My Directing Decision

[Cascade]

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ AJ8 ♥ 862 ♦ T976 ♣ Q43

 

West North East South

 

 -     1NT   2♣!   Pass

 2♦    Dbl   2♥    Dbl

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

DT DA D2 C2

HK H9 H3 H2

H4 HQ HA H6

HJ H8 D4 S4

SK SA S2 S5

D6 D8 DQ H5

SQ S8 S9 S7

S3 SJ ST C9

D9 DJ DK H7

S6 C3 C5 CJ

HT C4 C6 D3

Diagram rotated.

 

2♣ was explained as "suit" of course this was meant as 'any suit'. South a star called me.

 

I ruled that the infraction did not cause the damage. The double seems speculative to me.

 

Of course I suggested to East that her explanation would be better as something like 'one-suited any suit'.

 

Would you rule differently?

[pbleighton]

Tell the star to stop whining.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Hi Wayne

 

Is it kosher to provide a LIN file for the hand?

I find it much easier than wading through the play-by-play

[Cascade]

Hi Wayne

 

Is it kosher to provide a LIN file for the hand?

I find it much easier than wading through the play-by-play

I am about to leave for the first of a nice sequence of tournaments so I don't have time.

 

I would have to edit out the names etc ...

 

Wait I will see that might be easier than I thought if you can recreate the lin from the text...

 

pn|,,,|st||md|4S36QKH357TJADC28T,S8JAH268D679TC34Q,S29TH4KD458JAC567,|rh||ah|Board 2|sv|n|mb|1N|mb|2C!|an|suit|mb|p|mb|2D|mb|d|mb|2H|mb|d|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|DT|pc|DA|pc|D2|pc|C2|pg||pc|HK|pc|H9|pc|H3|pc|H2|pg||pc|H4|pc|HQ|pc|HA|pc|H6|pg||pc|HJ|pc|H8|pc|D4|pc|S4|pg||pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|S2|pc|S5|pg||pc|D6|pc|D8|pc|DQ|pc|H5|pg||pc|SQ|pc|S8|pc|S9|pc|S7|pg||pc|S3|pc|SJ|pc|ST|pc|C9|pg||pc|D9|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|H7|pg||pc|S6|pc|C3|pc|C5|pc|CJ|pg||pc|HT|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|D3|pg||mc|9|

 

This hand was over in the bidding though I think.

 

Maybe the defense could have taken one more trick in the play. I didn't look closely.

[glen]

I would rule the same given the star, unless the cc of the 2♣ pair stated 2♣ was natural (such as with a default sayc cc), in which case I would rule against the bad cc pair - unless the tourney allowed player profiles to replace cc's ("what a nice surprise, bring your alibis").

 

Note that we see lots of "suit" short self-explain for double playing dont and 2♣ playing capp, to the point we would assume suit means any suit, not a natural bid, unless the cc confirms natural.

 

I would warn the 2♦ bidder to self-alert on this sequence.

[Cascade]

I would rule the same given the star, unless the cc of the 2♣ pair stated 2♣ was natural (such as with a default sayc cc), in which case I would rule against the bad cc pair - unless the tourney allowed player profiles to replace cc's ("what a nice surprise, bring your alibis").

 

Note that we see lots of "suit" short self-explain for double playing dont and 2♣ playing capp, to the point we would assume suit means any suit, not a natural bid, unless the cc confirms natural.

 

I would warn the 2♦ bidder to self-alert on this sequence.

The ACBL default card has 'natural' that is interesting because I thought it was SAYC which always has Landy in any notes I have seen.

[glen]

My yellow paper copy of sayc (hardcopy, gasp!) has 2♣ as natural. A natural 2♣ overcall over our 1NT got us for 8 IMPs in the last tourney, so I hope they ban these evil natural bids.

[Cascade]

My yellow paper copy of sayc (hardcopy, gasp!) has 2♣ as natural. A natural 2♣ overcall over our 1NT got us for 8 IMPs in the last tourney, so I hope they ban these evil natural bids.

What is the source of your notes?

[glen]

A yellow paper posted on my wall, marked at the top "ACBL Standard Yellow Card" - I was not kidding about hardcopy.

[blackshoe]

If he's got a "yellow paper copy", probably the source is the ACBL.

 

There is no single "standard" SAYC. I daresay the days of single standard systems are long gone.

[glen]

Well the paper could have gone yellow due to age, or some sort of misuse. However it was also quite yellow when brand new, and was obtained from ACBL sources. Attempts to sell it on eBay for $29.99 failed.

