Elianna

So LHO (the regional level director) tried telling me that he would accept 5♠ as a legal, nonconventional bid. I informed him that's not allowed. I then made the mistake of assuming that he won't accept the 4♠ bid (since he basically wanted to accept another bid, plus I assumed that he would have spoken up and said that he'd accept that instead). I told the lady that she may bid anything she wishes, except x, and her partner must pass. After some argument ("but I want to double") she said, "ok, I know what to do" and bid 4NT. This got passed back to RHO who held KQxxx Qx AKQxx xx, and decided to double (which got passed out). Full hand (as near as I remember, I threw my sheet out) [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhxxxdxxxcakqxxx&w=sjtxxhxxxxdxxcxxx&e=skqxxxhqxdakqxcxx&s=saxxhakjxdjtxxcjx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] East led the ♠ K. Making, right? No. The king was ducked. Down, right? No, the spade was continued. and somehow (no idea how) this hand made 5. I may have something wrong, but I have E's pointy suits right. And the funniest thing is that EW were arguing that their score should be changed. To give him credit, after a few minutes W changed tack, and agreed that EW could keep their score, but NS's score should change. But it was pretty funny that E (A club director) was still arguing that she should have been allowed to accept the double, and that it's unfair that they have to keep their result.

I shall preface this by saying that we have several players at the club where I direct that are not at the top of their game (to put it mildly). A lady holding something like Axx AKJx JTxx Jx opens 1D. Her partner bids 3NT, and her RHO overcalls 4♠. She then bids 4♠. And when told by an opponent (who called me at the same time) it's insufficient and needs to be corrected, bids 5♠. The lady told me that she initially intended to double, and then when told her bid was insufficient, forgot what she was going to bid and so made her bid sufficient (not knowing her rights and thinking that's what she was required to do). What do you do? (What more questions do you ask, which laws do you consider might apply here?) PS, LOL's LHO is a regional director, and RHO is a club director, and they're husband and wife. My ruling and reasoning coming up later.

1. 1♠, knowing it's an overbid, but I'm known to like to bid. 2. pass. Even I won't won't bid with 4333. 3. The relevant information in this hand is: have all bids been natural besides 3♣? I assume so, since you haven't said otherwise, so I'd bid 4♥, as a cuebid seems required after 4♦. 4. You haven't told us if you include negative doubles so high. that's the relevant information. If you do, then I bid that. If you don't, I have no idea what I'd actually bid at a table. If you're posting this hand to see if people think that they're playing negative doubles so high, you should post an accompanying hand like J K9xx KQ8xx Kxx and see if people vote "clear penalty double, wtp?" 5. again, I like to bid. 4♣. I am not protesting your right to start a new thread. That's fine, and better than adding hands to an existing thread. My "this is the second thread" was applying to the 2/1 vs. SA part. I find it hard to believe that someone who has read as many bridge books as you have does not know that 2/1 and SAYC have no difference on these hands, and haven't included information about other things in these hands. For example, on the first board, how light do we open? If very light, then I might be more or less likely to bid, same as if we play extremely solid openings.

This is the second thread you've started where you specify 2/1 and not SAYC, where I haven't understood why it mattered (especially since you're not specifying style further). Why does it matter?

2♣ promises another bid when the opponents haven't overcalled before you bid it. Otherwise, after an overcall, I'm not sure that it promises a rebid in SAYC, though it might be easier to teach that it does, so that you can keep things consistent. Note, I'm not saying it's as weak as a negative freebid.

As you mentioned, the question is not, "is it normal?", but rather "is it careless or inferior?" as opposed to "is it irrational?" So you'd have to consult people as to whether it would be careless to say, throw diamonds, as opposed to irrational to throw diamonds, not whether it's "normal" to throw hearts. And you can't just see what they'd throw, most people do not make careless/inferior plays when asked how to play something by a director.

Completely agree. Only way I'd rule 13 tricks is if the subsequent conversation went something like: Declarer: But I lost the first trick. Someone else: No you didn't. In other words, if there was a concession of a trick already won. Otherwise, declarer has to live with his careless claim. I'm sure that since this was posted, the ruling went the other way (and also by my guess of which side plays that 2D bid). This doesn't surprise me, Adam already had a run-in of a different sort with that directing staff (I'll let him describe it if he wishes).

That's not an option while you're a KIBBITZER. However, we can engage in ignoring all chat, or (my favorite) enemying those who pass around the "martinis", etc, and ignoring enemy chat. The bad part about this, though, is that I have a few friends who engage in this, and I would still want to be able to receive messages from them, and hate the idea that I have to enemy them.

Yes, but in ACBL-land, TRaSH isn't legal against natural NT Openings. It is (apparently) legal against both artificial 1 and 2♣ openings. On the contrary, Ralph. TRaSH against a 1NT opening (and any other defense against a 1NT opening not allowed on the General Chart) is legal in the ACBL in events that permit Mid-Chart conventions, as TRaSH is a pre-alertable Mid-Chart convention. The General Chart allows all defenses against 1NT openings which show at least one known suit (except that double and 2♣ do not require a known suit). If a conventional defense to a 1NT opening uses any other bid besides double and 2♣ which does not promise a known suit - such as TRaSH - it is a pre-alertable Mid-Chart convention. I completely agree that according to the charts, Trash/suction is midchart. I'm just not so sure that it's pre-alertable. It definitely doesn't need a written defense. At http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/convchart2005.pdf , it's marked with an asterisk, which definitely means that no written defense is required, but I thought that it also doesn't require a pre-alert. I don't play it, though, so I don't know for sure. I just don't remember ever being pre-alerted to Woolsey (another midchart defense to 1NT) at Nationals. Could be that no one played it, or that I had their card and was looking at it before they could tell me. Also, in many West Coast districts, they specifically have stated that all defenses to 1NT have been deemed GCC.

