Most ridiculous ruling of the year.

[han]

I have a couple of comments:

 

1) The opponents clearly bid this hand very badly, there is no reason to assume that they would bid differently if Doctor Todd had alerted his opening bid as 3-8. I see no reason why Doctor Todd's explanation caused any damage.

 

2) I'm 100% sure that the director would not have made an adjustment if Doctor Todd was playing natural preempts and had opened light. Don't we all sometimes?

 

3) I was kibitzing Doctor Todd during this hand and some of the rest of the tournament. The opponents were quite weak and had no idea how to handle their system, they made mistake after mistake. I would feel bad about it if I were Doctor Todd. But once the director allowed the system he should not make be influenced by it in case of a director-call.

[Sigi_BC84]

The opponents were quite weak and had no idea how to handle their system, they made mistake after mistake. I would feel bad about it if I were Doctor Todd.

I would not.

 

I even think that it would be beneficial if more people would play unusual methods in events where this is allowed. This would help create a bridge culture of which unregulated bidding is a part of. It would also heighten the TDs' awareness of what to allow in their events and what not.

 

I think that most TDs don't even consider the possibility of pairs like DrTodd/foobar turning up, so they don't bother about installing restrictions for their tournaments in the first place (most people play natural methods, with the occasional Strong/Polish Club).

 

The only restrictions I've seen so far have been "no polish club", "no multi", "no psyches". This is presumably because the TDs don't know of any other unusual methods to disallow. What would happen if in a tourney with the above restrictions you start playing Dejeuner? You'd certainly comply with the regulations but still would be way outside the intended system bounds.

 

If more true system freaks were around in BBO tourneys (without feeling bad about it), maybe even the occasional TD would bother to look at existing models for regulations (eg. the WBF ones) and start labeling his/her tourney appropriately (eg. "Everything upto and including WBF RED systems allowed", which would be a very complete and definite description).

 

--Sigi

[han]

Hmm, I agree with most of what you say Sigi, perhaps I should reconsider.

[DrTodd13]

I find that how opponents react to our system is a function of day and a function of their attitude. Some people decide they need to react to weirdness with their own weirdness and these people get themselves into trouble. People who don't freak out and have the attitude that they are going to bid as normally as possible often do quite well. I see tons and tons of crazy bidding even against normal systems. I think it is more a function of the particular opponents you get than our system.

 

Sigi is right. Directors should announce system limitations based on things like WBF color codes or ACBL GCC, midchart, superchart, etc. Many directors don't seem to know that in the absence of any statement on their part that their are no system restrictions. They need to know what systems people are out there playing so that they know what they want to allow or disallow.

[han]

I find that how opponents react to our system is a function of day and a function of their attitude. Some people decide they need to react to weirdness with their own weirdness and these people get themselves into trouble. People who don't freak out and have the attitude that they are going to bid as normally as possible often do quite well. I see tons and tons of crazy bidding even against normal systems. I think it is more a function of the particular opponents you get than our system.

 

I disagree. Almost all weak opponents play far worse when they play against a system they have never heard of. The same is probably true for most strong opponents, although they probably have seen more in the past and are not as easily flustered by a new gadget.

 

Sigi is right. Directors should announce system limitations based on things like WBF color codes or ACBL GCC, midchart, superchart, etc. Many directors don't seem to know that in the absence of any statement on their part that their are no system restrictions. They need to know what systems people are out there playing so that they know what they want to allow or disallow.

 

I agree with you and Sigi. Still, if I was playing in this tournament and got present after present because the opponents just have no clue what's going on, I would think that perhaps this wasn't the tournament for me.

[Sigi_BC84]

ACBL GCC, midchart, superchart

God forbid!

 

I disagree. Almost all weak opponents play far worse when they play against a system they have never heard of. The same is probably true for most strong opponents, although they probably have seen more in the past and are not as easily flustered by a new gadget.

Well, weak players are weak, and most of the fields in BBO tourneys are really weak. People get freaked out by the Trebuchet (2♣ forcing with Wk2♦ included)! If you really want to make sure not to get any gifts due to system in these fields you have to play BBO Basic or a simple 2/1 flavour. I'm sure the Kaplan Inversion will be too much already in that regard...

 

Strong Pass systems are in an entirely different league, mainly because of the Fert, which 99% of the players (and 100% of the pickups) are not prepared against. This is, of course a guarantee for good scores, if you are "opening" and it's their hand.

 

I agree with you and Sigi. Still, if I was playing in this tournament and got present after present because the opponents just have no clue what's going on, I would think that perhaps this wasn't the tournament for me.

