TimG

Sorry, I did look back for the auction, just not that far...

It is against ACBL regulation to sue ACBL before going through the ACBL disciplinary procedures.

ok. how? are they going to search my pockets? the moment anyone tries that i'm calling the cops and a lawyer. Going to find a pay phone for that?

The Laws never reference HCP, the closest they get (I believe) is reference to something along the lines of a "king below average". Alerting and disclosure regulations are the province of sponsoring organizations rather than the Laws.

No. It may be OK for people to take down chairs and tables after a small local tournament, but the playing areas for a NABC should be set up and taken down without any help from the participants.

No hyperbole?

I'm a big fan of screens, for lots of reasons, but you have to realize that they are very expensive, both because of the cost of shipping and setting up the tables with screens (even ignoring the cost of buying them to begin with) and because a table with screen takes about twice as much space as a table without screens, which usually has to be paid for. I have a feeling that if entry fees for day 2 and on in the NABC events were doubled or tripled to pay for having screens, there would be a huge outcry. There is no requirement that cost of entry in an event be proportional to the cost of running an event. NABC+ events should be showcases, if entry fees don't cover costs, that's not a problem to me.

Just delete your flag... How?

Doesn't that convey information by the lack of a question? Everything conveys information. I don't get your point. Passing conveys information. Asking questions convey information. The laws tell us which information is authorised and which information is unauthorised. Like I said, if you asked every time there was an alert, there would be no worry about the information. But that doesn't happen does it? I guess I should have said: "Doesn't that convey unauthorized information?" If you ask when you are considering action and do not ask when you are going to pass, whether you ask or not is UI for your partner. I don't think this means that you have to ask every time a bid is alerted, but you ought to randomly ask some percentage of the time when you have no intention of taking action.

Doesn't that convey information by the lack of a question?

But of course, if the answer to (1) is "no" then it's not really as much "at his own risk" right? If it turns out that 4th hand has a good hand and would never bid, then 1NT opener can call the director for the misleading question? Why would 4th hand never bid with a good hand? I think the inference that opener takes from an unethical question is still at his own risk. A coffee housing 4th hand may be in for a procedural penalty.

I've recently noticed some player profiles which have no flag. I can't figure out how to set my profile so that no flag appears (not even the United Nations flag). Is there a way to do this while still having a public profile?

Are you suggesting that asking questions shows something about the hand? I think you get into a problem if you decide that a player can only ask when he would consider action, because then the question, or absence of a question, transmits information to his partner. Regarding (2): there shouldn't be much need for further questions. The player who asks should say something along the lines of "please explain" when he gets the alert, and opener should make a sufficient description. Was the description: "single suited"? Then the player asked "is it forcing"? and opener clarified? Or, was the description something like: "partner has a single suited hand; I am forced to bid 2C so he can show his suit; partner may be running out or he may be starting a strong sequence"? I believe the Laws say that opener (in this case) may make use of information he assumes from the question, but that he does so at his own risk. (3) I think the pass of the forcing RDBL means: I think we have a good chance of making this. Doubler should be permitted to base his call on this explanation, whether it comes from general bridge knowledge, an explanation from responder, or some combination of the two.

Of course LHO doesn't have a diamond stack -- he's the one that made the balancing takeout double. Couldn't he be 3424 or 3415 along with your perfect 4414 and 4405 guesses? RHO has diamonds (and probably the best hand at the table).

If I opened that hand 1♦, I think I'd raise partner's spades rather than rebid 2♦. Of course, I would also raise to 2♠ holding three spades with some frequency. And, rebid 1NT with many 5332 hands (especially the ones where my suit isn't so good as hinted by 2nd hand's trap pass). I agree with Richard that it would be better to give at least a brief summary of the conditions you used.

LHO has balanced, I suppose that could be considered gambling. It's RHO who holds the diamonds and who has converted the double. It may not be fashionable these days, but trap passing can be quite effective -- looks like it has hit pay dirt here.

You could try some number of spades. 1♠ may be easy to brush aside (not always these days), but a fit jump in spades might slow the opponents down.

While 3NT does not show 5 diamonds, it doesn't end all auctions. I don't think there is a problem with downgrading slam prospects a bit with AKQ in the enemy suit - those honors aren't going to be useful in generating long suit tricks -- on this auction you'd rather have ♠Axx ♥KQx than ♠AKQ ♥QTx, wouldn't you?

That's exactly the point of bypassing spades: to make the 1NT rebid, which is a very precise bid, more frequent, along with increasing precision with 54s. If you make it more frequent it will be less precise.

The first one isn't wrong sided -- it makes from either side. If they had a wire, there's no need to play it from the "right" side when the ace is onside anyway. This auction is strange to say the least, but it sure seems like if they had a wire they could have gotten to the slam in a less bizarre way. The second one doesn't seem particularly strange to me.

I think that the main message of such doubles should be not "I think this is going off", but "I think we were making". If we weren't making our game, I'm less concerned about extracting a penalty. So, I'd bid 5♠ even if he doubles 5♥. Yeah, I think this is better than 4NT. I'm not really confident about 5♠ over 5♥ (doubled or not), but I'm much happier than I would be after ...4N-5♥-DBL/P-P to me.

My initial reaction was that North should go through with his plan to bid NT, then I was convinced that cue-bidding 3♠ was good. Now, I'm back in the NT camp. Yes, intervenor can envision slam in a minor, but advancer will be able to do the same if intervenor can show his strength with a NT bid (and at the same time imply fewer than four hearts and something in spades). There's been a lot of criticism of south for bidding 4♥, but I don't think intervenor's cue-bid denied four hearts, so he sort of has to bid 4♥ along the way, doesn't he? I think north should get a big portion of the blame for passing 4♥.

Shouldn't any plan involve what to do after we take action and 3rd hand raises to 5♥?

What if you want a goat?

Lost in all this seems to be the corresponding benefit of 1♠ showing an unbalanced hand. If a partnership never by-passes, they may make life easier after a 1NT rebid; if a partnership always by-passes with a balanced hand, they may make life easier after a 1♠ rebid.