TimG

I'd be curious about whether EW had agreements regarding a direct and delayed 3♣. It seems possible that a direct 3♣ is weaker than a delayed 3♣, so that west's actual choice shows some values. Absent such an agreement, I would think that West could balance with 3♣ on weaker and/or less suitable hands with the expectation of finding club support in East's hand. And, that passing 3♣ was a LA. Tim

Doesn't it seem strange that Smith Peters were specifically asked about at trick one and south had forgotten by trick two? I do not mean to dispute the facts, but this is one of those times when I would expect south to be quite aware of what she was doing at trick two.

No question. People who don't vote don't worry the politically entrenched at all. A third party or candidate gaining a foothold would change the flow of money and power considerably. There should be a "none of the above" option.

Can't speak for Richard, but in my opinion Obama's alternative is to fail to get anything accomplished at all. I fault US voters for electing so many morons. The parties tell us for whom we can vote. Own the parties and you dictate who is on the ballot. For whom other than the balloted candidates would you have us vote? If you think the choice is between 2 candidates and that both are morons then perhaps you shouldn't vote altogether. Having Moron A beat Moron B 936 to 395 rather than 19,500 to 13,311 might not help us in that given election but could definitely send a powerful message regarding future elections. Perhaps better is to vote for a 3rd party or independent candidate rather than feigning apathy.

So suppose that North opens 4♣ with a stack of clubs. South alerts and says "good hand with hearts." East has a hand with both pointed suits, but decides to pass because he is assured of another chance to come in over 4♥ (perhaps their defense has no direct bid for this two-suiter). South now passes 4♣ because his heart holding is quite strong and he's sure that north just forgot their namyats agreement. 4♣ passes out; E/W can make 4♠. Thus it appears that: (1) South alerted 4♣ and described it as something North does not in fact have. (2) South then took a call (pass) which seems to cater for North's actual hand rather than their described agreement. (3) E/W were damaged, because East's pass was based on the assumption that North's call was pretty much forcing, when in fact he had nothing of the sort and South treated north as having nothing of the sort. Are you really going to say "well, namyats is on their card, so no adjustment"? Or are you going to rule "fielded misbid" or even misinformation? South knows that his partner has either forgotten the agreement or intentionally decided to violate agreement, not because of a partnership understanding (concealed or otherwise), but because of the cards in his hand (the strong hearts). I would not rule misinformation. Nor would I rule "fielded" anything if "fielded" carries with it an implication of being illegal (as it seems to in most places).

Does "make the bid sufficient in hearts" include changing the call to 3♥? I would guess that responder showed her hand to the director and upon seeing 5+ spades the director was convinced that responder had intended to respond 2♥. Now the director is allowing a correction to 2♥ (or 4♥) and has been a bit sloppy in the wording of his ruling because he knows what call responder intends to make. Or, perhaps responder intended to open 1♥ and will now respond 3♥ (natural and GF) to opener's weak NT. Or, maybe opener was in error when he said "transfer" -- that is, this pair does not play transfer responses to 1NT.

I think you are quoting from old Laws. There is no reference to "conventional" in the latest Laws, is there?

Even if everyone leads a diamond, might they give serious consideration to other leads, and wouldn't that serious consideration mean that there are logical alternatives.

Perhaps being overlooked in this discussion is that the experience gained in the Trials is beneficial to the players and thus to the organization in the long run. Some players who enter the Trials may not have a realistic chance of winning this year, but the experience they get may increase their chances in future years. The current practice of holding the Women's Trials before the Open Trials discourages women from taking part in the Open Trials and in this way deprives them of an opportunity to improve their chances in the future.

To me, the important factor is how often the best (and second best) team doesn't survive the round robin stage(s). And, how much a significantly weaker team's entry into a round robin increases the chances of the top team(s) not surviving. I also wonder how the skill distribution affects matters. You had something like -1.0, -0.5, 0, -+0.5, +1.0. What if it was -0.9, 0, +0.1, +0.2, +0.6? Or, -0.6, 0, 0, +0.3, +0.3? How do these change the chances of the best teams not surviving the round robin?

