Author Topic: IAC rules  (Read 8078 times)

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
IAC rules
« on: September 15, 2019, 08:45:47 PM »
Hi all lovely members :)
Looks as some of us have objections on basic rules we try keep in IAC, namely having tables open for any member to sit or watch. I'd like to think that it is accepted and welcomed by majority, but please do correct me if I am wrong. And while in here, please feel free suggest what you think we missed and you'd want, or anything else..
TY :)

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2019, 01:34:17 PM »
Generally I agree with the policy, but perhaps there could be some fun things that would require permissions. For example, a team game could be set with the following rules: Everyone at one table agrees to play "Bot standard", the bidding structure that the robots use. At the other table there are four bots. And then you see how it goes. The permission part is that you can't play at the table unless you agree to bot standard. Another possibility is that everyone agrees to play Bridge World Standard. This could be educational.  For example, maybe partner opens 1NT, my Rho overcalls in a suit, I have a six card major and good values. Is Texas on? Mike Lawrence says that Texas is on if the interference is 3 !C or less (over a 3 !D overcall a 4 !D bid by me asks partner to choose a major) but BWS says Texas is on if the interference is 4 !C or less.  I don't know what the bots do, but playing in a game as described I would find out. So this combines fun and education.

This could be a reason to restrict playing to those who agree with the format. It's a bit of a special case. It wouldn't require a director but it probably needs advance planning.
Ken

jcreech

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 311
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2019, 01:22:45 PM »
Re Curls77: 

I dislike that some tables require permission to play or kibitz.  I like to think that IAC is a friendly environment for play and that anyone is welcome.

In reality, IAC is a nicer version of the main room, with all of its personality issues; I wish it weren't, but there is a small subset that make things unpleasant for the others.  I am pretty sure that most are innocent, that have just blown up through misunderstanding and unwillingness to empathize.  However, I know that some are fairly serious intolerances right now.  I do suggest that if there is an intolerance issue, that the persons play at different tables, and if the IAC administration will allow, request that the TD seat them at separate tables in a match.

Re kenberg:

I like elements of this suggestion and not others.  I like the idea of occasionally running team matches where everyone is playing bot standard.  I'm not sure how this can be set up, with the bot explanations, but I do like putting everyone on the same footing, and see who can make the best use of the same system to get to the right contract, work to right side a hand, and so forth.  I would prefer to have humans at the other table, though. 

Nonetheless, there are times when there is only one table available, and that table would like to play in a team format; this might be something to consider for a TD to consider - setting up a match where the bots form one table and the other table consists of the humans.

New:

1.  As a TD, I have noticed that some tables make it unpleasant for a player who does not want to play in a team match.  I feel bad that someone who was enjoying play in IAC, is suddenly feeling pressure to leave because the others at the table would prefer the match.  I think it is important that the table indicate that they would like to play in a team match in the description so these players will know what is expected.  It also makes it plain for a TD, who logs in and sees two tables, to know what is desired without having to stop and ask in advance.

2.  It might be a good idea to establish a method for determining the order of inclusion for tables into team matches.  Someone asked me how TDs select the tables when there are an odd number.  I responded that it was up to the TD, but that if I see three, I try to see what board the table is on as an indicator of length of play, but for others, it might be how the tables show up in the queue. 

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2019, 07:48:46 PM »
For the bot std team match I was thinking of it as partly fun, partly educational At the human table, the players would have t learn bot standard because Jim is right, the meaning would not be seen by the bidder. Playing with the bots, the screen tells you what the bid that you are about to make means. I prefer that not to happen. But at the other table the bots bid and play so the humans could check back later. Sort of an "Are you smarter than a bot" game.

As to Jim's point 1, I agree push people need not play a tm if they would rather just play as a four person table. I often prefer that.
Ken

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2019, 10:55:58 AM »
Thanks for input Ken and Jim :) Ideas are certainly interesting and worth trying. I am not sure we have many members who are familiar with either Bot Standard or BWS Systems, plenty still have profile simple as "sayc" or "sayc-std-1nt15-17-2c22+wjs-wjo-blkwd-gerber-michaels/unt-maj trf -noreverses" just for example.
Some members, but very few, know how to load pre-designed Bot Standard CC, which can help. But, I am almost sure that TD can not add bots into team game or tournament, not at any seat, let alone to fill table with bots.

Jim: You are very right to point out that some members feel like being forced into team match, which should not be happening, some just seek normal friendly game in club, for many reasons. Table host, ie player that opens table should define it as awaiting for TM or just friendly, and so help other members decide if they are able and willing to join. Naturally, that would help us TDs lots, but again.. not many members know how to put table description.
I never had problem with deciding who starts first with odd numbers of tables, because I see them forming and when they fill up. First to open, first goes.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2019, 06:40:22 PM »
I expect you are right that the bot idea is a non-starter. Too bad I think. I think of myself as a relaxed sort of person, but let me be a bit emphatic here.

