[Free]

inquiry, on Aug 8 2004, 04:37 PM, said:

An interesting comment.

Are you suggesting tournment directors should be punished for making mistakes? Are you suggesting that players should report horrible ruling to abuse@you know where and then abuse take some action against directors?

Yes and no. They shouldn't be punished for making 1 mistake, but a warning every time the TD makes a mistake (and gets reported to abuse) would be the LEAST you (who?) could do. And if it gets too horrible, or frequent (huge) errors, then yes, I would punish them.

Imo, kicking players for no reason is a HUGE error, while a wrong adjustment or so isn't. This ruins the tourney for a player (and probably his partner), while a wrong adjust isn't the end of the tourney.
We've seen lots of wrong decisions in the forum, which are just some score-related mistakes, but ruining players' game without good reason can never be aproved imo, no matter if they run their tourneys in their free time. If TD's would be monitored, perhaps they would think twice before making rushed decisions. Perhaps...

[luke warm]

i agree that the best way is to just not play in a tourney where 1) you know the director is prone to erroneous or illogical rulings, or 2) in which the conditions of contest appear just anti-bridge

as for free's comments, a rating (or feedback) system based entirely upon the rulings made seems to be the best way, and would end a lot of arguments

[keylime]

I'll simply say this. If you think I'm just screaming to scream, come bring it. I got enough examples to scare some folks. Why I stopped my games, which was well attended? Frankly it wasn't the players, as much as the directors, who utterly failed to even understand what the rules of contest was. Furthermore, they kept giving wrong rulings over and over again, and it would be me fixing them. I got tired of their nonsense.

Furthermore, after kib'ing events where the TDs didn't even lift a finger to check whether something was legal or not, where TDs use the pathetic crutch of "I'll check the board when I have time.", only to just shove it out of their minds as fast as it entered them, where TDs instead of doing the right thing and banning provoking conduct, instead go after the ones who are wanting protection, then I can honestly say the words I used. And to be honest, I did edit that piece twice. Like I said before, come bring it, because I have so many examples of the culpable unwillingness of the Coalition and others to do the right thing that it's detrimental to the game.

[luke warm]

Brandal, on Aug 6 2004, 02:02 PM, said:

Having read your post I am seriously thinking about giving up "directing" and hosting tourneys,it was worth it up to now,but I don't handle hostility well,nor being offended by someone who doesn't even know me.

don't do that... you should be one of the first who would like to see a feedback system, i'd think.. i know that if i directed/hosted tourneys, i'd *love* to see a place where my rulings could be judged... hell, baseball umps get that, football refs, even (probably) r/l tds

[epeeist]

Free, on Aug 8 2004, 10:04 AM, said:

epeeist, on Aug 7 2004, 07:29 PM, said:

~snip~
However, as the discussion in this thread shows, determining what is and isn't a HUM can be complicated, and for a TD on the spot to make a mistake given the limited time available within which to think and/or look up the relevant Laws  in the various texts he or she has handy   is certainly understandable.

What a load of ...! First of all, determining weither a system is a HUM or not is only 5 simple yes/no questions. Second, a TD isn't supposed to look up the rules, he's supposed to KNOW THE RULES - come on! Third, this silly argument of "no time enough" is also old news. If they make a mistake, it's because they didn't have time. I'm sick of this. I can understand there's not much time, but that's no reason at all to make unfounded decisions which you know might as well be wrong as right

Afterwards when someone complains about the decision-in-a-hurry, TD's always have the same old arguments: "no time" and "hey, we put our free time in it, so give us some credit" (meaning "we can do whatever we want). They just have their arguments ready, and they are never punished, and probably not even warned about their mistakes after a complaint to abuse!

Determining whether a _bid_ is part of HUM may be, as you say, easy, but that's not the test; the test is whether or not the players are using a _system_ employing HUM, which can be somewhat more complicated than you suggest.

So let's say someone uses a 2♦ bid as meaning...[etc.] that bid alone is fine. But as TD, if you mistakenly infer that these bids mean that, in that pair's system, some 1-level bids and/or passes have meanings which qualify the system as highly unusual, then they're using a HUM, even if the particular bid made is unobjectionable.

Ideally you would ask "please let me know what opening bids of 1 in each suit, or pass, mean in your system" and the players would respond promptly, and you'd know, using the test, whether or not it was HUM.

