TimG

My favorite win was a Flight B KO at the New England Regional Individual before bracketing became popular. It was a field of 56 teams, so we played 6 sessions, one Friday evening, three on Saturday, and two on Sunday. We were down over 40 at the half of the final and won despite no double digit swing in the 2nd half. They switched to bracketed the next year. I have entered one Spingold and one Vanderbilt, but aside from those, this was the last time I played in a KO schedule to go more than 5 rounds. I miss such events. The win was worth 36.02 masterpoints. A big chunk of points for a Flight B event. I've topped that in a single event only once, a top bracket KO win at a Las Vegas regional, that win was worth 36.03 masterpoints.

Not preventing you from accepting it, just preventing you from having agreements after you've accepted it. And, they are welcome to regulate such "special partnership understandings". I don't know about "more dangerous". Perhaps "less likely to be advantageous"?

No pair ever has to face an accepted insufficient bid. They can always decline to accept and then play their agreed methods.

A great argument for having "rated" and "unrated" areas in BBO!

For what it's worth, I have cited an example of a pair knowingly violating the rule and not being ruled against, or even told to stop.

I think many would consider pass, but few, if any, would choose pass.

I've been to the Young Chesea and LMBA sites and googled Lederer Memorial, but can't find a list of this year's participants. Any link?

Let's suppose the opponents make an insufficient bid, we opt not to accept the bid, and the opponent makes the bid sufficient. Can our double of that bid mean something different than it would have had there been no insufficient bid and correction? If so, should it be allowed? For instance, suppose the auction starts 1N-(1H)-? We play negative doubles of 2-level overcalls, but want to make a penalty double of 2H in this case. So, we do not accept the double and if it is corrected to 2H, now we double for penalties. If the opponent chooses to pass instead of making the bid sufficient, we have lost nothing and we can go on our way in a non-competitive auction (with the extra information that one opponents wanted to bid 1H). Should we be allowed to vary our agreements based upon an insufficient bid being made sufficient? Or, how about this? 1N-(1H)-DBL vs 1N-(1H)-"Director, please", then when the director arrives and gives the first option of accepting the insufficient bid, accepting it and doubling. In my opinion, we ought to be able to have agreements over insufficient bids and corrected insufficient bids. But, we ought not be able to vary our agreement based upon whether we choose to accept or whether we do so with a director call, that sort of thing.

A statement like "I always planned to. . ." is seldom of any value at appeal and, I think, should be discounted considerably (perhaps totally) by a director.

I'm not sure how this can work. A partnership may not vary its understanding, but an agreement about what to do after an opponent's insufficient bid won't likely be in variance to a partnership's regular understanding. Suppose the auction starts 1H-(1C)-DBL. If a partnership plays this as penalty instead of negative, are they varying their understanding? No one has an agreement to play negative doubles of 1C overcalls. Suppose the auction starts 1N-(1D)-? Are transfers on? We don't play transfers after they interfere with our 1NT opening, but we do play transfers when the whole 2-level is available to us. Which is varying from partnership understanding?

Not often. . .they usually bid on with the borderline invites or heavy 2H bids (because they would have bid 3H over 3C). One thing that I have not seen mentioned (though I admit to not reading every post in the thread) is that raising with xxx has potential to get partner off to a bad lead. Perhaps it is unlikely on this this auction, but with an honor in partner's suit, there is more potential for us to have 9 running tricks too. It's not always just about whether we can jam their auction. Probably minor considerations once they have made a 2-level negative double.

I think 4H followed by a move over 4S; or 5H exclusion, are both reasonable options. I would not be content to settle in 4S. I do wonder whether 4D was something of a courtesy or said something about the suitability of responder's hand for slam (why didn't responder bid 3S to allow opener to show a club control and is there any inference available from this?).

I expect you are right. But, I am still very surprised that anyone thinks 4 seconds is a BIT.

I don't imagine the mystery around who is responsible for a BIT was the primary consideration when implementing screens. Certainly there are enough other ways that UI can be reduced by the use of screens that we shouldn't consider screens useless if they don't always solve BIT issues.

I don't think 4 seconds would be considered a hesitation/BIT by many, if any.

To "avoid" not to "create". What you are suggesting is that East might delay the passing in order to create a tempo irregularity.

Are negative inferences alertable? Either way, I would consider this general bridge knowledge. Edit: Consider when you have bid a suit and later have an opportunity to double a cue-bid in the suit you have bid. If a double of the cue-bid confirms interest in having this suit led, should it be alerted if you pass the cue-bid?

