Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An interesting little side note to the “Bit is Not Demonstrative” crowd. (You might be able to read this if your head still is not in the sand).

My shorthand explanation is: “you may not be able to tell what my wife is thinking, but I can.” Every blue moon, I get it wrong - and it is very costly.

This is pretty much what happens with partnerships at the bridge table when one partner is obviously thinking and the other partner acts on the information - which, BTW is UI no matter what some lazy TD thinks.

Notice that opener chose the winning option with his 1 in 3 guess. Double, 5 and 5 are now collectively DEMONSTRABLY more likely to be a winning action than the obvious pass. In a vacuum, one can ignore this obvious fact and say: “well, it doesn't indicate which one is going to win.” Ignoring the fact that the UI changes the odds of PASS, and ignoring the fact that partner is not allowed to make a random bet, it is interesting to me how often partner “guesses correctly”.

John Adams notes earlier that sometimes these players do truly stupid things. They do, aome of the time. Like I do when I guess wrong what my wife was thinking. But it is interesting how often they get it right. (The guess over UI have edge, so they will always take that edge.) Here, the flex action, if one did not know what partner was thinking, is double. Partner passes with values, pulls to 5C with a 1174 hand or 5 with extra length.

But South knows his partner (customer, wife, whatever). This auction is not in a vacuum. They have history. The most likely hand for a BIT is with side club support. However, if one knows that this partner would have unilaterally bid 5, we can discount that. And if we know this partner bid 2 with good 8 or 9 counts, there is no defense.

From a practical matter, you might not know. But they do. And they are willing to guess wrong occasionally because they get it right so many times, they have big edge.

Where I would disagree with Jeff is blaming the TDs entirely. They have too much support from the “not demonstrable” crowd who support their blind eye reading of situations to shoulder all the blame.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Craig notes above, 1M-1N(GF) was illegal. There was a separate prohibition against 1NT “guaranteeing GF values”. This language was included because it could be argued 1NT was not a meaningless bid if it promised certain values, and therefore did not meet the technical definition for a relay.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Craig, actually when the opposing attorney is also the judge, they technically aren't better - just in a better position. They were also wrong, but I am sure it was not the first time for them.

@Bruce, the term “relay system” was defined elsewhere on the old charts. The item in parenthesizes was just a stupid notation. That was the definition that specified the timing.

Edit/Add: BTW, during this time our Regionals were actually GCC. (They probably still were until the end). The head TD at the time - and also for the Sectionals because he lived in Yonkers - was Sol Weinstein. This passed mustard with him, so I can beat your silly old TD/Attorney/Judge on appeals :)

Another Edit/Add: It was pointed out that I actually typed “mustard” when the word is “muster”. Get used to this. My fingers often type similar words because they like too and I am too awful a proofreader to catch this sort of mistake.

A lot of people don't know this, but I used to type questions for Emily Litella.
Jan. 28
David Yates edited this comment Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So they found a winning 3 call at the table that none of the 53 voters (so far) chose in the poll.

Amazing, as I am SURE the huddle was not demonstrative! (Right)
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is what happens with crappy laws. The stop card should be placed in front of the next bidder by the person jumping the bidding. They also remove it. (No counting necessary).

Any mannerisms are auto UI and all appeals are processed by Judge/Hangman Yates. His Honor may not be that honorable, but he is consistent.

This is how you clean up the town, boys.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not true. You guys needed a better attorney.

The definition of a relay was a bid that said nothing and simply asked for further information. Relays themselves were not illegal.

What was illegal under the old GCC was a “relay system” - any serious of relays IF the method kicked in “before opener's rebid”. Therefore, in a Precision context, if the response to 1 was descriptive, opener could initiate relays over that response.

We relayed over the 1 responses starting in the '90s and never had a problem. Except actually in the World Bridge Production Pairs. Methods had to be pre-approved and interestingly, the club structure was fine by them, but they did not allow us to play transfer responses to the 2 opening.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, partner transferred to 4 and here we are :)
(Yes, I read the auction correctly)

If partner was bidding 4 to make, presumably he will reopen with X.

Sometimes 5 works against real cowboys, but given that we play 10-12 vul 1NT openings, that would be us.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is OK too. I don't feel strongly one way or the other.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I miss the stop card.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, except we all knew this was a slow pass of 3
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drew just plays them well. What did they make at the OT? :)
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel so conflicted. On the one hand, there is the major rule of letting partner go for all the big numbers. OTOH, I feel complicit for my silly bid.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Captain Kirk did cheat. Little known fact: Kirk was tossed from the Federation for life, reinstated a few months later after he went to court.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like Stayman - which became Namyats - you may want to consider switching 3 flawed and 3M disciplined.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When in a game force, doubles are not penalty:)

…but only because we invert X & P in GF auctions. Pass would show desire to play for penalties and pass/pull is extras.

Absent that agreement, the double is penalty.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few observations:

1. “No damage”. Other than to his reputation, but perhaps another dent doesn't matter. I would have assigned a PP.

2. “Forgot to double”. Likely. But it is also possible that given the BIT, the ops were afraid to double because they inevitably are accused by the offending side (ironic, huh) of trying for a two-way. My experience is club players are often intimidated with a TD at the table.

It is also possible the non-offenders thought the offenders were a little more astute in working out huddles and inappropriate questions and 5 was closer to making.

3. I am getting sick and tired of the “not demonstrative” crowd.

The BIT is demonstrative. Marty actually proves this point with his post. The BIT indicates that North does not have a “normal” preemptive bid. Because he cannot possibly want to double with a weak hand. North cannot be thinking about 5 with normal diamond length and he cannot be thinking about 5 without a 7-4 hand.

A normal preempt is bid, shut up and let the ops guess. The moment he BITs, we know his hand is not normal. This is no different that the other BIT over 5. It shows the favorable raise of 3 to 5 was not a pure preempt.

What the BIT DEMONSTRATES is that it is no longer 100% to pass 4. No one in the world would bid with opener's hand absent and BIT.

So if South does bid, it means he wants to bet on the meaning of the BIT. Now granted, sometimes they make really stupid bids.

But that doesn't make it OK.

Question, if a guy holds up a bank, runs out with a sack of money and is shot in the knee by a cop, his grand plan worked out horribly, didn't it.

So don't prosecute him for armed robbery? Oh, he is in the hospital. He probably learned his lesson. Let him go, he suffered enough.

This is BULL.

The odds of a successful call of anything other than PASS on this auction without the BIT is about 0%. The BIT means that some action NOW has a much better chance than that now.

The partner with the UI is NOT ALLOWED TO TRY TO GUESS. And if the world now says: “well, he guessed wrong, so that is OK” then the world is crazy.

And if the world thinks it is OK to get away with winning bets THAT WOULD NEVER BE PLACED WITHOUT THE UI, then the bridge world is f-ing senile.

The bit DEMONSTRABLY shows that acting would have a higher chance of success than not acting. Just because YOU aren't sure what it means , all I can say is ignorance is no excuse. (But it sure drives a lot of policy.)

If the policy in the bridge world is “well, George gets shot in the leg most of the time he tries to be a thief, this time he the bullets missed him, so we will let him keep the money”, then everyone is crazy.
Jan. 27
David Yates edited this comment Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I answer “Make Bridge Great Again” without being banned?
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually did see a hand. Now I don't. It happens to me all the time at the table - “Gee, I thought I had an opening bid.”
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see the hand disappeared, possibly when you tried to edit the vulnerability on b#22. You can change the the vulnerability by changing the handviewer code manually to &v=e
Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you got a top, that was probably me on lead.
Jan. 26
.

Bottom Home Top