Mike_P Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 ...between my regular partner and I. This one should be easy for you guys. We play mostly offline and in easygoing non-sanctioned duplicate events, so I suppose this problem doesn't come up that often. The question, briefly, is: Is any deviation in bidding from what appears on the convention card grounds for a CD call and possible penalty? If I open a 4 card major but convention card says 5 card majors, am I subject to CD call? If I decide I need to open 1NT with 18 points, and our convention card says 15-17 am I subject to a CD call? When my partner alerts "15-17" and I don't "correct" her, am I subject to a CD call? If we play standard SAYC, and I have a complete mental breakdown and open 3S with 18 points and 5 spades (resulting in either a terrific or awful outcome), am I subject to a CD call? My partner claims that anytime you don't strictly follow your convention card, you are subject to a challenge and penalty. It seems to me that, presuming that you and your partner have no previous hidden agreements (and are therefore cheating), you are free to make whatever cockamamy bid you want, regardless of what cards you're holding, as long as there are no hidden agreements and your partner is as confused as everyone else. If this is not true, then it seems to me that the bidding process is based not on skill and a sense of context, but instead on who has the best memory to successfully navigate through complex, byzantine bidding systems. -- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 By CD, do you mean "Convention Disruption?" I don't think that is is anything official. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_P Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 By CD, do you mean "Convention Disruption?" No, I meant "compact disc." :P Sorry, I meant "director," "contest director," or "bridge director," or whatever the proper name is. I told you we were casual and clueless. -- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 ...between my regular partner and I. This one should be easy for you guys. We play mostly offline and in easygoing non-sanctioned duplicate events, so I suppose this problem doesn't come up that often. The question, briefly, is: Is any deviation in bidding from what appears on the convention card grounds for a CD call and possible penalty?Yes, your opps are entiltled to call the TD at any time and 'Possibly' If I open a 4 card major but convention card says 5 card majors, am I subject to CD call? If I decide I need to open 1NT with 18 points, and our convention card says 15-17 am I subject to a CD call? When my partner alerts "15-17" and I don't "correct" her, am I subject to a CD call? You are required to disclose your agreements and are under no obligation to tell your opps what you have in your hand.Note here that when you open your 1nt 15-17 hand and your partner announces "12-14" !! you must not correct him but wait until the auction is completed before calling for the TD if your side will be declarer or after the hand is completed if you are defender. If you give an incorrect explanation and then realize your mistake you must call the TD immediately. If we play standard SAYC, and I have a complete mental breakdown and open 3S with 18 points and 5 spades (resulting in either a terrific or awful outcome), am I subject to a CD call? TD call yes, penalty no. My partner claims that anytime you don't strictly follow your convention card, you are subject to a challenge and penalty. It seems to me that, presuming that you and your partner have no previous hidden agreements (and are therefore cheating), you are free to make whatever cockamamy bid you want, regardless of what cards you're holding, as long as there are no hidden agreements and your partner is as confused as everyone else. Your partner is wrong, you may deviate from your agreements at any time without telling your opps and without penalty. You do need to be careful of implied agreements where for example you open 1♠ in first position with any 10 points and 6♠'s frequently enough so that your partner is not surprised - this becomes alertable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 It seems to me that, presuming that you and your partner have no previous hidden agreements (and are therefore cheating), you are free to make whatever cockamamy bid you want, regardless of what cards you're holding, as long as there are no hidden agreements and your partner is as confused as everyone else. Correct. My partner is frequently more confused than everyone else, but that's not a problem either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 It's important to remember that most director calls are not accusations of cheating, and do not lead to "penalties" being assessed. When your hand turns up to be very different from what the opponents expected, they may well call the director. But the idea is just for the director to: (1) Determine whether your side misbid (fine), psyched (also fine), or misdescribed your agreements (might require some adjustment). (2) Make a record of what happened just in case, since if you frequently "psych" or "misbid" on the same types of hands it may (even unintentionally) become a hidden agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think it was Edgar Kaplan (who might be described as the "father" of the current laws of bridge) who said "an agreement between partners is just that — it is not an undertaking to opponents", or something like that. The point being that no set of partnership agreements can cover all the 635 billion or so possible hands. Aside from that, deliberately misdescribing your hand (according to your agreed methods) is also legal, as Jilly says, provided your partner is as clueless as your opponents as to what's going on. That said, when there