smerriman Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 .. Were ACBL regulations in effect? .. .. a violation of Law 74A1, 74A2, and the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy .. .. inadequate and incorrect in law.. Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamish32 Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 It does not matter what 3S means. It only matters what agreement they have about the meaning of 3S. The standards have not slipped there is something you are failing to understand here. Re-read the posts and solve your annoyance by developing your understanding. I repeat the wost bid is 2C. But 3S is a good and easy to understand / flexible response to an understrength 2C. 3S says its not him that has the strong hcp hand its me it is 1 2 or 3 suited and if you listen to the auction you will find out which and be able to decide how many spades to bid as a sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply.Bridge laws have not been updated for online bridge so there are lots of things that happen online that are not in full agreement with the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge (or rubber bridge) Software prevents players from bidding out of turn, making insufficient bids, leads out of turn, revokes, etc. It's impossible to make a face down opening lead. Surely those software guardrails are more important than insufficient randomness in Law 6. By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joris999 Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 Why all this non sense??Goulash is not bridge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 Does no one remember that a "standard" cue bid is a 17+ takeout? Michaels isn't standard."Standard" is hardly an immutable concept. Since Michaels is actually used, it is far closer to standard than something almost nobody will have bid in decades. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerriman Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree.Nah, just there is a huge amount of difference in expectation of what bids mean, so a lot of different rules need to be applied. Giving a polite response is of course still one that applies always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjennifer Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 It is ridiculous to explain the meaning of a bid by using a fancy word like "cue-bid". They need to say in normal English (or whatever the local language is) what 3♠ means. For example "3-suited short in spades" or "hearts and a minor" or "no agreement" or whatever applies.Madam/Miss, I concur and agree fully.After the director ruled and one got the full information one may tell that rude opponent "HA HA SEE.I did not have to read any book.!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamJson Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 To my way of thinking the situation is as follows: it’s an individual event so, unless the opponents happen by coincidence to be regular partners, there is no partnership agreement so nothing to disclose. Actually, even if they were a regular partnership I’d be very surprised if they had an agreement that covered this situation, other than general principles (e.g. “over a strong 1C we bid immediately on weak hands but pass and come in later on strong hands”). As to what the bid does mean, my guess would be a strong two suiter. With a weak two suiter you would bid immediately over 2C (probably), with a three suiter you would double 2S and with a single suiter you’d just bid the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torgums Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 I think the meaning is quite clear. It says "Partner I don't want to play in this partnership any longer" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 I think the meaning is quite clear. It says "Partner I don't want to play in this partnership any longer"Snce it's an individual, they're only playing together for 2-3 boards in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjennifer Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 Sirs Personally, I would open this hand 2C and bid 3S next ,a bid asking partner to show specific Acs/Aces and later the specific Kings and Queens.. as per the scheme elaborated in the article."Embellishments to a 2C opening" published in the Bridge World , and which I got from from my grand father, I feel in 1973.(that is 19 years before I was born) .Of course this is just my passing remark ,THANKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamijd Posted August 30, 2019 Report Share Posted August 30, 2019 Step 1: never ask about 3♠. Step 2: Bid 4 or more spades. Let the opponents, who are more or less forced to use their general knowledge to try and bid their hands at the 5 level. Do not bid 2C with this hand. Bid 4,5,or 6 spades. The Director did not help at all as they should have said something else or perhaps simply play the hand and call me back if you think you were damaged. (I am ACBL Cert Director). Step last: 3 Spades should have a specific meaning among partners that play regularly. Otherwise it should show a very strong 2-suited hand since there is no space available otherwise. 