Rookie's Report after 1st tournament

[McBruce]

Uday, Fred, et al: stand up and take a bow! :(

 

Everything worked like a charm! Matchpoints, ten boards in two board rounds, seven minutes, unclocked, silent kibitzers. I gave people 20 minutes to sign up and limited it to 30 pairs. With three minutes left there were only 7 pairs signed up and 7 in the p-desk area. In the end we had 14 pairs, a nice small turnout for my debut. I made two subtitutions during the game and both went smoothly. Everything is so self-explanatory it left me with virtually nothing to do. I roamed tables and made gentle reminders to "pull trumps and claim quick" when a table was behind, and let everyone know where to get detailed results. A good plan is to change the tournament message to "if you wish to sub, please do not kibitz and register as a sub now" once the tournament begins. Another good idea is to prepare a list of common messages and cut and paste them into chat. Luckily, I have a 1600x1200 screen so I can fit lots of windows on it. (HINT: when you buy a new computer, get a big monitor. Cheap ones will save you some money but big ones will save you many headaches. Thank me later.)

 

 

Two director calls outside the 'lost player, need a sub" type.

Let me give them to you as problems:

 

 

1. Neither vul, you hold S AKQJ52 H AK9 D void C J653

 

You open 1S as dealer and partner raises to 2S. RHO overcalls 3C. What is your call?

 

 

2. Both vul, you hold S AQ42 H QT D KQJ64 C KJ

 

RHO opens 2D and this is alerted. Both opponents are flying the Polish flag and the explanation is "7-11 5 5 1 c major". You double and LHO now bids 2H. This is passed to you. What is your call?

 

 

On the first deal, the player had decided to bid 6S and had caught the perfect dummy, a singleton club and 5-2-5-1 distribution. The player who had bid 3C explained in public chat that the number of kibitzers (and presumably their flags: declarer and dummy were Poles) and the perfect dummy together were troubling. When I was called, several tricks had been played and I couldn't see the complete hands, so I asked them to continue playing. At the end of play, I privately told the person who called that I myself (wild bidder that I am) might make the 6S call, and commiserated on the bad luck.

 

There really wasn't time to admonish the complainer for making allegations in PUBLIC chat, which I think is the biggest foul here. But let's go on to deal #2.

 

 

On this one, the doubler of the 2D call decided to try 3NT. LHO led the AH from AJ95 and found partner with five to the king. When the AH was led (by the player who had called 2H) and the dummy came down, declarer realized his QT was not going to be a stopper and called the Director. I looked at the explanation of 2D, saw that it was clearly explained on their convention card, and asked the player if either defender had told him it was a natural call. Repsonse was, "they said weak." I finally ruled that play continue, no adjustment, and the defenders collected five hearts and the ace of clubs for a top (others in 3NT somehow blocked the heart suit) and won the tournament (not just based on that board).

 

 

Not to accuse the players in the tourney, because what happened simply continues a trend I see in club play in this area, but: What the hell is it about Polish Club players that bothers people so much? Many who play natural systems seem to think that PC players are cheating. We have a number of Polish players in my area and they are constantly being frustrated by players who allege that their system is illegal, that they were misled by their explanations, etc, etc. In most cases it is simply because they do not take the time to find out what bids mean and then complain when they discover they are not what they seem.

 

The name in Polish of the Polish Club system, when translated into English, I am told, is the NATURAL LANGUAGE system. To people who play the Natural Language system it probably seems goofy to be allowed to open a 4-4-3-2 12 count with your second-shortest suit: their idea is to make only one opener, 1C, artificial and have the other one-bids all show natural suits. But the way some people react against the PC system, you'd think it was as weird as Moscito or forcing pass. Now sure, the message "7-11 5 5 1 c major" is not the clearest, and many local Polish players are often not as clear as they could be when explaining what their bids mean, but my goodness! Let's be a little inclusive towards players who are communicating in their second (or maybe third or fourth) language! Do you really expect 2D, *alerted*, to be a natural weak two? Do you expect when the 2D bidder *passes* 2H that it is safe to bid 3NT without a heart stopper? Give me a break!

