debrose

For the most part I agree with what Jan says on this subject, and I don't see any perfect solutions. I do think it's preferable to hold the open before both the womens and the seniors, so teams that have good chances in those events have an opportunity to play in the open, whether or not they have a realistic chance there. The couple of points of Jan's I don't entirely agree with are in the quoted portion of her post. First, while it may rarely, or even never, have occurred so far that a woman who plays regularly in the Women's Trials has been on a good enough team to have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials, there are certainly plenty of women who play in Women's Trials who could win the Open Trials on a good enough team. Second, the problem is not only that a woman who has already qualified for the Venice Cup (or Women's Olympiad) can't play in the Open. Since plans for the Open need to be made before the Women's trials is completed (besides other arrangements, the Women's trials is normally held after the entry deadline for the Open), a woman who is going to play in the Women's Trials, and has a realistic chance to qualify in that event, cannot commit to play on a team for the Open. Perhaps in some cases, especially if it's just one person, she could register on an Open team, and they would be willing if necessary to play without that player, or get a substitute. Apparently the rules allow for this, as I believe it occurred in 2009. However, I was in a situation a couple of years ago where I could not play in the Women's Trials because I had a professional commitment for the Open (at least I was committed - in fact it ended up getting canceled, but that's another story......) Even if Jan is wrong, and there are women who play in the women's trials who could qualify in the open, the fact is that even the very best players' chances of qualifying in the Open are far below the best players' chances of qualifying in the Womens. Therefore, it's less onerous for a top woman player to ask her women's team to acquiesce to her playing in Open Trials, with the understanding that should she qualify they would have to do without her in the Women's Trials.

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials. It's stated in the general conditions of contest as follows: B. Players Each player in a USBF Championship must be eligible to compete and intend to compete in the WBF championship for which the USBF Championship is a selection trial. Jan Martel told me of one instance where a player was not allowed to participate in the Trials, even though his team's chances were about zero to qualify, because he was known not to fly. And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open). I don't know if the ACBL has any similar rules for GNT.

My son recently started playing tournament Scrabble, and just a couple of weeks ago it occurred to me that some form of "Gibsonizing" could make sense for Swiss Teams in bridge. It's not uncommon for a team to have first place locked up going into the last round. However, before this thread, I'd never seen or heard of this concept applied to bridge. Where is this known to have occurred? Besides the prize money element, and the win/loss variation, there is another big difference between the last round pairings in bridge and Scrabble. At least in the Scrabble tournaments I've attended with son, the last round is always "King of the Hill", and before that round the pairings are round robin, not Swiss. Unless someone is Gibsonized, 1st plays 2nd, 3rd plays 4th, etc. in the last round. This will mean repeat matchups from earlier in the event. In bridge we normally do not have playbacks, so even when nobody has the event locked up, the last round pairings often see the teams in contention facing others, because they've played already. Perhaps it would be better to allow playbacks in the last round of a Swiss, and then to add in "Gibsonizing" if a team has the event locked up. Lately I've noticed regional tournaments in the U.S. holding Round Robin Bracketed Team events. A "King of the Hill" round might be a nice addition to that format.

Very sorry, didn't notice last night that 2♠ was spades and a minor. Was thinking just spades. Now I understand 5♣ being artificial, though still not absolutely clear in my book and I probably wouldn't risk it. Obviously one still could have a hand that wants to bid it natural, with LHO having either minor. Anyway, everyone's comments (except mine!) make a lot more sense now.

I don't see why 5♣ can't be natural. Without even getting into more extreme hands, say with 8 clubs, what are you going to do with - e.g., xxx, Kx, x, KQJxxxxx? I could certainly see making an agreement such as Justin suggested earlier in the thread (4N diamond slam try and 5C heart slam try - actually, I think he suggested the opposite, but this makes more sense to me), but I don't see it as at all clueless to think 5♣ is natural without any agreement otherwise.

