TimG

Can the auction be backed up that far? I seem to think that only East would have the option to change her call.

I wasn't thrilled with either appeal (cases 5 & 6) that appeared in the Thursday Bulletin. Not that I think the committee necessarily got either wrong. In Case 5, the committee's explanation included: It strikes me that if east had doubled (or even passed), NS could have appealed along these lines: bidding on was a logical alternative, west's BIT suggests something extra, but with a hand that would make 5m a good contract, he would clearly have bid, so the hesitation must suggest defending. Since defending and bidding on are both LA for east, he must select bidding on -- the one not suggested by the BIT. The committee seems to have based their decision on their feeling that "Players seldom take a long time considering whether to double, but more often are thinking about bidding." But, their explanation (quoted above) indicates that they think west "almost surely" would have taken action when it was right to bid to 5m. Anyway, it seems to me that NS could have had it either way, EW defend 4♠, they appeal saying EW should bid on, EW bid on and they appeal saying EW should have defended 4♠. It also strikes me as strange that EW bidding on over 4♠ turned their +50 (for defending 4♠) into -100 or more (for declaring 5m). That is, east took the losing action over 4♠. Maybe he should be commended for bidding on when the BIT made defending even more clear than it already was. In Case 6, "West asserted that had he known that 3♠ was non-forcing he would have doubled." When the auction ends and the failure to alert is discovered, how can it cost for West to make this claim? If it turns out that it was right to stay out of the auction, the director is not called back. If taking action over 3♠ turns out to be correct, he calls the director back and says: "but, before the play started, I said I would have taken action had I known 3♠ was non-forcing." Anyway, it seems that in both cases, the non-offending side had available something of a double-shot. _______________ A further question about Case 6. If East, before her final pass, had asked if 3♠ was non-forcing and North confirmed, shouldn't the director have been called at that point? An irregularity had occurred. And, if the director had been called at that point, wouldn't west have had the option of changing his last call? That is, East could have taken action to avoid the need for the director (or appeal committee) to apply his judgment to the situation. But, it was in her best interest not to ask and not to call the director because then her side would have extra options. I'm not questioning East's ethics -- I think most of us would note the apparently forcing auction and pass thinking that the opponents had just experienced a bidding misunderstanding.

If the auction starts (1♣)-1♦-(1♠)-? now the double to show five hearts and 2-3 diamonds makes some sense, doesn't it? As I learned snapdragon, it shows a tolerance for partner's suit, usually 2 card support. Whether you raise directly with three-card support and five in the unbid suit is probably a matter of whether you hold an unbid major and whether partner's suit is a major.

The problem with this is that they appear to have come to the committee with a clear agreement, but it did not match the description at the table. They basically said: we have an agreement that the auction doesn't show spades, but we told the opponents that the auction did show spades. And, we don't think we did anything wrong.

I don't think there is a squeeze against east when the clubs have been played and west plays a major through (as the pro would surely do), since dummy must discard before east.

Oh no, what DMW means is, we're relying on declarer to make a mistake and try the ♥'s again. After all, he pondered before playing the ♥ the first time, as you recall.... suggesting he's come up with a plan. And we love his plan ! DMW's just suggesting, let declarer get the lead back and continue with his doomed plan. Don't let partner get the lead and run the risk of partner playing cutely, e.g. leading away from his King of ♠. Or away from his "imaginary" Queen of ♥. Just let declarer stew in his own juices. We've got the stage all set for this little deception. Just give the lead back to declarer. It's all psychology at this point anyway so who knows what the "right" answer is, if there is one. If both major suits are wrong for declarer, the defense has to cross in clubs and play a major now or declarer might run the diamonds and read the position correctly (if RHO lets a club go, declarer is almost sure to make even if he takes a losing finesse, because RHO will be endplayed -- if RHO holds onto a club, he has to give up his guard in one of the majors). But, the point is that playing a club and getting a major through dummy eliminates this possibility. If both major suit cards are right for declarer, it doesn't really matter what the defense does -- declarer will "guess" right. You are suggesting that when one major suit card is right and one wrong, and declarer has started down the wrong path, the defense should be passive. Does this mean that if declarer had started down the right path, the defense ought to cash the club and present declarer a losing option by leading the other major? I think you should do the same thing whether or not declarer has started down the right path. Otherwise, you will be giving declarer information. In this case, I think declarer can read into the passive defense (return a diamond) that the defense is happy with the goings on and perhaps declarer should rethink. Maybe there is some reverse psychology possibilities -- that is if declarer starts off with hearts and that is right, maybe the defense should be passive to lull declarer into thinking that the defense is happy with the way things are going. But, I think that's a bit too deep. I think the defense should always cash the club and play a major through to avoid giving anything away. Now, maybe the real question is which major should LHO return: declarer's winning option or declarer's losing option? I tend to think that the return should be in the suit declarer did not play, spades in this case. Again, rather than get into the psychological guessing game, just play the other suit and avoid the possibility that declarer can read something into the choice.