By the way, since it's so easy, please explain to me what "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows a either length or shortage in a specified suit or b either length in one suit or length in another" means...

Now, if you think all TDs should know and apply this perfectly, fine. But I think there would be far fewer tournaments, and thus disagree with you.

More generally, I've never played in high-level competitions, but it's my understanding that pairs have to submit information on their bidding systems IN ADVANCE and that this information is made available to their opponents (especially in case of systems requiring advance preparation). So perhaps some TDs could put as conditions of contest, "No HUM or bids, even if not HUM, which would require intermediate-level [or advanced, or whatever] Opps to have prepared responses in advance." This would warn those using unusual, but not HUM, systems. This is off the top of my head, I'm sure you can come up with a better phrasing.

[Free]

First of all, we always prealert that we use a strong ♣ system with transfer openings in 1st & 2nd hand, and 2-suited preempts. Normally everybody should prealert, but I can count the times my opps told me what they are playing on 1 hand.

About these rules, everyone who understands english knows how to interpret these rules. If they're not clear, I'm happy to help:

a ) A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted For an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
In plain english: you can't have a partnership agreement which tells you to pass with 13 or more HCP. (however you can psych pass with such hands, but that's another rule)

b ) By parntership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass
Here I don't see any confusion possible...

c ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below avarage strength
For an opening bid of one, you need at least 8HCP, since 7 is a "King" (3) below "avarage" (10).

d ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
If you open 1X, it shows a suit which is either long or short. Example, you use the 1♥ opening as either 5+♠s or 0-1♠s, so no 2, 3 or 4♠s. ♠ is the "specified suit". 5+ is "length", 0-1 is the "shortage".

e ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another
If you open 1X, it shows one of at least 2 suits. Example, you use the 1♦ opening as 5+♥ or 5+♠. "one specified suit" is ♥, "another" is ♠.

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Aug 8 2004, 02:08 PM, said:

Brandal, on Aug 6 2004, 02:02 PM, said:

Having read your post I am seriously thinking about giving up "directing" and hosting tourneys,it was worth it up to now,but I don't handle hostility well,nor being offended by someone who doesn't even know me.

don't do that... you should be one of the first who would like to see a feedback system, i'd think.. i know that if i directed/hosted tourneys, i'd *love* to see a place where my rulings could be judged... hell, baseball umps get that, football refs, even (probably) r/l tds

Someone suggested "if everyone in the tourney rated/voted" then I will be more than happy to receive feedback/rating with everyone involved in the process.

Who knows,we might even learn from that.

I know I've already learned 1 thing.....write "NO HUM" on description.
I'm a simple man,I believe in basically bidding what I have,that's true bridge to me.

[luke warm]

well see, i'm against player assigned (or voted) ratings for directors... i doubt there are enough knowledgable players for such a system to be meaningful.. also, it could possibly lead to the kind of flaming we've seen lately

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Aug 8 2004, 04:55 PM, said:

well see, i'm against player assigned (or voted) ratings for directors... i doubt there are enough knowledgable players for such a system to be meaningful.. also, it could possibly lead to the kind of flaming we've seen lately

And one player or a pair coming down on a TD wouldn't possibly lead to flaming?

I'm a little confused

How do you see this feedback system work?

You mean a thread where specific rulings are brought up and discussed,get second opinions,the TD in "question" named,maybe someone provides the rule from the lawbook etc etc?

I would like that too,if no flaming was involved,would be a good way to learn how to handle disputes next time it occurs.......

[the hog]

"I know I've already learned 1 thing.....write "NO HUM" on description.
I'm a simple man,I believe in basically bidding what I have,that's true bridge to me."

I have deliberately refrained from commenting so far, but the above got to me.

So your 1C/1D openings show 4 + card suits and your 2C opening is natural? Your 2C bid over partner's 1N opening shows C, you don't play transfers and you only play Mosher, (natural bids), over the opponent's NT.

Unless you play Buller, your above statement is nonsensical and inaccurate.

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 05:56 PM, said:

"I know I've already learned 1 thing.....write "NO HUM" on description.
I'm a simple man,I believe in basically bidding what I have,that's true bridge to me."

I have deliberately refrained from commenting so far, but the above got to me.

So your 1C/1D openings show 4 + card suits and your 2C opening is natural? Your 2C bid over partner's 1N opening shows C, you don't play transfers and you only play Mosher, (natural bids), over the opponent's NT.

Unless you play Buller, your above statement is nonsensical and inaccurate.