Below is a message I received from Roland Wald, which I think many might be interested in, so I'm posting here (with permission). I'm tremendously impressed with, and grateful for, the efforts of Roland, Fred, and others to further improve the vugraph experience. I will strive to comply with their requests. Debbie Rosenberg Dear Vugraph Commentator, Please accept my sincere thanks for volunteering your time and bridge expertise to be a vugraph commentator on BBO. I know I can speak on behalf of many thousands of bridge players from every corner of the world in telling you how much your service to our game is appreciated. Over the years BBO vugraph has greatly increased the awareness and interest level in top-level bridge among average players. The efforts of commentators such as yourself has helped to enhance the enjoyment and level of understanding that average players have toward our game. These are obviously good things for bridge. In order to ensure that your contributions to future broadcasts help further these goals, I would ask you to read this document carefully and to always adhere to the guidelines it contains. I would like to add a few requests of my own: 1) Roland Wald, our Vugraph Coordinator, has been involved in BBO vugraph since its earliest days (in 2002). During that time Roland has logged a massive number of hours organizing, watching, and commentating on vugraph. In his capacity as Vugraph Coordinator, Roland has consistently demonstrated excellent judgment and taste, even in the most trying of circumstances. Roland has the full confidence of BBO management and he is a true and valuable friend of bridge. I strongly urge you to always treat Roland with the respect that he deserves and to follow his instructions even if you do not agree with them. 2) It is very important that we do everything we can to paint high-level bridge in a positive light. Please do not use the platform we provide for publicly attacking players or tournament sponsors that you do not like. Please do not try make the players look stupid even when, like all of us sometimes do, they make stupid mistakes. 3) Please always keep in mind that you are a much, much stronger bridge player than the vast majority of audience members could ever hope to be. The primary purpose of your comments should be to educate, enlighten and entertain the masses, not to impress your peers. 4) Try to help make our vugraph broadcasts fun for the audience. Adding a little humor to your comments or offering interesting stories about the players when the play is going slowly will be appreciated by the spectators. 5) Our worldwide audiences consist of people representing every imaginable country, culture, and age. It is not difficult to unintentionally offend people. Please be extremely careful about not making comments that might be perceived as being racist, sexist, vulgar, or in any other way offensive to some people. Thanks again for your support of our vugraph program. I hope you enjoy the time you spend as a BBO vugraph commentator. Best regards, Fred Gitelman President Bridge Base Online, Ltd. ... DON’T: (1) Say: “I would lead a club” without explaining your reasoning. (2) Say: “GIB says that the contract can’t be defeated”. You may state that declarer has a counter to any defense, but only as long as you are prepared to go into detail once a defender has made a play. GIB is a reference to check an analysis, not the star of the broadcast. Remember that GIB is also looking at all four hands. (3) State definitively what a bid means unless you know that to be the case. (4) Forget to tell the spectators that they can see the auction at the other table by moving their mouse over the contract/result line under the West hand if they are using the Windows version of BBO, but must look elsewhere on the web-client. (5) Make the session a showpiece for your ability with statements like: “I pointed that out before GIB confirmed it” and don’t ignore your colleagues’ chat to repeat what they have just said. It is OK to cancel your own chat if it’s redundant although often the comments will be typed simultaneously and come up one under the other. (6) Criticize a bid or play without trying to understand why the player made it. Blunders will occur and may be explained as blunders, but no one wants to see commentators put down the players who make them. (7) Sign up for a session of an important event without doing at least a bit of research on the players, methods, format, and current information sources. (8) Expect the spectators to know who you are unless you are a well-known world class player or writer; be prepared to introduce yourself with genuine humility. (9) Treat your personal profile as a joke. Spectators want to know they’re listening to an authority or at least a strong, experienced player. “Novice” or “Intermediate” for skill level may be OK for your everyday activities (if you must) but not when you do a broadcast that thousands of bridge enthusiasts will be watching. Reveal yourself and insert your proper skill level in your profile. (10) Engage in gratuitous banter with colleagues just for the sake of filling the chat box, especially when the nature of the banter is meaningful only to the