TimG

This means you are allowed to judge the value of your cards As long as your partner knows you deviate from strict HCP evaluation, you must disclose this to the opponents. For instance, if you use Losing Trick Count to evaluate hands for thepurpose of raising partner's suit, you must disclose this. Or, translate your evaluation into HCP. Here a King or more is specified as a limit to what your hand might be weaker than the usual range you agreed with your p. It doesn't say "a King or more below agreed upon strength", is says "a King or more below average strength." It has nothing to do with deviation from agreement. This is generally considered to mean the average strength of all bridge hands and is where the ACBL (and other SOs) get their right to regulate opening bids (at the one level) which may contain fewer than 8 HCP. The SOs have determined that the average hand has 10 HCP, a King less than that is 7 HCP, so they have the right to regulate opening bids with fewer than 8 HCP. The leap from "a King" to 3 HCP is dubious at best, as far as I am concerned. But, those in authority haven't asked for my opinion. Tim

It seems to me that the reason for the post is that the 2♦ bidder intended his bid as natural and was given UI by his partner's alert and explanation of the 2♦ bid as Michaels. Without the UI, there might be no reason to run from 2♥ doubled. Of course, all this seem a bit strange in an online environment because no one should see their partner's alerts or explanations.

I'm not sure this is true. Why is an explanation given by the bidder allowed to be less accurate than an explanation given by the bidder's partner? If the accepted way to disclose agreements to the opponents is to self-alert and self-explain, then the explanation should include partnership experience. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I think 12-14 should be enough even if it really means 12-14 plus some super 11's and some terrible 15's. But, I can understand the position that these things need to be made explicit. Especially in places where the regulations make use of HCP in defining alert procedures. There are some people who would never consider upgrading or downgrading. Tim

The opponents are entitled to know what your agreement is. If you have misbid (relative to your agreement) there is no need to inform the opponents. If you have agreements that are not consistent with your CC, you should, of course, alert the opponents, but you should also change your CC.

You left out an important word: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

It is not ignorance of the Laws that your opponents exhibited: nowhere in the Laws is there any mention of high card points. Your opponents have been taken in by bridge organizations all over the world who create regulations based upon a single method of hand evaluation: Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 Point Count. I might add, however, that since the regulations are written in a way which requires HCP evaluation, you should properly disclose using the same method. If that means describing 12-14 as 11+-15-, you ought to do it. You may suggest that the upgrades and downgrades are just playing bridge, but it is not to many. (I do not know whether there were written regulations for the tournament where this took place, so maybe there were no regulations which used HCPs, but you get the idea. And, no, I don't think there should have been any adjustment.) Tim

Do people really get random invitations from people who don't even chat first?

You're talking about the ACBL. Omissions are seldom deliberate. ;)

From the second row of the alert chart, in the "category" column is: Conventional/Artificial. In the same row, in the "No Alert" column is: Stayman (next higher level of clubs). You don't really have to look any further.

People get irate because someone doesn't respond to them? Might I suggest the problem is not with the software?

Can you provide a reference for that? The alert chart on the ACBL website: http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

I'm not close to bidding 7♣. I've already bid more than I would have at the table. It's worked out with the opponents making a guess. Why try to undo what I've done? I won't vote because 5♣ did not tell my story, it told the story of a different hand. If you're going to bid 5♣, isn't there some obligation to try to mess with the opponents on the way to 5♣. 4♥ maybe?

No. This implies that it is OK to deviate from the posted card as long as you alert. Makes the convention card rather useless.

I don't know about 8-12 opening bids inviting interference. They almost demand it. If the opponents go quietly, the weak openers will steal from them; if they act aggressively, the weak opening side will sometimes catch them speeding. I believe the idea behind most light opening systems is to get to a playable spot (not the best spot) quickly in an effort to make it more difficult for the opponents to get to a playable spot when it is their hand.

As a defender, I would prefer to wait until after the hand was over to ask about the apparent irregularity. By pointing it out when dummy comes down, I am basically saying "I have clubs" unless I want to call attention to every failure to alert. In this case, everyone expects 3♣ to be artificial, so I can't see any basis for an adjustment.

On some message board, deleting a post removes all follow-ups, too. Or, deletes the entire thread if you started it. So, just blanking out the text isn't quite the same.

That seems to me to be right in front of you. Redundant, too, since the complete auction is in the upper right. To clean things up a bit, I think it would be nice to put the board information in the center of the table, just like it would be if you were playing at a real table. But, that's just a cosmetic thing.

How do you delete a post?

Why should the EW pairs who defended 5♠ or 7♠ be rewarded? They did nothing but sit there and watch the opponents commit a blunder, yetthey get 13 or 17 IMPs. IMPing against the mean is distorting due to the logarithmic nature of the IMP scale. Take a board where half the field scores +620 and the other half -100. All pairs will score +/- 6 IMPs = the average of the pushes and 720s (=12 IMPs). If you first take the mean = +260 and then IMP against that, all pairs will score +/- 8 IMPs (for their +/- 360 against the mean). So, when there are 10 +620s and 9 -100s, everything is IMPed against +620 and when there are 9 +620s and 10 -100s, everything is IMPed against -100? I'd much rather average out this effect by IMPing against every pair and taking an average of that. You can think of it as your expected score for that result given a large number of different teammates. Perhaps the reason there were more big scores/mistakes on one side of the score sheet is because the problems facing that pair were more difficult. As the number of replays increases, this ought to be closer and closer to the actuality. A sure sign that someone knows they have been beaten. :D

In my tournament experience (limited) 5 minutes is about the normal break between rounds....

Might be game, assuming that free or the Hog is up for it... He asked about experts.... B)

Actually, it seems you have seen my point. :huh:

I think you mean more than one comparison. It's hard to IMP a single score. Every one of the 12 NS pairs that joined the 6♠= club leave the board with +1.126 for doing what was routine. I think this example is a perfect counter to your claim: This time the NS pairs who did the routine thing got a positive result and the EW pairs who did the routine thing got a negative result. I'm still at a loss for how it can be "usually negative".

I'm not convinced that's what it means. Can you provide a link to the travellers for this tournament?

Usually negative? Every time it is negative for you, it is positive for your opponents.