mrdct

I recall seeing Zagorin's occupation noted somewhere as a "Grain Futures Trader" so I guess there is some coin in that profession if you know what you doing. Similar to Diamond, it seems he had reasonable success as a junior before concentrating on career for a period. I don't want to open up a big sponsorship debate, but I think it's really cool to have well-heeled former juniors who are extremely competent in their own right forming dream-teams with their mates.

lol

Have we been watching the same event? The bridge has been absolutely awesome, high presure, in-your-face, tough-as-nails bridge; and I've loved every minute of it. Standardising systems would be ridiculous. In any case, there are far too many combinations of auctions to ever properly document what they all mean. Looking at the latest and greatest methods that the top experts are using is one of the most enjoyable aspects of vugraph. I tend to agree on the slow play bit though, but I'm not sure that computer-based play and/or automated timing systems are really the answer unless the latter is very unobtrusive and isn't going to further slow the game down. I guess the table could be fitted with some sort of optical or proximity reader to automatically capture each card as it's played and I imagine bidding boxes would need to be replaced by some other system to capture bids electronically; but what ever system is employed it must not interfere with the essence of our game which is deck of 52 cards held in our sweaty hands in the heat of battle. I expect that if players have to play their cards in a specfic location on the table and receive some sort of beep or light acknowledging that it's been detected, it would be incredibly distracting and I can't see it happening. For vugraphed events, the BBO system could be employed as a time monitor of sorts with some software modifications, but even that won't be completely fail-safe as the tempo in which the operator enters bids and plays rarely coincides with the actually tempo at the table for several reasons. What could be workable is once a BBO pause during the auction reaches a certain threshold (something like 5 seconds) a pop-up prompts the operator to confirm who is in the tank and then starts ascribing time to that player. For tempo during the play, I'm quite confident that any variation between reality and operator entry would be immaterial. At the end of the session, if slow play penalties need to be handed-out, there will be a pretty accurate representation of who soaked-up more than their fair share of the time. It's hard to imgaine that a perfect system could be devised as you can't really cater for the scenario of declarer prolonging the play to make the defence think they have a problem and then the defence wind up having a whole bunch of time ascribed to them which wouldn't have happened if declarer just claimed. Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

I'm not entirely convinced about the subjudice thing. It is the responsibility of the members of the NSWBA Appeals Committee to keep themselves pure and recuse themselves if their independence may have been compromised by trawling through bridge forums. However, I don't think it's particular wise by Nicoleta to post such overtly identifying information about the case given that she is, afaik, the only female in Australia that plays a forcing pass system (and good on her for that ;) ) Something not often considered in appeals cases that perhaps should be is how other table performed on the same board. This case was Board 16 from Round 4 of the NSW ANC Butler Pairs - Open with a fairly competent field in which Nicoleta and her partner ran 21st out of 32. Of the 16 results, it appears that 6♠ was the contract on 12 occasions of which 6 made, 5 failed and 1 failed on a TD ruling. This suggests to me that the contract was by no means a "gimme" on a "I think I can handle this" claim by a pair running mid-field hitting a 4-0 trump break.

Does the EBU have any rules about psyching a conventional opening? On my understanding of the ACBL rules, south would not be allowed to make this sort of psych; whereas in Australia he would be OK as the prohibition on psyching conventional openings only applies to bids which are unequivocally forcing and are systematically indicative of the strongest possible opening hand.

The application of Law 75B is questionable as it only pertains to "Mistaken Explanation" and in this case no explanation of 2♦ was sought or obtained. I'm willing to accept, however, that the alert itself conveys an explanation of sorts that 2♦ is an alertable call; but as to what sorts of hands that excludes I'd need some advice on the Icelandic Alerting Regulations. I don't think it is at all obvious that south believes 2♦ is majors. South may have alerted 2♦ because it shows unexpected strength or denies a second suit and is then responding with a splniter in ♥. I think West has to some extent failed to protect himself here and probably would've been best served in the first instance to not ask what 2♦ is, but do ask what 3♥ is. My thinking here is that if West is so sure that South thinks 2♦ is Majors, North will be ethically bound to describe 3♥ as a splinter which West can safely double for penalty which North will have to pass because he's got nothing more to say about his hand and South will have to pass because he's got UI that partner thinks he's got a splinter in ♥ and has been "woken up" that partner actually has a weak two in ♦. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I agree with the application of Laws 12C2a and 12C2b as if Iceland has "mainstream" alerting regulations there does seem to have been an infraction here of South's alert of a non-alertable call which then plunged the auction into a murky territory from which a sensible bridge result couldn't be obtained. I think North-South should consider themselves lucky to get away with -3 imps as things would've been a lot worse in 3♥x. There could be a SEWoG issue here with West's decision to recklessly make assumptions as to what North and South were doing and thereby an argument to give North-South -3 imps and East-West 0 imps.

In this case it was not a "tap on the table" it was a tap on a pre-existing pass card which makes a big difference imho.

