IAC vs ACOL - Challenge #5 Sunday July 3rd

[kenberg]

I am sorry to say but this month we have been awful towards our ACOL opponents.
And we will not do it again.
From next month on, I'll notify POCO1, who collects ACOL teams, about our teams on WEDNESDAY before the Challenge date, and we'll go ahead with as many or no teams we have by then.

Sorry all, but if you want to participate, you have to do it timely, and register on time, none needs this stress to set up multiple matches 8 hours before the start and tell bunch of already registered players to go away because IAC side could not make enough teams.

***

That said....


Please be online 10 minutes before the start. Captains, if you see a teamie is missing, please try to find a sub, and let bbo_iac know as soon as possible. Please also alert bbo_iac if there is any player that frequently does NOT get the invitation.

We'll play 10 boards, then a short break (5mins after last table finishes), and another 10 boards. All matches in the same session play the same hands, which are just random, there are no pre-made boards to favour this or that system. Please announce your system and carding when you meet opponents, and alert all artificial bids by meaning, not just convention name.

Good luck everyone, wish you tons of fun !!

I have not intended to be awful to anyone. It's a bit confusing. I have no idea how many acol teams there are although since you say it would be ideal to have three iac teams in the morning and four in the afternoon I am guessing Poco has that number of acol teams.
This month I have been very busy and I really could not have said earlier whether I could play and, even when I decided I could, it was a bit provisional. I am confident now that I can play tomorrow.

I understand that for an event such as this it is important for players to commit well in advance. Right now that just isn't practical for me.

[Curls77]

Ken
The above note was not meant to you, or any player in particular, it was just general warning, because we did not have a single registration before June 27. And I only could inform Poco1 of how many teams we had on Sat, July 2nd, less then a day when games run.
That's not fair to anyone.

So, and this is for all, none in particular, from now on, please count that Challenge runs on the FIRST SUNDAY of each month.
If your private obligations allow and you can & want to play, please form the team and register it before deadline, which will be WEDNESDAY of week prior to challenge.
And then the event will run with as many or as few teams IAC could produce.

[Curls77]

This was 5th Challenge and IAC is on lead with 3 event won, while ACOL won two of them.
WTG IAC 

Thanks to all that participated, with the warmest thanks to the lovely subs!

Applause to the winning teams:
* Across the border (Captain: blubayou): blubayou & RQ4mulae + Palych & hi bye
* 7NT Team (Captain: wackojack): wackojack & kenberg +Masse24 & yleexotee
* OCP Team (Captain: brian_m): OliverC & brian_m + iamadeus & P0STM0RTEM

Previous challenges: PDFs of all boards, as well as travellers and copiable LINs, can be found in 2022 07 sub-folder of the IAC Drive, the link is: https://tinyurl.com/mrycy7fz

Thanks again to all players, subs and kibs -- hope see you in the next one!

[kenberg]

Ken
The above note was not meant to you, or any player in particular, it was just general warning, because we did not have a single registration before June 27. And I only could inform Poco1 of how many teams we had on Sat, July 2nd, less then a day when games run.
That's not fair to anyone.

So, and this is for all, none in particular, from now on, please count that Challenge runs on the FIRST SUNDAY of each month.
If your private obligations allow and you can & want to play, please form the team and register it before deadline, which will be WEDNESDAY of week prior to challenge.
And then the event will run with as many or as few teams IAC could produce.

This could lead to an interesting discussion and perhaps a change in my approach to online bridge.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, I played bridge in clubs and at in-person tournaments. I played with people I knew for years. At the club I mostly played against people I had known for years. We had fairly detailed d agreements. After the game we would often go to a bar and discuss the hands for an hour or so.

Not now.

I posted a hand today on the Sleight of Hand forum. There is a previous hand there that I posted on May 7, it got one response. OK, the MSC hands get discussed but those hands are on the outer edge. We don't discuss ordinary hands.

The result is that I have taken a very different view about online bridge. I play with a guy named Carl in ACBL games. Carl's preference is to just keep it simple and so we do. The ACBL game we play in has 12 minute rounds, 2 boards to a round, I type slowly, so forget about any details in explanations. I rarely know the opponents at all. Maybe they have a cc, maybe I understand it, that's maybe.

So I relax. I take a practical view of what probably means what and I play the hands.

If all the teams are known by Wednesday then presumably who will play against whom could be announced on Thursday. We could all post convention cards on Thursday. It could be like the old days (without the beer that came afterward).


I'll illustrate by posting here the same hand I posted on Sleight of Hand





https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|S,W,N,E|md|4SKQ8763H973DT82C2,SA95H4DK654CAQJ54,ST42HAKJT6D7CKT73,SJHQ852DAQJ93C986|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%2010|mb
 

Our auction was natural. East dealt and it went
Pass  Pass  1C  1H
2D     2H    3D  Pass
Pass  pass

At the other table it began Pass 2D. The 2D showed a hand that had one long major. Then W came in with 2H, a take-out bid.

Now: I have never played this artificial 2D call, but more to the point I have never discussed with anyone I play with how we defend against it. Why would I, unless I saw their cc in advance?

