David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If 3D is nonforcing then it certainly should be alerted. Since North asked anyway there can be no damage. I have no idea what South was complaining about. If you want to play 3D as nonforcing that is fine.
It is not clear to me what happened that was wrong. You say he asked for an Undo and then bid 2H. Does this mean he called something else and then changed it to 2H? In that case unless there is some reason to doubt he misclicked the request for an Undo has given no information whatever and North can pass if he feels like it. As a director I should certainly ask North why he passed South’s 2H but it just looks to me like bad bidding getting a lucky result and there is no reason to adjust.
A lot of people have poor habits, in fact most people do in some way or other, and pretty much we just learn to tolerate them. It is certainly a poor idea to pass very quickly as dealer with a very bad hand but it is also a common failing.
It may be breaking the ethical rules since it is considered preferable to make all calls in a consistent manner but really no-one does.
As for giving unauthorised information to partner it certainly does but the rules do not say that you may not give unauthorised information to partner. What they say is that partner must not use unauthorised information, although opponents have a perfect right to do so.Yes, both are alertable. With rare exceptions new suits in response to an opening bid are alertable if not forcing.
It is surprising that this happens in that large a field but it is always possible. It might be worth writing to <support@bridgebase.com> to mention your dislike of this, after all it is only BBO that can change it.
Yes, you are when playing online. You are not in live bridge.
The English Bridge Union considered this at the start of lockdown and decided that it would be impossible to police if people were not allowed to look so they said that people are allowed to look. This of course was based on BBO and similar. In RealBridge where you can see your opponents, and it appears this is coming on BBO, I could imagine they might change this rule but they have not done so yet.It makes discussion of bidding more difficult if people expand the meaning of a name to different situations which I am afraid is happening to certain names, eg UCB, Jacoby. I have even heard Blackwood and Stayman misused! The term UCB was coined for the sequence where one player opens the bidding with one of a suit, the next player overcalls, and overcaller’s partner bids the opponent’s suit without a jump. As Julian says this shows a fit and some values but says nothing about opener’s suit. The advantage is that direct raises of overcaller’s suit become competitive or preemptive. Other situations should not be called UCBs.
In club pairs I often let things go rather than ask for a ruling. That is your choice.
If you had asked for a ruling the director would have explained firmly to opener that if you make a mistake you do *not* tell your partner by telling the table. You do not need to tell anyone, though you can tell opponents by private chat if you like. The comment by opener is unauthorised information to partner who must take no advantage.
Assuming responder took 4C as Gerber 4N sounds like a signoff to me. Furthermore the sequence is very obviously a mistaken 4C bid by opener who meant to bid 3N. So I see no reason to adjust the final result. 4N cannot be Blackwood after Gerber.When the board is unfinished, assuming you are on BBO, you should not immediately talk to the director. As you say, this disturbs concentration, and is pointless anyway. So long as the play has started boards always get adjusted to a real score, sometimes quite slowly, so you only need to talk to the director if the adjustment is unfair, and usually the talk involves a single comment from yourself.
Swiss Pairs with a Danish movement is a misnomer caused by BBO who call their event Swiss Pairs. The correct name for what BBO uses is Danish Pairs.
After the first round in Swiss Pairs (and similarly in Swiss Teams or Swiss Individual) pairs are matched to play against other pairs with a similar score but will never play against the same pair twice. So if two pairs would meet then the matching, usually done by computer these days, adjusts slightly so the pairs meet pairs with a similar score but not the actual pair they have played before.
After the first round in Danish Pairs (and similarly in Danish Teams or Danish Individual) pairs are matched to play against other pairs with a similar score even if they have played them before.
Playing on BBO I have played they get the same pair in both the first two rounds! Someone told me that he played in the Manchester event and played against the same pair three times!
You asked about a club which I assume (unlike John) means a duplicate. Slow play is a problem in clubs which will never be really solved both in live and online play. In one way it is more difficult online because there are reasons you cannot see (unless playing on RealBridge) so it is more difficult for the director. Nevertheless in the long run the director will have to start applying penalties if there is one pair that is consistently slow. I realise that you think this would be detrimental to the idea of it being a friendly club. That is not the case. In a friendly club you want as many people as possible to enjoy themselves and that means intervention by the director is important. Clubs where the director is never called are far from friendly: it usually means there are arguments which could be sorted out easily by the director.
What is less clear to me is why boards that are timed out should be to the detriment of the opposition? The director or the software (assuming BBO) will adjust the score to the most likely result and there is no reason that such a result should benefit the slow pair. Of course if you think you have been disadvantaged by such an adjustment then you should ask the director to have a look.
It is correct to say 12 to 14 since that is what your partner is playing you for. Saying weak is wrong because announcements are meant to say a range. Saying 11 to 15 is wrong because that is not what partner is assuming and it means opponents do not expect you not to open 1N on other hands with 11 or 15. Saying 11 to 14 when you have 11 is wrong because it is not what you are playing nor what partner expects, similarly 12-15.
More interesting is to say good 11 to bad 15. This will do little harm and does not really mislead the opponents. It is not entirely correct since that is not exactly what your partner is playing you for but may cause arguments if partner is saying something different or you have something different on a convention card. Of course there may be arguments if you say 12 to 14 and have a good 11 or a bad 15. Overall my advice is to say 12 to 14 and just live with any complaints!
Online it is less clear whether there is a real hesitation because there are all sorts of things that can happen. When I was directing I asked a player why her bid was slow to which she replied: “The baby on my lap woke up so I was breastfeeding him”.
However you seem to have evidence of a hesitation and if it was on BBO the director will know exactly how long the pause was before the pass. So I imagine the director would have agreed that there was a hesitation. The director will decide whether there were any “logical alternatives” to 5C and of course pass is definitely a logical alternative. But there is always a second question which the director must consider and that is whether the hesitation suggests 5C over passing. Might the player who hesitated have been considering whether to double? I think it is likely that the hesitation suggests bidding 5C although the director should probably poll a few people to see what they think. Assuming he does decide that the hesitation suggests bidding 5C he will disallow the 5C and roll it back to 4S making 10 tricks.