 

 

Overall it was a learning experience and a fun one. Many of the 28 players thanked me at the end, and I had a fun discussion with one of the winners, who told me to keep away from the camps run by the Polish players in Vancouver--he has heard, uh, let's just say "stories," about them even as far away as Krakow!! I think I would prefer to see a notiification, on the screen with the player lists, of which board is being played (and perhaps how many tricks remain) at each table for unclocked tournaments, although it's not hard with only seven tables to go to each table and look.

 

If you have asked Uday for the chance to run tourneys and haven't tried yet, go for it: with only a few tables it's not rocket science.

 

--McBruce

[Laird]

Hello McBruce....(I like the sound of that name :()

 

I would like to express suport for your statements regarding Polish Club system... When I first started playing in tournaments I hated to play against Polish Players but armed with Wayne Burrows Summary of Polish Club ( which is available in the library and reading what Misho and others have said in the beginners section ) I am rapidly losing my fear and starting to recognise what an elegant system it is.

However I now know that it is going to be a tough match but thats ok... we all like a challenge and winning or losing isn't the be all and end all. To compete to the best of your ability and to practice any new skills or develop better understanding and meet new friends must be of equal or more value when playing on BBO.

 

Kind regards

John

[Gerardo]

In my view, Polish Club bids are VERY rarely alerted PROPERLY (sometimes not alerted at all).

1C and 1D openings has very specific meanings, aand if you use them, you have to disclose all of them.

I saw 1C explained as "preparatory" (what does that mean?), "12+ not nec C" (horrible), "PREP, STR or NAT" (this one close), and lots of other things I can't recall right now.

Furthermore, they need to disclose which of these hands they are showing in subsequent bidding.

 

What's wrong with "12-15 bal, 15+ with 5+C or any 18+"???

 

1D is similar, I never got that one fully explained

 

Also, 1D response to 1C explanations usually hinders the 7-11 and 16+ meanings

 

2D Wilkosz, they forget the "at least 1 major" bit.

 

etc,etc,etc.

 

I'm probably guilty of same charges when I use SAYC or 2/1, BUT SAYC and 2/1 has no such strict systemic definitions, and coventions ARE PROPERLY alerted, AND 90% of the people in BBO knows SAYC (NOT true for Polish Club), in fact, BB-B and BB-A are the only defined systems in BBO for now.

Not trying to justify myself, I would try to be more explicit if asked to.

When playing precision, I alert 1D as "11-15,n+D, no 5M, no 6C, no 5C+4M, no (whatever my range) balanced", where n can be 0,1 or 2, depending on version, and that's what I think an alert should be.

[luis]

I'd like to express my complete support to all the polish players and other pairs playing polish club. I really don't like the tone of many protests against PC players that sound like the holly inquisition.

 

There's somehow a strong tendency of SAYC players to yell after any succesful polish club auction.... The 2d wilkosz opening bid was perfectly alerted and explained 3nt is a gross aberration since opener is likely to hold 5h for his bid. You can't just "gamble" 3nt and then call the director if that doesn't work. You can't pretend to win a board just because you don't like what your opponents play you must accept that there're other succesful approaches to biding different that sayc.

 

I know sometimes alerts are missing and sometimes bids are not explained properly but that happens also to sayc players and we take that as normal.

 

We have to learn to be more tolerant and we have to learn to play international bridge, BBO is not your local club expect strange systems and learn to play against them it's so good to have a free chance to learn different systems why complain?

[DrTodd13]

Does BBO have an alerting standard? If they do, it isn't widely publicized.

I don't think that there is something particularly bad about Polish players

when it comes to alerting. It just happens that more of their bids are

alertable (and the alerts are longer, etc.) and there is therefore more room

for alerting problems. We shouldn't define "acceptable" down to some

non-zero amount of misalerting. (For example, the amount of misalerting

by the average SAYC player.) The solution is not to be tolerant of

misalerting because even with a lack of damage the non-offending side

feels like they are being cheated. The solutions are 1) a clear alert policy,

2) BBO mechanisms to make alerting easier, 3) social pressure for proper

alerting, and 4) some kind of punishment for failing to properly disclose.

