TimG

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties. Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence.

Partner might not understand your invitational sequence, but there is a chance he will understand and that seems better than taking unilateral action yourself if you don't think 6♥ is warranted by your hand.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakj432h952dak7ct&w=sq9765h8dj5c97652&e=s8hqjt6dt9632cj84&s=sthak743dq84cakq3]399|300|Scoring: MP ..W... ..N..... ...E... ..S ........ ........ ........ ..1♥ 2♥#1 ..2♠... ...3♦. 4♣#2 ..P.... 5♣#3 ....P.. ..6NT ..AP #1 Not alerted #2 Modified Roman Gerber #3 Two Aces & Two Kings Result: 6NT -1[/hv] A low heart to the nine allows the hearts to be picked up for 4 tricks. As I pointed out in another post, switch the ♥6 and ♥7 and the hand is no longer a double dummy make. (On a red suit lead, declarer can duck a heart and squeeze west in the black suits. But this does not work on a black suit lead because east can return the other black suit when in with a heart and break up the squeeze.)

I voted for 1♠, but I don't hate 1NT. I think 1NT is better than redouble because I'm really not excited about defending 2m doubled (which might hang partner for opening a bit light in 3rd seat).

If these things come to light at a tournament through the directing staff, the Director-In-Charge is empowered (or at least was ~5 years ago) to send a charge to a disciplinary committee.

Interesting (to me) that switching the ♥7 and ♥6 means that it is not a double dummy make. But, as you said, surely by the time dummy was exposed, declarer was no longer under the illusion created by the mis-explanation. So, any claim of damage because declarer was misinformed must be rubbish.

When I read "strong" I assumed "strong takeout" rather than "strong two suited". It sure looks like that's what East expected, how else to explain the 3♦ bid?

Will there be any vugraph from this event?

The people who have complained to you should be instructed to submit a Player Memo to the Recorder. I don't believe there is anything in the CDR that says the PM must be submitted at the time of incident, at the tournament where the incident occurred, or otherwise gives a time limit on when the PM may be submitted. From the CDR: Also from the CDR: The recorder receives PMs and investigates. When the Recorder believes a disciplinary hearing is appropriate, the Recorder makes a complaint requesting a disciplinary hearing to the organization's Charging Party (the organization's President by default). The Charging Party then decides whether to make an Official Charge to a disciplinary body. I don't believe "discovery of the incident" is further defined, but it seems to me that "discovery of the incident" is when the Recorder receives a PM. Anyway, seems to me that there is still time to address this incident, but that you ought to get things moving quickly. I'm sure an argument can be made that "discovery of the incident" occurred when you received the e-mails and that the clock is ticking on your 30 days.

It occurs to me that for 3rd (and 4th) seat mini-NTs, I did not include the possibility that partner would open a 10-11 point balanced hand in 1st or 2nd. So, the opportunity to open a mini-NT in 3rd (and 4th seat) is over-stated in my table.

In Maine, supermarkets are required to display a per unit price along with the item price. So, all cereals have a price per ounce listed along side the total price. It's not perfect, for instance the same units are not always used, but it does generally make things easier.

No blame at all to the person who made a 1♥ overcall on ♠Ax ♥Jxxxxx ♦Jxxxx ♣-?

I think this is almost entirely about the cost of litigation rather than fear of verdict.

This may have changed since I last read the regulations (over 5 years ago), but in a District there is a designated Charging Authority that is responsible for convening a disciplinary committee. If no Charging Authority is designated, the District President is by default the Charging Authority. At a regional, the Director-In-Charge may convene a disciplinary committee for incidents that take place at the regional and are reported to the DIC. So, in many Districts a recorder is not empowered to convene a disciplinary committee, the Recorder first has to present the evidence to the Charging Authority who may convene the disciplinary committee. I bolded your mention of "cheating" because I imagine that the vast majority of Player Memos don't involve allegations of cheating. In my experience PMs are mostly about personal deportment.

I did not read through your whole post, but suspect this is a case of being able to support just about anything with a barrage of percentages. I caught a snippet of a discussion with Barbara Boxer on NPR recently. She said that insurance companies have enjoyed a 400+% increase in profits in the last 6-7 years and thought that this was atrocious. I'm on pace to win 300% more masterpoints in 2009 than I won in 2008. Sounds impressive until I admit to having only won 15 masterpoints through the first 7 months of 2008.