Finals of LM Pairs

Why would you think that anyone competing for Miss Teen USA would necessarily be a future American leader?

Depending on the director/club you play at, some of the bids you suggested may get you in trouble. (As I know that you're in ACBL land, I will use those regulations.) Under GCC, Disallowed #2: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids. So this would clearly disallow 2D and 2NT, and if I were directing, it would disallow 1d. I also agree with those who point out that it is not a good idea to psyche against bad players, they might mess up anyway.

Yea, as I think of it, an ultimatum goes: "Give me your lunch money or I'll tell Mom that you hit me". I agree that the secondary definition is "a final proposal or statement of conditions." (Random House dictionary online), but I wouldn't interpret this as meaning the last movie. It's like they wanted to say "The Ultimate Bourne", but then realized that it's not in keeping with the other movies, and so changed it, but it bothers me. :)

Adam and I netflixed a German-Hungarian co-produced film called "Gloomy Sunday". It was interesting, the basic plot was about a guy who wrote a song, which people suspected caused suicides. (It was playing when a lot of suicides were committed.) It was pretty touching. Not something to watch with the kids, though. Lots of pictures of the main woman naked. She also had two boyfriends (each knew about the other, of course), and all three seemed ok with the arrangement, which is rather wierd to modern american sensibilities. :)

Thanks for reminding me Josh! I knew that I had been dragged out to another movie, and forgot what it was. I actually enjoyed "The Simpsons" movie. I don't think that it's for people who aren't already fans, but I grew up watching that show, and thought that the movie was enjoyable. It was like a long episode, but I found that it didn't drag as much as I was expecting it to. I liked the end credits, where they had a picture of the characters that each actor voiced. It's interesting to stick around for. If they do another one, I hope that they include Sideshow Bob. And his brother! :)

There is already a favorite movies thread here, but I was interested in hearing people's opinions of more modern movies. Adam and I have recently seen two: The Bourne Ultimatum, and Stardust. Short reviews: TBI was hard to judge: We arrived at the theater right as it was starting, on opening weekend, so we sat in the first few rows, and that made it very hard to see. I kept getting dizzy from trying to follow the action shots, that I missed much of the movie. I was rather disappointed though, as I don't really remember an ultimatum in it. I really enjoyed Stardust. It's pretty much in keeping with the book, although there were several noticeable differences. The whole thing is based on a "children's" novel by Neil Gaiman, so you can imagine it as NG-light. It's a basic light-hearted fantasy, and my only real complaint was that Claire Danes seemed to be channelling Gwyneth Paltrow. All in all, I quite recommend it, if you approach the movie as it was intended. In that movie, I saw a preview for "The Seeker", which seems to be based on The Dark is Rising series of books by Susan Cooper. I'm both excited and apprehensive!

I thought that this (jump to 3NT in GF auction is extras, but not in a suit) was basic standard. And if you're asking why you never learned it, I have no clue. :)

Gazilli doesn't apply in either case. It's only when opener opens a major, and responder replies at the one-level. At least, in it's traditional form.

My guess is Long Island. The correct abbreviation for Louisiana is LA.

I will note that the number of abstentions (5) is the same as the number of ACBL representatives on the WBF board. All ACBL representatives on the WBF board are ACBL board members -- not because it must be that way, but because the WBF representatives are appointed by the ACBL President and the appointments can be the result of political favors. Are you trying to imply that the people who abstained are the representatives to the WBF board? Because our district rep (23) abstained, and is not on WBF. ETA: looking at the list of the executive council, I notice Jim Kirkham's name on it, and he's the district 22 ACBL rep, and D22 abstained. I also note that there are two canadians on that list of the executive council, and Steinberg says that all Canadians voted against.

I've seen it said many places that Appeals committees can't issue PPs. As is written, I have a lot of sympathy for N, because it seems that he and South were playing two different meanings for this sequence of bidding (and my bet is that South didn't know what he was doing). However, both the director and appeals committee got it right because without evidence to the contrary, they need to assume it was a mistaken explanation, not a mistaken bid. I understand the non-AWM because of the sympathy with N's position. I'd also understand the AWM.

This is not the rule that people are claiming is true. The rule that people are claiming is "If I'm long in RHO's suit, there is a higher chance that partner is short in that suit". There's this worry that if I have winner's/length in RHO's suit, maybe LHO has shortness and will be ruffing. But the hope is that partner (as dummy) will be overruffing.

Maybe possibly because it's impossible to get people who know that system together, to play against online?

Hi Fred! I don't know if it's asking too much, but those of us with feeble memories (or is it only me?) would really appreciate if you put an advertisement in the Bridge Bulletin that Wednesday, and a notice on BBO. Thanks! Looking forward to seeing you again, if I actually manage to remember on Wednesday (which I'm hoping that I will).

Basically, he's saying that pedophiles get out of jail, and cannot be prevented from recommitting their crime. A professor is trying to study methods to prevent recidivism, but victim's rights advocates are protesting because the perpetrators are being paid (so it's like they're profitting from their crime). Is it scary that i can understand the gist of what he's saying? I'm sure freaked out.