Nothing says we can't be more restrictive than WBF at least initially to

get across the point that we are serious. #4 would only apply to tourneys

because you can just leave a table where alerts aren't properly given.

 

I thought it might be interesting to have an Ebay style feedback mechanism

where people could be rated by others on friendliness, conformance to

alert rules, etc. I would personally fear such a system though because

people could use it to punish me for playing strange systems rather than

for failing to properly disclose.

 

While I'm ranting, yet again....BBO tourney...I ask opponents "what is your

carding please?" No response...I ask again "carding?" Both opponents

send me "????". Somehow they figure out what I am asking for but

respond with a sentence or two of incomprehensible broken English. Can

we not assign names to carding methods and just use the name? I don't

even care if we change udca to verzog...maybe it would be best to have

a bridge language that doesn't derive from any other language. That way

we would all understand each other.

[hrothgar]

I will note once again that I am unconvinced whether it is necessary or appropriate for Bridge Base Online to attempt to impose a single alerting standard.

 

It is entirely possible that I have a very different vision regarding what BBO is and what it should be than other members of this list. Many people seem to conceptualize BBO as a club or membership organization that seeks to impose a uniform standard of play.

 

I consider this to be a grave mistake. I don't necessarily believe the skill set required to design and implement a high quality Bridge Site are necessarily the same one required to build a membership organization. [i would argue that OKBridge will fail because Matt Clegg was capable of designing good technologies but was very bad at the social processes necessary to build a membership organization]

 

From my own perspective, I would prefer to see a series of separate membership organizations grow and flourish, using BBO as a common service provider. As an example, I see nothing wrong with tournaments conducted in Polish, using Polish alerting standards. If non Poles want to compete, they would be expected to conform to the "appropriate" standards.

[Gerardo]

Agree with you Richard, don't like an uniform standard.

At this point of time, however, I think there is a de facto standard.

Surely our Polish friends overlooks some inferences taking them for granted, as much as I do playing SAYC.

However, their case is more notorious because you can count on people having some idea about SAYC bidding, but you can't count the same way about Polish Club.

I'd like to play in such Polish tourneys (have to learn language first ;-), but in such environment I can't make the claims I'm doing here, quite the contrary, I wouldn't expect odwrotka to be alerted, for example (Am I right about this? Don't know the Polish alerting procedures), but I think it depends mainly on what players play and understand, rather than regulations (which build on that).

Taking BBO at large, AT THIS POINT, I expect few people not to know SAYC, and also few people outside of Poland to know Polish Club.

 

And, people doesn't have to know a system to play against it (it surely helps, and at a certain level this is not true, but then, you have to provide defenses against your methods). I'd like all to play whatever they care about, but disclose relevant info when opps can't know because they are not familiar with your system. For example, point range.

 

Hope I clarified my point

[McBruce]

Thank you all for the replies. Before I get into the Polish Club/alerting discussion, let me mention a few things I wouldn't want misinterpreted from the original post.

 

1) If you are directing a tournament and a player claims damage and you look at the evidence and decide the player has gone off his nut, the most important thing is: BE DIPLOMATIC. It would be extremely counterproductive to tell a player that "your request for an adjustment is being denied because you are an idiot." Much better to get the play going again, make a show at looking at the evidence, if there is any, and send explanatory messages when you have made a decision. In the first case, when the player jumped to 6S and got the perfect dummy, I told the players to continue because no decision was possible while play was stalled at trick two (I could only see 11 cards in each hand!). When play ended I told the person who called (in private chat) that I might make the 6S call, so to me it didn't seem unreasonable; sorry, bad luck for you. In the second case, once I determined that the declarer had made an inexplicably bad call and that the information about the 2D opener was easily available (explanation AND convention card), I told the players tactfully that I would not be adjusting the score.