commentators. (11) State the obvious, or (worse) repeat it. (12) Forget to explain how the software works, access to “movies” and how to review the play at the other table, how to use Vugraph Archives for other events, and so on. (13) Be afraid to explain how a convention or treatment works and/or the reasons why you believe the method is good or bad (or both). If you suggest a different treatment, it should not be prefaced simply with “I play…”, especially if that treatment would work better on the current deal. Rather, if you are discussing alternative methods, treatments, conventions, do so from an unbiased perspective, stating the pros and cons. (14) Forget that these shows are supposed to be both informative and entertaining and that there will often be vast numbers of spectators whose first language is not English. (15) Forget that Roland can provide a set of links and macros to facilitate the informational aspects. (16) Be afraid to say that Mr X is going to bid 5D because it’s his style to be aggressive in the slam zone, especially if you know that to be true. Don’t send a chat, “5D”, without explanation or with the comment “I would bid 5D”. (17) Say that a spectator points out that the hand can be made by blah blah. If that seems sensible you can say it yourself and sometime during the broadcast thank the spectators for their often valuable ideas, suggestions and analyses. The audience expects expert analysis and commentary from the panel, not from the audience. It is not plagiarism or improper to use a spectator’s comments yourself; in theory, the spectator is speaking to you privately to help you do your job well. (18) Point out that fireworks are coming later in the session; spectators may be looking at the other room simultaneously or checking upcoming results in the movie mode, but others look forward to seeing the deal come up fresh with a current review of what happened at the other table, but without the crystal ball technique. (19) Dominate the “microphone” – let the audience think you’re a group dedicated to what you’re doing. Make your comments count. (20) Forget to provide interesting anecdotal and informatory commentary. If you’re working on a Zonal Trials speak of the event they’re qualifying for, how many teams will be at the WC, defending champions, teams already qualified, upcoming other zonal events, any thoughts on dark horse contenders, favourites, etc. DO: (1) Treat your voluntary sessions as if you were getting paid for them. (2) Look out for other potentially excellent commentators to recommend to Roland. (3) Treat the players and other commentators and the game itself with respect. Put yourself in that player's seat and try to figure out why s/he did what s/he did even if it may turn out to be unsuccessful. (4) Your homework. (5) Recognize achievements of merit past and present. (6) Look at the operator’s explanation of alerted calls, but be skeptical when they appear unlikely; operators have a difficult job and do make errors. The same can be said for inconceivable results. Try to confirm with the operator in private chat. The best operators are invaluable resources for the commentators. (7) Project possible competitive actions rather than say something like “An easy 4S here”; uncontested auctions are increasingly rare these days. Always look for traps and obstacles that could affect the normal result. When more than one bid/contract/competitive action exists, discuss the possibilities without prejudice or the advantage of seeing all four hands. When discussing the play, discuss the percentage line, alternative lines, safety plays, and only then the successful line if it is different. (8) Refrain from stating what you would “lead”, especially if it is a difficult lead or blind lead, and your lead is the best (or only) one to defeat the contract. Similarly, when discussing the defence, do try to understand and explain the meaning behind the cards the defenders play. If you know their methods, this can be very enlightening for the audience, especially where the plays relate to spot cards early in the defense. You may say “East has played a middle card to ask for the continuation of his suit. He has essentially denied interest in a switch to either side suit.” Or “Some pairs play suit preference in this situation, but this pair employs obvious switch”. Explain how that works. In situations where you do not know the meaning of a signal, allow someone else to comment. Don’t say “heart now” because that is the winning play. You may say “We can see that a heart now would defeat the contract, but East has only the xxxx information, and he may play a spade instead.” Or “West gave an attitude signal on East’s club ace that involved the diamond suit as well. West would have encouraged a club with the king if he did not want to ruff a diamond.” In other words, explain the bridge plays, not your choice for a play. Realize that good defense requires a complicated blend of partnership carding agreements, common sense, card reading, and the ability of the defender to “read” declarer’s intentions. If you make a statement about the defender’s next play while he is thinking, explain why you think he will arrive at a particular position.