It is a dilemma, that is correct. But as I said above, the only way to teach them is to confront them with hardcore methods, otherwise we are missing a great opportunity to blow some fresh air into the game.

 

--Sigi

[peaceman]

Dear Dr Todd,

 

I would like to address the issue whether yr bid was a psych or "deviation" from the system explanation your partnership usually gives, or gave in this case....

 

Having one or two hcp more than the 5-8 you described is not a big deal, in my view, but the fact that yr hand has essentially no entry (unless pr has one of a very few specific holdings) suggests to me it is a psych, or, if borderline, more on the psych side of the border than on the deviation side.

 

I think it wld have improved yr explanation to say "approximately" 5-8, but even then, there is an IMPLICATION in such a range that the hand may have a quick defensive trick, and PROBABLY has an entry. It is easy to see that an opposing partnership who failed to find a slam might leap on this idea as a rationalization for why (not defending the reasoning, of course.)

 

0-9 wld be a better descriptive range if indeed yr partnership occasionally bids on this sort of fert-esque rubbish. Could it be that yr partnership does not define the bid as 0-9 just in order to avoid pr having to take into account that u may have a nullo?

 

To me, replacing the q with a king makes it an entirely different sort of hand -- because partner is odds on to be able to get to yr hand at least once regardless of which denomination yr side buys the contract in -- and I doubt not that any weak partnership u may have been playing against would not have felt enabled to call the director if u had a K or A...because their (belated) concern was whether they missed slam or not, & they were looking for an excuse to lay blame, & found one...

 

When one has made a mistake (the opps), and when one has been accused of being unethical or ignorant (yr side, when they called the director), there is bound to be a certain amount of defensiveness & self-rationalization on both sides. I synpathize with directors & how difficult rulings on the fly can be. Remember, u get what u pay for.

 

To my mind, receiving a bad ruling is like the ref "not seeing the call" &, sure, we like to gripe ....BUT I think that experienced players (online, & in club games) should be extra careful to avoid giving inexperienced players who call the director on them the impression that wiggling, self-rationalization & "shady" behaviours r cool.

 

If I had made that -- I think risky -- bid (I probably wld, online, if behind, unless I had a really touchy pard) I think I wld have bent over backwards to admit to everybody that I was psyching or semi-psyching.

 

I think that when I deviate from partnership agreement it is a good idea to claim a semi-psych & let the chips fall where they may. Weaker players have to get used to the idea that psyching occurs, & that sometimes they will get bad results from it.

 

I leave it up to the director to deal with whiners & pulers & definitely DO NOT want to model for my opponents that sort of behavior.

 

I don't think yr explanation to the director seriously smacks of self-rationalization, I think u have a genuine perception that yr hand was within permitted "deviation" limits, whatever those might be -- and i understand that this thread was started in a genuine spirit of inquiry as to what those limits might be.

 

I believe u to be a serious player, in other words.

[keylime]

The day that the majority of bridge players stop trying to win a hand in committee instead of at the table is the day the game takes a significant step forward. Directors need to stop excusing the player's not knowing better under the guises of "being damaged".

[kenberg]

My comments have not been very supportive of Dr Todd but I began by saying I would not in fact call the director and ask for an adjustment. I suppose there are many things in the world that I don't like but feel no need to got to war over.

 

I in fact like the opportunity to play against good players who are using the advanced methods. So what's my beef with DT?

 

Compare this with the multi 2D. Here is a tyoical interchange, live at the table:

 

Opps: Hi, we play multi 2D

 

Me: You have the acbl defense with you?

 

Opp: Yep.

 

Me: We play defense number 1.

 

 

This way we are ready, and I have stated my defense so that they don't suspect me of choosing a defense (ACBL provides twom and of course there are others) after I have seen what will work best for the hand I am dealt.

 

This interchange takes about 10-15 econds, we play the hands and part company on good terms.

 

I see little resemblance between this happy arrangement and the situation under discussion.

 

I would be delighted if some tournaments were run as follows. More or less aything goes, but players who bring unusual maethods to the table must post, with some reasonable lead time and with some detail, what these methods are. The tournament would have a list of players that have entered the tournament with unusual methods, and folks could read these methods in advance and prepare, or they could opt out of the tournament.

 

 

Other bbo players might want to devise defenses against these stated methods.

 

I imagine this approach woould take some thought to properly implement, but I for one would likley play in such a tourney, and happily so. I doubt I would use any unusual methods, but I might.

 

I understand that I have not addressed bridge laws with this. I am largely ignorant of the laws. For example I have only the vaguest idea of what brown sticker means. I am speaking only of what I would like to see.

