TimG

Are you saying that you might cancel your 9:30 game because someone else runs a 9:40 game and that game takes away your subs? If there really is FT Director tension caused by "poaching subs", I'm amazed.

And...gymnastics.

Yes, you will often see responses from Fred and Uday.

So then, there really haven't been three passes to end the auction? And, was it East who made the lead or West?

ACBL has deemed weak openings that could be made on 4-4 hands to be destructive. Changing the lower limit from 3 to 5 does nothing to change this. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is good or bad, just stating what current ACBL policy is.) I'm sure you can find somewhere on the mid-chart a note that such weak openings must promise at least 5-4.

Your partner overcalled 1♦ with x J9x AKxxxx xxx and then freely bid 2♦? I guess there were some club honors in the mix. It is good that you were on the same page regarding 4♥. Undiscussed, I would have expected 4♣ to set diamonds as trumps, making the 4♥ bid a control bid. An agreement that is sometimes useful in this type of situation is that a first cue-bid is never made in a major suit that partner bid naturally (or otherwise showed length in). With this agreement in place, the 4♥ bid in your auction would indeed have been an offer to play.

Jilly has stated this this tournament was being run under WBF rules. I wouldn't penalize for this sort of offense unless there was a history of poor explanations. I agree. But, in the case of a short online tournament, I would consider a first offense as establishing a history and seriously consider a PP for the second offense. I don't think PPs are a particularly strong motivational factor, especially for those who are trying to practice full disclosure. I was once assigned a PP for an insufficient explanation in a situation very similar to this case in that I wrote "may bypass a major suit" which some would assume to mean a "4-card major suit" when in actuality the bypassed major could have been longer than 4 cards. I had already taken care to improve my descriptions when the appeal committee assigned a PP. And, when the committee did assign the PP, I didn't think "oh, I better be even more careful now". I do think PP are beneficial in establishing an environment in which full disclosure is expected. And, in this way is probably more useful as a signal to those who are not directly involved in the decision. That is, they are a way to demonstrate that the sponsoring organization and directing staff are serious about the Laws and regulations and expect the players to also be serious about them. Failure to assign PP can be seen as the opposite.

Wouldn't you be inclined to lead a club here, even with a singleton if your hearts were not great? So, I think responder on the actual hand made an error with his 3♥ bid (and probably his double, even if he had passed 3♦, unless there is a ♣10 missing from his actual hand). With opener's actual hand, looking at the ♦K, you have to wonder what is going on, don't you? One explanation is that partner has solid clubs. Certainly advancer has a heart stopper, but he may reasonably have been counting on the takeout doubler to have a club stopper. If one of our suits is running, it is most likely clubs. Conflicting signal, I think. At the table, I probably would have led a heart, but with time to think deeper a club is probably best. One extra thing that a club has going for it is that responder might have the ♣A and be able to switch to hearts at trick two when clubs is the wrong suit. Leading a heart is likely an all or nothing shot (when it matters).

I think second two doubles are fine, too. But, agree with your general sentiment. ELC: the way I play this is that double followed by correction is for hands that were inappropriate for a diamond overcall in the first place. Is this an unusual view? Here I would be happy to overcall 2♦ and later double for takeout if the auction made that convenient.

I think you handled it well. The non-offending side was certainly not entitled to any adjustment. If anything (and I don't think there should have been) was done, it should be a procedural penalty against he offending side.

I also wish that the tournament chat could be turned off. In ACBL events, I often mark the director as an enemy so that I don't get barraged with announcements.

But, a series of 10 or 15 12-board speedballs should have some significance. Even though the winners of the individual speedballs will be somewhat random, the good pairs will have good results over the course of 10 or 15 speedballs, even if those good results don't include a win. And, BBO/ACBL isn't awarding any bonuses for winning a single event, the masterpoints are awarded based upon section finish.

I think I would have bid 5♠ the round before (instead of 5♦), so 6♦ now. I think partner must have a good hand for his 1♦ overcall and 2♦ freebid. x Axx AKxxxx xxx is enough for slam, consistent with the bidding (except he might have raised hearts) and near minimum. x Ax AKxxxx xxxx is enough for a grand, isn't it? I'd worry more about that than whether or not to bid on over 5♠.

From the opening post: It would be surprising if this player never entered an event where masterpoints were not used for flighting, bracketing or seeding. I would not find it surprising if he did for this event what ACBL has been doing for him right along: treated him as having some number of masterpoints less than 5000. Before he is deemed "pathetic" we ought to get the full story about how ACBL has treated him for flighting, bracketing, seeding purposes in the past. He may well have had good reason to expect that he was eligible for the 0-5000 event.