I've possibly been one of those opponents who has commented on what a good idea this seems to be. Whenever I tell any of my students, most of whom are club players, that this is done in the UK, they love the idea and wonder why not here. As Paul mentioned, it seems awfully tough to get ACBL players to change anything, but the first step would be a rule. Can anyone (Jan Martel?) direct us as to the best place to write letters requesting this type of rule change?

If 3♣ shows either equal length or longer hearts, then over a 3♦ ask by advancer, equal length should always bid 3♠. Therefore, I'm not sure 3♠ is obvious on the hand in question, since with 5-5 partner should bid that himself over 3♦. So if you think 4-6 is possible, and have these agreements, 3♦ seems like a better choice.

There is no chance you would have received any adjustment, and if you appealed I think it likely would have been ruled an appeal without merit. OTOH, based on my experience, if the double were something other than penalty, and you were damaged by assuming it was penalty because of the non-alert, in that case you'd likely get redress. The Alert procedure is taken much more seriously by most players, at least in the U.S., than the convention card. In spite of the (daily) notice in the Daily Bulletin, the requirement to have legibly filled out convention cards on the table is mostly ignored. And even if the card you'd looked at clearly spelled out that Double was artificial vs. a WEAK NT, it's not clear to me that their non-alert wouldn't trump that - or at least require you to protect yourself by asking. I'm not saying that I think this is how it should be - I'd like to see everyone have identically and accurately filled out cards, which they are required to hand to the opponents at the beginning of the round. If you'd called the director, I think it's possible the opponents would have received some sort of penalty or warning for not having two identically filled out cards. From what I can tell such penalties are somewhat arbitrarily doled out.

I've been playing regularly on U.S. Women's Teams since 2002, and to my knowledge I have not played on any teams in which players have been publicly critical of their partners/teammates on a regular basis. A couple have behaved this way on occasion, and maybe more often privately, but overall my female teammates have been a supportive bunch. Certainly I have not observed more "bad-mouthing" amongst my women's teams than what I've encountered amongst male players, which is plenty of public criticism of both partners and teammates. Of course not all men do it, just as not all women do it (the latter being the main point I want to make).

Kevin, When I have the agreement to play 2♣-2♦, 2♠-3♠, new suit = 4+ card suit, yes we also play 2♣-2♦, 2♥-3♥, 3♠ shows a 4+-card suit. In both cases we use 3N as an artificial general slam try (for mad scientists, I suppose it would make more sense over 3♥ to use 3♠ as the general slam try, and 3N as the spade suit). Not sure I get your point about not being able to do everything when it comes to hearts - what can't you do there, that you can over spades?

Though I now play the above system with one partner, including opener bidding the OTHER major over the re-ask, I would not have thought of it as expert standard. Maybe I'm behind the times. I've always played that redouble showed a strong desire to play in 2♣XX (5 clubs or 4 great ones), and that pass was a suggestion to play 2♣XX (4 good clubs). Now responder's XX is to play. Other bids by opener are as if no double, and now responder can bid 3♣ to check on a stopper. Until a year ago, I would have thought that was expert Standard. Perhaps what jjbrr describes is the new Expert Standard, but I certainly wouldn't assume any of it without an agreement. Maybe this way is better - it hasn't come up yet with the one partner I play it with - but I've had good results playing in 2♣XX, and bad results when they've done so against me, so I like the system that caters to getting there more often. People tend make rather unsound doubles of 2♣.

I like to have the following agreement in my notes with regular partners: "In comp, 5N is always pick-a-slam and a Q-bid of their suit which forces us to slam is always a grand slam try." I don't claim this solves all problems, or that I have a lot of experience with these auctions coming up. But I very much like having this basic general agreement, rather than a lot of memory strain, or hoping to be on the same wavelength on whatever specific auction comes up. Of course there are still the problems of two-suited vs. three-suited, and what one should have to make a grand try in any given context. Still, I think we're likely to be closer to the same wavelength with this agreement than with none at all, and it certainly doesn't require much memory strain. On the actual hand, given that opener was limited, I think 6♣ is a standout. Sure, you may not even belong at the 6 level, but since I don't know what strain we belong in a the 5-level, I'm going to stretch. Once I do so, I think in context of the limited opening I am worth the grand try. On the responding hand which was given, I would double. I think it's pointless to try to pinpoint what these high level doubles "show" (I think there was another recent thread about doubling 4♠ ), or what to call them. Whether you call it takeout, optional, cards, or even penalty, the fact is that any hand which is too good to pass, and is unwilling to commit to bidding at the necessary level, is going to have to double. That's a lot of hand types. I do think it can be useful to discuss what the partner of the doubler will tend to do with various hands, since that might help when one has a close call as to whether to double or bid (or pass). You're still going to have a lot of guesses on these high level auctions, no matter how clear your agreements are. Especially since a lot of IMPS are often at stake, it's certainly an area worth discussing quite a bit. Pretending that it's realistic to get very specific about what the doubler should have isn't going to help though, imo.