This worked out just fine for us, we were NS. At our table 3D made 4. At the other table after Pass - 2D -2H they ended in 4S off 3. But this was more from not having agreements, and so taking it cool, than it was from having agreements.


Anyway, I have approached online bridge in a casual manner. Keep it simple and stay cool. If we get the matches set up by Thursday I might try a more serious approach.

[yleexotee]

about that 4S - 3 hand:
 
This is actually with agreements from both sides. not really misunderstandings.
2D is a multi bid, common in Europe but forbidding in ACBL as we all know, showing a long major (other possibles sometimes)
AT the beginning of the match, I let Todd know that we would be playing the classic option"1" defense against multi.
[x = takeout of spades, 2h = take out of spades, etc]
the ops, thinking mostly correctly that Todd is showing some spades, makes the assumption that their pard has hearts, and jumps to 4h!
I double with 4H and and 10 points and Todd showing a takeout bid. I think we have them.
Then original bidder corrects to 4S because thats what they really have.
We don't double because now the waters are murky on who has what. but it was a score for us -3!

[kenberg]

Right. I didn't think you two had a misunderstanding. Or that the opponents did. The acbl disallows it? Maybe just at the lower levels? They have all these rules.
I was only speaking of my own approach/experience with online bridge. I find it to be a good deal more casual than even the club games pre-covid. I just decided I was ok with that. But if we go with the Curls approach we might well get into a less casual game. Apparently you and your opponents did so, they had this multi, you had prepared for it. That's way more than I am used to doing for online bridge. With these acol challenges I try to check the NT range and what length is promised by a 1M opening and let it go at that. I have never yet known who I am playing against, let alone what their cc says, until we all sit down to play.

We will see how this goes, it could be interesting. I think I am available in August. Maybe Jack, Todd and you are as well?

[Masse24]

I can probably play, but it's too far out to commit.

It's a double birthday weekend for us--so we might be in the middle of cake and ice cream and family on Sunday. I'll try to find out.

[kenberg]

I can probably play, but it's too far out to commit.

It's a double birthday weekend for us--so we might be in the middle of cake and ice cream and family on Sunday. I'll try to find out.

Old joke: Four guys are playing bridge, there is a phone call for one of them, he gets the message and says "Sorry but it seems like my house is on fire. As soon as we finish this rubber I will have to go." Anyway, happy birthday to whomever and to the other whomever.

Whatever happens at the August challenge, this could be an opportunity for me to work through some agreements, either with Jack or with someone. I have few agreements.

A couple of examples from the July game:

About a week before the game Jack and I agreed to play and then you and Joe joined in. Jack was off to Greece and out of touch. I looked to see if jack and I had ever filled out a card and I could not find one, so I decided I would look at his profile and fill out a card to match and we could talk if we had time. We didn't. His profile said multiLandy (against an opening 1NT). Fine, I went to The Bridge Bum to see how they played it and they give now way but they note that dome pairs vary the details depending on whether it's a strong NT or a weak NT. Sure, but then we have to discuss where to draw the line on strong NT versus weak NT, I decided we would just go with what BridgeBun says w/o regard for the strength of the NT. Sure enough, on the first hand partner deals and my Rho opens 1NT. I held:
S: 6
H: 7
D: A98
C: AK987652

Ok, it's imps, nobody vul, there is a lot to be said for bidding 5C but I decided to trot out the multilandy X.

Pass   1NT   X   4S
Pass   Pass  5C Pass
Pass     X    Pass  Pass
Pass

Making

I had briefly alerted the X as a relay to clubs, and the opponents said that I should have done more. Fair enough, but fortunately I had filled out the convention card and noted that the X could be any of four choices:
4M+5m
5M
6m
19+
This was accepted as adequate. With more time I could prepare a sheet of explanations that I could copy and paste, but I have not done that with anyone. And Jack and I had not discussed this at all. I suppose in principle when I bid 5C it could be on long clubs and a four card major but it seems reasonable that almost whatever we are laying I have long clubs. 5C X came in.

A second example came on boars 3. This time I delay and we are whit against red. Still imps.

S: 6
H: QT63
D: AJ74
C: AK75

The uncontested auction goes
1D    1S
2C    3D
Pass

I explained, after the auction was over, that I assumed the 3D was invitational (although since I passed I guess that was clear) but I wasn't positive. And yes, I would like a fifth diamond for that 2C call but I was not going to bid 1NT on that stiff spade spot.  3D making 4 was fine since the other table was in 3NT going down.

One more example of needed discussion, although it did not come up in the match. Jack's profile says RBeren so I included that on our card. W/o discussion it's risky since not everyone agrees as to when it is on and when it is off. For example, if I open 1S and Lho doubles, then often 2NT is played as invit with four card support. Well, Either 2NT or 3C can be invit with four card support, but presumably not both. So discussion is needed.


I am thinking these challenges could lead to discussions. As I mentioned, my approach to online games has been KISS and relax. But if we are to be expected to fully explain our agreements in these challenges then that might force us to actually have some agreements. That could be good.