3NT or 4 NT should be minor suit oriented. A valuable lesson hand here. I suppose it depends on your methods over 2C. I don't really have much use for 3S here ever, actually. With a two-suiter, I'm bidding over 2C if I'm bidding at all (that is the safest time to bid, not later on). I generally play CRASH over 2C (I think that's the most common method nowadays), but Truscott and Suction are popular, too. With a really good three-suiter, I will pass and then X opener's rebid if he shows a one-suiter in my short suit. I don't see a need to force partner to the four-level when we can easily stop at the three-level. But if I had to guess what this bid meant if a good player used it, I would be pretty certain it was the three-suiter and not some sort of Michaels bid. Cheers,Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply.So if the Conditions of Contest break one law, no laws apply? Cool, I can do whatever I want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Bridge laws have not been updated for online bridge so there are lots of things that happen online that are not in full agreement with the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge (or rubber bridge) Software prevents players from bidding out of turn, making insufficient bids, leads out of turn, revokes, etc. It's impossible to make a face down opening lead. Surely those software guardrails are more important than insufficient randomness in Law 6. By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree.There was a set of laws for online bridge produced in 2001. Not very good, I'm afraid, but they exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 To my way of thinking the situation is as follows: it’s an individual event so, unless the opponents happen by coincidence to be regular partners, there is no partnership agreement so nothing to disclose.According to the stated conditions of contest, they're playing the SAYC so their agreements are whatever's on the card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 According to the stated conditions of contest, they're playing the SAYC so their agreements are whatever's on the card.SAYC doesn't have much to say about this stage of the auction. SAYC is 3-4 pages of general approach, not a tome like BWS that discuses dozens of situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 8, 2019 Report Share Posted September 8, 2019 SAYC doesn't have much to say about this stage of the auction. SAYC is 3-4 pages of general approach, not a tome like BWS that discuses dozens of situations."Nothing on the card" implies they have no agreement. But "it's an individual" does not imply that they have no agreements at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted September 8, 2019 Report Share Posted September 8, 2019 There was a set of laws for online bridge produced in 2001. Not very good, I'm afraid, but they exist.Interesting. Could you point us to a copy online? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 Interesting. Could you point us to a copy online?I used to have it bookmarked, but I think my bookmark stopped working at some point, because I removed it. IIRC, it was 90% of the regular Laws, but they mostly just removed things that were not applicable. E.g. online bridge prevents things like bidding/play out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes, so there's no need for Laws specifying how to resolve them. And it probably allowed for self-alerting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 I used to have it bookmarked, but I think my bookmark stopped working at some point, because I removed it. IIRC, it was 90% of the regular Laws, but they mostly just removed things that were not applicable. E.g. online bridge prevents things like bidding/play out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes, so there's no need for Laws specifying how to resolve them. And it probably allowed for self-alerting.If that is all they did then a lot more than 10% would disappear. But of course there are many new issues that need to be addressed,some of them quite complex like tempo management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 If that is all they did then a lot more than 10% would disappear. But of course there are many new issues that need to be addressed,some of them quite complex like tempo management.It's been a long time since I read it, but I don't think they were nearly that ambitious. They weren't trying to force changes to online bridge, just make the Laws more relevant to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 It's been a long time since I read it, but I don't think they were nearly that ambitious. They weren't trying to force changes to online bridge, just make the Laws more relevant to it. Sure. This time round they will hopefully be more ambitious. In the meantime, BBO and others have been forced/free to do their own thing. BBO made interesting choices about alerting, did you never consider undertaking tempo management? From what I can see as a player, tempo is completely transparent, like face to face bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 Sure. This time round they will hopefully be more ambitious. In the meantime, BBO and others have been forced/free to do their own thing. BBO made interesting choices about alerting, did you never consider undertaking tempo management? From what I can see as a player, tempo is completely transparent, like face to face bridge.Relying on tempo is much less reliable in online bridge than in live bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted September 9, 2019 Report Share Posted September 9, 2019 Relying on tempo is much less reliable in online bridge than in live bridge. What I was suggesting (and I imagine future laws will embrace) is that the software should actively make relying on tempo near impossible, not merely unreliable despite "best" effort of the software. Obviously this has impact on the average duration of each trick, on the time allowed to play normally to a given trick, on the possibility to request extra-time to decide, etc etc, all things that need to be newly regulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 10, 2019 Report Share Posted September 10, 2019 Interesting. Could you point us to a copy online?It used to be available on the WBF website, but I can't find it there now. 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.