Sometimes on BBO I use chat to type an explanation to both opps, and though I'd probably alert anyway, might sometimes neglect to. I find some of my opponents do the same. So if you are kibitzing and don't see an alert, that doesn't necessarily mean the bidder didn't inform his opponents that his 2N bid didn't promise a major.

BTW, I did not mean to imply that in this case, or in general, the partner of the bidder intentionally decided to play their partner to have forgotten due to their tempo. That would be actively unethical, which I don't think most players are. When the bidder's partner also actually forgets a bid is conventional, I believe it's often due to subconscious unauthorized information, which just makes the player human. To actively fight this happening, a partnership needs to avoid playing conventions either player is likely to forget, and also to avoid playing conventions if you can't make the conventional bid in the same tempo you would make a natural bid in the same situation. This becomes a little easier if you are the habit of taking at least two seconds for every bid, something I would highly recommend.

When both partners forget an agreement, imo it is rather unlikely to be a mere coincidence. Most players would not be bidding a Ghestem 3♣ in the same tempo as a natural 3♣ - particularly a player unaccustomed to using the convention. Of course it's also possible for a player to figure out partner almost certainly forgot exclusively from his own hand - as in the second question in the OP - but it would be unrealistic to pretend that the tempo issue doesn't exist. As to the questions in the OP, on the first question my immediate thought was that it's okay to say nothing, but it's better to say what Justin Lall does - that you agreed to play Ghestem, but you both forgot and that you have clubs. I think it would be totally inappropriate to simply say that you have an agreement to play Ghestem, since the fact that you both forgot makes that dubious (yes, I know you "agreed" to it, but if it's never come up and you both forget, by my definition that's not a real agreement). Actually, I suppose you really must say what Justin Lall does, since the opponents should have the right to pursue the potential unauthorized information issue (that your partner may have forgotten due to your tempo) As to the second question in the original post, I would think you should alert, and explain to the opponents exactly what you said here: you told partner you wanted to play this, he reluctantly agreed but said it was insane, it (I'm presuming this) hasn't come up before, etc.....

They may be well on the way, thanks largely to Patty Tucker. The new youngest life master (9) Richard Jeng, and his brother Andrew Jeng (12), apparently have completely non-bridge playing parents. They learned exclusively through the Junior bridge program in Atlanta.

Hmm, there was a copy on the bookshelf earlier today, but Michael must have read Phil's post and burned it. Luckily I'd snuck a look before I posted before, to review exactly what he said - and didn't say - on the subject. He does list all possible criteria for making the decision, but doesn't say how he applies them. Some are contradictory. I don't think the book would help anyone guess which he'd open on any given hand. Now I'm sure I should have a guess from partnership experience, but perhaps I've made a point of trying not to pay attention, and perhaps we just haven't played all that many boards, but I honestly believe I don't know. In most other situations I feel I can guess what Michael would do, maybe because we have so much more experience based on discussion than actual boards played together.

This is not entirely true. As an example, earlier in this thread someone mentioned Michael Rosenberg's book, where he talks about which minor to open with 4-4. Well really, he talks about not talking about it. To this day he has refused to ever have any discussion at all with me about which minor to open with 4-4. I believe he won't discuss it with his students either. It's not that our partnership couldn't gain from having such agreements, just that he believes the cost of having to disclose it would be greater than any potential gains. Nonetheless, I do agree (and so does Michael I'm sure) that in most situations it is nearly always better to have an agreement than not to. And I think that the types of pairs who believe it's better to have detailed system notes than not to, are unlikely to be dissuaded from doing so by the requirement that said notes be fully disclosed. But if they are, so be it. The nature of our game is full disclosure. IMO, on balance it would be still be their loss not to have system notes. As to the downside of people getting to prepare in greater detail, I don't think anyone could argue that this is a reason not to require the notes to be published. In theory at least, pairs are already required to include on their WBF convention card & supplemental notes anything the opponents might want to prepare against. A more legitimate argument is against allowing others to copy your good ideas. That I think is a legitimate grievance, but not enough so to warrant lack of full disclosure. Carrying over the analogy from the table, if my opponents have a constructive auction, they have to tell me what all the bids mean if I ask, and I might then copy their good ideas. I don't have to prove that I actually needed to know for my bidding or defense. Yes, I know it's not exactly the same, but to me it's similar enough to make it a reasonable analogy.