A friend invited me to play in unibridge game a few weeks ago, I wasn't a member, but an e-mail from the friend to the director/organizer got me into the game without any problem. As I mentioned before, I found it agonizingly slow. 21 minutes for 3 boards is really a lot for an online game. Considering that 21 minutes for 3 boards is typical for face-to-face and you've not got any record keeping, hand sorting, board changing to do online, the time is actually more than allowed in typical face-to-face play. It wasn't that the play was slow, but that there was typically 8-9 minutes to wait between rounds. My opinion is that it's not the fact that there are few people signed up for the ACBL games that is killing the game, but that people aren't signing up because there is very little demand for play under the time conditions. That doesn't help you, of course, and I truly do wish you luck in finding the type of game you are looking for, I'm just not optimistic.

NV v V, MP, you hold ♠752 ♥AK6 ♦Q97 ♣J532. LHO opens 1♥, partner overcalls 1♠, RHO passes. The three choices seem to be 1N, 2♥ (constructive three-card raise), and 2♠ (not so constructive three-card raise). Of course, you and your partner have not quantified "constructive". Your choice?

I'd file a recorder form with the Unit recorder.

I took this to mean that N and W were on the same side of the screen.

Well, black, like silver, are a ploy to get players in a specific venue. I was once in NYC at a regional when they announced the unit's mini-mckenney winners. Rosenberg, Fallenius, Lev and Zia all won their category and we hadn't even gotten to the top category which was won by a Becker. I wouldn't be surprised if Rosenberg won a national event or two before he became a life master.

It sounds like: North and west are on the same side of the screen. The auction was passed out on the south/east side of the screen. The tray was pushed halfway back, indicating the auction has ended, but leaving the tray positioned so that everyone can remove their bidding cards at the same time. West leads out of turn. South notices the irregularity and announces it to the table in an odd manner. What should be done? The director should be called, obviously. So, I'm going to guess the real question is "what should the director rule?" Does the face down lead followed by no objection from north absolve west of any penalty from leading out of turn?

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have 5000 points -- I know at least one person who represented their country in the Bermuda Bowl ~20 years ago that doesn't have 5000 MP (or didn't a year ago). But, for the purpose of this thread, it seems best to stipulate to him not being eligible. I think the ineligible player should be immediately disqualified and the team proceed with out him. If it were a four person team, I would do the same and require a substitute. I'm not sure the offending team should be awarded any masterpoints, or credited with a win should the remaining team do well. But, this doesn't really concern me much. If the ineligibility was discovered after the conclusion of the event, I would not award the team any masterpoints for the event. All teammates that were aware of the unrecorded points and thus the probable ineligibility should be subject to the same sanctions. (I understand that it will be difficult to prove who knew and who did not.) There should be sanctions for knowingly entering an event for which you were not eligible. But, I have no idea whether this is part of ACBL regulations.

I've never asked and would not know where to find the policy to read the fine print; I am not at all surprised that anyone is not 100% whether theft is covered. If you have a loan on the car, then you are probably required to be insured for theft.

Unibridge is a sloooooooooooow game. 1 PM eastern time, every day, if I recall correctly.

Uday put is very well when he said: "headphones (on or off) send a 'don't disturb me' signal." To me, that is rude. (Of course, my kids think that me having headphones on is a signal for them to ask me as many questions as they can think of, so maybe my "don't disturb me" perception is entirely out of line...) As for a book or a crossword, it has been my experience that a dummy who is otherwise occupied often has to pause when playing a card -- that is be snapped out of their other pursuit, register the designated card and then find it -- or will finish the crossword entry they are in the middle of, or the sentence they are reading, before attending to their dummy duties. If dummy can attend to the cards and read/write without appearing distracted, I would feel differently, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. As I said, I would not object to any of these behaviors at the table -- it's not a big deal; on the rudeness scale it is a minor offense. BTW, I have played against Chip and do not recall him reading. Maybe he just wasn't ever dummy or forgot his book for this session. Or, maybe it didn't register as such a big deal as to be noteworthy.

Yes, I often choose which table to kibitz by looking to see where David is doing commentary. As for system, in a WBF or USBF event (or others) where system cards are available online, commentators ought to be responsible for briefly reviewing the cards of those playing in the matches for which they are doing commentary. And, when something comes up that they are not sure about, they should first refer to the card rather than making blind guesses or asking if anyone knows what is going on.