paua

Yes thanks, I did read the other thread. I agree that the WBF definition, like a lot of bridge Laws wording, is not very clear to the average player. However, I would rather have this as my alerting guideline than "unexpected" which is just nonsense. cheers

I think the definition of "artificial" is far simpler and less ambiguous than the current situation where we alert an "unexpected" call. This requires mind-reading. B-)

How can there be a "correct answer" ? This is not mathematics. Players can choose their own methods, which are all valid. A 40-year-old quote about a misnamed convention from 70 years ago in another country is hardly grounds for defining expectations.

Well, I disagree. If we redefine the purpose of an alert, = to show an artificial bid, then most of your argument falls flat :) There would be no alerts of a natural 1NT-2C, announcements I guess of "normal" Stayman, and alerts of anything else. Is there the same problem in alerting / announcing Stayman over a 2NT opening ? I don't think so. I have the same issue in my country about jump overcalls (and jump shifts). An intermediate jump overcall is defined as "normal", and other jump overcalls, weak or strong, have to be alerted. I have striven to understand the logic of this, especially compared to no alerting requirements for a 2-level opening, whether weak or strong. How a new player (or foreigner) is meant to know what is "unexpected" is beyond me. This is the 21st century, people play all sorts of things, people play beyond their club much more, beyond their county/region much more, online etc. What is "expected" ? 50% of the field ? 75% ? 90% ? How can one tell ? Mind you, it took 100 years for the bridge community to realise that the word "conventional bid" doesn't mean unconventional. :P

The mistake in the alert system, IMHO, is in allowing Stayman, an artificial bid, to remain unalerted. I know this is the historical default, but for a new player trying to understand the alert rules, the obvious and simplest default is : if it's artificial it should be alerted.

Certainly. Words are important. And I expect a map ... Also a map of Stayman x County bidding should be generated immediately. But I now understand that "Scotland" and "English Channel" were his top and bottom lines, so it is only three categories. North / Middle / South. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlands_%28England%29

So, is Kent in "South" or "English Channel" ? Hampshire ? Norfolk ? What about Somerset ? Wiltshire ? Gloucestershire ? and Wales ... ?

Use the Rule of 22 instead, also including quick tricks.

blasphemer ! :P

We're just faster :lol:

The Anglican vicar who taught me this would politley disagree with you.

Yes, I know that. And I still like to give the offender the chance to call the director. OK, maybe this causes a scene now and then, but I prefer that to an obnoxious "Director !" without offering a grace period, which just seems rude to me. OK, in some cases it also makes an educational point, which is not my place as a player. "I think perhaps you/we should call the Director" is my line, with every intention of calling myself in the next 10 seconds if they continue the argument. Earlier this year I had a silver grandmaster make a misclaim. She tried then to retract all her cards, and I asked her to leave them on the table (strike 2), she then muddled them up (strike 3), and then she refused to admit that she was going one light, so I called the Director. She then turned to me and said quite grumpily "so I made a mistake". I hope she learned something :)

I prefer the offending side to call the director. You're saying that you would have been less courteous ?

I have just written an email to a club I played at on Sunday covering similar issues. My partner become dummy and her RHO dropped the ace of diamonds. Her LHO told her she could demand or forbid a diamond. I piped up that this is not the entire options, and he told me not to interfere, so I told him to call the director (who struggled to explain all the options and my partner still didn't understand what "can be picked up" meant. Bleurgh. Our small club had a similar environment, and my solution has been to get qualified, bring in an experienced director to run a course, have a director's tip at the start of the evening, and to discuss all law situations with the players, directors and club committee, in a constructive way. It's getting better.

This is correct. Dumb isn't it, but then you'd only ever do it once.

A better analogy is learning chess openings. Kids learning chess will definitely create their own systems, experiment, copy. But they can get playing chess without having to study and memorise openings, whereas bridge requires a lot of system knowledge just to play with a partner. regards

Kia ora Well, that's because the game is run by old white people for old white people. There are no youngish people on NZ Bridge committees, bringing new ideas. If they did, they would be scorned by the old school who are quite happy with the status quo, revere it even. I think the lack of youth players is because you need a critical mass to get going. Young people playing, and doing well, would be role models for new youths coming into the room. But the percentage under say 30 is just so few. I taught juggling for years, and originally it was all just geeky young men. Eventually a tomboy or two started coming, or brother and sister, girlfriends, and they changed the atmosphere and subconsciously gave approval to other young women. An old person joined the group and I made a special effort to keep them, help them fit in, and then we get a few more ... (Same probably for other ethnicities, and also for social class.) Sadly, the majority of bridge players like the group to be well-off, well-dressed, retired white folk, preferably playing the same system as them.

I too think this is "just bridge". Dummy wins the opening lead with a singleton. 3rd hand shows suit preference now rather than attitude. Does that really need to be disclosed ? 6NT. The bidding indicates I have no points. Am I ever going to signal attitude ? Declarer has 9 trumps and is drawing trumps. Am I going to lie about my count ? Signals are just indications, not promises or demands.

New feature with web version, and FAQs haven't been updated.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf Page 15 Repeated in the EBU White Book. http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/LawsCmteMinutes/LCMin2008Beijing.pdf "Law 64C – If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke." Having thought about this over the last few days, I can see the logic of it. However, as a little old lady who constantly revokes, it is quite annoying :D

Thanks, I stand corrected.

Law 23 just allows the Director to adjust for damage, restoring equity, which is standard practice now with any revoke situation. See Law 12B : B. Objectives of Score Adjustment 1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b). 2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. If the Director felt that either revoke was deliberate then they could consider a PP, but I think you would need to see some history of this from the player.

Sorry, I disagree. You either apply 64B or you apply 64C. To me the key word is EQUITY. The NOS do not get tricks that they cannot possibly make, and there is always one loser. They don't deserve a top board just because their opponents revoked once or twice. Further, we do not now talk about penalties for revokes, we rectify by transferring tricks based on 64A, OR we apply 64C for equity. To me, 64A is actually just a guide to create equity, and is a redundant law, but it keeps the players happy. Regards

Advancer's 2D would be equal length in majors, and this is the main advantage of ML/Woolsey over Cappelletti, I think. Disadvantage in that you cannot stop in 2D.

6♠ = There is obviously damage. The Director uses common sense to restore equity. There is an inescapable loser. The Director should always allow for damage, not have to be asked to consider it, and the restoration transfer rules in 64A do not apply here. The Director should consider the experience of the offender and be suspicious that South was trying to get away with the revoke, and record the incident.