I think one of the very first and most important lessons in bridge is that with a great many bids, especially conventional bids, there is no such thing as the "right" meaning, there is only an agreed upon meaning. BWS plays a 3NT opening as "solid seven-card minor with little side strength", but with the Gib cc under conventions NOT played it lists the gambling 3NT.

Ok, 3NT openings are uncommon whatever they mean but a 1 !C opening is very common. How to respond? Here is BWS:
 "In response to one club, with four of a major and four-plus diamonds, responder bids: one of the major with four diamonds, one diamond with invitational-plus values (otherwise one of the major) with five diamonds, one diamond with six diamonds."
A true Walsher would skip over 1 !D to bid 1M holding five !D, a four card major and only invitational values. 
Who is right? The people who have an agreement are right.   

An amusing example from a recent face to face game. I opened 1NT, Lho overcalled with a DONT 2 !D, partner bid 4 !H. I alerted as Texas and bid 4 !S, after which he bid 5 !C. I was a little worried that he intended 4 !H as natural, he did, but I kept on as if the 4 !H call showed !S. We ended in a hopeless 6NT, making on bad defense. BWS says Texas is on if the interference is 4 !C or less, Mike Lawrence says it is on if the interference is 3 !C or less [imo Todd is correct below where he regards this as the usual way], partner was thinking it was off over any interference. I can't think of any reason to play it as off over 2 level interference but at any rate what is really wrong is to play a convention without agreeing as to when it is on and when it is off. Partner said we had never discussed it, I said that's impossible, I never agree [in a regular partnership!]  to play a convention without agreeing as to  when it is on, when it is off.

So the educational point is: Conventions, and for that matter natural bids, mean different things to different people.  There is no absolute source for finding the meaning, partners must agree on the meaning.

For reasons that escape me, players continue to think that their way of playing a convention is correct, other people's way of playing it is wrong, since they know the right way there is no need to discuss it. A written source is not "right", it's not the last word, but it is written, people can read it, and they can agree to play it as written. Or they can continue on, with one person playing it one way, their partner playing it anther way. As with the Texas example above, it will sometimes work out.

Anyway, I sometimes get a kick out of seeing just what the bots would do. I might try them on the MSC problems. In fact I think I will.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 01:11:52 AM by kenberg »
Ken

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +9/-4
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2019, 07:27:46 PM »
BWS says Texas is on if the interference is 4 !C or less, Mike Lawrence says it is on if the interference is 3 !C or less, partner was thinking it was off over any interference. I can't think of any reason to play it as off over 2 level interference but at any rate what is really wrong is to play a convention without agreeing as to when it is on and when it is off.
I remember reading this treatment in BWS recently. I was surprised that BWS played it through 4 !C, thinking that my understanding (through 3 !C) was "standard." Not necessarily!

My guess is simply for simplicity' sake, since limiting Texas to the lower threshold opens up a handful of two-suited calls, which offers more flexibility but also more memory strain. 

To satisfy my curiosity, I checked the BWS Polls, Changes and Additions. The Texas over interference treatment is new, not a change, and was apparently not mentioned in BWS 2001.

  1502. After an overcall of a one-notrump opening, Texas (four-level) transfers should apply if the overcall was no higher than . . .
A. four clubs [48]
B. three notrump [1]
C. three of a suit [5]
D. three clubs [46]
E. the two-level 0
F. one notrump (i.e., never applies) 0
   System addition: After an overcall of a one-notrump opening, Texas transfers apply if the overcall was no higher than four clubs.

So the "vote" was close.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 07:39:09 PM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2019, 10:20:11 PM »
Full IAC rules are now published, my fault they were not sooner. They might suffer the read-proof but essence none will miss:
http://iac.pigpen.org.uk/SettingTables.php

rich_a

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2019, 06:50:38 AM »
I agree with the rules and thank Sanya for putting them to paper.  In all fairness, we should consider them as guidelines instead of rules so players don't feel too restricted.  We must alert but I think a full explanation of an alert is not necessary in most cases.  For example, if I bid fourth suit forcing and announce it as game forcing, the opponents can ask for more information if they have questions. If we alert a Jacoby 2NT, do we really need to announce that we have four cards in the bid major suit and 13+ points?  If we play 2 way Drury, do we need to say with our 2 club bid that we have three cards in the bid major suit and 10 HCP or 11+ total points?  We all are intermediate/advanced players and I realize, some experts play in the IAC, so we have experience or at a minimum know how to ask what a bid signifies.

