TimG

Partner just might balance with short spades and Ace-sixth of hearts.

What percentage of the time do they only have three diamonds? I imagine you are right about 1NT, but I would be thinking "they might only have 3 or 4 diamonds".

There were a lot of inviters with this hand AJ8 J965 Q974 82 from another recent thread. Some might not have invited with ♥J765?

I'd open 1C, but I understand 1N and don't have a problem with it. But, I think the general idea expressed above is a bit dangerous. When planning an auction, there is often a desire to find out about partner's hand so you can make a decision. There should also be a priority put on telling partner what you have so that they can make a decision. I think too few players think about the auction in terms of telling partner instead of in terms of getting information from partner.

Isn't this attributing a degree of precision in hand evaluation to "point count" or "high card points" that does not actually exist?

There will be women's events in ACBL (and USBF) as long as there are women's World Championship events to qualify for. (I realize this is not separate from your contention that professional fees are keeping women's events alive.)

deleted -- off topic...

There are casual (from an understanding of the game standpoint) baseball fans out there watching games on a regular basis. I'd bet that a significant portion of the regular viewership of Red Sox games couldn't tell you the rules regarding when a ball is fair or foul, much less teach children how the ball should come in from the outfield in various score/out/baserunner situations. In the same way, there is likely a significant portion of the poker watching audience that can't remember whether a flush beats a straight or the other way around.

I don't think I have ever heard "leads, signals, and discards" but I have often heard "leads and carding".

Maybe 20 years ago, Hamman was part of a Blue Ribbon Committee set up by ACBL to work on saving bridge's popularity. One of the things that the committee proposed was events where only basic systems were allowed. It was not so strict as Yellow Card where everyone played the same system, it allowed for more options like choosing between limit and forcing raises, but it was much more simple than the GCC. I seem to think that there was some discussion about whether 4-card majors would be allowed in such events. There is at least one member of that committee that occasionally posts here. Anyway, Hamman has long held the opinion that bidding systems should be simplified. And, I don't think it is an opinion that he has kept to himself except when asked.

Someone once said: "Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". I think most of the unethical behavior you see in B/C/D events is simply players not knowing better, that is they are not consciously doing improper things. In A/X, they are at least supposed to know better, though they often do not.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone say ergo out loud, it is certainly not a common occurrence in my experience. I would expect to see it only in texts, and thus would think of it as somewhat pretentious, intentionally nerdy at the very least, if I heard someone verbalize it in any setting other than a math classroom.

I was watching the vugraph when this hand was played. My impression was that Moss asked about the 3 after Meckstroth switched. Maybe others got a different impression? The order in which the card was played and Moss's question was asked could easily have been backwards from the way it appeared on vugraph.

Indeed. I can't find reference. I was hoping my comment would spark someone else's memory.

Yes, this could transmit unauthorized information that opening leader has more than one viable lead, or doubt about the actual lead. This unauthorized information is also available when OL detaches a card and puts it back in her hand without tabling it. Consider the OL of a singleton. If OL detaches a card, replaces it, and then selects another lead, OL's partner can be pretty sure that OL is not leading a singleton and looking for a ruff. Again, this would apply whether or not the lead hit the table. I think you make a valid point that the detaching is probably more important than the hitting the table. I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

I still don't quite understand. Did only a certain number of teams qualify for the final session? Anyway, my answers: 1) If that was the penalty imposed, and they served their time, they would appear eligible to me. I don't think the penalty was sufficient, but if that is what the ruling body imposed, then there's nothing to be done retroactively. 2) I'd want to refer to the CoC. Absent something specific in the CoC, I would assume the the director had authority to change or determine the procedure and the result stands. 3) Establish good rules and CoC before such things happen. I think that trying to "fix" the past would be more of the meddling that appears to have taken place in #2. Just establish rules so that these sorts of issues do not arise in the future (so that when there is a question, there is an established answer).

These aren't the only possibilities. Sometimes you turn +90 (1NT making) into -100 (3N down 2), for example.

I did some simulating with this sort of thing a few years ago. I went into it with the opinion that it probably wasn't right to invite with a random 8 HCP hand and the simulations reinforced that opinion. I'm just tossing that out there without providing any detailed results, so take for what you will. The results were not nearly so overwhelming that I couldn't be wrong. A few things: + At the same time, I compared some different evaluation techniques, modified counts, some of which took into account Tens and some of which valued higher honors more. I was surprised that simple 4321 HCP was as good as any of the modified counts. (Strictly in predicting number of tricks with two balanced hands somewhere in the game range.) + Remember that in a 15-17 NT range, 15 counts occur more frequently than 16 counts which occur more frequently than 17 counts. + When you do something like invite via Stayman, you give the opponents a bit of extra information that makes the defense easier. Even 1N-2N-3N is easier to defend against than 1N-3N. So, when you use Stayman on this hand, you are cutting into any edge you think you might have over those who pass. + Sometimes your pass does not end the auction. I think the bottom line is that neither the passers nor the inviters have a strong enough case to insist with certainty that they are right, or at least insist that they have a significant edge.

I think this is a routine pass.

The opening post was about an ACBL Speedball where presumably the Laws (which forbid aids to memory) are in effect. I agree with your position if we're talking about the Main Bridge Club (which is little different than the kitchen table). (This all being said, I would not feel cheated if a Speedball opponent referred to a convention card. Or, at least I wouldn't feel like it was a big deal.)

I would expect something different. When a 54% pair faces a 50% pair, I would expect the result to be in a ratio of 54:50. This means that the 54% pair would score about 51.9% and the 50% pair would score about 48.1%.

One more vote for "weak takeout" = "less than a normal takeout double" (i.e. <12 HCP or so).

It might not matter than the convention is not GCC legal, clubs are given broad discretion to allow non-GCC methods.

I seem to recall the SuperFlight Final being 64 boards. The full GNT CoC for District 25 are linked here: http://www.nebridge.org/pages/15/ The Flight A final is 28 boards. There is a nice writeup on this year's final at the District 25 website: http://www.nebridge.org/pages/73/ Tim

This isn't really a failure to correct, but a failure to disclose a misbid, isn't it? North correctly explains the partnership agreement which wakes South up to the fact that he misbid. The Laws don't require disclosure of a misbid, do they? Just disclosure of partnership agreement. Now, if South bid according to agreement and let the opponents think that North's incorrect explanation accurately described the partnership agreement, then South is liable to penalty beyond restoration of equity. This means that there is incentive for South to speak up whenever he thinks he bid correctly according to partnership agreement, but little or no incentive to speak up when he thinks he has made an error and deviated from partnership agreement. Are you saying that you want South to be encouraged to disclose the misbid?