arrows

Ok, This is the story of this hand, happened in the same round, exactly just before the other one I posted in another thread. You must be right if you found it hard to believe, because even I couldn't believe it. Our opponents (East-West) hold the cards in question, I sit North. It was rotated and the actual layout is: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=skt2h8djt2ckqj852&w=saq975hkq73dak6c9&e=s83hat95d8743ca43&s=sj64hj642dq95ct76]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] N-----------E-----------S-----------W P------------P(1)--------P-----------1♣(2) p------------1♥(3)------P-----------2N(4) P------------3♣(5)------P-----------3♦(6) P------------3N(7)-------P-----------4♥ all pass (7) break of tempo It tooks about 20-30 seconds for East to bid that "serious" 3NT. Then it's my partner's turn and he called director for the irregularity. And that seems irritated our opponents, "What's the problem? 3NT was an artificial call!", they said. Director asked the situation, I said west thought "obviously longer than 10 seconds" before bidding 3NT, and neither of our opponents denied there was a break of tempo. 3NT was explained as "serious", showing a good hand in the context and further interest. With no delay, west drew out of 4 hearts, and it concluded the auction. The lead was a club..., when defense gained the lead, we continued with club to force dummy, because of the bad break of trumps, declarer only made 4. After the play, I called the director and said east hesitated before 3NT, and west then only bid 4H with an non-minimum hand and all primary cards. west argued that east's first pass already denied a mini-NT opening hand and so forth, I asked "Do you open 1NT also with unbalanced hand?", to which west responded with: "Do you think you know more of our system than us?". While I am in pain of searching anwser to west's challenge, the director asked me if what I was trying to say is because of the break in tempo of east, west failed to bid more positively, I said yes. The director then took the board and ask us to continue with the next. Up to this point, E-W only mentioned that, having not bid 3 spades, East denied spade Ace or King. But no other additional agreement had been mentioned and explained. Later, the director told me the ruling was the table result stands. I appealed, Wouldn't you? I am also puzzled that how the director got to that conclusion. During the hearing session that night, In the routine of "introduce yourself", the chief didn't forget to add, "of course, we all know who you are", he said toward east-west. I said given East showing slam interest, holding West's hand, one could hardly construct a East's hand for which slam has no reasonable play. Hey, not to mention West had totally given up the slam investigation at game level. East-West then came up with all the "additional agreements" I listed earlier. They seem make some sense. So I asked the committee to ask them whether they can provide any documentation for their "agreement", they said there were none, they just play this way. I don't know, please correct me if I am wrong, because I really would like to learn more about this process. I guess "agreements" without evidence are just self-serving claims, the committee should not based their decision on these claims. In this case, the serious 3NT should be considered as general slam invitation with no specific implications unless East-West can prove other agreements do exist. Also, consider the probablity that a seasoned partnership and world champions, do not have any notes for such kind of agreements. Who knows, anything happens these days. The players then asked to wait outside while the committee discuss the case, A quarter later, I was told the final ruling. The director's ruling stands and I was given a penalty point for APPEAL WITHOUT MERIT. And the opponents DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP when the committee address their final decisions. I didn't expect to win before I went to the hearing, because their team sponsored by a figure of prominent in the world of ACBL, and who are we? I understand the economics, or politics, or whatever you call it, behind the decision of ruling and appeal. However, giving me a "appeal without merit" is just carrying this idea far beyond the imagination of us merely mortals. The committee, fisrt, somehow, managed to find the hesitation was "about 10 seconds" instead of "obviously longer than 10 seconds". Second, they doubt there's any UI at all, because "given such a complicated problem East had to face" Here, I really feel impetuous to defend for East. Their "agreement" clearly stated 3 hearts showing 5+ hearts, 3 spades showing spade A or K, 4 clubs showing all strength outside clubs, All are HARD requirement. (well, it's designed to eliminate any uncertainty, anyway) If East was not pondering over the choice between 3NT and 4H, she must have a hard time to count the number of hearts, spade ace or king, or if all clubs were telephone numbers. Therefore, the committee was basically saying, according to their own argument, East was an imbecile, which I, of course, totally, absolutely, disagree! Finally, I was admonished, "Be very careful to bring up appeal case in the future". Obviously, the committee concluded that my reason of appeal is totally unjustified. and what is this, a mafia meeting? For the technical side, the committee said "they spent no time on the bridge side of this hand...." what they tried to say is my argument was totally nonsense. They based their decision on E-W's self-serving claims, this is already way out of the line. In addition, even East-west do have the agreement as they said, slam is far from out of the question. For example, east may have: 1. ♠xxxx ♥ AJxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx in a good day, you make grand 2. ♠ x ♥ AJxx ♦ QJxxx ♣ xxx slam is almost lay-down and so forth. I look forward to reading the appeal case book of 2005 fall NABC.