The word "basically" in there somewhere was an attempt to not have to type "except Stayman,transfers after NT,Blackwood,2C being artificial"

I apologise for not making sense,sorry it got to you.

I will be quiet now,it was a useless post anyway

[dogsbreath]

hi this is all new to me and sounds very complicated..
In Ireland we have 'hum' AND 'ho-hum' bridge but it only happens after 1C openings

eg: bidding goes (no interfere) 1C 1S 3C 4C

.. now opener goes 'hum' (often audibly) ..is that a min response to a bid that p cant remember wether is forcing or not .. or is it Gerber???
..ok two aces ..so bid 4S ..

now this is a clear 'ho-hum' situation for responder
..I dont have an Ace ..is p converting to 4S or is that 2 Aces ??

..what will he do if i bid 5C? ... how will 4S play on the 4-1 fit if i get this wrong ..'ho-hum' (again audible) ..will anyone complain if I bid 5C, place hand face-down on the table, wish p good luck and leg it to the bogs?


Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

[Brandal]

dogsbreath, on Aug 8 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

hi this is all new to me and sounds very complicated..
In Ireland we have 'hum' AND 'ho-hum' bridge but it only happens after 1C openings

eg: bidding goes (no interfere) 1C 1S 3C 4C

.. now opener goes 'hum' (often audibly) ..is that a min response to a bid that p cant remember wether is forcing or not .. or is it Gerber???
..ok two aces ..so bid 4S ..

now this is a clear 'ho-hum' situation for responder
..I dont have an Ace ..is p converting to 4S or is that 2 Aces ??

..what will he do if i bid 5C? ... how will 4S play on the 4-1 fit if i get this wrong ..'ho-hum' (again audible) ..will anyone complain if I bid 5C, place hand face-down on the table, wish p good luck and leg it to the bogs?


Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

I would have to say yes

thanks for helping me to 11th post

I have to get rid of that "Warn 0%" column!

[the hog]

The point I am making, Brandal, is where do you draw the line? What you say you play would be totally alien to a player in the early days of Bridge.

(Love your post Martin.)

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 06:47 PM, said:

The point I am making, Brandal, is where do you draw the line? What you say you play would be totally alien to a player in the early days of Bridge.

(Love your post Martin.)

I'm not trying to "draw the line" for others,I was merely stating my opinion.

What I am "referring" to,is for example relay bidding where "nothing" is "real" suit.
I would assume opps might have a heart suit occasionally when "you" bid 1H showing spades or something else,and I just find that "destructive".
Not being an expert on bidding relays,it seems to be designed to keep opps out of the bidding.
If someone can explain the benefits for the bidding pair,except for "stealing" a possible suit deliberately from opps,say my pd bids 1H when he has spade suit please enlighten me.

Anyway I was just expressing my opinion,wasn't intended to cause a debate as such.

Even I appreciate the occasional Stayman

12 posts now,where will it end

[Free]

Quote

I would assume opps might have a heart suit occasionally when "you" bid 1H showing spades or something else,and I just find that "destructive".

How can you say this? If opps open 1♠, can you show ♥s at 1-level?? I think NOT. When we open 1♥ showing ♠s, we actually GIVE away a bid to opps. How can this ever be 'destructive'??

Quote

Not being an expert on bidding relays,it seems to be designed to keep opps out of the bidding.

You seem to have no idea what destructive and constructive bidding is. Relaybidding is designed for OURSELVES, to find the exact shape of partner's hand, and have accurate slambidding, so it's CONSTRUCTIVE. During relay biddings, you can double and show what suit your partner needs to lead, while with natural bidding you can't. However, if you Double, you give away more bidding space to opps.

Quote

If someone can explain the benefits for the bidding pair,except for "stealing" a possible suit deliberately from opps,say my pd bids 1H when he has spade suit please enlighten me.

As I pointed out with the first quote, with transfer openings we don't steal bids, we create extra bids for opps! After 1♥, you can Double with ♥s, and bid 1♠ as takeout Dbl. What can you do after a 1♠ opening showing the exact same thing as the 1♥ opening in our examples? Only Dbl for takeout, and you can't show ♥s at 1-level. And during relaybidding (GF auction, sometimes slam try), opps usually don't have anything to say, so how can we steal bids anyway?

Quote

Anyway I was just expressing my opinion,wasn't intended to cause a debate as such.