[wackojack]

Just back from Greece and on my computer again.

Thanks Ken, Todd and Joe for making up the team. 
Apologies to Sanya and Acol Club for the unavoidable late registration of my team.  Nevertheless  I suppose better late than never.

Re B1.  As Ken said we play MultiLandy and I am not sure we were on the same page on this board if Ken says that double is a relay to 3 .
Without researching further my understanding is that the double of a weak no trump is for penalties.  This has to be because a penalty double is needed unlike the strong no trump where double shows a hand that wants to compete with 4M 5+m.

My hand was:
  A75
  106432
  J54
  J10
Since a penalty double of a weak no trump needs about 15+ or 7+ tricks off the top, my 6 count looked good to let the double stand.  Whe RHO bid 4 strictly I should have doubled for penalties  However, the uncertainty of our agreement made me coutiously pass and Ken understandably bid 5 making.

The issue here is "were the opponents misled by Ken's alert albeit in good faith?"
Now I am looking at the convention card that ken posted and I note that there is no weak no trump variation.  So ken's alert was accoring to his cc and even though it was not what I thought, that is irrelavent.

There is an other issue however.  That is I am not allowed to refer to the posted convention card and I didn't.  So even though there was a misunderstanding between me and Ken we did not break any rules.  Had I coverltly looked at our cc during the auction I would have been cheating.     

[kenberg]

Glad to see you back, Jack. I hadn't realized your trip to Greece was still going on. I was wondering if you were ok, but having the cops put out a missing persons report for Wackojack didn't seem practical.

The situation you describe is a very common feature of online bridge. Here is how it went from my point of view:

I saw that you were going to Greece and would be out of contact so I thought ok, I will take a look at Jack's profile and make up a cc to fit. I had the idea you would be back from Greece in plenty of time to discuss refinements but I was wrong, so I figured ok we will go with it as is. I was aware that some, not all, multi-Landy players, use it in a modified way over a weak NT but that's one of the things I figured we would work out. It requires that we decide what a weak NT is. 14-16 is strong, 12-14 is weak, but 13-15? When I have played conventions that vary with the strength of the NT I have sometimes played that we treat 13-15 as still being strong, sometimes I have played it as being weak.Whichever pard likes.

Another problem for online conventions is that there really isn't enough room on the cc to easily list all of the options. My description spilled over to where we would put the weak not option. Playing against a strong NT the X shows a hand that has a four card major and a five card minor, or just a five card major, or just a six card minor, or a hand with 19+ points Hard to fit all of that into the space provided.

So I figured we could make up two ccs, one for when the opps play a strong NT, one for when they play a weak NT. Of course to make that work we have to know in advance whether they play a strong or weak NT. I know acol uses a week not, at least in theory, but from what I have seen of the challenges some play a strong NT, some play a weak NT.

And that's just for the Landy.

I also put RBergen on the card. I usualy avoid Bergen unless there is time to talk of when it is on, when it is off. For example, if I open 1H, and LHO doubles, is RBergen still on ? When not playing RBergen 1M-(X)-2NT is usually played as invitational. If now 3C is invitationaL then the 2NT is presumably natural. Similarly, 1M-X-3M is generally preemptive w/o Bergen so what's happening with Bergen? I have a book, by Bergen, around here somewhere that gets into all of this. I'll look it up.

Added: I see a quick discussion of what to do over 1M- X at https://www.bridgebum.com/bromad.php


As mentioned, I have generally coped with these issues by just relaxing and taking online bridge as a casual game. The idea of these challenges seems to be to make it less casual. I am up for that but it will take some work.
As to what the opponents could make of my brief description of X as a really to 2C (you have a typo, saying 3C), it's true that "relay to 2C" doesn't tell the whole story so I was glad I put the cc up with the more complete description. At a f2f game it would be easy. I would double, they would ask, you would explain. At least in my case, I can talk a lot more rapidly and a lot more accurately than I can type.

Putting an agreement in place might well be a good way to spend some time. Maybe we could find a zoom time?

I hope you enjoyed Greece. I traveled around there a bit.  I had read Oedipus Rex in college soI went to Delphi where  Oedipus had learned that he would be killing his father and marrying his mother. For someone who grew up in Minnesota, where we thought of history as beginning around 1850 or so, it was good to see places with an ancient reference.

[wackojack]

A quicky Ken.

 I went to the island of Samos where lived Pythogoras, Aesop, and my hero Aristarchus.

Aristarchus of Samos was born in 310BC and was the first recorded human giving the heliocentric model that placed the sun at the centre of the known universe.  Sadly he was ignored by the bigwigs of Athens and Rome (Ptolemy et al who refused to give up the geocentric view) Ptolemy went through ridiculous contortions to explain the retrograde motion of the planets that the heliocentric view explains easily.  He spent a large part of his life producing the Almagest a huge work on Astrology.  Even today so many still believe in the Astrology the basis of the Almagest . 

It took another 1800 years or so for Copernicus to take on the heliocentric model.  Amazing that Aristarchus idea took so long to be accepted.   

[kenberg]

It's human nature to regard ourselves as the center of the universe.