reisig

If the committee made the correct choice in this case (which I agree with)...then it follows that this pair should disappear because there's soooo much under the surface. You don't just happen to give a signal on ONE hand...they must have discussed these signals for many situations...and having discussed them ..clearly have used them before. I've heard suspisions from several players ..some Italian players. I only hope that this B-L thing doesn't reflect on the truly great and honest Italian players like Versace, etc.

In my opinion...usually meaningless...Games in the main club should be friendly and fair (also tourneys). If my opponents opened 2♦ and one thought it was a weak two and the other thought something else...I would simply ask to skip the hand - at any point, when the misunderstanding was discovered. Who wants to win because of a situation like that? Are we here to enjoy the game and each other - or win at any cost? Players should explain all bids ...possibly saying ("but we never discussed it") This is not a contest of secrets. If you psyche ..of course ..you wouldn't tell them about that..being tricky is part of the game.

When you bid 4♣ - does that show a void? In addition - you get better bids from partner when you give them space to bid. By bidding 3♠ - you allow more options - can always cue bid later...but 3♠ gives everyone a better shot and would tend to be 4-6- ?- ? with a good hand. Painting partner into a corner at this point demonstrates that you don't care what partner bids...since their choices are so limited.

How can 3♠ mess up the hand? Can't partner have cards there?

Why try to change a whole bridge scoring program because of a player that probably should be banned? The director should be called - and an adjusted score given. Then the crazy bidder be reported...and the proper punishment assigned by BBO.

No professional player gives a refund...ever! I talk with the student (client) before we play and after the session - to review the relevant hands. If all you care about is winning some small tourney (and not learning the game) - then you should find someone else. Notes about bidding methods and defense are always provided...depending on the level of the student.

Not knowing all the facts - makes it impossible to make a rational judgement. But if the 3 finger signal happened - and caused the winning play..then you have to ask yourself more questions. How did Buratti know that there was a signal unless this has happened before and was looking for it. Giving a signal has 2 sides - giving and receiving. The mere fact of seeing a signal is not enough ..He has to understand the meaning as well, which would indicate prior discussion of any signal. So, IF you think this is just ONE idle case...it can't be. All of this is meaningless if there was no "signal". But if so ...then this goes far deeper.

On any 1x-1y-1z auction ...some form of checkback is needed. NMF is easily playable and never (almost never) forgotten. We need an artif forcing bid on many hands for furthur exploration finding 5-3 Maj fits/finding the best game or slam. I prefer 2 way checkback but have played NMF very often.

Your carding methods have nothing to do with the problem. When partner opens 3♦ - Vul missing the King and Queen - partner has 7 card suit. When the Queen wins at trick one..do I need to tell my attitude? So - at trick 1 -- play high card for higher suit shift and lowest for lower suit and middle ..says - I have nothing to ask for...play more ♦s. - (from my point of view).

Since the X does NOT guarantee 4-4+ in Majors,,,jumps to 2 level show some game interest with 5 card suit (maybe a good 8 to terrible 11). With 4 card suits ..bid either 1M or cue bid.(followed by a Major = 4 only). A jump to 3M should be 6 cards with 6-7 points (with more I'd bid game or jump to 2 level).

I'm confused. Why is this hand in here?

4!h seems automatic - with an eye toward 6♦ (need ♣s for discards)

1♣ followed by 2♦ (reverse) - does that promise 4♦s? Not to me!

4♣ - my hand is not bad (AK in pard's suit and 6th ♥

I'd bid 3♠ - planning on 4♥ next ...so partner can easily judge I'm headed toward slam and "know" where the problem is. Also - when I bypass a cue and later cue bid that suit ...I show 2 cues in 1st suit and one in second suit.

A great start. Now I can hear messages while reading or watching TV

Nobody seems to have stalled intentionally. But maybe the director should use deals where each suit has 13 cards :)

As most have said -- make your normal play, since RHO wouldn't have anything to think about anyway...so you should assume the hesitation was caused by other situations at home or private chats. However, there are many other play problems where a slight huddle can lead you astray....but this ain't it.

I would certainly start with 2N

If you xfer to ♦s and bid 3♠ later ...to me that shows 6+♦ and 0-1♠. Why not 2♣ and then 3♦ over whatever opener bids? Then can bid 4♠ over 3N or 3♠ over 3♥.

A 3♥ rebid is out of the question. I'd rather bid 3♠ and when (later) I had to put dummy down -- you take the small ♣ and put in the ♠ suit ..and discover your "error" as you put the trumps down...showing shock ..of course ;)

Everything has been said..except - why 3♠ over 3♣? I like giving opener a chance to explain his jump shift. Over 3♥ I can bid 3♠...over 3NT ♠s are out of the question. Who gets blamed? The first error or the last? The punishment should clearly be a firing squad ;)

Best to think the problem all the way thru - before making a play.

I like 3♦ as 5-5+ Majors ..invit or better. And 3M =short with 3 suited

Justin feels better because the "poll" backs up his action. I think - he really doesn't feel better ..just that there others that agree with what he did. Hard to convince partner that you were right because some others agree with you..they never have sympathy..at least with me.