Really? I could be missing something, however, other than the GNTs / GNPs I can't think of any events in which ACBL districts give players money to represent the District in competition. GNT subsidies are up to individual Districts and vary greatly from District to District. I believe some Districts provide zero subsidy. NAP subsidies are provided by ACBL.

Given that the qualifying and final are often months apart, it's easy to imagine a legitimate conflict. Suppose that you make plans to play on a team and then right before the District event you hear that your sister is getting married and the wedding will make it such that you can't attend the national finals if you advance. It's too late for your teammates to find a replacement for you, but if you compete as a team and win, then they can easily find a replacement. I don't think many people would object to this person playing despite the certainty that he will not be able to play in the national finals. I doubt anyone would consider it unethical to qualify at the club for the NAP with a partner that you have no intention of playing with in later stages of the event. Even if you were paying your (much better) partner to play in the club event, I don't think anyone would object. So, let's make up a scenario on the opposite extreme and see what people think. Suppose that there is a very good pair in my district that is eligible for Flight B -- maybe it is a pair of juniors or a pair that is getting back into the game after a long layoff -- but let's just assume for this exercise that this pair is clearly superior to all the other Flight B pairs eligible for the event. Further, this pair will not play in the national finals of the Flight B event no matter what. I'd like to play in the national finals, so I get together my normal team of four and hire the clearly superior pair to play with us in the District event. The hired pair will anchor the team, playing every board of the event while the two "regular" pairs split playing time so that they both qualify per the CoC. Do you see anything unethical about this? I don't really see anything wrong with it. Some people have suggested that they would consider this unethical because it means the District may have a weaker representative. But, (weaker) clients are a generally accepted part of events like the US Team Trials. Some people would opine that such clients are bad for the event, but I don't think many would go so far as to say their entry is unethical.

Well, the CC is a mess and I often get conflicting rulings from rulings@acbl.org, but 5♠ and 4♣ hands can be opened 2♠ if 10+ hcp. From the allowed section: 6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits. So, it would appear that your method (promising spades and clubs) is GCC legal. If it was 5+ spades and 4+ in either minor, or if the bid could be made on fewer than the 10 HCP, the method would not be GCC legal. Item 12 from the mid-chart is: 12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a 4-card minor. (2) So, a weak opening 2S showing 5+ spades and an undisclosed 4+ card minor is mid-chart legal. But, there does not seem to be a provision for playing a constructive 2S opening showing 5+ spades and an undisclosed 4+ card minor. The charts are indeed a mess. And, you are not alone in getting conflicting rulings depending upon whom you ask at ACBL (or upon what day of the week you ask).

You should read the mid-chart... My brief reading of your method leads me to believe that it is permitted under #3 below, so it does not require an approved defense.

I'm not so sure that's legal - there is no explicit provision for it in the GCC, and if there isn't, then it seems to me "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" (near the top of the chart, just above "Opening Bids") applies. Neither does the GCC specifically allow a 1S opening which promises 5+ spades and 13+ HCP. For that matter, I don't think it specifically allows any 1S opening bid; none of the eight listed items under "OPENING BIDS" addresses a 1S opening bid. It is true that the GCC is a "convention chart", but the chart says "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". It does not say "unless specifically allowed, conventional methods are disallowed". It has long been held that item #1 under Definitions implicitly permits natural methods, but that is not strictly the case: a 2S opening which shows 5+ spades and a 4+ card minor is not allowed in GCC events despite it being natural by the given definition. As you point out, under the most recent Laws, there is no longer a definition of conventional and a Sponsoring Organization may designate any method "special" and regulate those methods even if natural.

Most of what a club director does is set up the game (including selecting a movement), make sure the boards are moved to the proper tables after each round and score the event. In my experience, it is not unusual for a club game to be absent a director call for an entire session. I agree with Helene, if you sticky 3 or 4 Laws, that will cover 95% of the director calls you will get. Tim

I looked up the CoC for District 25 (New England) and found that with five teams there is an all day round robin to reduce to four teams followed by all-day semi-finals and final (with the final being played at a later date). Doesn't help given your requirement that the event be completed in two days.

