gombo121

Аs I just mention above, they preempt and when you ask what kind of preemts they are playing they tell you "we agreed to use strong if opposition plays penalty double and weak if they use take-out". Are you feeling comfortable?

(playing devil's advocate) Why do you think it fails to define our methods? It's our complete agreement, we have nothing else. There is no requirement for our agreements to be good, or complete, or anything like that. There only requirement is full disclosure - we disclosed agreemnets completely, now take any conclusion you can. If you can't - too bad, nothing can be done about that. You may think it is impasse equivalent to "no agreements-no agreements" and both sides are equally disadvantaged - think again! As opener I still can open 1NT and thoguh partner would not know my range we are unlikely to get to some completely ridiculuos contract. On the other hand, penalty double and conventional double are very different and opponents are bound to get lost if they venture into the bidding.

Because it is quite probable, it is even very probable that the answer you'll get won't be sincere. Do you expect to be called if 3NTx is going down for a number? I don't think so. It is very dangerous to pose such question, because after it you have unpleasant choice of either implicitly call this particular player a liar, or condemn yourself to believe in future any self-serving explanation players come up with (and they do).

***

Sorry, not very practical after the end of the play. I would gladly reopen bidding before the lead or may be even after the lead but before dummy have been shown, but certainly not when the result became clear.

Nope, Law 40A2 won't work - you can look into their CC or just ask before start of the round and information you get is authorized. Yes, you are stuck and so are they (if you asked first) and it is the Loop. I'm pretty sure that main body of the Laws does not resolve it. I'm interested in regulations by different RA that do and how they handle it.

But, since as TD you have no way to distinguish them, they are the same in all practical senses.

I think picking up bidding cards instead of final pass is quite common. There is even the following minute of WBF Law Comittee (Beiging, 2008) Granted, it concerns playing with screens, but anyway I don't see the action as an infraction per se. However, here opener picks his cards before his partner has opportunity to bid and it is quite conceivable that he would like to remove doubled contract. It can be construed as an attempt to convey UI ("I have all bases covered"), so PP is definitely in order, in my opinion. As for result, I think result stands - one should really pay attention and if bidding cards was removed too fast, the parnter could well linger a bit.

It is defined - just tell me what defense are you playing :) What you are probably trying to say is that it should be defined independently of opposing methods. And that is exactly my second question - which regulation says so?

Recently I've get interested in the problem of the Loop (a clash between condional agreements of two pairs which creates an infinite cycle like "we play penalty double against weak NT, conventional otherwise" - "we play strong NT if opponents use penalty doubles, weak NT otherwise"). After reading fascinating archives of this forum I am left with two questions: 1) What was the official decision (if any) in Fred Gitelman's case four years ago? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/33358-seeking-quick-legal-opinion 2) In the course of the discussion several peoples stated that the Loop is resolved (at least in some jurisdictions) by requiring opening side to state its agreements first; I'm interested in reference to the appropriate rules - can anyone help? Thank you in advance and sorry for beating old dead horse - it is not that old for some of us :)

I believe, your timing is incorrect. I expect it to take under a second for most players to put a pass on the table in "no problem" situation (probably, excluding old persons), on the other hand, two or three second is not nearly enough to think if you actualy have a decision to make. Two or three seconds is fine when bidding goes along a well-beaten path. (May be you noticed that BIT appeals started to discuss 7-10 secons BITs - that's because normal tempo is much faster.) My point is it is possible to slow your play down to 5s per action and that probably won't make you look like a jerk in the eyes of your fellow players, but it won't save you from BIT in difficult situation either.

But how would you know that I don't (well, I'm not LOL, but anyway)? Probably you'll still try your little trick on me and then I'd better try to trick you back, don't you think? ;) In all seriousness I'm sure that your 90% estimate is way off the mark. BTW, the famous example of this technique was back from 50s, I think, and ethics of the game was a bit different. I doubt that 73D was in the book at the time.

I remember the thread and I own "The Rodwell files". I had to recheck that but Rodwell seeks to induce an error, not a mannerism, from the opponent. Yes, it is somewhat similar but not exactly the same problem.

Sorry, no personal offense, but the last part bugs me as plain stupid. Either it's OK an you can look directly (though you may not want to), or you are not looking at all. I know it is in the Law and I thought I knew why it's there (because it is impossible to enforce 'no peeking' rule), but this thread tells me that I was wrong and that a lot of people think it is a fine arrangement like that. I don't get it.

Curious. I'd thought that the next logical step for screens would be the one where player could not see anybody - as barmar said, the game is supposed to be about bids and cards.

That's what I call unfair. It is extremely difficult in not superhuman to maintain fast pace at all times, but if anybody tries to put in practice advice like "make 10 seconds pause before any call or play" he would not get popular in his club and even may be penalized for unnecessary slow play. I can't think of a way to actually induce tells at the bridge table without breaking proprieties. So, for me it's "watch" vs. "notice", but I think I get your meaning.