[sdoty]

The SAYC Yellow Card Booklet was most recently revised (to the best of my knowledge -- I could be wrong) in 2003. You can find a copy here: SAYC Booklet

 

The ACBL also publishes an SAYC convention card: Yellow Card cc. You used to be able to order it from the ACBL product store (they'd come in sets of 50 or 100 iirc, for use at clubs or whatnot), and they were indeed printed on yellow paper. :)

 

 

But ... I wouldn't say that the ACBL publications on SAYC are authoritative. The 2003 revisions at least brought it closer to what's actually being played by SAYC players now (at least in the US), but there's still a lot of room for variation. For example, the ACBL card defines a 2NT response to a minor suit opening as 13-15, while it's also commonly played as 11-12. Another problem area is that traditional SAYC assumes 3+ card limit raises, so when players decide to differentiate between 3 and 4 card invites (without the use of 1NT Forcing) there's a "gap" in the definitions. At any rate, imo the ACBL publications don't provide a safe default, at least in part because there isn't a widespread knowledge of them, and I wouldn't look to them as a definitive reference.

 

Along those lines I think it's worth noting that the published teaching materials available for I/N level bridge classes do not adhere strictly to ACBL card (which many I/N players don't even know exists). Playing in the US I'd much sooner fall back on "Grant Standard" or something similar: it's more in keeping with the SAYC materials improving players have access to, and is therefore more likely to reflect what's actually in use at the table. Audrey Grant's materials are widely used and her newer "Bridge Basics" books are perhaps one of the better indications of what's become standard.

 

I don't mean to imply that there's any real degree of uniformity in what people call "SAYC" -- certainly not in areas like what to use over their NT opening. Regretably there are plenty of sequences in SAYC where there's really no "standard" meaning that you can confidently assume without discussion. To make things even more fun, there are at least a few sequences which the powers that be largely agree upon, but that 9 out of 10 I/N players would probably get wrong. 1S : 2C : 2D : 3S as invitational (instead of forcing) comes charging to mind...

 

Anyhow, just some thoughts. :P

 

Susan

[glen]

Thanks Susan - a good background on sayc.

 

The rule on the hand in question depends on the type of tourney. If the tourney begins with something like:

POST your own Convention Card

Otherwise it is assumed you are playing the basic SAYC Card

You need a Convention Card not just what is written in your PROFILE

CC help: please click www.bbofriends.com/convCard.htm

You must willingly and fully explain Alerts and questions

On BBO you need to SELF ALERT and SELF EXPLAIN

and given that the basic SAYC Card has 2♣ as a natural overcall, and given the 2♣ overcall was just described as "suit", and given the 2♦ bid was not self-alerted and not self-explained, then I would rule against the 2♣ bidder side.

 

However since these games should approximate a club level environment, and not something like a national event, I would not "throw the book" at the 2♣ side. Instead I would point out the need to have an accurate cc, as noted at the start of the tourney, and the need to self-explain bids properly. Then I would give average to each pair. For the 2♣ side this change of result will be painful enough to draw their attention to following the rules, while for the star player, and their partner, they would have to be content with not suffering the bad result. This is not the "perfect" ruling as required by the laws, but it is the type of ruling found in club games, where the TD is attempting to motivate players to follow the rules without seeming to be too harsh in doing so.

[jikl]

Personally I would love to be able to give a split decision here.

 

South is using the well known double shot; the opps have not explained a bid properly.

 

Now to the online world...

 

What nationalities were involved? Was there a language barrier? In the absence of being able to give split decisions what is the best course?

 

Do NS deserve their result given their experience?

Probably yes.

 

Do EW deserve their result?

Probably no.

 

I would be tempted to award av- to both sides and let the flamewars begin.

 

Sean

[jtfanclub]

Then I would give average to each pair. For the 2♣ side this change of result will be painful enough to draw their attention to following the rules, while for the star player, and their partner, they would have to be content with not suffering the bad result. This is not the "perfect" ruling as required by the laws, but it is the type of ruling found in club games, where the TD is attempting to motivate players to follow the rules without seeming to be too harsh in doing so.

I hope not. It seems to me to be both the counter to the letter and the spirit or the rules.

 

This one seems very simple to me. Was the 2♦ bid alerted or not? If it was, then there's clearly no damage- regardles of whether or how the 2♣ bid was alerted, any explanation of 2♦ as a non-natural bid would clarify it.

