ray_p

To answer you question simply; Yes you are worrying unnecessarily, So don't worry! The easiest answer is that the LOTT is at it's most accurate predictive power precisely when points are evenly spread - in the 20/20 point part-score range. (Those 4H/5D bids are bigger gambles but pay-off because the returns are commensurately bigger). But remember it is a defensive tool to minimise loss rather than voluntarily bidding risky contracts - then it becomes better to accept or double their sacrifice instead of making a 'phantom' sacrifice. And, as with any statistical technique, like a finesse, one still considers context that may contra-indicate; in particular vulnerability, defensive vs offensive trick, other bidding, as noted elsewhere.

It is sad that the incident has left you feeling like this. Every one is obliged to treat their opponents (and partner) with curtesy and respect, and has the right to expect the same from their opponents whether mistakes were made or not. If the opponents have left you feeling like this after the incident, then I would say there was a breach of good etiquette. The director is there to help ensure everyone enjoys their game. I would suggest that if such an occasion arose again, the best action is to call the director and inform him that your opponent has rudely directed an objection to you (or your partner), which he should have voiced to him (the director). The director can then address both the etiquette and technical issues in a calm and constructive manner. However on the technical issue of play the director will advise you that you were in error; any variation in play, long (or short) bidding time, or touching of other cards in the bidding box can constitute unauthorised information (and Pass is in a different section of the bidding box to Bids so hard to touch accidentally and is usually 'thinking with your fingers'!). Just the evidence you are choosing between two bids gives your partner a subliminal suggestion that could unfairly influence their bid. And after any slow bids, assume your partner is usually morally obliged to pass to visibly demonstrate they did not use unauthorised information - so make your slow bid final and definitive, and assume your partner will not correct it. But put this occasion behind you and if you don't like the people in that club try finding a different one!

An educational hand, to compare what different people consider are permissible or forbidden 'lies' to partner! Good choice of hand Felicity!

If you could predict all the results without playing the game, then the game wouldn't be worth playing! Play to enjoy the variation!

As is often the case, the question is what is the smallest lie to partner! Partner is still unlimited so misleading to pass again and wrong (if partner bids it's bound to be a double and pass of your return bid!) No to a double - 1S would promise 5 cards and double promises 4 cards in spades, In Acol, I like 2H, - The 1C was a genuine suit 4+, so I am only one club short of the bid and very descriptive overall, and it gives partner the chance to bid NT and receive the lead when NT looks like the most viable game contract and partner long in C if weak. In 2/1 probably bid a more cautious 1NT with the extra points balancing the weakness of hearts, since partner's natural rebid may well be 1NT or 2C anyway

I think You're taking a sensible approach of 'When in Rome.... However I think you can be bit more pro-active than that and recommend the club specifically adopt a recognised standard and clearly defined policy of upto EBU level 2 conventions even though not ebu affiliated, (-which seems to be the right level for a low-level club) And with regard to the hand (although largely irrelevant for the underlying issue really), you should be on safe ground that opponent is totally wrong to claim he suffered and didn't make what he knew to be the correct bid because he thought his partner might not understand his Bid! That is absolutely their problem and the committee should tell him as such.

In addition to a confirm option , the screens need to be re-designed better - so that there's more space between buttons. The current design is poor and is all too easy to hit a card next to the one you intended to play, or hit the wrong suit button, expecially when playing with a screen using ones' fat fingers for pointing

Your best weapon looks the low chance of surprising with a bad spade break against a heart contract, for which you'd be on lead. A bid is guessing, and probably helping them to find the best contract because they already know more than you. Be passive and Keep quiet, hoping they don't go for a safer NT contract. At MP you could then make a marginal decision from the bidding whether to sacrifice in 7S over 6NT - as spades probably with W and 7Sx-7 very possible. Although very unlikely decision in rubber where you'd still be a game behind.

All good points Steven, but I'd only agree with you if you said which agreement(s) you were applying (like Lebensohl for example). 'Modern systems' isn't 'a system' per se but a collection of agreements that are off by default until turned on by agreement (-the issue being that many are mutually exclusive). And here, by omission I see no prior agreements in place so would follow 'Standard' - as playing a bag of unspecified agreements will obviously lead to misunderstandings -perhaps that's what happened here? Maybe it reflects a wider debate of which systems are on by default but I would say the clue in the name: old fashioned 'Standard' it doesn't including those new systems until by agreed. - It's clearly not a difficult hand to bid provided both partners have the same understandings of the bids.

