mrdct

I'm not 100% sure that intent is relevant to question of "incontrovertibly not artificial". Also, if we take account of intent, the ruling could generate potenital UI for the 1NT in the event that the offending side wind-up defending.

The relevant test under Law 27 is whether or not both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial (my emphasis added). I think it would be hard to argue that a substituted 2♥ bid is "incontrovertibly not articial" as the scenario could easily be that she intended to bid 2♥ but pulled the wrong card out of the bidding box. I believe "incontrovertibly" is a pretty strong test. Accordingly, I'm going to rule that the 1NT opener must pass for the rest of the auction, essentially forcing the insufficient bidder to decide now what the final contract is going to be.

Perhaps it's your username which is a potentially offensive colloquial term for masturbation; but usually only in contexts such as "having a wank" or "you are a wanker".

Jurisdiction is probably important here as a 1♠ response to a transfer may not be alertable in some places. It would be alertable in Australia if it denied 4♠.

disagree. There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring. It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support. This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum). And it is something the opps are entitled to know. Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI. I think you are right on the money. If 1♠ wasn't alerted, the 1♠ bidder has huge UI that partner has stuffed-up and probably doesn't have a ♠ suit at all. Bidding 3♥ rather than 2♠ is clearly suggested by the non-alert of 1♠ so I would wind the auction back to west bidding 2♠ and then things get interesting. In the absence of the wake-up call, east should think his partner has 6♣ and 5♠ so I think the normal action would be 3♣ which will end the auction. 3♣ looks like it will make comfortably, but no game bonus for EW.

But they weren't leading it, they we just trying to follow suit after declarer called out the name of that suit from dummy. What about Law 47E: A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead (LHO should not accept the lead). In this case you could argue that by calling for a card from dummy that doesn't exist, the next hand in turn was mistakenly informed, etc.

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced? I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

What happens if the hand sitting over dummy plays a card based on what was called from dummy?

So this is a serious error? Or are you saying the damage wasn't caused by the MI? How will you rule? (Please note the last sentence of 12C1b). Of course it's a serious error to not know who the dealer is when it's printed on the board right in front of you. I also think it's very much a stretch to claim MI from a non-alerted 1NT overcall by a passed-hand which can't reasonably have any natural meaning. In order for there to be MI, the non-alert must have some sort of meaning ascribable to it which, clearly, in this case there is not. It's a little bit like if a cue raise doesn't get alerted in a jurisdiction where such bids are alertable. An opponent can't get away with treating it as natural and then claim damage when they later discover that it was a cue raise and didn't compete because they thought there would be a bad trump break. I rule table result stands.

We seem to have a chicken and egg situation here. The non-alerted 1NT bid is presumed to be "strong balanced" but can't be due to being a passed hand. 1NT by a passed hand is always going to have some unusual meaning so there is surely some duty on the 1♠-bidder to ask. I think the damage was self-inflicted by NS failing to pay attention to who was dealer.

I might come off sounding like a heretic, but I'm not convinced that bridge within a normal school curriculum is the answer. Learning bridge takes a lot of time and even if you can get your foot in the door with a school, a couple of periods per week just isn't going to give the kids the time to learn the concepts and gain familiarity with common situations. I think after-school programmes or school holiday programmes are a much better idea (the latter being the way I learnt the game in a one-week crash course right after I finished high school). I've recently taught my 13 year-old son to play the game which I did with a combination of one-on-one instruction, playing on BBO and having him go through Fred's ACBL Learn to Play Bridge stuff on BBO. It probably took him a good three or fours months to "get it" but now he's quite competent as far as the local club duplicate is concerned and has his sights set on doing well in tournaments. A few points I'd like to make: - Teaching my son to play bridge has been one of the most rewarding experiences I've had in my life and has given me an activity that I can share with my son for the rest of my life. There will be some hard yards involved, but in the end your efforts in teaching bridge to your kids will be rewarded so I implore all of you to give it a try. - At 13 kids pretty much remember everything and have enough maths, statistics and problem solving skills to play bridge so it is an absolutely ideal age to teach the game. - On the original topic of youth bridge and system regulations, my son is desperate to play some of the stuff he sees his heros playing on vugraph (his heros being the current crop of Australian youth players who have been doing very well in open events) but he understands and respects my insistence that he delay moving towards complex methods and conventions until he has got all of the natural stuff down-pat. I think it would be counter to his development if he was playing artificial and complex methods at this stage, but within reason I think it's good for him to play against such methods as it gets him thinking about bidding theory and system optimisation. As his competence improves it is inevitable that he will want to experiment with more complex methods and luckily we live in a country where he will be able to do that reasonably easily.

At favourable vul I would suggest north as a clear-cut routine opening whether they are playing weak 2s or 2-suited openings. Result stands.

It would be useful if GIB was disabled for commentators in a similar way to how GIB is disabled for vugraph operators.

Having worked as an operator many times, I can tell you that you will get your explanations from either or both sides of the screen depending on whether or not anyone is asking. A working knowledge of sign language is useful. Based on what the operator said, I assume the explanation entered during the bidding was from west to south. So it looks like north was told east denies club stoppers and south was told that east is showing club stoppers. So how will this change their actions? This also indicates that east psyched his pass which I agree seems very odd and is quite a dodgey thing to do in a self-alerting environment.

