Sadie3

The difficulty comes in knowing when a pair has crossed over into the implicit agreement stage. That is why it is important to report all "psyches" even though you will get the stock answer that psyches are allowed per law 40. If a pair is reported every time they psyche, a pattern emerges. ...and the decision that a pair has crossed over is open to interpretation by the TD involved as well.

I received the survey, too and I answered it. Maybe it is spam...maybe it isn't. They already had my email address and knew I was an ACBL member so I figured why not answer it? I thought it asked some good questions regarding online games and the possible direction of the future of online gaming. I thought it also asked some good questions about current articles in our ACBL Bridge Bulletin. I certainly didn't see that it was getting any extra information about me that I did not wish to share. I'm not that paranoid, yet.

Can you check again? My Mp holding just posted 0.00 for the 712 speedball and I don't think that is quite right.

I don't think a delay will cure the security issue. As long as a vugraph operator is inputting the data "live" and the commentator is analyzing "live" the security issue is still a problem. Putting the commentators in a closed room away from everyone else would help and/or using a camera to record the actual play would help for later data entry. I like the feel of live vugraph, but I have gone to the archives and replayed movies from there and it feels the same as viewing 'live' to me. On the other hand, I think a delay will result in a more accurate vugraph movie in that the plays and commentary will reflect actual play better. From my personal experience as a vugraph operator, I know that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with the tempo used by the players and many hands are "claimed" much earlier by the operator than the actual play was.

I can see where a TD might want to impose a "no chat" function at a table where the players have gotten into the "push and shove" mode and he needs to gain control. For obvious reasons it should not be a permanent thing, and should only be used in extreme instances to allow the TD to gain control of an out-of-control situation.

I agree with whoever said they deserve each other. They probably expected nothing less from each other in the first place.

According to one of the free lectures I attended in Monterey recently, doubles are one of the hot issues for clearing up in ACBL land. The other 2 tidbits I was advised regarding were the new required tapping of the alert card whenever alerting and requiring the use of a pass card rather than knocking or saying "pass" when ending an auction sequence.

I don't understand what's wrong with just telling someone when they invite you that you do not wish to play. What am I missing here? Seems to me that an auto reject would really hurt some people's feelings. Like they had leprosy or something bad.

It is difficult to give an explanation when you are not asked until the hand is finished. However, every ACBL tournament I have played here in BBO land clearly has the TD stating that naming the convention is not an explanation. Explaining what the bid means is the correct way to explain.

Explaining what the bid means is the proper way to respond. I was shaking my head for 5 minutes the other day when someone asked me after the hand where my one key was. I had bid 5D in response to a 4NT Ace ask and typed in 0,3 in the alert box. The op insisted I was playing 0314 when it was clear I was explaining what my bid meant. He never did figure it out. ;)

I think it sounds like a fun tournament. My only comment about what restrictions to apply is from a practical point of view. The TD may have a difficult time applying rulings to issues that are unfamiliar or unknown.

The ACBL General Convention Chart also disallows opening one bids with less than 8 points as a partnership agreement, unless it is a psyche. The exact wording: Under DISALLOWED: "6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) " Altering your bidding due to a big club system is a pretty common defense, but I'm not sure one can alter in anticipation except for maybe opening lighter than usual, but I'd be careful about how light. Maybe adding preempts with as few as 5 cards in the suit is a possiblity, but the higher the level you enter the auction, they more chance you get of having the dreaded -200 part score against you.

If I am reading the question right, then bidding and making 7C, 7D 7H 7S or 7NT would give the same score. I think that this oversimplifies the game. Part of the challenge is to find the 'best' score and 'best' place to play. ;)

This director and ruling remind me of something my father used to say, when we would be following a vehicle that appeared to have an incompetent driver. "Must have gotten their license at Montgomery Ward." Just a few thoughts... were your opponents friends of the director? Is it possible, your opponents were so novice that they 'forgot' their agreement? Were your opponents so 'mature' they temporarily forgot their agreement? Now, do any of there ideas also apply to the 'director'. If this is true, maybe someone ought to take her out to lunch and gently explain to her that she is losing it and that she ought to start looking for a replacement or assistant. If she is new and your club is big enough that she has a manager then maybe you should report that to them and see that she gets some help. New directors make errors. We could probably start many threads just about bad rulings. The indication is that your 2nd hand was also played against this pair, and if that is the case, I would chaulk any bidding problems your partnership may have had on the hand up to the fact that one or both of you were stewing over the first hand and not focusing on the current one. 'Tis the season... a club game is not a world championship and you can choose to treat this as an opportunity rather than a problem. ;)

I go to tournaments to play. That means that 3 sessions a day is not too much for me to play. Most of my partners limit out after a 2 session event, so I look around for someone I know wandering around early in the morning or evening and let it be known I can fill in in a pinch. I don't use partnership desks because I have a hard time saying thank you but no thank you. If I'm paying to play, I want to know who I'm having as a partner. I filled in in a newcomber event with a new player at the last Regional I attended and had a blast. It was the best game I had all day and the most fun. Unfortunately, we were not eligible to win any points. It seems I always end up chairing Sectional events and have a difficult time enjoying playing during them because of all the interruptions. I think StaC games are a better way to handle silver point requirements. When I return home after a tournament, I can not play bridge for a day or two... online or face to face. Anyone else feel that way?