 

2) One announcement I made early on in the tournament, which I will likely make more often in future, went something like this: "I have found that my own scores in tourneys improve greatly when I greet opps at the start of the round and also let them know what system we play. Ex: Hi opps, gl, we play sayc." Little reminders help a lot. Don't forget, the software does most of the work for you: no leads out of turn, no coffee pots to refill, no computer program to enter names and results into. Compared to club bridge the Director has little to do. There's lots of time to roam and check progress at slow tables and remind the room about etiquette and make other announcements: like most good club Directors do. The players can ignore the announcements (or, even better, scroll back and read them at their leisure!) if they want, unlike the club situation where important announcements need to have everyone put their cards down.

 

 

OK. Many Polish Club players do tend to give less complete explanations about their bids. Most of the time this is due to difficulties with language. Some of the time it is due to, I think, an unreasonable expectation on the part of sayc players. I want to see the hand that Gerardo will take different action with after: [RHO] 1C (alert: 12+. not necc. clubs), or after the 'proper' [RHO] 1C (alert: any 12-15 bal, or 15+ with 5+ clubs, or any 18+). Well over 95% of the time the slack explanation will not change your decision. Just because the Laws say you are entitled to all of the opponents agreements does not mean that you can claim damage because they weren't scrupulous in their explanation. But some players (not Gerardo, I would bet!) seem to think that if they catch someone in a slack explanation that they KNOW is not complete, they are entitled to exploit the situation. My point is this: we need to be inclusive; this is a world-wide site, unlike your local club (as Luis points out). We need to understand that language difficulties are going to make it hard to explain fully. We need to protect ourselves by asking more often about bids. We need to understand that in on-line bridge there is no unauthorized information passed to partner when you explain in private chat what your bid means.

 

Maybe, since BBO is distributed in several languages, a common dialog box for explanations can be created and translated into all of the languages needed. Something like this:

 

+---------------------------------+
| 'Please Explain'   Call: ___     |
|---------------------------------|
| [ ] Natural  [ ] Artificial      |
| Other _______________________    |
|---------------------------------|
| [ ] Forcing  [ ] Non-Forcing     |
|  [ ] 1 round  [ ] Signoff        |
|  [ ] Game     [ ] Invitational   |
| Other _______________________    |
|---------------------------------|
| Other inferred meanings:        |
| _____________________________    |
|---------------------------------|
| Partnership agreement strength: |
| (How likely is your partner to  |
| understand this call?)          |
|   0%    25%   50%   75%   100%   |
|  [  ]  [  ]  [  ]  [  ]  [  ]    |
|---------------------------------|
| Offer more detailed information |
| in private chat: [  ]            |
+---------------------------------+

 

This would get players thinking the way they should. Most bids would be a few clicks and maybe one quick message into a text or list box.

 

As to what needs to be alerted, I suggest this guide:

 

Your ex-lover, who left you because of your bridge addiction, has walked into the club and gives you a sexy smile, leaving you to wonder why you screwed up the relationship. "I've learned how to play Bridge. I'm not very good, but maybe we can get together sometime," he/she says as you arrive at his/her table. Armed with the knowledge that he/she knows virtually nothing about conventional bids, and keeping in mind that you realize how badly you screwed up in the relationship and how lucky you are to be getting a second chance, how will you make sure he/she knows everything he/she is entitled to know? If your answer is by alerting everything that might possibly be alerted, you're getting the idea of what should be alerted on BBO.

 

:)

 

--McBruce

[Gerardo]

Q J 10

J 10 9 4 3 2

A

6 4 3

9 7 4 2 A 6 3

----------- K 8 5

K 8 7 5 4 2 Q J 9 3

Q 10 2 A 8 5

K 8 5

A Q 7 6

10 6

K J 9 7

 

E dealer, NS vul

 

W S E N

1C* P 1C=12-15 bal, 15+ nat or any 18+

1D* P 1H P 1D=0-7, 7-10 with 6+m or 17+

1S* P P 1NT 1S=0-7, 4+S

2D 2H 3D All pass

 

 

I adjusted this to 4H by S i think (should be N) =, the failure to alert 1H as minimum hand, 3+ is relevant here, much easier to continue bidding with that info

[McBruce]

I think adjusting is correct here. I think maybe one weakness of the current state of the software is that if this board were played as the last in a clocked round, there might not be time to do the investigating necessary to confirm that 1C, 1D and 1S were properly alerted but that 1H was not.

