TimG

On a double dummy basis, west's failure to cover the spade cost nothing. At that point, the contract could be made even if west covered (though it may have been much trickier with the cover).

The same can be said of transfer responses to a mini (or weak) NT opening, can't it? Yet, many players choose to play transfers over these openings.

I'll guess that west was hypercritical of east's double. West could have defended better, but as the hand was played not covering the Ten of Spades was not the critical error. It seems to me that east did fine - he has denied 4 hearts by failing to double 2♥, so when he doubles 3♥ he is very likely 1345. If I had made up the post, I would have cited north's double as the call for south to be critical of.

I think in general that Ace followed by a club shift shows a singleton club, King followed by a club shift shows more than one club. Especially if your leads are standard. Having taken this course, I think North must ruff the second club and cash the setting trick, because it could appear to south that an immediate trump promotion is the only way to beat the contract (the Ace lead suggesting that declarer has the King).

Depends a bit what country you are in. In the UK, people tend to say "drawing trumps" in general, and then "drawing the trump" if there is only one left. "pulling trump" would only be said by a visitor from across the Atlantic, but in particular "trump" is singular and "trumps" are plural. The US form seems to be that "trump" is a plural noun. I think you will hear both "drawing trump" and "drawing trumps" on this side of the Atlantic, but that "drawing trump" is more common. And, as you suggest, with just a single trump outstanding, one would tend to say "drawing the trump" or even "pulling the last trump". But, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you are on, wouldn't you expect "pulling trump" in combination with the facing of two trumps to mean "drawing two rounds"?

"Pulling trump" sounds plural to me, especially in combination with facing exactly two trump from your own hand. I think I'd reluctantly award the defenders one more trick.

I prefer to play tentative penalty doubles (rather than negative doubles) on this auction, and I would not double with this hand because it has two flaws: two many cards in partner's suit and not enough general strength. Playing negative doubles it seems even less like I should play for penalties, when partner reopens with a double he will be short in clubs, not always a singleton, but when we are able to convert, trumps will be 4-1 more often than 4-2.

Sorry, not my place to say such things. Hope I managed to edit before many read, and especially before anyone quoted.

I can easily imagine that on another day when the GLM answers "standard carding, attitude leads" that someone could be annoyed with the "extra" information that was clearly meant to remind the novice partner of their new lead agreements or to emphasize that this particular lead of a low card wasn't 4th best. As Frances has pointed out, the way to avoid any of this is to look at the convention card rather than ask the question.

You mean more offense than defense?

Does 1♦-P-1NT-P; P-DBL also show diamonds?

Pretty straightforward question. What does 2♦ show in this auction? 1♦-P-1N-P; P-2♦

You haven't told us whether 3♣ was indeed non-forcing by agreement. If it was, there is nothing more to discuss, since there was no misinformation. I think it's hard to make a case if your double was in part based upon "declarer could miss a few things in the play". That's just evidence that you speculated (and lost).

I think if you take a closer look at the threads, there really aren't that many people who claim they can't be out of touch for a day. People claim that they don't want to be inconvenienced or that this new rule is simply window dressing.

Why not 4♣ instead of 3N? I don't think 3♦ had to lead to wrong waying NT.

It almost plays itself. On a trump lead, suppose declarer wins and draws a second round of trumps then plays a club to south. South gets out with a spade (playing a heart or a club is no good). Declarer wins a spade in dummy, ruffs a club, cashes the other spade and exits a spade. South is on lead in this position:[hv=n=shj754dcj9&w=sh2d97c765&e=s8hk96d86c&s=sjhaqt8dck]399|300|[/hv]The trick is to now discard a heart from dummy if south plays the Jack of Spades. Maybe not a play this beginner would find.

He has twice mentioned that part of the reason the ban was enacted was to remove an annoyance. Even if it were true, I would not have admitted to it if I were him.

Overcoming this fear should be easy, just don't violate the ban.

Three things: 1) A cell phone may be the most convenient way to contact someone at a bridge tournament, but it is not the only way. When my in-laws go on a trip, they provide us with an itinerary complete with hotel phone numbers despite the fact that they carry cell phones. It may take a little more effort without a cell phone on your person 24/7, but it's not nearly the impossibility that many imagine. 2) Even before the ban, cell phones were supposed to be turned off in the playing area. Do you really leave the playing area during every break so you can turn your phone on and check to see whether your house has burned down? 3) Given your scenario, I don't mind waiting until the end of the session. Or, until a hotel employee finds me if my family feels it is imperative that I know sooner.

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee. That would punish East - West, not the director... Its fine and dandy if you think that the director should be sanctioned, but do it in such a way that it actually impacts the director If I were a director who handed out a "punishment" adjustment and the committee sided with the player I was trying to punish, I don't think I would be happy. While we share the same opinion of North, I don't think directors should be making rulings as you suggest. Back to the actual ruling. If it requires sloppy play for east to go down in 4DX, why would an adjustment to 4DX= be overturned by the committee?

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee.

Doesn't this depend upon your definition of "sloppily"? This sounds to me like a good (but not world class) player upset with the result and trying to bully his way to an unwarranted adjustment.

The Cavendish had a couple of webcams set up on vugraph tables which showed that each table was surrounded by curtains. And, hands were played simultaneously, that is during each round the same deals were played at every table. I doubt that a cell phone ban would be needed under such conditions. But, I also suspect a cell phone would be better received under such conditions because it demonstrates that the sponsoring organization takes security seriously. I'd be very surprised if the "sophisticated videotaping" is truly sophisticated given today's standards. It was not that long ago (this millennium) that the ACBL BoD refused to establish a message board for internal use because they could not find one with spell checking capability.

He also told me that there had been very little feedback. I wonder how many others he told the same thing.

Why start there? It's not like slavery was unique to the American republic. I start there because: A. The instructions were to take one event. So "eliminate slavery" doesn't qualify. B. It's my country. Of course no question of this sort can really be answered. Whatever is suggested, there can always be "why stop there?". It seems a good thought, and you are right that the Constitution is an easily marked occurrence.