TimG

Had little or nothing to do with this sort of thing going on. Family (kids)Long distance partnershipsOnline play more convenient -- can start/stop when I want to and get more boards in per hour (especially if you add in travel time)If practicing in a regular partnership, the experience gained in club games (which are generally of poor quality around here) is not worth it. For quite a while, I would fill in when asked as a very small local club, mostly to be social. I, of course, witnessed some things like those you described at the start of this thread, but I mostly roll my eyes and move on. I haven't played even there in quite a while, but again, primarily a function of family.

I stopped playing club bridge for the most part a number of years ago, When I do venture back into a local club (perhaps for a special game like an NAP qualifying game), I still recognize most of the faces. There really isn't that much turnover in club games. And, as someone has pointed out, the LOLs far outnumber you and Cyberyeti.

In Unit 189 (Maine) and District 25 (New England), the sectionals and regionals stand on their own, break even for the year and subsidize other activities (In Maine, the annual meeting and state championship always run at a loss -- subsidized by the sectionals; and in New England GNT funds, NABC seed money, and newcomer programs are all paid for with earnings from regionals).

One obvious difference is that if you pass, you might find yourself unable to bid 3♥ on the next round, while if you bid a direct 3♥ you know you'll get to bid 3♥.

Sorry, didn't see the explanations...was expecting a mouse over would reveal the meaning of the alerted calls, didn't think until later to click on the calls. Does the partnership have an agreement regarding how to cope with this type of interference, or any default rules? Knowing what serves as a cue-bid in this auction would seem to be important! I think I'll vote for a 3D cue-bid, but it doesn't seem to be an option.

It's probably good practice to look at the defense every time. But, I don't think a 10 second pause without looking at the defense gives the show away. I may well have a borderline hand for action, decide whether or not it is worth action, and only then refer to the suggested defense. I also might be familiar with initial actions, but not with follow-ups, so only require the written defense after the initial action.

Does this include the Laws themselves? I think participants should be entitled to the know how much a undertrick/overtrick, game bonus, slam bonus, etc. is worth. Perhaps not to a chart on which the scores for various results has already been calculated. I know it means little, but a number of years ago, an opponent called the director and asked if he could refer to the score card (that was on the reverse of the ACBL table card). The director told him he could look.

Haughty out of stater asks Mainer if he's lived in Maine all his life, he responds: "so far". I think I've got you both beat by winning my first masterpoints when I was nine, though I haven't been playing quite as long as Art. Congrats to you, Justin.

I don't know, but you can get a Youth membership to the ACBL for $5 (I think that rate is only good for the first year). So, it could be a cheap experiment.

If you came to a Maine sectional and played under someone else's name, I doubt anyone would be the wiser.

This is what I believe Miles recommends in his book on defensive carding. When his suggestion deviates from "expert standard", he points it out. I don't recall any mention of a deviation on this case.

A few things: + When you feel "compelled to call someone out" you are adding to the confrontational attitudes. Errors can be pointed out, or different opinions expressed, without calling anyone out. This confrontational attitude often turns into the sort of "poking holes" arguments that you don't like. + Yes, some posters receive respect for things other than current content. Often past content. But, also for offline results. It's quite possible this respect is deserved. + If you're concerned that your posts don't get enough respect, perhaps you are looking for the wrong things from this forum. Rather than hoping others will respect you, just read and learn from those you respect while ignoring the others. If discussing rather than just reading will help you more, discuss in a respectful manner and stop if the discussion gets unhealthy.

Don't your online alerts always come with an explanation?

I think a complete explanation would include "artificial".

Art, in my post, I took care to bold this quoted passage: "In an environment where self alerts apply (Online or F2F with screens)". Zelandakh, I am not overly concerned with the scenario you present. The defenders will only be guessing once if I tell them what I intend as opposed to guessing twice if neither my partner nor I tell them what is expected or intended. In practice, I can describe the call with a preface such as "intended as" so that the opponents understand we may not be on real firm ground. But, the opponents would likely understand that to be the case in an individual tournament anyway. In an event being played behind screens, I doubt there is much call for "no agreement", even if there is no implicit agreement, almost all partnerships will have some experience together that will lend itself to some sort of explanation for the opponents. Tim

I agree, but think we are in the minority. If I make an artificial (or natural) bid, it is with the expectation that partner will understand. That expectation, to me, amounts to an implicit agreement and must be disclosed. I understand that others will disagree about whether an "expectation" amounts to an "implicit agreement" or even whether making a bid carries with it an "expectation of understanding". But, I have no problem erring on the side of telling the opponents more than they are technically entitled to.

I think this is right: you don't need to be playing Obvious Shift to consider a shift when signalling attitude.

Suppose partner has ♠KQJxx ♥Kx ♦AKx ♣Kxx, that fits the 3N bid, no? After you cue-bid 4♣, he has the diamond strength you're looking for so he cue-bids 4♦. Is this a slam you want to bid? Anyway, you ought to post the hand you are hoping partner has.

There ought to be. For a couple reasons, one of which is that the participants will likely take the event more seriously if there is an entry fee. Will you be trying to set up some default playing times? Something for participants to fall back upon if they are unable to reach agreement with another team on a suitable playing time.

I think it quite reasonable to consider things differently after a non-forcing 1NT and a forcing 1NT. I've had discussions with partners about the differences. I've had reference to the difference documented in system notes. Maybe that's going too far, but I expect that most thinking players evaluation the situation differently after a forcing 1NT and a non-forcing 1NT.

I don't think stop card followed by a hesitation means the thinker had first reduced her options to skip bids and then hesitated to consider which skip bid. I think it means she had decided to bid something that was a skip bid and then hesitated to reconsider her bid. Unlike others, I don't imagine the choices are exclusively between 2♠/3♠ and 3♠/4♠. Rather I think it quite likely that the bidder hesitated because she had doubt that 2♣ did indeed show majors rather than something else. Something like: I'm going to bid 3♠, place the stop card on the table, reach toward the 3♠ bidding card, OH WAIT does 2♣ show clubs and hearts??, no that's with another partner, where is that 3♠ card? etc.

What's the entry fee?

I can't imagine any card from a defender being classified as "not normal" when it comes to settling a disputed claim. I don't think a director has to consider how likely a defender is to find a play. If RHO in the case in hand were to simply say to the director "declarer claimed the remaining tricks, but if my partner leads a diamond, then the defense gets one trick" the director would need to only confirm that LHO has a diamond remaining to lead (and that it results in the defense winning one of the remaining tricks) to award a trick to the defense.

You forgot "No use of restricted choice" because it isn't real.

2♦. The auction isn't over yet.