I was once the recorder of my Unit. I believe I acknowledged all forms I received, but there were very few and most were handed to me in person or at a tournament where I could acknowledge in person (I did not make "official" acknowledgment of these). None of the reports ever resulted in a disciplinary action, so I never had any reason to inform the complainant about the results of a hearing. When giving a written acknowledgment, I made sure to note that even if no action was taken, the complaint was considered and saved. I did not inform the complainant about my interaction with the subject of the complaint. I have been directly or indirectly involved (as an administrator) in a number of Conduct & Ethics Committee procedures and the resulting appeals, so I know that recorder forms do sometimes result in hearings and disciplinary action. I have filed one Player Memo with the national recorder. I did it via e-mail after the conclusion of a tournament (a recorder form does not have to be hand-written) and receipt was acknowledged. I believe correct procedure when a Player Memo is submitted (to the Director-In-Charge, for instance) for an out-of-unit player, is to forward the Player Memo to the Recorder in the player's home unit. I doubt this actually happens in many cases. Once the DIC (or the Charging Authority) decide that the complaint does not warrant a hearing, I expect the majority of PMs are discarded rather than forwarded. Even within a District, there is likely little or no coordination amongst the Unit and District Recorders.

Does this mean that when bridge logic dictates that someone has psyched you must assume it is one of the opponents? In another thread you define fielding as "allowing illegally for partner's psyche". Is there also the possibility of "allowing legally for partner's psych"? Or, is this an impossibility?

IMPs, none vul, you hold ♠ -- ♥ AQT ♦ KJT63 ♣ JT952. The auction is P-P-1♠ to you. Double or 2N? Or something else? Would your answer change if partner were not a passed hand?

If the opening side psyches less than that as a result of the defense, the defenders don't get to play the defense they want to against the method. That is, the opening side effectively, if not intentionally, psyches less often as a result of the known defense. Perhaps it was wrong to use psyches as the example. Suppose I have loose suit quality requirements for my weak two-bids. The opponents decide to play penalty doubles. I tighten up my suit quality requirements a bit. It sounds like you would resolve this with the defenders stating "we play penalty doubles against loose suit quality requirements; takeout doubles against tight suit quality requirements". So, the opening side picks tighter suit quality requirements. Then the opening side comes across a bad suit that looks good for a preempt and opens a weak two-bid. I guess my question is: how can you be sure of methods when judgment is involved? I do not mean to suggest the the current loop resolution does any better with the problem.

Suppose the defenders play penalty doubles when the opponents psych at least 1 in 20* of their 1NT openings, conventional otherwise. The opening side says that 1 in 19 of their 1NT openings is a psych, so penalty doubles are adopted. Opening side knows this so is careful about their psychs and effectively psyches less often than 1 in 20. How do you resolve this? * I picked arbitrary numbers to illustrate, I do not intend to say whether this number of psychs would be legal.

Do you think that your LHO would have been better able to figure it out if he was alert to your partner's tendency to psych? Was he entitled to that information?

I think a question about 3N suggests an interest in responder's diamond holding. But, I don't think that necessarily suggests a diamond (or non-diamond) lead.

Were the questions that made it obvious your opponents were paying special attention to NT defenses aimed at determining your 1NT range and/or your style in regards to opening 1NT? Suppose this was the (simplified) exchange: Opp: What is your NT range? You: 14+-17, but we take more liberties than most, especially in 3rd seat, and especially when NV. What defense do you play against our NT? Opp: Woolsey, etc. If it turns out that your opponents play a different defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings, this seems wrong. Change it a bit: Opp: What is your NT range? You: 14+-17. What defense to do you play against our NT? Opp: Woolsey, etc. If it turns out that your opponents play a different defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings, have your opponents done anything wrong in not disclosing that at this point? I don't think so. Change it a bit more: You: What defense to do you play against our NT? Opp: Against strong NT we play Woolsey, against weak NT we play penalty doubles. You: Do you consider 14+-17 strong? Opp: Yes. Now it seems clear that the opponents have done nothing wrong. Your opponents' private discussion away from the table and later admission that they intentionally did not tell you of their defense to your 3rd seat NV NT openings make it clear that they were choosing not to tell you about their "secret" defense. There may be something a bit dodgy in that, but they might have done it without technically doing anything wrong. Or, it seems to me that if they had been careful they could have done it without technically doing anything wrong. The separate matter of whether a tendency to psych is part of system that must be disclosed is an interesting one. The modern approach is to say that if a tendency is strong enough to disclose, then it is a partnership agreement and thus subject to regulation. This encourages players not to disclose any possible tendencies. But, it seems that opponents should be able to adjust their defenses against pairs that are known to psych in certain situations. If the psychers don't have to disclose their tendencies, why should their opponents have to disclose their defenses to those tendencies? I'm not sure about the argument that players should be permitted to base their frequency of psychs upon the opponents defensive methods. You get into the endless loop of: we tend to psych, we play penalty double, then we tend not to psych, then we play takeout doubles, oh then we tend to psych, etc. Of course, it would be totally impractical to enforce a tendency to psych.

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both: 1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and 2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT. Thanks, Tim

I'm sorely tempted to double, but I've seen partner's overcalls. I lead the ♥K.