 

I ran a second tourney tonight and began the game with a bunch of announcements from a prepared text file which I offer here to directors (replace with your own tourney name, of course):

 

 

Welcome to the "A is for AUCTION" tournament!

 

We are playing matchpoints, five rounds of three boards, with 24 minutes per round.

 

Introduction messages follow: Begin playing and read these at your leisure.

 

Please call me (only once) if you need a sub or something happens. I may be busy: be patient.

 

Feel free to send me a private chat message if you have any questions or problems.

 

I understand very little that is not in English...

 

...but I welcome players from everywhere (and their systems) and you should too!

 

Please explain ALL conventional bids, locally alertable or not, as best you can.

 

Online bridge allows us easy Full Disclosure: tell the opps only, by using the <--> button.

 

I will adjust scores if damage is 100% due to lack of alerts or explanations.

 

ADVICE #1: Most claims of damage do not meet this standard.

 

Be courteous to partner and opponents.

 

ADVICE #2: Your score may improve if you greet opps each round and tell them your bidding system.

 

Example: "Hi opps, good luck, we play 2/1."

 

(That's it for the announcements, good luck everyone!)

 

 

A 40 pair tournament went very smoothly: only 5 subs, no director calls during the play. One irate player sent me a private message, after the tournament, that on Board 12 a player did not alert properly so I looked: his RHO opened 2S in third seat and happened to hold four hearts, apparently a cardinal sin to this player. He doubled and his partner bid 3H and he raised on Qxx. The seven card fit was not a success. By the time I had looked at it he was offline. So maybe my initial experience with complaints about Polish Club was misplaced: this player was complaining about a different way of playing a bid that he probably uses (with a more constructive treatment).

 

--McBruce

[the hog]

Taking BBO at large, AT THIS POINT, I expect few people not to know SAYC, and also few people outside of Poland to know Polish Club.

 

Are you serious with this comment Gerardo, or are you joking? With all due respect, how can anyone who plays bridge even remotely seriously not have a basic understanding of Polish Club? Incidentally I would definitely expect Odwrotka to be alerted as there are so many different responses to it. Why should players have a better understanding of standard than PC. I can tell you honestly I know PC a damn sight better than standard, and I bet you that Hrothgar does too.

 

Incidentally the alert of the 5/5 bid was perfectly correct if perhaps in slightly broken English - "5/5 1C Major" Clearly means 2 5 carders and one of the colours, (suits), is a major.

 

I adjusted this to 4H by S i think (should be N) =, the failure to alert 1H as minimum hand, 3+ is relevant here, much easier to continue bidding with that info

 

Note Gerardo, that 1H in PC does NOT have to be a min hand here. Opener can still be strong with 4/5 H. The alert should have been - "May only be 3 and may be 12-15"

[Antoine Fourrière]

What's wrong with "12-15 bal, 15+ with 5+C or any 18+"???

Well, opener may also have a (minimum or not) three-suiter with short diamonds, but I wouldn't call for a score adjustment with your explanation.

 

As for 2D Odwrotka, I would like a 2N rebid after 1C 1M to be alerted, 18+, forcing, may have a singleton in partner's major, just like I would like negative inferences of support doubles to be alerted. (Or one-level openings when playing the weak notrump.)

 

If there is all that fuss about 2D Wilkosz, it is not because the opponents are robbed blind, as may happen with constructive sequences, but because they are slaughtered in pure light. They wouldn't cry out for a bad result if it didn't make also them look like suckers. But it is no reason to outlaw conventions which have been used by several pairs at the highest level, and for which there should be no surprise any more.

[luis]

The adjustement is egregious, the fact that 1h was bid on only 3 cards is just a coincidence had it been bid with 4 cards you wouldn't have adjusted.

So anytime a SAYC player misses a game against a polish club auction you will adjust the score.... It's really sad....

[Codo]

Hi all,

 

Living just a few hundred kilometers away from Poland, PC is very popular here. Sometimes I try it myself, but the knowledge from mishos page here is just a little too little to play it really well.