Good points Adam. And it would be a bigger lie for a pair to claim not to have system notes when they do, than to say "no agreement" at the table when they actually have one. I think the vast majority of players have too much integrity to do either of those things.

I agree that 5C in no way denies a spade control, and I think jdonn's explanation is excellent.

Hi Roger. I'm afraid I know virtually nothing about the junior program of the past 15 years. I played in the world juniors in 1991 and 1993. The junior program was really just getting started then - I'm pretty sure that 1991 was the first junior team which wasn't at least mostly made of of the winners of a collegiate championship (I think it was 1989 in which a trials was held to add one pair to the 4-handed collegiate team). Rather than discrimination against having women play, if anything there may have been affirmative action in order to include what I believe was the only women's pair in the trials on one of the 1991 teams (I was unavailable for that trials, and later replaced one of those players when she dropped out). The six pairs for the 1993 teams were, I believe, selected purely from a trials (though I think the captains juggled who would be on which team). I'm sorry to say that I don't recall whether there were any women other than myself playing in that trials. I'd be very sad to learn that young women are having the experiences awm described at junior camps. If that's what you were hoping I could speak to, sorry I can't help.

I second all of Michael's (scotty's) comments. I also agree with Fred that the more practical changes we might have some realistic hope of bringing about are redesign of the convention card to make it more useful, and meaningful enforcement of the requirement to properly fill out such a card. Though I'd imagine the latter would be harder to accomplish. In the ACBL, I also think it's necessary to have the powers-that-be clarify that the convention card is intended for the opponents' benefit. A redesign of the card such that it is no longer convenient to keep one's private score inside the card would alone probably help a little with that. At NABC's, the Daily Bulletin always runs several paragraphs about the requirement to have two properly filled out convention cards. I'd like to have added to this a requirement that one hand one's opponent the card at the start of each round, and only ask to retrieve it at the end. Perhaps this should all be in a new thread, along the lines of: Redesign of the ACBL conv card & enforcement of proper completion. If someone has the time and know-how to move this comment, along with any relevant preceding ones from this thread to a new one I'd appreciate it. Unlike Fred, I'm not OK with the status quo, and I'd be interesting in posting and reading more on this subject. Fred, I appreciate your taking the trouble to make suggestions in spite of the fact that there is no problem for you personally. Debbie Rosenberg

Hadn't seen Justin's post when started my reply. Glad to know that at least one director confirmed these bids are alertable. Thanks.

There are many auctions in which 2N could be played as either takeout, Lebensohl, or natural. I believe that some partnerships have either clear enough rules, or sufficient partnership experience, to virtually always be on the same wavelength as to which it is. IMO those partnerships should always alert 2N if it is something other than natural, unless it's a situation where there is no chance that their opponents could think it's anything but what it is. 1S-P-2S-P, P-2N would be such an example. Yes, I do take into account who the opponents are when deciding whether or not to alert. In the given auction I think all "modern" experts would treat 2N as takeout, but perhaps a few more "old-fashioned" experts would think it's natural. And what if you are playing against non-experts? I never see the harm in alerting if you clearly know what partner's bid means and there's any chance the opponents might not. That's assuming your knowledge is based on a partnership agreement - whether it's about the specific auction, derived from general principles, or based on extensive partnership experience. Of course if your certainty is based on what you have in your hand, that's different. When I've often found myself unsure whether or not to alert 2N, it's when I feel it's probably takeout, but I'm in a partnership without clear agreements. Against experts, if it's an auction I expect they know many would treat as takeout, I usually won't alert unless I'm sure. Against players who I think might have less reason than I do to suspect 2N is takeout, I'll usually alert. If all the players are of about equal general bridge knowledge, and the partnership has no special agreement, I certainly wouldn't alert, or expect one from my opponents. When they bid 2N in an ambiguous auction, I've often asked if my opponents have any relevant agreements, even if they don't alert.