TimG

I think what you're doing is great (and I haven't spent the time to fully understand the conditions). All I know is I get to bid 16 deals with a partner and compare results to a bunch of other forum members. If I do well, I'll get to bid more sets. It's good! I think it would also be great to have a monthly contest. If you limit it to two pairs, I hope you make allowance for other pairs to participate by bidding the same hands, even if only for fun or demonstration.

Aren't serious events fun?

1) ♠KJ873 ♥K852 ♦8 ♣A73, mp, nv/nv. (1♦)-1♠-(3♦)-P (P) - ? Does it matters whether 3♦ is preemptive or mixed or limit? 2) ♠65 ♥T8 ♦T832 ♣A8654, mp nv/nv. 1N-(2♦)-P-(2♥) P - (P) - ? 1N is 15-17 and 2♦ shows majors.

To me, it depends upon what the objective of the contest is. I'd be happy to see you compete with memory aids, but I'd like an '*' next to your result.

Disputed results could be settled by playing the hand a few hundred times (double dummy or single dummy) and seeing how various contracts score.

I'm sorry I have missed this, but how long will the first round last? That is by what date must my partner and I complete the first bidding round?

Does this mean IMPs ("International Match Points"), or what is commonly known as "matchpoints". Matchpoints... 1 point for every estimated pair your contract beats, 1/2 point for every pair you contract ties.... Will you be matchpointing against the other participants, or will you be assigning a score on a fixed scale?

I was so sure the first is right that I thought you were just yanking gwnn's chain when you said it was obviously the second.

What if the leaver might end up -1430 if he doesn't leave, but ends up +100 according to GIB after leaving? Even if the +100 is canceled, the leaver has gained significantly by leaving.

Isn't there a difference between taking 10-15 seconds to consider the valid bridge reason and taking 60 second to consider the valid bridge reason? It seems to me that a player with international experience ought to be able to consider this sort of evaluation/tactical bridge reason without "lengthy thought". That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

tlgoodwin/timg

Are aids to memory to be allowed?

I'm sure this sort of thing has happened to me in the past and I have said something along the lines of "I believe my partner incorrectly described our agreement, but that the explanation happens to fit my hand." I probably am not required by Law to include the "but..." part, but it seems to me the right thing to do when leaving it out could mislead the opponents.

I once had an opponent disappear in the middle of a hand, didn't even bother to leave his (virtual) seat. He came back a few minutes later and apologized, explaining that the pressure cooker his wife was using had exploded and he had gone to make sure she was OK. In a real emergency, there isn't really time to click any buttons, let alone excuse oneself.

Isn't it the case that everyone who leaves suddenly does it because of an emergency situation?

What would 5♣ be?

See this article for an analysis of MLB umpires and strike zones.

This has probably been discussed (a lot) in the past, but is this true? I would guess that the chances that the best team loses a single KO match are greater than the chances they fail to finish first in a round robin. Of course, length of matches and seeding would be important factors.

They need one of these in basketball too in order to prevent the intentional fouling that so often occurs at the end of the game and seems to make the final 1:00 of some game time last longer than entire quarters.

I'm not sure why it's called "self sacrifice". Sure, he doesn't get to play in the next game, but neither would he have played in the next game if he hadn't "sacrificed" himself (there would have been no next game). Nor will he be missing a paycheck or other compensation as a result.

But, it's the same players, right?

That may be the case the vast majority of the time, but I can imagine a situation (in a place far, far away from ACBL) where a pair wants to play a different system against a forcing pass pair in a serious event, especially if the forcing pass opponents are considered favorites and there is ample time to prepare ahead of time.

Does that mean system regulations should be rewritten to include "defenses of first seat passes" rather than "second seat openings".

This is troubling to me. If I was playing against a forcing pass system, I would want to pass with certain good hands in first seat in order to encounter the opponents' fert more frequently. Very similar to the opening poster's desire to give the opponents more opportunity to open their 8-10 NT. Both seem like reasonable defenses to the opponent's system of opening bids. I understand that this could result in an unresolvable situation: my opponents play forcing pass, I say we pass certain good hands in first seat in defense, opponents say they don't play forcing pass, I say we don't pass certain good hands in first seat, etc. But, something about not being allowed to employ what you feel are best defenses to their methods doesn't seem right. I think there should be some regulatory consideration such that those playing certain methods give to their opponents the right to adjust opening system to counter their methods. So, things like Forcing Pass and 8-10 NTs would be designated X-systems and those employing them give to their opponents the option of adjusting their methods based upon that system or opening -- that is the opponents are allowed to have an anticipatory defense, a defense that they may use in first seat before the X-system users have had a turn to bid. (Additionally, X-system users would have to give up this right when they face other X-system users in order to avoid the unresolvable situation.)

Surely a team or pair can gain from a PP assessed against their opponents.