 

On the other hand, if there was no alert of the 2♦ bid, then there clearly was damage. To me, the X does not seem speculative given the auction so far. If 2♣ is natural, then we're looking at a bad misfit on their part, including what appears to be a likely 4-3 ending place with 18 or fewer HCP. If the 'star' had been a novice I'd have adjusted it to remove the X (face to face) or A+/A-.

 

Although...maybe I've been watching too many cop shows, but...look at this auction.

 

1NT (usual)

2♣ (I have a club suit)

P

2♦ (No! I can't stand clubs! Our combined diamonds have to be better than our clubs).

X (I have lots of good diamonds...let's crush these punks!)

2♥ (Nooo! Not diamonds! Anything but that! Let's run to hearts, it can't be as bad as diamonds!)

X (And now, you die).

P (good luck, P!)

 

Now let's think about this. Opener, hearing nothing from me, doubled a natural two diamond bid. I don't think he did that with only three diamonds across a possible 0 count. I have four diamonds, partner has four diamonds, the diamond bidder surely has at least five diamonds...that leaves zero for for the club bidder.

 

West: ♠ xxx ♥ xxxx ♦ xxxxx ♣ x

East: ♠ xxx ♥ xxxx ♦ Void ♣ xxxxxx

North: ♠ xxxx ♥ xx ♦ xxxx ♣ xxx

 

If I believe the bidding is honest, the hands must look something like this. OK, sure, E-W might have two seven card major suit fits, but that's a heck of a thing to assume. The opponents have a great natural crossruff...in fact, they may have four diamond ruffs. So, if I believed them, would I really X them? And given that I doubled them, would I really lead a diamond? I mean, look at those hands. Looks to me like them getting 5 ruffs is not going to be difficult, and with 16-18 hcp between them, they can probably get 3-4 tricks on points. You have to lead a heart.

 

The double bothers me, but the lead bothers me more. The lead says 'somebody here is lying' when there's nothing about the auction that says that's the case.

 

No adjustment, unless the player can't count to 13.

[glen]

First, I loved the dialog! Though instead of a cop show I pictured an overdubbed martial arts film ("and now, you die!").

 

Sadly, in return, I offer a pathetic soap opera:

 

1NT (usual, ho hum, what's on tv tonite? Hey, where did Monday Night Football go? Watsup with that?)

2♣ (I have a suit, it is black and round)

P (Why am I P'ing here - can't I afford an 'ass' and Pass? Sheeeet!)

2♦ (What the heck was 2♣? Maybe it is DONT or CAPP or FRED or something - oh well lets fire out 2♦ here and sort things out)

X (I have some good diamonds...maybe we can compete here...why do I have 250 channels and nothing to watch? Is 24 about CSI Toronto solving a case of beer?)

2♥ (Bonus! A chance to bid my second suit - this style is better than DONT, Fred was rite about natural bidding)

X (Why hasn't she returned my calls? and not any of my text messages? and none of my emails? and she doesn't seemed to have watched my bidding in a box video on u'tubed? Perhaps I should make one of those doubles-with-values-but-no-clear-direction "cards" doubles and let partner figure things out)

Pass (ha! it was not ♣s! Always best to take the rosie view in setting trump)

Pass (man, Y would he X? Is he over the break up with Britney? Ho, hum? He can't have a heart stack since he would have transferred! did he get a date with Cameron yet or will it take days? did he take my X as takeout or fakeout? Is his X fakeout? What the heck does fakeout mean? Should I call Paris when this is fini?)

Puke (here I go for 1-800-MYFAULT again)

Leader: (Why did Britney dump me and keep going out to all those ♣s? Could it have been that mistimed strip and squeeze play on the vugraph? What's a safe play here? Sounds like pard has something in ♦s - leading those can't be wrong, can it? Doesn't Inquiry edit full disclosure dialog like this or is it just demeaning & misleading & missdebestleading? Maybe my trailer was just not big enough for Britney?)

[Mr. Dodgy]

LMAO@glen

 

I can't see good reason for an adjustment here, though I despise the supposed alerting, and would reprimand both East and West for shoddiness, add a note about it against the players, and suggest to the star that he is entitled to seek clarification about bids which are inadequately explained - as he/she should well know.

[paulg]

The current ACBL SAYC System Booklet was revised in January 2006. This 8-page document does not provide a defence to 1NT.

 

Paul

[keylime]

Glen,

 

The satire was epic, but where's the reference that is like dubbed like bad king fu movies where the dialogue doesn't match the actor's mouth movements...like "master, your bridge fu was quite bad <2 seconds more of mouth movement>".... :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Not saying whether I would adjust the score, but I have a question for those who would: why an artificial adjusted score (avg+/avg-, avg, or similar) when a result was presumably obtained at the table?