I can't imagine why North made his first bid, he must have been feeling rather frisky that day or playing the opps or not trusting of his partner. Getting in the auction again was suicide.

My first real partnership ended when my husband overheard my "partner" talk to some other bridge players about how he was trying to teach me and to be patient with me. I was crushed. That partnership had lasted about two and a half years of which a significant portion was online where we had taught each other 2/1 with over 50 pages of typed partnership notes and agreements. We were an East Coast/ West Coast partnership and experienced moderate success in that our 2nd regional we won a blue ribbon qual in an open pairs event. Our third regional was the end of our partnership. Both of us had returned to playing bridge after at least a 25 year leave for career and families. My second partnership ended when my partner succumbed to a long term illness and I truly miss this partnership. Our partnership agreements were less intensive but much more solid than my first attempt at a partnership. My third partnership ended mutually. My partner was (still is) a wonderful teacher and good friend and enjoys bringing newer players up to speed. When he is in teaching mode, he plays his best. I play with several good players and a couple of them are in the "possible regular partner" category but I do not think I have found the right one yet. ;)

I think the South club bidders are "resulting" and it borders on malicious. They are lucky that their North partner has a good hand. In a normal bidding sequence, isn't North going to open? ...and isn't South now going to bid the clubs vigorously?

Hand 1 is perfect for a support double, but hand 2 is not even remotely related to hand 1. In hand 2, one must find a forcing bid, and I would bid 2S without hesitation. :)

Most of the time, my 2/1 pards will bid 2C, so the 2D bid is warning me against bidding 3C. I think there is a good chance to make 2 or even 3S and I opt for the 2S minimum bid. In IMPs, I might bid 3C, but I doubt it.

I am intrigued by the many 2NT responders logic. I had not thought of it before because the opening hand was a 12 pointer with 0 quick tricks. My question is, what kind of point count does the negative doubler over a weak 2H bidder need? It is possible to make some number of no trumps if partner has 3 Aces and a suit. But, with Q 10x holding in hearts, it is also possible to lose 6 tricks before you have a chance to take one. I agree with all the others that partner definitely promises spades and I also think partner promises great tolerance for clubs. He might have only 3, but no less and that is my reasoning for bidding 3C. I am contributing to the auction this way but letting my pard participate as well. I can see that all my non protected kings are vulnerable with the 'strength' opponent on my left unless my pard is promising all those missing aces.

I bid 3C. Partner said he had the unbid suits. 2NT does not "feel" like a good place to be. :( If it were not for the heart holding, I would have really rather passed this hand in the first place and hoped my pard forced me to bid.

My apology to you for making you think I was suggesting you were a novice, 1eye. No offense to novices or others was intended. Many persons write notes including the opening lead..... after the play of the hand has completed. To write it down before the playhas completed is a "memory aid" and IMO is unethical. Thank you for looking up the exact quote from the ACBL rule book. I was just paraphrasing and it is always better to use an exact quote.

I meant to say, "I believe that this issue of whether or not to be able to look is not my decision to make but is a decision for the manager of the games.

ACBL Law 40 says that a player is not entitled to use anything to aid his memory, calculation or technique during the auction or the play. In face to face club games, I have seen many novice players write down the opening lead on their personal score sheets and I advise them that this particular club may allow that memory aid but that it is not acceptable at any tournament level game. In addition, one is allowed to review written defenses to an opponents Mid-Chart or SuperChart methods at any time during the bidding and play. The way I interpret this is that if one is exposed to a method they are not familiar with that is above gen chart, they may consult aids to assist them in their bidding and defense against that method. This does not apply to online ACBL sanctioned games at BBO because only general chart conventions are allowed. IMO, the issue of consulting one's own convention card during the bidding and play needs to be looked at from the point of being online vs playing face to face. In a face to face contest, looking at your convention card is a clear indication to one's partner that an "unusual" bidding sequence may be forthcoming and a "wake up" call has been initiated. (unauthorized information) Online, this condition is not a factor. So, IMO, the real question is... Why is one barred from consulting one's own convention card? In online situations, often one is playing with a new partner This can happen in a face to face environment as well, but is usually not the case. I can cite one instance at a regional tournament where I was asked to fill in at the last second in a side game with a TD that was off duty to avoid a sitout. The TD borrowed my favorite convention card and referenced it throughout the whole session. So, first we broke the rule of having two identical cards filled out and the rule of not consulting the card during auction and play. The world didn't shatter and the other contestents didn't have a problem with us, either. IMO online play is classed as club play and therefore, I believe that this issue of whether or not to be able to look is not my decision to make by the manager of the games. I am sure that software can be designed to allow looking at opps card and denying access to one's own card during the biddng and play.