 

I think, that Gerardos descision was not so bad.

 

Please Ron and Luis keep in mind, that this is a place, where people with very different abilities and knowledges are playing. There is a world out there with people who love bridge but does not spend much time on this issue and/or do not have your skills.

These people don`t need to know that there are blue Club, Precision, 2/1, WJ200 bananarama or whatever systems out there. They do not need to understand these system nor did they have to have a defence.

 

So, just look at the normal alerting rules:

 

1 Heart in polish club (or mosquito or precision) has a very different meaning then in BBO a-or BBOB.

 

On this site, the basic systems are bbo basic and bbo advanced.

If a bid is so different from the meaning the bid has in this systems, it clearly must be alerted.

 

The players did not do so.

That was clearly a mistake. (Okay a small one, espescially regarding, that the explanations of the rest seems to be perfect...)

 

The opps missed a game. So, there was a damage.

 

We can discuss, if this damage was because of the missing alert. I disagree with Gerarod, that it is so.

I had not adjusted the score. After South got in with 1 NT and North with 2 Heart, South, looking at 4 Hearts himself can realisze, that they have a nine+ card fit and move on. And: After passing after 1 Club and after 1 Diamond, I doubt that N/S had reached 4 Heart against any system.

 

But I think, Gerardos ruling was okay too, because it could have been easier to find 4 Heart if 1 HEart had been alerted.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

The fact that Polish Club only promises a three card suit in the auction

1C - 1D - 1H is an important characteristics to Polish Club. [As I recall, during an earlier thread, I specifically noted that pairs playing against Polish Club need to be aware of this inference]

 

With this said and done: I believe that players competing in an international forum have an obligation to prepare themselves with basic knowledge about "common" systems that they will be playing against. Polish Club is one of the most popular systems online. [its also one of the best]. I don't think it unreasonable to expect opposing pairs to understand "the basics", and this is, indeed, basic. [i'll note in passing that I don't think that players should be expected to understand MOSCITO. Accordinly, I think that MOSCITO players have a high obligation for full disclosure]

 

Furthermore, assume that the 1C opener had 5432 in Hearts rather than K85.

The auction would have been identicle playing Polish Club and Standard. The North/South Heart game would have been just as good. I believe that North-South's inadequate methods to explore for a Heart fit breaks any linkage to the failure to alert.

 

In short: The Poles should have alerted, however, I would not have adjusted the score.

[Gerardo]

Yes Ron, I'm serious. I may be wrong, though.

I think only a minority of BBO members have a basic understanding of Polish Club (maybe that doesn't apply to a subset like serious players, or enough skilled ones, or both). I'm all for that to change, the sooner the better.

Maybe something can create a BBO convention Card for WJ which we can call BBO-Polish for people who doesn't know it, doesn't want to learn, and doesn't get an accurate description of bids (which they are entitled to) to have an easily accessed reference. (current CC facillity would need to be extended with opener's rebids at least, though).

Please don't accuse me of ACBLesque thinking, nothing further from the truth. Would prefer proper alerting. This would have a nice side effect: make people AWARE of the CC facility :) (if this works at all)

I'm not for banning anything, but for full disclosure.

 

Antoine and Ron: you are right about full meaning of bids.

 

Luis: you are right, but in most systems I can think of you have to have a 4-card major to rebid it there naturally, so that's what I would expect without alerting. Also I think this caused damage, see the hand again, please. Would he had a 4-card H, I think the damage would cease to exist, so no adjusting.

Your second statement is just not true.

[luis]

Luis: you are right, but in most systems I can think of you have to have a 4-card major to rebid it there naturally, so that's what I would expect without alerting. Also I think this caused damage, see the hand again, please. Would he had a 4-card H, I think the damage would cease to exist, so no adjusting.

Your second statement is just not true.

 

There was MI due to the lack of alert but there was no damage, I disagree in this aspect. North and south clearly showed that they were not interested in bidding game during the auction.

South failed to bid over 1c and over 1d, over a polish 1c opening south has an easy takeout double or 1h bid. North then failed to bid a weak 2h over 1d, then over 1h south didn't bid 1nt nor doubled. North pased again over 1s. South reopened with 1nt and north bid only 2h.