Secondarily, we should show a positive attitude and stating that if you don't follow the rules, you will be banned.  The IAC must be a happy place to play; I enjoy playing there and hope we can keep it pleasant.

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2019, 04:34:48 PM »
I agree with the rules and thank Sanya for putting them to paper.  In all fairness, we should consider them as guidelines instead of rules so players don't feel too restricted.
You are right Rich, my “english” is far from great, and my choice of words might not be the best.  :-[ I'd appreciate help from any IAC admin or member to correct what could sound better if said in different way. Rules word is gone from the top, and replaced by COC.
I am not sure if Guidelines is proper name for Rules for trnys and team matches, coz they are rules. Because each TD can forbid or allow undo's or some conventions, so it's not really just recommendation to not psycho (for example), but a rule, if TD announced it so.

We must alert but I think a full explanation of an alert is not necessary in most cases.  For example, if I bid fourth suit forcing and announce it as game forcing, the opponents can ask for more information if they have questions. If we alert a Jacoby 2NT, do we really need to announce that we have four cards in the bid major suit and 13+ points?  If we play 2 way Drury, do we need to say with our 2 club bid that we have three cards in the bid major suit and 10 HCP or 11+ total points?  We all are intermediate/advanced players and I realize, some experts play in the IAC, so we have experience or at a minimum know how to ask what a bid signifies.
I will answer my own understanding, which is not necessarily right, and I will be happy hear different opinions, because I am very aware I might be too insisting in this matter. Majority of IAC members is, as you say, interm+ and should know what “gf” or “jacoby 2n” is. But not all. Many members come from BIL to us, and quietly watch games, learning from what they see. I was once one of them, watching Shep's lessons in IAC, and she was very serious about full alerts to help newbies, because not all are brave enough to ask, and after all IAC is teaching club. Many do not play Drury, let alone 2-way, is it really hard to alert 2C as “3 trumps, 10-11 pts”? What I try to say is that alerts are not only meant for opps, but for kibs too. Specialy in IAC trny, when opps vary, everyone can only benefit from having full alerts, none will call TD to complain, no arguments etc : )
I am not sure all our members play Jacoby 2N raise, but I do know of couple of IAC members that play modified version. Not really subject of our discussion here, but interesting reads, imho:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/limited-bidding-reengineering-jacoby-2nt/
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/45

The IAC must be a happy place to play; I enjoy playing there and hope we can keep it pleasant.
:)

jcreech

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 311
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2019, 12:04:25 AM »
I think there needs to be a middle ground.  For example, I think Rich's 4SF explanation of game forcing is not enough, but tweaked along the lines of "art gf" would suffice.  It gets across that the suit is not being shown and that the bid is game forcing. 

I sometimes find the text box for clarification limiting, so I will sometimes send a secondary message to my opps to clarify.  Since this is a teaching club, that is not really sufficient - I should also send the clarification to the kibs and will try to remember in the future.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: IAC rules
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2019, 03:49:16 AM »
I want to know if a bid is natural or artificial. I am easy going about just how strong it might be. So: Pass - 1 !S - 2 !C, if it's Drury, could be explained as "artificial spade raise, game invitational" and 1 !S - 2NT could be explained as "Game forcing spade raise". If they have agreed unequivocally that Pass - 1 !S - 2 !C is on three cards and that 1 !S - 2NT is on 4+ spades then fine, include that.

As for natural bids we should be told if they are or are not forcing assuming there is agreement. Thus 1 !C - 1 !H is forcing but need not be alerted, 1 !C - 1 !H - 1 !S is played as forcing by some and not by others (I play it as non-forcing and I believe that is standard but not everyone agrees.) Often people have not discussed this. The other day we had 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H. I intended 2 !H as forcing, a new suit by responder is forcing excpert for some well-defined exceptions, but I had no idea whether partner would treat it as forcing. It was natural and we had no agreement as to whether it was forcing so I did not alert.

I do sometimes alert with an explanation as "intended as ..." . I do this with an artificial bid that I hope will be understood even if it might not be.

I think if people bring in highly artificial systems they have an obligation to clarify what's going on. But with fundamentally natural systems I am satisfied with alerts of the artificial bids and alerts of unusual agreements such as 1M-3M if played as pre-emptive.

If I play against opponents that have been playing together for three years and have a hundred pages of written agreements I might expect more detailed alerts and explanations, but for a game on IAC I am fine with a more relaxed approach: natural or artificial and roughly how strong, meaning weak, invitational or game forcing.

Another way of saying this: treat others as you would like to be treated.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 03:51:48 AM by kenberg »
Ken