[pigpenz]

I believe if you are playing in a tourney and using unusual methds you should pre alert and give a defense for them...as simple as that.

 

other wise we just have a bunch of encrypted bids that only one pairs knows and we are deviating from what really matters the play and defense of the hand. That is what bridge is all about.

[AceOfHeart]

one of the main reason for bridge decline is that people are playing systems no one heard of, no idea how to defend and cant learn watching from it. I know lots of people who get demoralised by playing bridge against players playing some unusual system that they get totally lost after the 3rd bid.

 

Anyway on the main topic , i think the director is wrong Their bidding is bad and its their fault they missed the slam.

 

However to call it the most ridiculous ruling of the year is an overstatement. There are much worse decisions out there. I for one has been penalised for prempting 2H with a 5 card suit cos the director said prempts MUST be 6 carder

[Gerben42]

one of the main reason for bridge decline is that people are playing systems no one heard of, no idea how to defend and cant learn watching from it. I know lots of people who get demoralised by playing bridge against players playing some unusual system that they get totally lost after the 3rd bid.

 

Funny this does very specifically NOT seem to be the case here. Around here there are several very old ladies who accept that they do not understand our system but they just ask what our bids mean and then bid naturally.

 

Among the over 70s in my club I am known as "that friendly young man who plays well" and not "that evil young man playing these complicated systems", although I have the feeling that would be the effect I would have on a club in the USA. Of course they notice that there's always adventure to be found on my convention card, but it's not a big deal.

 

What's up with that?

[sfbp]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s87hk7432d8cj9542]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What do you think of this 2♥ preempt, third seat?

 

Is it fair game

 

a. in an individual?

b. with a regular partner?

c. at any time?

 

Does it make it fairer or less fair if this player just sat down? (ie a sub of some sort)

[Codo]

1. I think that 2 ♥ preempt is just good bridge. ;)

Of course this is subminimum, so it takes an enormous risk to create some problems for the opponents. In 3. seat, this should be a normal part of the range for a weak two.

 

2. I agree, that a lot people in f2f and at bbo dislike to play against HUM systems. I would like to face them in the main club but won`t like them in tourneys. But if they are allowed, I just will face them with no strong feelings as long as they are fully explained and I am not facing a pick-up part.

[hrothgar]

>What do you think of this 2♥ preempt, third seat?

 

The expression suicidal comes to mind...

 

I don't consider the heart remotely strong enough for a vulnerable preempt. The 5-5 shape doesn't provide much protection unless you have some mechanism to scramble to the minor suit fit when its right.

 

>Is it fair game

 

>a. in an individual?

>b. with a regular partner?

>c. at any time?

>

>Does it make it fairer or less fair if this player just sat down? (ie a sub of some sort)

 

Players are allowed to make bids that I think are stupid. Many people score much better than I do making bids that I think are stupid.

 

The 2♥ is clearly legal. Where life gets interesting is whether this opening requires some kind of advanced disclosure. I very much believe that some partnerships use a variety of sub-optimal methods that thrive and florish because they don't provide appropriate disclosure. This hand could be an interesting example. If the opponents have the agreement that their weak 2♥ openings are regularly based on this type of dreck I might very well want to adopt penalty oriented methods.

 

I would think that the best way to analyze this question would be to use a tool like your own bridge browser. In theory, you should be able to determine what a "normal" 2♥ opening looks like and determine whether this pairs agreement departs significantly from standard. If so, they should probably provide a prealert.

 

Please note that all of this discussion applies to regular partnerships. There is really no such thing as a partnership agreement in an Indy or with a sub.

[fred]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ 87 ♥ K7432 ♦ 8 ♣ J9542

 

What do you think of this 2♥ preempt, third seat?

 

Is it fair game

 

a. in an individual?

b. with a regular partner?

c. at any time?

 

Does it make it fairer or less fair if this player just sat down? (ie a sub of some sort)

In my opinion, if you are playing "normal weak 2-bids", a (vulnerable) 2H opening on this hand qualifies as a "poor bid".

 

It is certainly fair to make a bid like this in an Individual, but I don't think it is very smart (because there is too good a chance that a partner who is unfamiliar with your unusual style will bury you).

 

It is also fair to make a bid like this playing with a regular partner. However, if this is normal for your partnership then you should alert your weak 2-bids.

 

If a 2H opening on a hand like this is expected by your partner then it would be unfair to not let the opponents know as well.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Agree 100% with Fred's post. Now if 2♥ shows a 2-suiter it's a different story (but I still wouldn't bid it) If you bid this hand vuln. you need to alert opps to your light preempt style.