RunemPard, thank you for sharing the video. But you can't pull the trick in bridge, can you? It would run afoul 73D2. That's the thing which bothers me. When I started this topic I was absolutely sure that the answer for my question is "it's against spirit of the game. Almost impossible to nail down, granted, but an ideal ethical player wouldn't do that". So, I was surprised to see that opinion of the comunity is almost unanimously the opposite. That's fine, but then, aren't the rules skewed? One can read opponent, one can even set the opponent up for the purpose, but the opponent is prohibited to couneract in any way, even in a small one like hesitating with three smalls, never mind stunts like in the video. It seems to me that's unfair. It should be either all out psychological warfare or trying to exclude reading the opponents at all. The current state just does not make sense for me.

I'm not sure I get your meaning. You do not expect to be able to judge degree of intent in somebody watching someone at the table (never mind agreeing about that), do you? Or do you mean it is OK to do it covertly, but not openly? I meant this case to fall into "breaking spirit not letter" category.

Pardon me, I thought I had all my bases covered :) What kind of choice would you like? P.S.: I made an addition to the original post to clear things up. And also, I suggest to leave bridge merits of the approach beyond our scope at the moment.

An curious question have been raised during a postmortem. [hv=pc=n&s=sak86hdt9862caqj5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p4h?]133|200[/hv] What do you bid as South? OK, that's an interesting question, though not for this forum but for postmortem or possibly for Master Solvers' Club. A player who took part in the discussion stated the following: "I play double for penalty in those colors, so I'm going to bid 4♠ and watch for the opponent's reaction. If I don't like it, I'll run to 4NT." How do you feel, is this approach (consciously trying to read "tells" off your opponents) acceptable within the letter and/or spirit of the Law or not? Edit: Let me spell this out, since my writeup causes confusion. Certainly, you can't run anywhere if 4♠ are passed all round but at those colors it's probably OK. If the intent is to run any double, than it presumably would be stated as such. So the point is that the player wants to run some doubles but not all of them depending on possible mannerisms of the opponents. Law 74C5, as stated by blackshoe, seems to be relevant as well as Law 73D1, but which way it leans?

Suppose West opens 1NT (not alerted) and North employs his favorite artificial defence against strong NT. Lately NS got themselves entangled in an UI situation (or any other infraction) and EW summoned TD after the end of the deal. TD's inquiries confirm infraction, which clearly leads to the score being adjusted in favor of EW, but it accidently comes up that EW actually play weak NT (may be West held 15 PC, so nobody noticed anything strange before), which have to be alerted in this jurisdiction. NS play natural overcalls over weak NT so in the case of correct alert bidding would not have even slightest resemblance to the actual one. The main question: who is offending and who is non-offending side now and how to adjust? I did't manage to find any guidance in the Law without assistance. Also: Should North protect himself by asking questions before bidding? What if any NT range have to be announced instead of alerting according to local regulations but wasn't - does it makes any difference?

hi, Oleg :) I actually agree with most of your points but one: "It passed information about high probability of stack of hearts in the South hand". It is used to be stated as clear fact and I don't see it as such. Do you expect anybody double preempt without asking any questions? Form of the question was unfortunate, of course. And I challenge you to suggest a way to investigate grand (or even slam for that matter) for South hand even if the double is known to be for take-out. P.S.: I've linked back this topic from Russian forum, expect more dissenting opinions in next couple of days.

Thank you for your opinions. No, cases I and II are completely unrelated, they just have arisen and have been published in the Russian law forum within a very short time period. 4♥ bid is definitely alertable if it would not be natural (as in does not promise hearts or promise another suit).

Another Xmas tournament. [hv=pc=w&s=sqt8h6dkt8cakj643&n=s732hqjt98da75cq8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=4hdppp]280|200[/hv] In his turn North asks about Wests bid "is it natural?" and doubles after positive reply. EW summoned TD after the deal (down three; very bad result for EW, because field mainly preempted at the third level and the only game on NS line is 3NT) and stated that the question virtually confirmed that the double is for penalties. NS says that their doubles at fourth levels are always for penalties, that they would double "whenever they see four [defensive] tricks". Double for penalties on preempts below 4♠ level is virtually unknown around here. EW is good and experienced pair, but NS are novices, rarely seen in the club and are probably self-taught. Of course, there is no CC (otherwise, there would be no question). How would you approach the problem? Do you think the task would be any easier if TD was summoned before the end of the bidding?

Аn Xmas club teams. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=12&a=1c(12-15%20BAL%20or%2016+)p1d(0-7)1n(15-18%20BAL)d(16+)pp2cd(BIT%2C%20%7E%2020s)p2hp3hppp]133|100|agreed BIT before second double by North[/hv] North hand contains 17PC in 4441 distribution, South hand has 2PC in 3433 distribution, 3 hearts plays for 7 tricks for NS, clubs would have played for 9 tricks for EW. W summons TD after the end of the deal and states that BIT before the second double suggested that it is for take out rather than for penalties. NS insists that they definitely play doubles in this position for take out. There is no CC (and conditions of contest does not require CC if that matters). Doubles are not alertable in this jurisdiction. All players are good and experienced. No questions was asked during the bidding but up to the second double the bidding is very standard and nobody has any doubts about its meaning. As for the second double, field would divide about 50/50 between takeout and penalties. What would you do? Do you think the task would be any easier if TD were summoned before the end of the bidding?