If I read this thread right, the majority here think the ruling make little sense, but N-S should be penalized for misinformation. At the table, East's bid of 3 hearts, which obviously was not a general cuebid, was not alerted. And after the play, E-W called director and claim they were damaged by the misinformation but failed to suggest a reasonable way to reach the slam if there were no misinformation. Since without misinformation, how to bid slam is really still a tough problem. I guess it's might be better if the director cancel this board, and award E-W team some IMPs. I was the North, my partner is basically a rubber player. We are casual partnership and play a vanilla SAYC with only a few conventions. In retrospect, I agree that I failed to realize that bid 5 clubs could be interpreted as using of UI. East-West are world class players and seasoned partnership. I don't know, I think after 5 clubs, the situation should be clear for players of their caliber. I don't think it's fair to adjust the result to 6 hearts make while they judged to stay out of the slam in auction.

not talking about whether to get 6H, just what to bid over 3NT

for example, following the agreement, North probably having heart ace fourth and ace empty of clubs, and maybe a Jack somewhere.... and maybe some shape... Do you think south's hand worth another try over serious 3NT?

if you knew partner couldn't have 5 hearts and spade king, and couldn't be 10+ HCP balanced hand, because of North's first pass, Do you think South's hand worth another try over partner's serious 3NT?

I am really confused, why 5C bid could be using of UI? And in this situation, what is the appropriate action of North?

not talking about system, just follow the agreement carefully, :( if no problem, I don't have to ask around :)

[hv=n=sqh4daj9873cakq97&w=sajhaqj98752dq102c&e=sk1076542hk3dk5c43&s=s983ht6d64cjt8652]399|300|[/hv] Spot cards are approximate IMP TEAM VUL. N/S Del. West W-----------N-----------E-------------S 1♣--------2N---------3♥----------P 3♠--------P-----------4♠----------P P-----------5♣---------P------------P 5♥--------P------------P------------P There's no curtain. One clubs was precision, and north's 2NT intended to show both minors. North-South play 2NT showing lower 2 suits over a natural/semi-natural opening, but have never discussed what 2NT is over an artificial 1C. When asked, South just took it literally and told N-S 2NT was showing ♦ & ♥. 3♥ showing spades, and at the moment North bid 5♣, director is called and E-W explained what had happend... The auction continues and West bid 5♥, east gave it a serious thought, and finally passed. 5 hearts over one. East - West complained that they were damaged because of the misinformation. The director adjust the results to E-W 6 hearts make. What do you think about this ruling?

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=saq975hkq73dak6c9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] W-----------N-----------E-----------S P------------P(1)--------P-----------1♣(2) p------------1♥(3)------P-----------2N(4) P------------3♣(5)------P-----------3♦(6) P------------3N(7)-------P-----------? (1) You play 10-12 mini-NT open when white (2) precision 16HCP+(can be less with distribution) (3) natural positive, 4+ ♥, 8+ HCP (4) artificial, 4+ ♥ support and unspecified singlton/void. (5) ask (6) ♣ short (7) Serious 3NT, showing further interest. If with the following additional agreement in the context: Over 3♦, North may: 1. bid 3♥ showing 5+ hearts 2. bid 3♠ showing A/K in spades 3. bid 4♣ showing all values are outside clubs What do you bid if you were South?

One has to admit, money does matter. As far as i can see, BBO is not for charity. Therefore, when there's a dispute, ruling against those ACBL directors does not work for the best interest of the owners of BBO. To be honest, in average, I don't think those so-called ACBL "accredited" director can do a better job in directing than people who are regular participants of this forum. However, they can generate cash flow for BBO, and this is very important. But why can't others generate cash flow for BBO by organizing tourney? Why can't BBO offer its customer more choices when it costs virtually nothing? Instead of using ACBL directors, why can't BBO accredite its own directors who can also run the paid tourney? Let them reap a certain percentage directing fee and generate more cash flow for BBO. Not all people like ACBL rules, not all people can afford $1 tourney, and definitely not all people wanna get those stupid "master points". But almost all of us want good bridge. So why not eliminate the barrier of entry, give all qualified people the chance to help BBO, themselves and us all? Let the directors decide their rules and how much they wanna charge for each player for their tourney. Why does the entry fee have to be $1? Someone out there maybe would like to charge a penny, and running tourney 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! some tourney may play 4 boards, some may last 4 hours, let the market decide. Once the competition starts, bbo tourney will thrive, no one would even have time arguing here, because they are all busy directing and playing! In the not-so-far future, we are going to see 1000 people playing in the same tourney in BBO.

cannot agree more. because I was the South :D But the TD adjust our score to avg- B) The reason is "you can't open 1NT with singlton".

(uday: deleted)

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=saj8632hq84datc94&w=s5hkj9732dq92c872&e=skt974htd7653ckj6&s=sqha65dkj84caqt53]399|300|Scoring: MP the bidding went: E S W N p 1N p 2♥ p 2♠ p 3N p p p [/hv] West leads singlton ♠, ducked to East's King, East returns a ♥, ducked again to the King. South wins the ♥ continuation in dummy and cash another ♠, then shift to ♣ and got all of the rest tricks. West calls director, saying South should have alerted his 1NT opening bid and questioning North's 3NT bid, which is in west's opinion, not a normal choice. N-S's convention card reads standard 15-17 1NT. and both claim they made their bids following their judgement. What do you think?