If you post such kind of nonsense, you can't avoid debates imo. As is said, nobody plays natural anymore, since stayman alone is not natural, and everyone who plays majors from 5-cards, doesn't play his minors "natural", he plays them canapé style. Where can someone draw the line?
And I hope you learn some things about relaybidding next time you want to call it 'destructive'. Look at http://www.vikingclub.starwarsguiden.net/f...?page=grandslam and tell me how you can find this wonderfull grand slam in a 4-2 fit without relay-bidding?

[the hog]

"Not being an expert on bidding relays,it seems to be designed to keep opps out of the bidding.
If someone can explain the benefits for the bidding pair,except for "stealing" a possible suit deliberately from opps,say my pd bids 1H when he has spade suit please enlighten me."

Ok I'll try.

Relay bidding has a number of purposes:

1) The strong hand more often becomes the declarer.
eg 1C 1H showing S 1S. There is an obvious advantage when it comes to the lead coming around to the styrong hand.

2) It often happens that a contract is reached with the relayer being declarer. That means that the opposition knows very little about relayer's hand but everything about dummy. This makes defence harder for the opponents.

3) Relay bidding is more accurate. In very strong auctions it is even able to pick up the Jacks contained in partner's hand. We have bid a grand slam in a known 4-3 fit dependant on partner specifically having the J in his 4 card suit. This level of accuracy is simply not possible in a natural system. I will admit this is a rara avis indeed.

4) The transfer openings are not designed to "steal" the opp's suit. They are based on the principle of useful space. Look at Jeff Rubens' witings on this area, together with his ideas of Rubens' advances after overcalls. These are slowly becoming standard amongst strong players.
Further the transfer principle is VERY easy to overcome. What do you do when the opponents transfer over their NT and you have that suit? I guess you X. You can do that over a t/f opening, OR if you like, you can get even by bidding their real suit as a takeout.

There is nothing destructive about relay bidding. The other thing you need to bear in mind is that so called destructive bidding is a perfectly legitimate part of the game.

My next comments are generalisations, of course.

US players, and here I anm referring to players of all standards, have a different mentality and approach to the game than Europeans and Asians. For Americans, bridge is a 2 handed game. What do I mean by this? You try to reach the best possible contract at all times and largely try to ignore the opponents. If I have a good hand, I should be allowed to bid unimpeded to my optimum contract. Why should you have this right?

Others believe that bridge is a 4 handed game. You have 2 opponents whose job it is, 1) to reach their best contract and 2) to prevent you from reaching yours or if you like, to prevent you from reaching par. What results is that you try to reach the best contract possible, not the best possible contract. There is a famous story of Eddy Manoppo, Indonesian expert. He held 3 jacks including 2 JT combinations, and overcalled an opps opening. In an aside to the kibbers he said, "Have you ever played poker?" He had a full house, of course and the temptation was too much. This is what I mean - the mentality and approach is different. That is why so many US posters here whinge about psyches - they believe that bridge is a 2 handed game and they should not have their great hand and auction interrupted by someone who does not hold what he says he has.

While this dichotomy of attitudes remains, and it will for a long time if not for ever, there will always be these arguments. What has made them more obvious now is that on line bridge has brought about an internationalisation of the game that was not possible a few short years ago. Tha answer? I don't believe there is one, but perhaps a bit more tolerance understanding commonsense and less demonising from all parties might help.

Ron.

(For an interesting treatise on the differing attitudes towards Bridge in the US as compared to the rest of the world, read Cathy Chua's book "Fair Play or Foul.")

[Brandal]

Free, on Aug 8 2004, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

I would assume opps might have a heart suit occasionally when "you" bid 1H showing spades or something else,and I just find that "destructive".

How can you say this? If opps open 1♠, can you show ♥s at 1-level?? I think NOT. When we open 1♥ showing ♠s, we actually GIVE away a bid to opps. How can this ever be 'destructive'??

Quote

Not being an expert on bidding relays,it seems to be designed to keep opps out of the bidding.

You seem to have no idea what destructive and constructive bidding is. Relaybidding is designed for OURSELVES, to find the exact shape of partner's hand, and have accurate slambidding, so it's CONSTRUCTIVE. During relay biddings, you can double and show what suit your partner needs to lead, while with natural bidding you can't. However, if you Double, you give away more bidding space to opps.

Quote

If someone can explain the benefits for the bidding pair,except for "stealing" a possible suit deliberately from opps,say my pd bids 1H when he has spade suit please enlighten me.