1) I think North should have raised 3D to 4D instead of bidding 3N. Having failed to receive support for diamonds, or a preference to hearts, I think it is reasonable for south to stop thinking much about slam and signoff in 4H. 2a) In my opinion, any extra time it takes for the tray to come back can be assumed to be the result of North thinking. East has nothing to think about and would not delay the tray beyond the need to delay to maintain proper tempo (in the case of two quick calls on the NE side of the screen, for instance). East cannot delay the passing of the tray in order to simulate a break in tempo. 2b) I think the hesitation shows a maximum diamond raise in light of the previous bidding and suggests bidding on. Is pass a LA? I would say having previously been willing to play below slam in hearts, South should also be willing to play below slam in diamonds; yes, pass is a LA. Altogether, that means South cannot bid 6D (or that the director or committee should roll the auction back to 5D). The tricky part to me is that South can make an argument that North would not bid 5D simply to improve the contract, that bidding 5D (no matter the tempo) must be a slam try. Does this AI trump the UI? I don't think so, as suggested by the actual hand, the hesitation likely means not only slam interest, but perhaps a misbid previously (denying AKxx in diamonds by not raising 3D).

That "including opening calls" part makes the opening calls part of the defense and seems to be necessary in order to avoid the situation where a FP pair announces their system, the opponents announce "in that case we also play a FP", and then the original FP pair announce "in that case we don't play a FP", etc.

Isn't there different information over 5S and 5SXX? When west passed 5S, she didn't know whether or not partner was bidding 5H to make and didn't know whether the opponents were bidding 5S to make or sacrifice or had misjudged and had missed slam. When she next had a chance to call, her partner had doubled suggesting that they had hoped to make 5H and her opponent had doubled suggesting they had a high expectation of making or being down at most one; there is now less danger that the opponents have missed a slam. At the time of either passing or bidding on over the redouble, West might reasonably expect the result for bidding 6H to be somewhere between -50 and -300; while the result for passing 5SXX to be somewhere between +400 and -1200. If passing is wrong, the team rates to be -550 (+650 -1200) for a loss of 11 IMPs when they make 5S at the other table, or -1100 (+100 -1200) or -900 (+300 -1200) for a loss of 15 or 14 when they collect a penalty against 6HX at the other table. If bidding 6H is wrong, the team rates to be -300 (-100 -200) or -500 (-300 -200) for a loss of 7 or 11 IMPs (assuming all contracts will be doubled) when teammates go down in 5S at the other table. So, when passing 5SXX is wrong, it loses from 11 to 15 IMPs; when bidding 6H is wrong, it loses from 7 to 11 IMPs. It seems that bidding 6H is the safer option. Maybe this way of thinking isn't quite right, but avoiding the potential for losing 14 or 15 IMPs (if things go really wrong) and instead risking a loss of 7 to 11, seems like something that someone who thinks they are ahead by a bit might want to do. But really, I think that we have to consider that West has more information upon which to base a decision when the auction comes back around. And, that passing 5S doesn't say that West thinks the best way to win the match is to defend 5S, but rather is just an admission that she has insufficient information to offer a unilateral opinion. She is much better informed after hearing the double and redouble.

I would be so careful as to disclose the agreement, not that I think that requires much care, just the normal way to play bridge.

Presumably, if they pass with good hands, they have to open something with bad hands. I find it hard to believe that they can open their bad hands, but you cannot "open" your bad hands once they have passed. I don't have a recommendation for actions after their 1st/2nd seat pass. But, I think when you are in 1st seat you ought to pass with some good hands in order to see more ferts from 2nd hand. Ferts are probably a long run loser for them, especially if you can "force" some on them when you have a good hand of a particular type (strong balanced, for instance). Notice that you don't have to worry about opening light in 3rd seat to protect against 1st hand's strong pass since 2nd hand will either make their own forcing pass or open the bidding, either way 1st hand will get another chance.

I was taught that a reverse is a non-jump bid in a higher ranking suit second in such a way that forces the three-level if partner wants to take preference to your first bid suit. I think under your definition, the (non-competitive) sequence 1H-1S-3C would qualify as a reverse because opener bypassed 2H. But, I agree with you that "reverse" in the context of a competitive auction may not be quite right.

Won't 6C make more often?

I understand that one concocted example does not prove anything, but give opener Qx AQx Kxxx Kxxx and I'd like my chances in 6N. My inclination would be to drive to slam and don't think a direct 6N is too far off base, especially if I don't have a way to show spades and then offer a choice of slams.