I guess bridge is one of the sports with least sex discrimination. Because the formats are categoried by "OPEN" and "WOMAN". Not "Man's" and "Woman's", as almost every other sports do.

This one is just for kids, the opener passed, 3rd player preempted, and what the opener did next is... inviting 5♣?? some play bridge, some count points, again, what the hell it is?

What the hell are points? LOL Looks like if I bid 8NT, that should be allowed, because I can never swallow that much. What they want is not bridge, but playing against idiots who always let them win. :lol: these guys are just fabulously amusing :lol:

good, you are so responsive, But there's a bug have been around for long time, in the rubber game, if one doesn't "click" at the end of a hand, then when next hand begin, the vulnerability one sees always get messed up... come on, I am actally doing you a favor.....

This has been proposed long before. I don't know, seems it's not too difficult to extend the chat room function and set up slots so that players can join. Meanwhile, joining chat room before one can join a team game, make it impossible for a player accept 1+ invitation at a time. Well, let me guess, team games do not generate any cash flow for BBO, to make it easier to organize may even have a negative impact on it. (may have less people join the $ tourney). That's why this kind of proposal is always nonsense.

OK, now it's time to show your faith. Let's say you bid 4♦ (seems the majority choice), your partner bid 4♠. (Both Opps pass in between), Now what are you going to do? Or even further, When in such kind of situtation, you are facing to something you totally have no clue (in regard to your agreement). what approach do you take at the table?

IMP, Vul vs Not LHO CHO RHO You 1S pass pass 2H 3C 3S pass ? S ------ H AK875 D KQJ7 C 8643 1. Do you agree with 2H? 2. What hand could the 3S be showing? 3. What are you going to do?

I am bored to keep arguing over this. How about we follow a link given by yourself... Go to the section B-6, see what you can find there.

For me, giving up the natural meaning of 1♦-2♦ is too much, giving up the SJS seems more reasonable. 1♦-1♥ 2♦-? I can argue that here 2♥ is invitational, because 2♦ is already a playable partial and it's hard to justify why 2♥ is a better spot. Thus jumping 3♥ is GF. Okey, let's suppose we really really want 2♥ to be "weak to play", we can still use AI (artificial invitation or "the 3rd suit forcing") to solve the problem, again, jumping 3♥ is GF.

- just on frequency partner will usually have 4+ clubs. The average length of a club opener playing 5 cd majors is well over 4. RHO having 5-6 spades also increases partner's expected club length. - if he does have only 3, he can take a stab at 3nt with 15+ bal. Personally, when playing wkNT/5cM, I am willing to bid 3♣ here on *3* card support & 8-9 pts, not having 4+ hearts, and will usually survive just fine. 1) playing 5CM and strong NT, bid 3♣ on 4 cards is out-of-the-line, your partner would be VERY mad at you if s/he holding only 3 ♣. 2) playing 5CM and weak NT, Although you may bid 3♣ on 3 cards, I 'd suggest you do not, because it would cause severe problem in further competition. Partner will definitely NOT make his judgement based on only 3 card support from you

Acol isn't capitalized; it's not an acronym but a street in London. Anyway, if you are opening the minor with 44s, the only time you are opening the 4 card major is with 4333 & I suppose some 4441 shapes. The frequency is cut down so much that really you might as well play 5cM and get the advantages of a 5cM system. Do you really feel you get to better contracts opening 1♠ on 4333 rather than 1♣? I doubt it. All you are gaining here is an assurance that partner's minor is 4+. I personally don't think that's worth much. I just assume partner is 4+, and if he isn't it doesn't matter usually. Either we end up in NT or the opponents outbid us in a major. Obviously, knowing Acol was named after a street doesn't necessarily help people understand it better. The cases I open 4 card major yet have to include 4♠-4♥-32. I don't think opening 1♠ on 4333 a good idea either. but it's so rare that I can hardly remember last time I did it. But Other players have to open "fake" minors everyday during their life time, understandable that they are trying hard to prove this is the better way. Huh? I thought you said you opened the minor with 4-4 major/minor. So 5-4 distribution or singleton isn't guaranteed, it could be 4342 or similar. You miss the target again, with 4432, I'd have already opened 1NT. With 4432 strong opening hand, I'd have already raised 3M, or even I choose not to do so, my 2M raise still guaranteed playing values HCP-wise.

The origin of the problem is not strong NT or weak NT, it's when one opens 1♦ and one's partner has a weak response hand with no major to bid. strong NT players may deem this is less severe a problem just because the opener's hand is usually weaker than that of weak NT players, hence it's not a big deal for the responder to bid 1NT ? I may also deem this is less severe a problem for me, because when responder has no major, s/he might be able to raise 2♦ (not available to those playing inverted minors), or with 8-10 points, ♣ suit only, s/he can bid 2♣(not available to those playing 2 over 1). With 15-16P, opener rebid 2NT, with 17-18P, opener rebid 3NT. The chances are: with 6-10P, responder can find a bid of 1M or 2♦ or 2♣, If s/he cannot, still there's chances 1NT *is* the right decription. For me, it is really not so frequent that the responder has to call a "bad" 1NT. Besides, with no descriptive bid in hand, one can always consider Pass.