may have been an infraction of law (as, for example, when one player has UI from his partner, and may have taken advantage of it), players have the right to call the director for a resolution. I cannot emphasize too strongly what was said upthread - such a call is not an accusation, it's a request for help in ensuring both pairs' equity in the hand is maintained. If you deviate from your published or stated agreements, you are not required to divulge this to opponents in any way. If your partner misexplains your agreement, you correct that, after calling the director, at the appropriate time (after the auction, but before the opening lead is chosen, if your side is declaring, or after the play if your side is defending). If you misexplain an agreement, then you call the director (the correct abbreviation is TD, btw, for "tournament director") as soon as you realize your mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think it was Edgar Kaplan (who might be described as the "father" of the current laws of bridge) who said "an agreement between partners is just that — it is not an undertaking to opponents", or something like that. The point being that no set of partnership agreements can cover all the 635 billion or so possible hands. Aside from that, deliberately misdescribing your hand (according to your agreed methods) is also legal, as Jilly says, provided your partner is as clueless as your opponents as to what's going on. That said, when there may have been an infraction of law (as, for example, when one player has UI from his partner, and may have taken advantage of it), players have the right to call the director for a resolution. I cannot emphasize too strongly what was said upthread - such a call is not an accusation, it's a request for help in ensuring both pairs' equity in the hand is maintained. If you deviate from your published or stated agreements, you are not required to divulge this to opponents in any way. If your partner misexplains your agreement, you correct that, after calling the director, at the appropriate time (after the auction, but before the opening lead is chosen, if your side is declaring, or after the play if your side is defending). If you misexplain an agreement, then you call the director (the correct abbreviation is TD, btw, for "tournament director") as soon as you realize your mistake. What Jillybean and blackshoe said is all correct. However, "non-sanctioned" and "clueless" as Mike P described the game, might well include the TD - which means that calling him to rule might not lead to a correct legal ruling if there were something to rule on. But in the cases you described, there is no infraction. It is okay to deviate mildly (18 instead of 17) or deviate wildly (strong hand instead of a weak one or vice versa). But once the deviation becomes a habit, for example *many*, even if not *all*, 18 point hands are opened 1NT, then it is best to change the convention card to show 15-18 because such habits are now part of your "system" which opponents are entitled to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_P Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Thanks everyone. And as for Frances Hinden, I assume everyone is aware of this: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A962958260 -- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Thanks everyone. And as for Frances Hinden, I assume everyone is aware of this: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A962958260 -- Mike That was 15 years ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchett Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Here's another one http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9659C8B63 ony five years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Here's another one http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9659C8B63 ony five years ago. Yes. My partner was extremely amused and was the one who ensured this hand was publicised in as many places as possible (it was also in the Sunday Times). He failed to point out to any of the writes that the reason I went off is that it was played after aperitifs, dinner with quite a lot of wine, and port... but now we're going off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 am I the only one who cannot see the hand diagrams?, forst one looke like a funny board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 am I the only one who cannot see the hand diagrams?, forst one looke like a funny board. No. I can't see them either. Maybe they get rid of the diagrams after some amount of time to save space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Did no-one notice that Frances was described as a he?!? (name was misspelt as well, but we can gloss over that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Did no-one notice that Frances was described as a he?!? (name was misspelt as well, but we can gloss over that) Sure I noticed but the gender is probably an issue of the name. I might be wrong but I believe that Francis is masculine and Frances is femenine. Maybe the editors changed the name or the gender upon review or Truscott was just confused in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Same happened to Marion Michielsen in The Scotsman last year. I suppose Marion is too similar to Mario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nxw0016 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Deviating from your agreement is fine as long as your pd doesn't know about this tendency. For example, if the partnership frequently opens 1NT with some 14HCP while the card still says 15-17, then your opponents are entitled to know this. In order to determine how "frequently", your opponents may call TD whenever your deviation occurs just so the TD can keep track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.