TimG

That was my first thought, and I can construct hands where 3NT will make, but it takes some effort. Partner doesn't have to have KQJxxx in hearts and a quick entry to make his lead directing double, but given our hand and responder's invitational values, he does have to have about 10 HCP, and every point that isn't in hearts makes it even harder to construct layouts where 3NT is making. I like to think I would have found a double, but I would have seriously considered passing if that wasn't my actual action.

I've just found this in Duplicate Decisions (not always a reliable reference on Laws): "a logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available" Evidence that Sponsoring Organizations do determine, to some extent, the definition of a Logical Alternative.

Reminds me of the time I held eleven hearts to the Jack...

What is the maximum for a 1♣ overcall?

I will note that the number of abstentions (5) is the same as the number of ACBL representatives on the WBF board. Are you trying to imply that the people who abstained are the representatives to the WBF board? Because our district rep (23) abstained, and is not on WBF. I did assume those who abstained were the WBF representatives. It would seem a conflict of interest for them to vote on this matter (since being a rep can be worth $1000s to them).

No sense worrying much about this -- the situation is never likely to repeat itself. Not everyone would balance with the south cards, though their concern would be vulnerable undertricks, not the opponents coming alive and scoring up a game.

When I read that there was a BBOTV, I immediately thought that there was going to be some sort of television program/network. Sort of like FoodTV is a network for food programming.

I've just read the section of the Laws regarding Unauthorized Information (Law 16). You're right, the Laws do not talk about players "who would consider something" a logical alternative. But, neither do the Laws talk about players who would select an alternative action. The Laws don't seem to define "Logical Alternative". That is consistent with my recollection that Sponsoring Organizations have taken it upon themselves to provide guidelines when it comes to determining whether a call is a Logical Alternative. And, I'm quite sure that the guidelines in the ACBL have addressed what calls would be "seriously considered" even if those calls would not actually be chosen.

I will note that the number of abstentions (5) is the same as the number of ACBL representatives on the WBF board. All ACBL representatives on the WBF board are ACBL board members -- not because it must be that way, but because the WBF representatives are appointed by the ACBL President and the appointments can be the result of political favors.

For most posts, I think there is polling bias. Usually there is at least a subtle suggestion in the way the question is asked, or in the very fact that the question has been asked. And, most people here are quite aggressive. Also, isn't the basis for a call being a logical alternative something like "that which a significant number of peers would seriously consider" even if they would eventually come to a different choice? So, even if 100% of those polled would double, if half of them seriously considered passing, it's still a logical alternative, right? (I don't mean this in any way to question your actions, obviously you went the extra mile in trying to do the right thing.)

Haven't all choices been disappointing for a while?

I guess I was blurring (or confusing) charter schools with vouchers.

Are you saying the the tuition is all paid through taxes, or that the school is run by the state using state funds?

Who is it that makes the determination that a culture is a religion? I admittedly don't know much about charter schools, but isn't one principle behind a charter school that the governance of the school is not done by the state? Before the issue of whether the school is religious is tackled, it would seem prudent to determine whether the school is a department of the state. If it is not a department of the state, it doesn't matter whether the school is a religious school.

Very few do! :)

When is it that you're supposed to check this section of the CC? If you say it should be done at the beginning of a round, then you're suggesting that there ought to be a rather thorough examination prior to each round. In a pairs event where you might face a dozen pairs in a single session, it is easy to imagine mixing up which pair it was where you saw the unusual cue-bid and which pair you saw the unusual NT range and which pair you saw the NF advances of overcalls, etc. If the CC should be checked after the cue-bid is made, that is no different than asking for an explanation and carries with it all the same problems. If I give the opponents my convention card, which has top and bottom cue-bids marked, and I don't alert my top and bottom cue-bid, the opponents won't think to look, they'll just assume it is what is common. (In my experience in ACBL-land, this top and bottom agreement is very uncommon -- if I faced 50 pairs over the course of a tournament, I would expect it much more likely that none of them were playing top and bottom than even as many as one pair were playing top and bottom.) An alert at least wakes the opponents up to the notion that checking the CC in an especially good idea in this case. In my opinion, the alert procedure is in place to make disclosure more efficient. It is not in place to exonerate a pair who discloses incompletely and then hides behind regulations. There should never be a "FAIR" advantage for sneaking something past the opponents.

dealer: west vul: none scoring: imp ♠ a72 ♥ 62 ♦ k543 ♣ aq32 ♠ kj8543 ♥ j754 ♦ qjt ♣ &e=sq96hqt98da87ct96&s=sthak3d962ckj8754]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

If west passes, won't north advance 1NT? If you're going to bid 2♥ over their 1NT, won't you also bid 2♥ over partner's 1NT? And, won't north raise that to at least 3♥? Once you're in the auction, it's sort of hard to slow down, isn't it?

Looks to me like double dummy I'd want to declare. After winning the heart, you can play the Ace of Diamonds, then Ace of Spades and another spade. If West wins this, he is endplayed. If West has unblocked his King of Spades, then the defense has given up a trump trick.

At the end of the auction is likely too late. After 1♣-2♣, I would assume majors and think that both 2♥ and 2♠ were cue-bids. If the actual agreement is spades and diamonds, then my bidding may well be confused. If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble. Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI. Rik If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

Fine if you play a jump overcall can be made on a crappy 5-card suit. There's active and then there's hyperactive. I think 2♠ falls into the hyperactive category.

Sure it does -- a takeout double shows at least 3-card support for all the unbid suits, not just the majors. It may be a small lie, but it is a lie none-the-less.

This doesn't strike me as near enough to convert partner's takeout double.

Are there no pass cards in the bidding box? It should at least get consideration, shouldn't it?

Double is not a big distortion if you can convert 2♣ to 2♦ without showing extras.