From the recap of board 1 it looks quite a bit worse than -100 on a ♦ lead so perhaps your opponents should consider themselves lucky, but I guess they are only 50s so it may not have made any imp difference.

Who cares? One thing we know for certain is that this did not occur in the ACBL because according to my calendar there were no "national events" on in ACBL-land last weekend. In the absence of specific regulations of their own, most jurisdictions would follow the WBF rules which state "if a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed to have passed" so clearly the more authoritative body contemplates the practicalities of bidding boxes where, as others have noted, it is routine for methods other than selecting a fresh pass card from the box to be employed. Moreover, surely the intent of a player in the pass-out seat is relevant here and a tap on the pass card clearly indicates that intent. It's not dissimilar to where the opps are having a long auction and you are running low on pass cards so you tap, wave, recycle or steal. The other matter here is whether or not north, if we are to conclude that east hasn't passed, is able to substitute his pass for a 3NT bid. To bid 3NT requires one to pick-up almost half of the stack of bidding cards and could never be confused with picking a pass card. If I was the TD here, I would not buy that the pass came out separately to the 3NT stack - it is simply not possible.

I've edited my previous post as I agree that "seeking" is a bit harsh; particularly as I have no idea what the standard of the player in question is and nor do I know the full layout. On the limited information that we have I'm not entirely convinced that 2♦ is alertable. As it was freely bid I think it most likley conveys something along the lines of "I have a willingness to play in ♦ but if your single-suiter is a nice major - bid it". This could a 40B6(a) situation of "need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". What would double of the non-alerted and presumedly natural 2♣ bid have meant?

A problem with these sorts of hands is that the normal thing for declarer to do if the location of the ♦ honours is so important is to ask a question or two about the style and range of the dbl and whether or not EW play pass/correct after intervention; so in this case declarer is seeking obtaining a free hit because she can play east for the honours at the table and if she's wrong, get a second chance with the TD. A nice way of combining your chances. Can you post the full hand?

Your play? Agree with ♣A. What do you play to the next trick? ♠3. South looks like a 8221 but has no entry to dummy to pitch a losing ♥ on the ♣Q, so exiting ♠3 looks pretty safe to beat the contract unless declarer is 9121 which seems a bit far fetched. I just want to maximise my chances of going positive on these sorts of hands. Do you consider any other plays? ♥K was considered as that's obviously the best option for us if partner has the ♥A and might even get the contract for 800 if partner has a natural trump trick. Depending on the mode of scoring, state of the match/session, knowledge of south's preempting style, relative humidity, the moon phase and what I've had for breakfast; I could convince myself to play the ♥K on some days.

I'm going to pass as I figure that if partner is good enough for us to be making 3NT, we are more than likely going to getting at least 500 which should score up pretty well as in a swiss pairs field the people who underbid and/or underplay will always drag the average for a hand where a vul game is makable to the high-400s/low-500s and we have some good upside if we happen to get it for 800 or 1100 and if we only get +200 we probably don't have game on anyway. The big danger is having to write down -730 which will probably happen one in five times, so I need to pick up my penalty on the other four hands!

[hv=pc=n&s=s97hq32dt642cajt7&w=sajht87dkj83cq952&n=skqt83haj5daq75c8&e=s6542hk964d9ck643&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c(attempt%20to%20change%20to%201NT)1sdp1n2dppp&p=c4cac2c8s7sas3s2c5h5ckc7c3ctcqd5sqs4s9sjdad9d2d3sks5h2d8h7hah4h3sts6hqdjdkd7c6d4c9s8h6cjdth8dqh9hjhkd6]399|300[/hv] This hand came up during the final segment of the semi-finals of the Australian Open Team Trials. Towards the end of the match, West (Nabil Edgtton) pulled 1♣ out of the box in second seat and then glanced at the vulnerability and realised that as it was favourable which systemically required him to open a mini-1NT (9-12). He hadn't let go of the 1♣ card but it was touching the bidding tray. The bidding tray hadn't been pushed through to the other side of the screen and the director was called to see whether or not he could change his call to 1NT. The director ruled that he had to leave his 1♣ bid on the tray and have south push it through. Fortunately, east-west still won an imp on the board as the other room made 120 in 2NT and they won the match 153-102 (good luck in today's final Nubs). The relevant Australian regulation (which contemplate both written bidding and bidding boxes) are: I think Nabil just got a completely incorrect ruling in this case, but I'm interested to know how this situation would be handled in a Bermuda Bowl, Vanderbilt or European Championship.

I don't think it's universal. I've played bridge in a dozen or so countries and I've never seen that procedure. As for how to handle this case: - Assuming the correction period has passed, there is no choice but the leave the incorrect scores as entered so bad luck for Team M; - As the event has been run and won, applying procedural penalties is going to be of no use to anyone, however both Team A and Team L do need to suffer some pain. I suspect Team A just made an honest mistake or there was some sort of miscommunication so I think a mild reprimand would be OK. For Team L, I think their behaviour is far worse and should probably attract a one week suspension.

