TimG

Nothing has suggested to me that the opening poster is upset. He took an action that seemed right to him, it didn't work out well on the given hand, and he's here asking for a "sanity check" to make sure he shouldn't be adjusting his judgment.

I don't think East is entitled to hear any question that is asked. If he was, when screens are in use the notes would be passed under the screen. The "need to know in order to correct an incorrect explanation" is a red herring since the explanation would not be corrected until the completion of play and what the question was and whether the explanation was correct can be discussed (if needed) at the completion of play. I don't think south was out of line in asking; I don't think east was out of line in suggesting a call for the director to clarify the rights of both sides. I haven't given the hand much thought, but wonder why it is important that east not know south is curious about the possible psyche. Is there an effective defense is east places his partner with Jx in trumps?

I believe all four players must pass for there to be a passout. (Three passes end the auction only following a bid, so even if dealer passes -- so that the auction is P-nothing-P-P-P -- the auction would not end.) If the director is called after the third pass -- P-nothing-P-P -- I do not know whether dealer is given the option of making a call or whether the auction is immediately rolled back to second hand. Either way, the auction does not end without second hand being given a chance to call. As a player, I think second hand should be given a chance to act. It doesn't seem desirable to enforce a passout and a likely unusual result when it is a relatively simple matter to correct the irregularity and get a normal result.

From Wikipedia: So, it was once double elimination. In 1965, the double elimination was replaced by three (and then two) qualifying sessions to be followed by single elimination KOs. I guess I should have said "they weren't always straight KOs" or something along those lines; there used to be formats other than the straight KOs we have today. Edit: I agree I was wrong about the KO in the name not being traditional.

The Vanderbilt and Spingold weren't always KO events. At least I don't think they were. So, the "KO" in the name isn't really traditional.

This topic comes up from time to time, but there is strong sentiment amongst those in charge that the Spingold and Vanderbilt should be KOs from start to finish. I also think that there is something which requires the Spingold and Vanderbilt to follow the same formats, so experimenting with just one is not an option.

The 3rd Quarter started at 11 PM eastern time. That's about 4 AM in most of Europe. It seems crazy to me that the event is scheduled such that the day's play concludes at 1 or 2 AM.

This is still only bridge. I heard another player say: "There is no condo with a pool at stake." Ok. These guys are paid by Mr. Nickel to win the Vanderbilt. Are they sure that he wants them to win like this? Mr. Nickel is surely aware of their behavior and continues to hire them year after year.

Don't the inferences about 5SX (that the defense might slip and the contract make) also apply to 5S?

It does not seem to me that bidding 6♣ is suggested over DBL by the BIT. But, that is what your ruling would suggest. (I also think that Pass is a LA, but that is another issue.)

Can you give an example of a movement which would result in this? For these purposes, let's call Team A the all world class team. Team B and Team C have pairs B1 and C1 that are world class and pairs B2 and C2 that are beginners.

I don't suspect the stronger team will be particularly swingy down 40 with 10 to go. Maybe halfway through if nothing favorable has happened. I was once on a team that came back from down 44 at the half of a KO match (14 boards). We did it without a single double digit swing in the second half. Unusual for sure.

There are two ways this could be handled: 1) When you went to the plate with an aluminum bat, the pitcher would say "hey, he can't use that" and the umpire would send you back to the dugout to get a regulation bat; or 2) The opposing team could pitch to you and then protest if you put the ball in play. In MLB, it seems that the opposing team always waits until the batter is successful in situations like this (pine tar or corked bat, for instance). In a non-professional setting I think the first approach would be by far the more common. So, I guess you have hit upon an excellent example.

It seems to me that the spirit of the regulation is to make sure the opponents have available an adequate defense to methods that may be unfamiliar. I doubt very much that Meckstroth and Rodwell needed the printed defense in order to have access to an adequate defense -- I suspect that had a written defense been available, Meckstroth and Rodwell would not have used it or referred to it. Nor was this method unfamiliar to Meckstroth and Rodwell. As such, it seems to me that the director call was not about protecting their rights or concern about handling the methods, but rather strictly about adherence to regulations. Whether this was done because they are frustrated by a common flaunting of the regulations, because people think they can act differently when they play against Rodwell and Meckstroth, or because they wanted to rattle the opponents, none of us appears to know (despite the speculation). People "vilify" Meckstroth and Rodwell because they were not using the rule for the purpose for which it was intended. I think this is also the root of the "ungentlemanly" characterization.

It seems to me that in a 3-way, if one team beats both other teams, they should advance/win. This still seems possible even though each "match" is broken up into segments that are scored by VP; if you score more VP than the other team over however many head-to-head segments you've played, you win. In effect, you would be playing a single match against each of the other teams, if any of the three teams wins both matches, they win. VP would only come into play in the event of each team winning a single match as a tie-breaker.

I see your point. Suppose you have a 32 team KO field. In the first round, #32 beats #1 and takes over the top seed. #32 now gets an easier path than the #2 and #3 seeds. The theory is that they earned this by beating the #1 seed. The #16 seed now also has an easier path, but through nothing of their own doing. If you reward #32 for their upset by giving them the #1 seed, you will also "reward" another team somewhat randomly. Which is better for the event: rewarding the team that pulls an upset or not rewarding a random team?

Aren't the seeds shuffled in groups? So, the 66 and high 70s seed might have been in the same group and ended up in those spots due to shuffling? I'd be surprised if there was a statistically significant difference between the abilities of the 63 and 66 seeds. The shuffling within groups concedes as much.

The way I read the OP, that was the director's reasoning, not jvage's. jvage also said in his post that "n our match (not this one)" so he was not at the table. It seems wrong to characterize the statement as self-serving.

I also pass and am surprised not to be in a small minority.

I'm also a passer. It may not usually be good to defend 2M at MP, but I think action here will often lead to overbidding or defending 2SX when it is making.

The NABC starts today if I am not mistaken. Edit: Appears the NAP started yesterday, though there are no results posted at the ACBL website.

Did you try: http://www.bridgemate.us/product.php?subpage=Pricing http://shop6.mailordercentral.com/baronbar...g/products/110/ Thanks, I did not check Baron Barclay, but I did look around the Bridgemate site and just didn't find the pricing page.

It would be nice to be able to sort tournaments by partner. It would also be nice to be able to sort by multiple headings. When I first sort by date and then sort by host, the tournaments are not sorted by date for each host. These are obviously two very minor items, but in case there is work being done on the listings anyway, I thought I'd mention it.

I don't see prices listed. How much do bridgemates go for? While I'm asking, how much for dealing machines (that read non-bar coded cards) these days?