TimG

Yes. Law 16B1A reads in part "... may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." I think that means you have to look at each pair separately. Could comment on Appeal Case 7 (which can be found on page 4 of this Daily Bulletin from Washington, DC)? In this case, the auction started: 1♠-(P)-2♠-(P) P-(DBL)-P-(3♣) P* * alleged BIT It seems to me that the BIT suggests taking action rather than passing. But, the BIT could have meant: 1) opener was thinking about doubling; or 2) opener was thinking about competing to 3♠. Considered pairwise: 3♠ v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about doubling, then 3♠ is not suggested over Pass; DBL v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about bidding 3♠, then DBL is not suggested over pass. Perhaps DBL is suggested over pass because it allows for either 3♣X or 3♠, so caters to whatever opener was thinking about. But, surely the BIT does not suggest bidding 3♠ over the LA of Pass.

Seriously? I've always thought the thank yous at the end of a session were a waste of time. I have a few pet peeves with regards to commentators: I find it frustrating when commentators don't know even the basics of the system that the players are using. During a recent broadcast, either Zmudzinski or Balicki opened 1♣ and a commentator said "I think that's a Polish Club". I don't expect all commentators to know the intricacies of a Polish Club, but I expect they'll know the basics and won't be guessing about the meaning of a 1♣ opening. Some commentators use GIB and then comment about the "missed opportunity" or "mistake" when a player does not play the double dummy card. I don't mind the use of GIB -- it should be a useful tool for commentators to help them quickly analyze a situation -- but there should be an understanding that what is correct double dummy is not always correct single dummy. It's also not real useful for the commentator to simply relay what GIB says because the spectators can use GIB too. I don't enjoy commentators who act like cheer leaders. It's OK to have a known preference for one side, but good (and bad) plays by both sides should be met with equal enthusiasm. Comments such as "YESSSSS!!!!!!" add nothing to the show. I don't like when commentators shown disdain for non-standard or unfamiliar methods. Especially when those methods may be popular in some parts of the world. Discussion of the merits is great, off hand dismissal is bad. Worst is an attitude of being too lazy to think about it. Commentators should be able to point out mistakes without sounding superior. Oddly, it seems to me that truly world class players, those that are often better players than those they are talking about, can point out errors without sounding superior, while commentators who are lesser players are often more harsh when pointing out errors.

Perhaps one reason that the Wagar is not as popular as it once was is that there are far fewer Women's events at sectionals and regionals. So, there's not much incentive to form regular teams (or pairs) of women. The ACBL has reason to keep the Women's events on the NABC calendar because these events are used for seeding/qualification for the USBF Women's Trials to pick teams for World Championship play. Until that changes (or the WBF eliminates Women's events) I expect the events are here to stay.

Come on, tell the truth. If 2N shows a spade fit, you'd bid 5♥ (Exclusionary Blackwood).

It does not matter whether the actions of the TD were justifiable, with few exceptions BBO lets TDs run their games as they see fit. Choosing whether and when to unregister players is something that is left to the TD. Whether this TD lied about BBO's role is something that should be between the TD and BBO. If BBO is not concerned about the possible damage to their reputation, neither should you be.

I agree. I'm guessing there is some UI involved in the actual problem and the objective of the thread is to determine whether pass is a logical alternative.

#1 4♥. I'm not worried about the opponents finding a sacrifice, it's just that this seems like the best description. Opener will expect more in high cards for any of the below game raises (except 3♥, I guess) and I can't imagine not shooting out game. #2 I would have bid 3♠ over the double. Now 5♣, though I have little confidence in it being right.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that actions must be considered pairwise. That is, action (5S or DBL) is suggest over a LA (pass) is irrelevant. Rather where the Law is concerned the chosen action (5S) must be demonstrably suggested over the LA (pass) in order for adjustment.

What do you lead against 2♠?

You've probably just taken that next step to super-expert and recognize more of the nonsense than you did a few months ago. Or, maybe it's all the new folks that IBLF has drawn to the forums!

It appears south thought 4♣ was a cue-bid for hearts, so maybe he thought responder's impossible queen was extra heart length.

Case 8 from the Orlando 1998 Casebook involves a discussion of this Law.

Isn't that standard practice for the final poll option?

How does south know that north has 5 hearts instead of 6? After the play of the Jack, north will "know" that declarer has the Queen and a second heart will cash. It seems to me that North should have made whichever honor lead asks for count and south should give honest count.

I agree. I've already overbid in a unilateral way, bidding on over 4♠ would just be guessing. For one, finding a double fit would improve the hand.

I'm not savvy, is that the close window key?

The message is generated automatically by BBO when a TD tries to sub a player and there are no subs available. Its generally not a good idea to have TD's on ignore. ;) I have a number of ACBL directors on my enemy list so that I don't have to read the spam they generate during the first round of a tournament.

Anybody know if Josh will be in DC defending his NA Swiss title?

Set the spammer to enemy and you won't have to read any more messages from him.

I would venture a preference to 2♠.

We've all been in a position where we know that we need a big win to have a chance of winning a Swiss and we've probably taken some gambles that we would otherwise not in order to give ourselves (what we perceived as) a better chance to win. Our average IMPs and variance will not be the same during such a match as it would be earlier in the event. Unless your model takes into account this possible change in average/variance, I don't think it will be particularly useful. Especially since the debate over format is very much about whether this sort of change in play is measurable or effective. It seems to me that your model is assuming constant average/variance.

I don't think this will work so well. Players will presumably be taking into account "state of the match" so the average performance and board variance will not remain constant.

Because 2♠ was available for a general force.

I think lots of people get hung up on having values opposite partner's splinter, even if they would cooperate without those values. Give yourself xxxx QJxx KJxx Q and hear your partner open 1♣ and then raise your diamonds with a spade splinter and you might cooperate in a slam hunt, you'd certainly cooperate with Axxx QJxx KJxx Q. But, add that Q9 of spades and suddenly the hand has gotten worse for slam? Edit: removed example hand -- anyone can create an example hand to support their position. Also, adding that I'd bid 4♠.