Just make sure nobody shoots their wad.

You never know exactly what's going on when watching on vugraph, but my impression was that south described his 2NT as "bid your minor" and when quized on whether or not north is promising 5-5 implied "yes". On that basis, west contended that had he been alerted to possibility that north could be 5-4 he would be far more likely to sit 3♣x. Irrespective of how east-west play the double of 2♥, it seems pretty obvious to sit it: if double is takeout, then partner has some ♣ length and virtually by definition his double of 3♣ is for money. So I pass 3♣x, he leads a trump and they get hammered. Or he doesn't lead a trump, they get tapped, and they get hammered. If double is values, they're screwed. I did nothing encouraging (i.e. I didn't double 2NT) and partner still hammers 3♣. I pass, and read the above for what I think will happen to it. I don't think west would stand much of a chance at the appeals committee, and evidently no appeal ever went ahead so Joe Grue probably had a similar view.

First I need a little bit more about north-south's methods. Just because they don't have a convention card doesn't mean you can't ask a few probing questions. Do they have any agreements about transfers in other low-level competitive aucitons? What do they play over an opponent's 1NT opening? What did north-south say when you asked them what their agreements are? Do north-south have a general agreement about changes of suit being forcing? Does the 2♠ bid promise reversing values if 2♥ is natural?

Does that have the same meaning in ACBL-land as the rest of the English-speaking world?

I disagree. West can fly with the ♠A and pick up a guaranteed +500 and to not do so when it's obvious that South has a hand full of ♣ is a pretty serious error in my books. Once he's seem dummy, West knows that South can have a maximum of 13 hcp, so what else could South have? Quite rightly North-South deserve their -500 as the TD ruled, but I'm going rule that West made a SEWoG and his team will keep the table result. Also, West should probably face some sort of discplinary action for making a derogatory comment about the TD. The actions by South of both not correcting the failure to alert and deliberately playing out of tempo in an attempt to induce an error by West are nothing short of cheating and perhaps some equity could be restored by addressing that issue.

It would be kind of handy to know what system NS are playing, but I guess if 2♣ was GF we probably wouldn't even be discussing the hand. Assuming 2♦ is NF, the slow 3♦ either means North was contemplating passing or was thinking about making some other onward looking bid such as 2M, 2NT or 3NT. Exactly which is by no means clear to South so you can't really get over the hurdle of the UI suggesting some alternative action such as pass, so I'm going to let NS keep their 3NT contract. At the end of the day, after the ♦ raise South can just about count on 7 tricks in his own hand and just needs to find a couple from partner's 10+ 2♣ response. At IMPs I think 3NT is an obvious bid. Turning to the "serious error", the main error I can see is west not switching to ♥ at trick 2 with his entryless hand. I think east was on the right track with the smooth falsecard, as we can clearly see the hand plays itself if east covers. South did well to read that his RHO found the ♦10 from Q10x; but I guess he might have just been trying to cut his losses in the event that it was stiff 10 to at least secure 5 ♦ tricks.

It sounds like north is holding something like: [hv=pc=n&n=saqt842hadkqt86ct]133|100[/hv] So it feels right to bid 5♠.

With reference to your unwritten agreement of "an auction like this (without his pause) means the basic requirements for me to bid are 13 cards and a heartbeat" you might also add "any hand with a 7-5 shape should not be defending at the two-level unless it's in one of my suits". I wouldn't in a million year consider defending 2♥ holding west's cards. As west I would've acted immediately over 1♥ and either bid 2NT or 2♣. I'd lean towards 2♣, particularly if the vul is unfavourable, as it gets my best suit in first and gives me a chance to then bid ♠ twice and fairly accurately convey my shape. Whilst 2NT has the advantage of getting the two-suiter message across immediately, you run the risk of playing in a 5-2 ♠ fit instead of a 7-2 ♣ fit. Having already chosen to pass over 1♥ you have dug your own grave as you have already demonstrated a lack of fondness for the 7-5 shape and whilst passing out 2♥ wouldn't cross my mind, it looks like the sort of thing a player who passed over 1♥ might do from time to time, so it's got to be considered a logical alternative.

The scope and context of regulations would ordinarily be determined by the organisation commissioning the work and approving the final draft, not the actual author. I would expect that a significant number of NBOs have chosen to adopt WBF regulations holus-bolus for everything from the national selection trials down to the local club duplicate, so there would be lots and lots of non-international standard bridge played under the WBF regulations. With the exception of ACBL games, most bridge played on BBO would be pursuant to WBF regulations as it's pretty rare for a table host, teams match organiser or tournament organiser to prescribe alternative regulations.

If East doesn't alert 2♦ and waits until it's his turn before asking what 1NT is, there is no way West would able to have his bid back and it would be entirely inappropriate for him to draw attention to his misbid. Under WBF regs and all other alerting regs that I've come across, 2♦ should be immediately alerted and, if asked, an explanation of "it depends on what 1NT means" given.