They wouldn't have bid game even with the correct alerts. There's no evidence at all to assume that NS were damaged due to the lack of alert of the 1h bid. Did south ask about 1h? He knows that 1c is multi so if he doesn't ask it is logical to assume that he knew that 1h over 1d showed the weak nt. Did he ask what would east bid with a weak nt and 2-3-4-4 ? No. He failed to protect his own side by not asking and they both failed to bid properly. Now they can't pretend to win the hand because they missed an alert.

[hrothgar]

I will note once again that Hypertext based convetnion cards hold great potential.

 

My favorite feature in the new BBO client is that it has the ability to export a URL to a web browser. If a user types a URL [hypothetically "]http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/MOSCITO.htm], other players can simply click on this link. Their browser will automatically refocus on the web page in question.

 

The "best" solution might be for groups of players to self organize and develop standardized convention cards that describe their system. I've already done this for one specific MOSCITO variant. I hope that other individuals might chose to do the same for Polish Club, WJ2000, BBO Advanced, or whatever.

 

In designing the MOSCITO convention card, I tried to use what I believe is an intuitive layout.

 

The "home page" provides a basic Introduction to the System, designed to be scanned in20 seconds. Information includes:

 

We play strong club

we open light

we play 4 card majors, with canape tendencies

We use an 11+ - 14 HCP 1NT opening

We play 2 suited preempts

 

From here, the opponents can access either:

 

(A) a detailed description of the opening bids

(:) Methods during competitive auctions

© Defensive Carding

 

 

From here, there are three main branches

[inquiry]

I doubt i would have awarded 4H NS making on this hand, but I would have given an adjusted score, average + NS and Average minus EW.

 

Here is the problem, 1H bid was artificial, showing balanced hand, weak. This was not alerted. Did this confuse the auction? South passed 3D over 2H no doubt because he was confused what his partner's 2H bid meant. Was it jacoby? Was it asking for a stopper? Whatever it was he had another chance to bid....

 

But poor north thought he showed hearts, whatelse could he do over 3D? He had already stuck his neck out bidding the opponent's suit to play. Now, if they knew that 1H didn't promise hearts, well, then 2H would not have been a cue-bid. This might not solve NS bidding problem, but at least if they go wrong, they do so with FULL disclosure.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Just so that everyone is on the same page:

 

As I recall, a 1H rebid in the auction 1C - 1D - 1H

shows two main hand types:

 

(a) Balanced 12-14 HCP hands with 3+ Hearts (may have 4 Spades)

(:) "Strong" hands with 5+ hearts, unsuitable for a strong rebid

 

The bid is none forcing, showing a tolerance to play in Hearts.

The significant difference between Polish Club and Standard is NOT the fact that hand type (a) might include a three card suit. This is a difference in treatment. The REAL difference is that the hand might also have a 19 count with 5 hearts.

[luis]

Even if 1h was systemically showing 2 cards and 12-14 and that wasn't alerted the infraction is not enought to adjust the score. Because there was no damage. NS clearly showed that they were only interested in a partscore when south reopened with 1nt after refusing to bid 2 times. North wasn't interested in showing his suit even after knowing the opener had a weak NT and responder was weak. Over 1s North can surely bid 2h and South can either bid game invite or pass depending on judgement. Adjusting is too much a prize for NS.

 

Ben: You can' adjust the score if there was not damage you can impose a procedure penalty on EW and I agree that would have been correct. Maybe a 3imp pp is ok for the lack of alert (MI).

 

I'd have ruled the result to stand (no damage) and imposed a 3 imp PP on EW for not alerting 1h and I'd have also told them please to alert all his bids after a 1c opening to prevent future problems.

[inquiry]

Even if 1h was systemically showing 2 cards and 12-14 and that wasn't alerted the infraction is not enought to adjust the score. Because there was no damage. NS clearly showed that they were only interested in a partscore when south reopened with 1nt after refusing to bid 2 times. North wasn't interested in showing his suit even after knowing the opener had a weak NT and responder was weak. Over 1s North can surely bid 2h and South can either bid game invite or pass depending on judgement. Adjusting is too much a prize for NS.