As I pointed out with the first quote, with transfer openings we don't steal bids, we create extra bids for opps! After 1♥, you can Double with ♥s, and bid 1♠ as takeout Dbl. What can you do after a 1♠ opening showing the exact same thing as the 1♥ opening in our examples? Only Dbl for takeout, and you can't show ♥s at 1-level. And during relaybidding (GF auction, sometimes slam try), opps usually don't have anything to say, so how can we steal bids anyway?

Quote

Anyway I was just expressing my opinion,wasn't intended to cause a debate as such.

If you post such kind of nonsense, you can't avoid debates imo. As is said, nobody plays natural anymore, since stayman alone is not natural, and everyone who plays majors from 5-cards, doesn't play his minors "natural", he plays them canapé style. Where can someone draw the line?
And I hope you learn some things about relaybidding next time you want to call it 'destructive'. Look at http://www.vikingclub.starwarsguiden.net/f...?page=grandslam and tell me how you can find this wonderfull grand slam in a 4-2 fit without relay-bidding?

I'm actually a very nice guy

What seems constructive to you might seem destructive to someone else.

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Aug 8 2004, 07:39 PM, said:

"Not being an expert on bidding relays,it seems to be designed to keep opps out of the bidding.
If someone can explain the benefits for the bidding pair,except for "stealing" a possible suit deliberately from opps,say my pd bids 1H when he has spade suit please enlighten me."

Ok I'll try.

Relay bidding has a number of purposes:

1) The strong hand more often becomes the declarer.
eg 1C 1H showing S 1S. There is an obvious advantage when it comes to the lead coming around to the styrong hand.

2) It often happens that a contract is reached with the relayer being declarer. That means that the opposition knows very little about relayer's hand but everything about dummy. This makes defence harder for the opponents.

3) Relay bidding is more accurate. In very strong auctions it is even able to pick up the Jacks contained in partner's hand. We have bid a grand slam in a known 4-3 fit dependant on partner specifically having the J in his 4 card suit. This level of accuracy is simply not possible in a natural system. I will admit this is a rara avis indeed.

4) The transfer openings are not designed to "steal" the opp's suit. They are based on the principle of useful space. Look at Jeff Rubens' witings on this area, together with his ideas of Rubens' advances after overcalls. These are slowly becoming standard amongst strong players.
Further the transfer principle is VERY easy to overcome. What do you do when the opponents transfer over their NT and you have that suit? I guess you X. You can do that over a t/f opening, OR if you like, you can get even by bidding their real suit as a takeout.

There is nothing destructive about relay bidding. The other thing you need to bear in mind is that so called destructive bidding is a perfectly legitimate part of the game.

My next comments are generalisations, of course.

US players, and here I anm referring to players of all standards, have a different mentality and approach to the game than Europeans and Asians. For Americans, bridge is a 2 handed game. What do I mean by this? You try to reach the best possible contract at all times and largely try to ignore the opponents. If I have a good hand, I should be allowed to bid unimpeded to my optimum contract. Why should you have this right?

Others believe that bridge is a 4 handed game. You have 2 opponents whose job it is, 1) to reach their best contract and 2) to prevent you from reaching yours or if you like, to prevent you from reaching par. What results is that you try to reach the best contract possible, not the best possible contract. There is a famous story of Eddy Manoppo, Indonesian expert. He held 3 jacks including 2 JT combinations, and overcalled an opps opening. In an aside to the kibbers he said, "Have you ever played poker?" He had a full house, of course and the temptation was too much. This is what I mean - the mentality and approach is different. That is why so many US posters here whinge about psyches - they believe that bridge is a 2 handed game and they should not have their great hand and auction interrupted by someone who does not hold what he says he has.

While this dichotomy of attitudes remains, and it will for a long time if not for ever, there will always be these arguments. What has made them more obvious now is that on line bridge has brought about an internationalisation of the game that was not possible a few short years ago. Tha answer? I don't believe there is one, but perhaps a bit more tolerance understanding commonsense and less demonising from all parties might help.

Ron.

(For an interesting treatise on the differing attitudes towards Bridge in the US as compared to the rest of the world, read Cathy Chua's book "Fair Play or Foul.")

excellent reply,thanks,many valid points here,much appreciated

[keylime]

The Hog,

I haven't read the book mentioned, but I want to now. Applause.