one?), seems better to me.

Hi Ben, SCORING seems to be missing from your original post. Perhaps it's been mentioned in comments and I missed it. Maybe you assumed scoring to be part of teaching the rules. If so, I apologize for thinking otherwise. That's how it should be imo, but I've found that most beginners are taught little or nothing about scoring. I know it's complicated, but in order to understand the game (any game?), you have to know how it's scored. I suggest teaching duplicate scoring, rather than rubber bridge. You can give them a sheet with all the calculations, but also the little cheat sheets with the scores for making and defeating contracts. I have something written up I can send you if it would be helpful. One of the comments mentioned teaching that "game" is 25 points. I'd want to teach that game is contracting for 9,10,or 11 tricks respectively, and what bonus you receive if you make it, long before they knew anything about high card points. I strongly agree with not teaching bidding, in the sense that most people think of it. I believe new players should learn how to bid sufficiently, and what bids "mean" only in terms of the number of tricks required, and the scores for fulfilling contract or failing in them. With that, plus basic card play rules, they can play real bridge (not mini), without knowing any bidding language. Once they see how inaccurate their bidding is - both of in terms of getting too high, or losing out on bonuses - they will presumably want to know something about how to communicate with partner. Only then should a bidding system/language even by introduced. Full disclosure: I've taught a lot of bridge, but I have not taught beginners for many years, and back when I did, I never taught as I am advocating. It is a combination of having thought about this issue a good deal, along with my experience teaching low intermediate players, that leads me to advocate what I do. In part, it's also just a feeling that it is purer to teach the RULES of bridge, including scoring, before mentioning bidding systems. It's also more fun to be able to play, and then understand why you are bidding, before getting bogged down with systems.

It's noteworthy that Roger mentions a responsive double, as if this would be the standard interpretation of double in this sequence. While I have heard of at least one top pair agreeing to treat double as responsive in some such situations, my understanding has always been that the "standard" definition of double is penalty, when partner makes a takeout double and RHO bids a new suit. The original rationale for this, I believe, was exposing psyches, which are no longer as common as they once were. So perhaps this should be changing, but before reading Roger's comment, I would have assumed with any expert that this double was penalty without discussion, even in the modern climate of few penalty doubles. Perhaps if that expert is under 25 I should assume otherwise? Under 30?

Berkowitz and Sontag were penalized because Sontag failed to alert his strong club opening against me (behind screens). It was the first board of the round, and I don't believe I've played against them recently. I momentarily forgot they were playing strong club, and neglected to overcall on a hand with which I clearly would have had I been alerted. They received a better result than they would have if I'd overcalled. The director did not adjust the score, supposedly because I neglected to call the director in a timely enough fashion (I was never alerted, but realized it myself during the auction). I very rarely call the director about anything, and it wasn't until dummy came down that I asked Sontag if he had alerted me. At first I thought I must have just missed the alert. I felt the score should have been adjusted for the offending side, even if not for ours, but the directors chose to only give them this small penalty. I don't know about any of the other penalties, but I've heard 1/6 of a board is common for slow play.

It is most certainly NOT standard expert practice to show aces when accepting a quantitative 4N invitation. I've only once encountered a true expert who even suggested such a thing. What I believe to be "Standard" is to bid 4-card suits up the line at the 5 level (where a fit is still possible), and to jump to the 6 level with a 5-card suit. Standard does not necessarily mean best. Where one might have a six-card suit (true for most NT openers these days), a jump to the 6 level should probably show six. You can usually bid 5 and then 6 with a five-card suit (yes, partner might spoil that plan by bidding 6N). For regular partnerships, it is also worth discussing when 5 of a minor over 4N is an attempt to improve the contract, as opposed to accepting the invite and looking for the best strain. My system notes define 5 of a previouslyn agreed minor, or one which someone has rebid or is rebidding clearly showing 6+ cards, as to play. Another thing to discuss is whether 5N over any of these 5 level continuations is forcing or not. I don't think it should be. That way you can accept with a marginal hand, which is more likely to have slam if you find a fit, and still stop in 5N if no fit is found.

The first live online bridge I ever watched was the 1997 Vanderbilt final, which I believe was on OK bridge. Michael and I watched together from home while I was in labor (that was the only Nationals he's missed since 1989). I recall that final featured a declarer going down in 7D by cashing a high honor with AKJTxx opposite xx, rendering himself unable to pick up the actual Qxxx onside.

This is totally new to me. We've just been discussing how our "memorized defenses" for Philly will differ from our "written defenses" used in ACBL land. Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors? Edit: Never mind - I've just read the thread, including the relevant portion of the WBF rules, more thoroughly, and obviously it does not. Thanks for sharing the info Jan. If I'd known this before, we would have used your long defense when we played against you last month, to practice using it in Philly!