David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How does partner distinguish between an 8 count and a full opening hand? Furthermore there is not much protection from LOTT since there is a danger partner will take you seriously and get too high – or not take you seriously and (for example) fail to compete or try for game when he should?
This is not a pre-protecting situation. You have no idea whether partner has any values. Pre-protecting applies in the auction (1H) P (1N) P (2H) ? where it is about to be passed in 2H, you can be confident your side has a reasonable number of points and you should take action with fairly nice distribution.
I would pass Bernard’s hand because first it is dangerous since opener could be strong balanced with four spades and I can see 800 and second partner will take me for more strength so if I can make 2S he will raise me. I disagree with your logic that opener has 12 points and responder 6: with distribution they could easily have 10 and 5 and your partner will think of game if you have apparently shown strength.
As with so many auctions the meaning of 1H (2D) 3H depends on partnership agreement. Amongst fairly or more experienced players the most common meaning is some sort of pre-emptive bid, unlike the limit raise which is usual without the overcall.
it is completely illegal for players to refuse to say how much strength it shows. On BBO or RealBridge with self alerting the responder, that is the 3H bidder, must describe the strength if asked, in live bridge or RealBridge with partner alerting, the opener, that is the partner of the 3H bidder must do so.
Please do not use the term advancer to mean responder. The advancer is the partner of the overcaller, that is the player who bid 4D in the above sequence.
Your understanding of when an Unassuming Cue bid applies is generally correct. But be warned, in the modern approach to life where more and more people think they are authorities on everything from Covid to bridge, people have started to misuse the names of conventions more and more since they do not follow the actual authorities. So I am afraid you will find people with different ideas of the meaning of Unassuming Cue bids and various other names.
BBO tell me that the free games do not have automatic adjustments and also do not have several of the other facilities for directors so that explains Vesian.
Perhaps the hand that started this thread was from a free game.
Stewart: is Tea Club bridge free? If not, are you sure that no unfinished boards are scored? Automatic adjustments only apply when six tricks are completed? As BBO has said this is not a setting under the control of organiser or director.
My guess is impatience. If he had waited the system would have adjusted. For the reasons I have explained EBU virtual club games have automatic adjustments
I have been talking to BBO about this.
If a game is run as a free game with no charge to the competitors then there are no automatic adjustments and several other things in the director’s arsenal cannot be done. If a game is run as a free game as far as BBO is concerned but the competitors are charged direct by the club then this also applies but it is being run illegally and sanctions may be applied.For games that are charged in the normal way BBO say that only they can stop automatic adjustments and in practice they believe they have only done this for the ACBL, North America’s top bridge organisation.
I do not particularly want to rock the boat but it seems to me that it might be sensible to talk to the director involved and explain the above to him. I should be interested in any reply. If it is definitely a charged game but without automatic adjustments then it would help me to know the director’s BBO name. I can then investigate why this is happening.It is difficult to know what to say. I have directed duplicates on BBO on roughly 660 occasions and when a board is timed out after six tricks have been played BBO **always** allocates a score. I think somewhere along the line the story has been miscommunicated.
It is difficult to know what to say. I have directed duplicates on BBO on roughly 660 occasions and when a board is timed out after six tricks have been played BBO **always** allocates a score. I think somewhere along the line the story has been miscommunicated.
What I find strange is the statement that the BBO system awarded an average on the board. When a board runs out of time and at least six tricks have been played then the BBO system gives the position to three robots and adjusts the final score to whatever they got. Are you certain that it was scored as average?
There is some suggestion in the narrative of applying Not Played. For a board that is part of the movement Not Played is completely illegal. I know that (very sadly) some less than competent directors have been known to give Not Played on a board but that is against the laws of bridge. You might just as well give 7N making: that is just as legal as Not Played. When a board is part of the movement either you get a normal score on the board or the director gives an adjusted score on the board or the director gives a weighted adjusted score on the board or the director gives averages on the board. Nothing else is possible or legal.
Whether a player has taken 14 seconds to think about a card is not relevant. Players do stop to think during hands and the experience of directors is that all players do so but many players think only their opponents do so. Furthermore what other people at other tables do is not really relevant to any decision to be made at this table.
There is no particular evidence to suggest that south will overtake since that is clearly wrong and the likelihood is that north will also get it right. If the director was able to give a weighted score then he probably should but since he cannot I would give the score of one off. But I still find it very strange that the system left it as average and my guess is that the players did not go back and look at the result later: if they had I expect there would be a score there decided by the system.
There is more than one possible answer. For a start it is perfectly legitimate for a pair to agree that a 1N opening may contain a Singleton but if so they must say so as part of their announcement. So if they did so then it is acceptable.
As a general rule players may deviate from their agreed methods so long as partner is not aware of such a deviation. So if this player has never bid 1N with a Singleton before but decided to do so on this occasion then that is acceptable.
If this pair often does so with a Singleton but does not announce this then that is misinformation and the director will adjust if he thinks you are damaged thereby.
When there is a possibility of slam a lot of players bid very slowly and it is not suspicious at all, just normal behaviour.
Yes, the laws give the right to any player except dummy to ask what the contract is. While it might be better if an opponent replies the laws do not specify that so certainly you can correct him if neither opponent does.
Stan is correct. The first comment I was going to make is that three people at the table should have immediately called the director when this card was incorrectly faced. Once attention was drawn (perhaps by the player saying that it was the wrong card) dummy was also required to call the director.
Second, I am curious to know what an incorrectly faced card means. If it was a revoke, fair enough, but if he just played the wrong card it may not be changed, so the original card stands as played, and any correction becomes a major penalty card.
Third, assuming it was a revoke, when the defender played another card, that is another major penalty card but once declarer followed to it that became irrelevant and it stands as played. However the original misplayed card is still a penalty card. Of course there are other rules if the partner gets on lead but I do not suppose anyone thought about that!
Fourth, the moment play finishes, dummy is no longer dummy and has a perfect right to call the director.
What would the director do? Well, if it was me, first I would give declarer and both defenders a strong telling off for not calling the director, mentioning the possibility of penalising everyone. Second I would tell them that if they are playing on without following the rules then the result stands: I am not doing anything now.
Stan: when cursing do not bother to do it under your breath: do it out loud!