This is not quite true, is it? If a Unit Disciplinary Board suspends a player for 30 days, the player is suspended from club, unit, district, and national games, not just unit games.

In ACBL land, I think the appropriate "grievance form" would be a Player Memo properly submitted to the Unit Recorder, not to the club Director or Board Members. Once submitted, a "fair" result is that the Recorder confirms receipt and follows up as he believes is appropriate. Submission of a Player Memo in no way guarantees a hearing. If your local club has in place a similar process for filing complaints, I would expect them to do the same as the Recorder: consider the complaint and follow-up as they deem appropriate. You should be careful, if your complaint involves an allegation of cheating (as through illegal communication) you should be aware that ACBL treats public accusations of cheating every bit as seriously as actual cheating. If this is a matter of a pair repeatedly doing things like making a call followed by immediately folding their cards and writing down the contract to signal to partner that they hope the auction is over, you're best action is no action. These things are a part of ACBL club bridge and likely always will be. Agree with all of this, although I don't think filing a PM constitutes an accusation of cheating. In some cases it would be, but it would not matter since it is not a public accusation. My caution was meant to warn against talking to club officials about the cheating, or raising a stink if the club officials didn't act upon a proper complaint. When cheating is involved, it is especially important to go through proper channels.

It sounds to me like you are saying that you would adjust if responder holds Qxxx xx AKxx QJx, but not if responder holds Kxxxx Qx xxx xxx. You seem to be saying that a hesitation in this situation, for this player, always means the same thing and that the actual hand shows whether or not this same things is extras. Even if I were willing to agree that a specific player had a tendency in this situation, it would be impractical for a director or committee to determine what the tendency is. Perhaps that is why you are comfortable always ruling against the side that breaks tempo. But, it seems to me that responder's hand is irrelevant to the ruling. And, if used as evidence is a case of too small a sample size to be useful. As an aside, I would expect a slow 4♥ to express doubt about strain rather than suggest minimum or extras. In my experience, players tend to make the level decisions more easily than the strain decisions. I'd expect a singleton heart and something of a dubious stopper, or perhaps a 41(53)/41(62) type hand where responder thinks a minor might be the best strain, but not know how to get there after this start. Tim

In ACBL land, I think the appropriate "grievance form" would be a Player Memo properly submitted to the Unit Recorder, not to the club Director or Board Members. Once submitted, a "fair" result is that the Recorder confirms receipt and follows up as he believes is appropriate. Submission of a Player Memo in no way guarantees a hearing. If your local club has in place a similar process for filing complaints, I would expect them to do the same as the Recorder: consider the complaint and follow-up as they deem appropriate. You should be careful, if your complaint involves an allegation of cheating (as through illegal communication) you should be aware that ACBL treats public accusations of cheating every bit as seriously as actual cheating. If this is a matter of a pair repeatedly doing things like making a call followed by immediately folding their cards and writing down the contract to signal to partner that they hope the auction is over, you're best action is no action. These things are a part of ACBL club bridge and likely always will be.

Did NS claim some damage or just ask for a ruling?

Partner's opening bid plus your opening bid equals game; if you decide to bid NT, I think 3NT was in order.

My opponents bid to a thin slam and make it when my queen of trumps is onside. I flip the queen of trumps, put it in the middle of the hand, and replace the cards in the board. The queen is exposed when the cards are counted at the other table and the board becomes unplayable. Have I really not broken any Law?

I'd like partner's chances in 6N if he holds ♠AQxx ♥AK ♦xx ♣AKTxx. I agree with those who have suggested opener should bid 4♦ instead of 3N on the actual auction. But, if the 2♠ rebid really showed GF jump-shift values, I think responder is worth another bid over 3N, too, probably a simple quantitative 4N.