I wonder if there might any merit in using day 1 to seed the field with something like 6 rounds of swiss which will determine the 64 teams to qualify for the KO and determine the draw for the KO stage. This would replace the 4-way matches currently used to reduce the field to 64. This would get over the problem of how to rate non-American players with little or no track record in ACBL events.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s2h985d10752caq1043&w=sq1097h7643da943c2&e=sa43haj10dq8ckj976&s=skj865hkq2dkj6c85]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I hardly have any info at all as I wasn't watching this match at the time, but I understand this board from the 2nd segment of the semi-final is the subject of an appeal which could decide the match after Zimmerman prevailed 134-127 over Strul at the table. The auction went: W_____N______E______S _____________1NT(1)__P 2C_____X_____P(2)____P 2D_____P_____P_______X P______3C____X_______P P______P (1) = 15-17 (2) = alert, shows stoppers 7 Tricks (-300 & -11 imps) Ignoring speculation from the vugraph commentators, the comments made by the operator at the conclusion of the hand were as follows: "Italians are discussing interpretations of bids given during the auction" "director being called" "discussion is based on whether pass of dbl of 2c can have 4 card major" "initial explanation to Fantoni (north) was that pass denied club stopper" "board will be reviewed by directors, moving on" Does anyone have any additional facts or information about this hand and what the outcome of the appeal was?

As far as I can work out from the ACBL website, if you play a Multi 2♦ in a "NABC+" event that permits such methods, you need to do three things: 1. Give a description of your "SuperChart" method to the director-in-charge they day before you intend to use them. I believe this needs to be in writing and must include suggested defences (plural). 2. Pre-alert you opponents at the start of each segment. 3. Give a copy of the same stuff you gave the director-in-charge to your opponents who will be allowed to refer to same during the bidding. The relevant regulations are silent as to whether the material submitted in writing needs to be printed or hand written, but I think it is fairly implied that it need to be legible. Given the fairly messy hand written convention card that Meckwell used at the last USBF trials, Ng-Tan's notes must have been pretty bad if that satisfies the ACBL's legibility threshold. Again, unless you were actually there and have the real facts none of us here really know what happened; but if raist's report is accurate Meckstroth should be immediately referred to the Intergalactic BDIU Committee (google it).

Since when in a teams event do the organisers determine the seating? Wouldn't you just play a series of normal triangle movements rotating the seating rights (each set of 2 half matches requiring one team to sit 2 pairs and one team to sit one pair)?

Is this a pairs qualifying or teams qualifying?

Easy to say looking at all four hands, but at favourable vul with a singleton in their bid and raised suit, all my values in my suits and a partner who didn't act after 1♣:1♦; it makes 2♠ look like an attractive bid. There isn't much downside and could get us to a match-winning save. They certainly put on a great show. The sad part for me was I was racing home from work to catch the last few boards and needed to grab some cash from an ATM for the weekend and in doing so made an (allegedly) illegal manoeuvre over some double white lines so that I could avoid having to drive down to the end of the street to turn around and copped a $234 fine and 3 demerit points from an unmarked police car lying in wait.

I was watching the vugraph when this incident occurred and I'd like to stress that what we saw on BBO is almost certainly not the complete picture of what transpired at the table. Accordingly, I will heavily disclaim my comments as being entirely based on what was reported by the operator at the time. Coming from a country where the 2♦ multi is played routinely in Saturday afternoon duplicates at the Senior Citizens Centre, I find the ACBL system regulations a complete joke. However, this is an ACBL event played under ACBL rules and anybody who takes a passing interest in international bridge knows that the ACBL has extremely restrictive system regulations. Surely the Singaporeans new the rules. It's a lilttle bit like turning up with an alumnium bat when the conditions of contest say you can only use a wooden bat. I don't think the Singaporeans have anyone to blame except themselves, but I still think that for a pair like Meckwell who surely have their own sophisticated defence to a multi 2♦ and would've been preped by their coach on the Singaporean methods beforehand; it was kind of pathetic to try to gain an advantage through a technicality like this. Pathetic, but not illegal or unethical in my books.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq10hj7632d64cj985&w=sa2ha984dqcakq632&e=skj876hk5dakj107c10&s=s9543hq10d98532c74]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] East, a fairly inexperienced players. was declaring 6NT on the lead of the ♦5. Upon examining dummy for a few moments, East claimed stating "I've got the top 3 clubs, 5 diamonds, ace-king of hearts and the ace-king of spades for 12 tricks". North-South quickly accept the claim, at which point dummy (a more experienced player) takes the opportunity to remind his partner that they are playing pairs not teams and he really should have tried for 13 by testing if clubs are 3-3 and then running the diamonds in case someone gets squeezed. North now contributes to the discussion revealling that whilst he had 4 clubs, the ♠Q was coming down doubleton but it's too late to play for that now. Dummy opined to north that you can't concede a trick that can't be lost through normal play and if East plays out his cards in the order stated in his claim a 13th trick will automatically emerge. North then called the director. Who would you rule? Has dummy over-stepped the mark?

I don't think it's fair to blame slow play on screens. If the players are reasonably experienced with screens, it really shouldn't make much difference at all as the bids can essentially be made in the same tempo; save that written explanations of bids might take a few seconds more than verbal explanations. I believe the real reason for the extra 90 seconds per board is the super-seriousness of the event. In late stages of major events, excessive time consumption generally occurs during the card play when the screen is open and long tanks in the auctions would've occured with or without screens. If you allocate extra time to a session the players will use it.

Expert, what is (sic) the criteria? The ability to be able to select "expert" from a pull-down menu.

The general convention is that when non-English commentary is provided, it will be in the closed room. If you happen to stroll into a closed room with commentary you don't understand, it only takes one click to move to the other room.