TimG

There is an interesting tidbit about violating range agreements at the end of this article.

Isn't this a case of general bridge knowledge? 99.9% of bridge players, especially those in new partnerships, mess up agreements from time to time. You don't need any partnership history or prior knowledge of the player to know this.

Let's assume that South did field the misbid and failed to compete to 3♥ as a result. Let's further assume that there is no partnership history and no UI from north's reaction to south alert and explanation (pretend they were behind screens if you need to). It seems that the EBU has a regulation that calls for an adjustment in the case of such a fielded misbid. Does the ACBL have similar? (I don't think so.) If you are inclined to adjust under the above conditions (in a jurisdiction that does not have an EBU-type regulation), upon which Law would you base your ruling?

Isn't that the point of all this? Two competent bridge players could look at the same 30 deal sample and come to different conclusions.

I don't think North should venture 4♣ on (B), especially not vulnerable, just hope the opponents have guessed (or will guess) the level incorrectly. On © it may be double dummy talk, but it seems to me that east should pass over 4♥ after his partner's total tricks sort of raise. We've pressured them, they've guessed, 4♠ just means that we're taking the last guess...in front of a partner who might know what to do.

You also have LHO having ♦Kxxx and a chosen spade honour. After RHO wins the heart, he has to return a heart to stop you setting up the diamonds. You win, draw trumps, take a diamond finesse, ruff a diamond, then cash the trumps and hearts to squeeze LHO. You can't cash ♦A when you're in dummy, so you'll have to read the ending. I think that if you win the opening lead in dummy, cash the ace of diamonds, ruff a diamond and run all but one trump, you will be in a position to take 12 tricks against most layouts if you can read the ending. But, especially for me, that is a big if.

When the opponents have 24 HCP, assuming an uncontested auction is seldom correct.

Double dummy, it's about 77%. I wonder if anyone can run this through a single dummy engine to see how often the slam makes. I do not mean to dispute gnasher's numbers, I simply find it an interesting example of the difference between double dummy and single dummy since it is generally considered that slams run pretty close to double dummy results.

What odds do you give 6♣ on the actual layout?

I like this start: 1♠-2N, 3♣-4♣ though I understand few would have that available.

I also have quite a few players marked as friends because I might be interested in kibitzing them. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add another category in addition to "enemy", "neutral", and "friend" to denote a person of interest.

You're saying that given a/b and c/d with a>c (and b>d), if (a-c)/(b-d) > c/d, then a/b > c/d. Have I correctly translated your process?

I wonder if changing the hand to ♠KQT943 ♥J43 ♦4 ♣A75 would change any of the 2♠ votes to 1♠. (That is, does the change from 1.5 QT to 2 QT make a difference?)

The 'H' and 'J' are next to each other on the keyboard?

Were these explanation given during the auction? I'm going to assume not since there is no reason for opener to explain his thinking during the auction. From responder's point of view, opener took a while to bid 3♣ which means that opener is unsure whether he wants to bid 3♣ (and possibly play there) or accept the invitation. Responder has UI from this first hesitation that opener is not absolutely minimum. After responder's forcing 4♣ bid, what are opener's obligations? I would expect that opener should cue-bid a first round control on the way to 5♣. The slow 5♣ suggests that opener has either bypassed a side first round control or has very strong clubs and did not know how to show them. Responder has UI from this hesitation that opener likely has the ♦A or very good clubs. I think it is possible to construct a balanced 15-17 HCP hand, consistent with the auction, lacking both the ♦A and the ♣A. So, passing 5♣ must be a logical alternative. Bidding 6♣ is suggested over pass by the UI available from opener's slow 5♣. 1) UI available; 2) pass is a LA; 3) 6♣ suggested over pass by the UI. So, I'd roll it back to 5♣.

I also play that the cue-bid establishes a force until suit agreement (suit bid and raised) or game. With that rule, pass is forcing and 3♥ is not (suit bid and raised). I would expect double to be takeout on the basis that doubles are takeout until our side has found a fit (and 2♥ did not establish a fit). Though I would expect it to be highly convertible in nature.

Isn't that only the case in bracketed events? I know there has been some move to bracketing Swisses, but in general aren't non-KO events still primarily flighted or stratified? It has been my experience that in regionals, except the very large ones, getting into the top bracket of a KO event is not too difficult and when masterpoints do not qualify one for the top bracket, a request will often be honored.

I don't think they are claiming they are damaged by MI, as there was none. They are claiming that there was UI, because West recalled the methods as a result of the alert. Did you read the quote to which I was responding?

Did you notice that the new President has said that a rating system will be amongst his priorities? Tell him you think that's a great idea when you see him in Newton. I know I plan to. I spoke with Rich DeMartino and his description of the problem and solution reveals that his idea of a rating system is something within the framework of masterpoints. His objective (in a nutshell) is not to create a whole new rating system, but come up with some basis so that lifetime masterpoint accumulators (those that win ~100 points a year for 25+ years) can "play down" while still keeping up-and-comers who have won regional events on their way to 2500 points out of Flight C. It sounds like the goal is to separate the life-time Flight B (and C) players from those just passing through.

N/S were given the correct explanation according to partnership agreement. There should be no merit to an appeal which is based on a hope that they will get protection against the misbid. Isn't it hard to imagine a hand, consistent with north having a slam invite, where a spade lead works better than a diamond lead? If I were on the committee, I would be inclined to roll it back to the table result.

I pass because my hand isn't very good.

For what it's worth, I did a simple simulation. I gave responder fewer than 5 spades, fewer than 4 hearts, fewer than 6 diamonds, fewer than 5 clubs and not 4=4=1=4 -- meant to be a crude attempt to make NT the final contract. HCP 9+ tricks at NT 6 24% 7 53% 8 71% 9 81% Game should make a little more often than the double dummy result shows. From this, it would seem that when responder has 7 (or more) HCP you really don't want the auction to go 1N-P.

I ventured to the Newton regional last night where someone asked me if a 1♦ opening which showed specifically 4 spades was GCC legal. I said "no" and offered that I had been told by ACBL that such an opening is not "all-purpose". This person had convinced a director that it was GCC legal and was intending to use the method in a GCC event. Not sure whether any opponents objected, and if they did what the outcome was. I mention this mostly as another example of it mattering who you ask. Tim

One option you neglected to mention is involving the opponents in the process. I would bid naturally and discuss it later if I wanted to play a conventional defense. If I wanted to play a conventional defense on the hand in play, I would privately ask the opponents if it was OK if I asked my partner what NT defense he wanted to play. I would not suggest a specific conventional defense myself since I have seen my hand and thus know whether one might fit better on this occasion.

Though I do not recall what Law 11A says (I know it's up thread somewhere), this is the way I see what happened. I am really surprised that Ed did not stop play upon his partner obtaining the lead and make sure that declarer knew she had rights. It may not be the letter of the Law, but it seems like the spirit of the Law to me.