They don't list the losers in the zillions of side events, either. I imagine as soon as the Spingold progresses to the point where the losers win masterpoints for their overall placement, the results (winners and losers) will be reported.

That does seem to be one possibility, but a possibility that is contraindicated by the write-up which says that the 3♦ bid promised 5 hearts and that the failure to show spades on the second round denied 4-5 in the majors. The explanation did not include disclosure of these agreements. Maybe they didn't really have these agreements and the write-up is in error. I agree that the failure to assign a PP strongly suggests that the write-up is in error. But, based upon the facts presented in the write-up, a PP does seem in order. In summary: 1) the facts as presented in the write-up indicate a PP was in order; and 2) since a PP was not assigned, either the committee was extremely lenient, or the write-up is not clear as to the facts. I tend to believe that we don't have the whole story.

The results are in the Wednesday Bulletin -- at least the remaining teams are listed with the match-ups. Wednesday's matches are also listed under the Wednesday results link. looks like someone put it in the wrong place.

I've been assigned a PP by a national appeals committee. It was in 1998, so maybe the rules have changed since then, but I don't think so.

This is not a restricted choice situation -- east could have played the Jack or Ten from JTx without cost (and apparently to significant gain if declarer applies restricted choice to the situation).

This page should link to you results and Daily Bulletins.

And north explained it as showing 4 spades, which it did not. Ergo the changing of the result. And then north/south appealed, with no basis to do so beyond that they were ruled against. I don't understand what your point is. My point was that a procedural penalty would be in order if North did not disclose the agreement and South did not correct North's error.

The ACBL has at least one internet connection on site -- they post results and Bulletins daily.

That is true. The partnership desk, the registration desk, all the hospitality arrangements, restaurant guides, etc. are done by local volunteers (well, they often get free plays on days that they work). In fact, a District will end up spending over $100K for the privilege of hosting a NABC. But, none of this means that the instructions to NABC Chairmen regarding what hospitality, partnership, etc volunteers are needed, couldn't include vugraph operators.

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied 45 in the majors.

So, the right thing to do is put partner on lead to play a spade. When declarer sees the spade, he will think that the finesse must not be working and resort back to the heart finesse which looks like it is working. There are times when it is important to put partner on lead to play a major (think about what happens on the run of the diamonds if the club is not cashed and a major played through). By playing a passive diamond, you're just telling declarer that one of the major suits lies favorably and you expect to get your trick. Nothing different, really, from what you tell declarer when you play a club and partner plays a major. Right?

I think the ACBL lacks long-term vision. If it doesn't immediately impact the bottom line in a positive way, they are unlikely to do it. When I was involved in ACBL District* politics, there was a strong sentiment amongst board members that the Newcomer Program should pay for itself. They did not like reduced card fees for newcomers; they did not like special hospitality for newcomers; they did not want to pay for lecture series for newcomers if the funds did not come from newcomer fees. I think the ACBL is the same way -- if there is not an immediate financial benefit, they're likely to dismiss the idea. I wonder how or if vugraph operators are compensated in ACBL events. Apparently there is some "major cost" associated with a broadcast. The only things I can think of are internet access, computer equipment and vugraph operators. Are there others? The ACBL's convention staff ought to be able to negotiate to include some wireless internet access with the convention package. A few older notebooks that are sufficient for vugraph operators shouldn't cost that much (if anything). That leaves the operators. I can understand not wanting to be an operator for free, especially when it means giving up bridge playing time. Does anyone know what kind of compensation the ACBL provides? * The ACBL is split up into 25 Districts that are responsible for running Regional tournaments.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something. If they asked "does it show spades" that would seem to be less confusing, or at least more to the point, than "what does 3♦ mean?" My guess is that there were some language issues involved that softened the committee's stance with regards to PP or AWMW.

Because South's 3♦ denied 44 or 45 in the majors (so the write-up says) and this agreement was not disclosed. I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

I would expect that Mike Lawrence would prefer we go directly to his site to view his material rather than have it copied to a forum.

I was struck by the fact that the committee was disappointed not to find this information on the convention card. Where exactly are you supposed to put the information that a checkback bid does not imply the other major? If this is supposed to be on the CC, then I imagine the CC is far too small for all the information that it is supposed to contain. From the writeup, it did seem like this was a pretty blatant case of trying to deceive the opponents through an incomplete explanation. I expect something must have been missing from the writeup -- some consideration not explained.

What mistake can partner make?

The club carding so far makes it look very much like they are 4-4. Might declarer get suspicious if you don't put partner on lead for a major through dummy? I think best might be to put west on lead with a club so he can lead a spade (or heart) through, making declarer commit to one finesse or the other immediately. Whether or not west should lead the suit declarer has the winning finesse in is probably a matter of psychology.

But, if they're doing it, isn't it a lead convention?