 

Ben: You can' adjust the score if there was not damage you can impose a procedure penalty on EW and I agree that would have been correct. Maybe a 3imp pp is ok for the lack of alert (MI).

 

I'd have ruled the result to stand (no damage) and imposed a 3 imp PP on EW for not alerting 1h and I'd have also told them please to alert all his bids after a 1c opening to prevent future problems.

 

Luis, I am not sure I agree with much of what you said. I have passed more than twice and then endup bidding game after balancing on numerous occassions. Two initial passes does not mean game can not then be bid.

 

Second, I have to admit not reading all of this thread... but i did look at the hands in question and see the alerts. No were was EAST hand alerted as a weak NT. (the 1H rebid...). In fact IF THAT alert had been made, there would be no problem what so ever.... that is THE problem.

 

Over 1S, I seriously doubt north can bid 2H as natural if he thought opener still unlimited with hearts (1C=possible 18+, 1H not alerted as liming the hand in anyway... this is a second flaw... not only does 1H systemically not guarantee hearts, it places limits on the 1CLUB bid, AGAIN not alerted).

 

NS clearly were not familiar with EW methods, and EW clearly had agreements they did not disclose which caused NS additional problems. So once again, NS were damaged. Clearly south with four hearts would not have allowed EW to play 3D if he understood 2H to be long hearts and some values. It is asking a bit much that they reach game perhaps, but there was clear DAMAGE to NS in the form of NS confusion over the meaning of their own bids due to the lack of the alert (point count range and suit legnth). This is more than a procedural problem, critical information was withheld from NS that was available to EW. Geraldo's ruling while a little drastic, was not that bad. I would still go with average + and average -

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

 

not only does 1H systemically not guarantee hearts, it places limits on the 1CLUB bid, AGAIN not alerted.

 

 

First:

1H systemically promises 3+ Hearts and usggests playing there.

It is a non forcing bid.

 

Second:

The issue is not whether 1H should have been alerted.

Everyone agrees that it should. Most people - myself included - believe that they deserve a proceedural penalty.

 

However, N/S do not deserve an adjusted score.

[Gerardo]

Procedural penalties not implemented yet.

 

4H may be too drastic, however, 3H seems a no brainer with proper alerting, with 4H not out of the question.

Probably Ben's A+/A- best.

[McBruce]

As an experienced but casual ACBL player, I can say that the problem for ACBL players is that we have no idea when to compete and when not to when PC players can open, respond, and rebid, and all three bids are artificial and do not limit the hand in any way. You may say this is the beauty of the system. Perhaps it is, but it is also very destructive, and the only documentation on Polish Club in the BBO library simply lists the values and expected distribution for sequences; it does not suggest defences at all, and it doesn't go into what sorts of hands you should come in with.

 

It may be easy for PC players to say North or South should have come in over 1C or 1D or 1H, but that is expecting more than a basic knowledge of PC from standard players. We don't often face bids that could be 11 and could be 24 HCP, so the system puts us at an extreme disadvantage from the start. Based on this, and on the fact that it is clearly spelled out in the Laws that the offending side gets the worst result of those possible without the infraction, the adjustment to 4H= seems a no-brainer to me.

 

To those who suggest that a procedural penalty should be applied, I ask why the offending side should get (top minus 1/4 board) 75%? What incentive will that be for them to alert next time? However elegant the PC system may be, without proper and complete alerting, it is destructive, and there were several rounds for the 1H bidder (or his partner) to make sure that the opponents knew the nature of 1H. They apparently did not do so. If you play an artificial system, you need to take extra care that the opponents explicitly understand: claiming later that "general bridge logic" should have led them to a certain conclusion is insufficient.

 

It doesn't matter how many hearts the 1H bidder actually holds. It doesn't matter that the auction would be the same in standard. What matters is that N-S waded into a (they thought) live auction where both opponents were unlimited. Had they known that 1H was non-forcing they might well have bid more than they did.

 

--McBruce