Sounds an average case of 'Please tell partner my it's their fault not mine!' (Lol!) But when EVERY suit is so badly distributed then any sensibly bid contract is going down. That said, Partners bidding looks sound for a 4 losers/8 tricks hand, but you missed the principle 'prefer re-bidding partners suit to your own' with your minimum re-bid i.e. bid 3C not 2H, holding 2 clubs and 5 hearts against partners revealed 5+C/4+D. (Your 5 hearts to the Q is not a rebidable suit and if you doubt this, imagine reversing you hearts and spade holdings and then have partner pass your non-forcing 2S bid!!). Over your 2H bid showing 6-hearts, partner is naturally going to jump straight to 4H, with thier Ax in hearts. However over 3C, partner should bid 4C which allows you to pass, though they may be tempted to rashly jump straight to 5C. On an average day I'd expect 5C will make and on a good day even 4H would make, but this day 4C goes down 1 (although makeable at double-dummy) while 4H goes down 3 or 4. Everything goes down because the distribution is freakishly bad however that doesn't mean it was wrong to bid the contract, statistically speaking.

Your semantic debate lets the real point fly over your heads! It takes 2 (sometimes 3) bids to fully describe your hand to partner, and Pass followed by 1S re-bid is just as informative as 1S followed by Pass, or 1S followed by 2D although meanings are obviously different. You need Pass to bid a whole range of un-openable hands, and there are as many Pass.. bidding sequences as 1.. bidding sequences. So, if you aren't using the whole range then your communication with partner is limited.

Remember PASS is a bid too! The issue here is that you don't have a suitable rebid, especially over parters most likely replies of 1H or 2H so don't bid! A Pass will tell partner you don't have an over-calling hand which you don't (although you do have a good defensive hand in this case), Wait for a suitable rebid after your Pass, - which may be supporting partners suit, or converting to NT, or PASS-ing and defending if you and partner dont have a contract (or maybe even a penalty double at a higher level)

Grow up MsJennifer! As you mention, you're not aware how rubber bridge changes things. With 40 below, a GF is only forcing to 2H, not 3NT. (so could be light in the way a 4th seat bid is light - for example a south with 19 distributional points would not want partner to pass a 1M bid with 5 points, so could choose 2C to investigate partners hand with the intention to pass when a satisfactory contract is reached) Here I would read 2C it as promising at least 7 1/2 tricks, not necessarily more. You're right in that it creates ambiguity, but partner should be smart enough to take this into account

The time to bid was that first round pass by E, which should have been a 3C pre-empt, rather than waiting for chance to bid unusual NT - especially at -40 below the line and favourable vulnerability. Anything looks a bit late now opponents have been unleashed. Consider 2 possibilities: (a) that the 2C bid was only to force partner into bid upto the 2M/3m level for game or (b) It is a truly strong hand, but probably not slam going unless they find their good fit. You have 0-1 defensive tricks, but partner may have 0-11 points (a) or 0-8 points (b), which have no offensive value for you, but with some defensive value against their game. Make opponents earn their game, in full. Don't just rollover and give in. Compete to take out bidding space and a belated 4C is probably better than pass as it is makes them play in 4. Although 5C is too risky - your potentially 5-loser hand might get held to just 5 tricks.

I've watched the EBU's system evolve over a number of years and accept the algorithm is reasonable and gives that ladder-like scale. However my criticism is the way that it (or any constant grading system) influences players behaviour in some detrimental ways. Bridge players are already naturally competitive!! and having a grade, many people become overly focused on improving their ranking to the detriment of enjoying the game, and exhibiting good manners. Particularly when their desire (obsession?) to keep up their grade turns into: self-selecting only certain partners, the matches entered, avoiding hosting or new partners or anything that might affect their grade, But especially when they become less tolerant of other's mistakes at the bridge-table. To balance this criticism, I should acknowledge that grading does server to engender more commitment to the game, by feeding on players desire to judge themselves against others and push up that ranking However any automatic grading system must also consider the 'law of unintended consequences' when implemented, for the detrimental behavioural effect the ranking system can bring (as I have often noticed with players under the EBU system).