[mycroft]

My guess is that it is because split scores/procedural penalties aren't avaiable to the TDs on BBO.

 

I, too, would be a lot cheerier about this if they led a heart to stop the crossruff. He didn't - I bet he knew something was off. Partner, on the other hand, who doubled 2H knowing opener has a good xx4x - she might be able to claim damage.

 

I'd like to rule result stands, and E/W -1/4 board for *blatant* MI. "suit" is clearly ambiguous, although alert and "suit" is odd; but unalerted 2D "Pass or bid your suit" in addition to the 2C explanation takes this to the point where we aren't trying for full disclosure (of course, if 2D is unalertable in the OP's tournament, then this does not apply). I'm sure it's not on purpose; but when neither partner even meets the minimum required, never mind full disclosure, they need a solid reminder.

 

But the TD can't. So he tried something that gives the same sort of results.

Michael.

[blackshoe]

My guess is that it is because split scores/procedural penalties aren't avaiable to the TDs on BBO.

 

I, too, would be a lot cheerier about this if they led a heart to stop the crossruff.  He didn't - I bet he knew something was off.  Partner, on the other hand, who doubled 2H knowing opener has a good xx4x - she might be able to claim damage.

 

I'd like to rule result stands, and E/W -1/4 board for *blatant* MI.  "suit" is clearly ambiguous, although alert and "suit" is odd; but unalerted 2D "Pass or bid your suit" in addition to the 2C explanation takes this to the point where we aren't trying for full disclosure (of course, if 2D is unalertable in the OP's tournament, then this does not apply).  I'm sure it's not on purpose; but when neither partner even meets the minimum required, never mind full disclosure, they need a solid reminder.

 

But the TD can't.  So he tried something that gives the same sort of results.

Michael.

Bleeah. Split scores and PPs should be available to TDs, whatever the venue. And they could be, if the software had been designed and written properly in the first place. :)

 

Aside from that, I'm not so sure that compounding the problem of not be able to follow the laws by deliberately deviating further from them is the right way to solve the problem.

[jikl]

My reasoning for being tempted to do Av-- is that I don't think EW deserve their score, however NS in some ways do deserve it, it smells like a doubleshot. I know in ACBL land it would be an auto adjustment for NS, but South, "a star", knew something was wrong and went down the normal line of if I can't win at the table I will win from the TD. Should NS be rewarded? No.

 

So, within the bounds of what I could do within BBO as TD, I would have result stands for NS and procedural penalty for EW, closest I can get to that is Av--.

 

Sean

[mike777]

Last night I had an opponent insist I explain partner's alert in an online acbl tourney. They asked 5 times and I told them they need to ask partner. They said they did but they want to know what I think his bid means? Is this correct?

[hrothgar]

Last night I had an opponent insist I explain partner's alert in an online acbl tourney. They asked 5 times and I told them they need to ask partner. They said they did but they want to know what I think his bid means? Is this correct?

I suspect that this is going to lead to the standard discussion about "sponsoring authorities". In short, whoever is running the tournament gets to make the rules.

 

Here are my own thoughts:

 

If we look at Face-to-Face bridge, most tournaments are based on a system in which the partner of the player making a bid is repsonsible for alerting that bid and providing an explanation. There is one very significant exception to this rule: If screens are in use, screenmates alert / explain bids to one one another. Lets assume that North and East are on one side of a screen and South and West are on the other. Furthermore, assume that East made an alertable call. As I understand matters, East is responsible for providing disclosure to North, while West explains the bid to South.

 

Both these systems share one very common feature: Disclosure about a single bid is only provided by one member of the partership. The opposing pair is not able to ask questions to both members of a partnership, look for a discrepancy in explanations, and use this to determine whether the partnership is experiencing a mis-understanding. In general, a discrepancy only comes to light during subsequent bidding.

 

From my perspective, this principle should (probably) carry over into the online world: I have no problem with a self-alert structure, where players alert/announce/explain their own bids. I have no problem with a partner alert system, where the partner of the player making a bid alerts/announces/explains. However, I don't think that both players should be required to explain whats going on. (For that matter, I still believe that most of this should be provided by the FD application)

 

If we return to your specific question, I believe that the ACBL uses a self-alert structure in its online tournaments. However, I've never seen any kind of official statement that the use of self alerts precludes asking question to the partner of the player making a bid.