Echognome

Not that I want to be involved in this part of the conversation, but if your fact #1 is true, per my last post, I wouldn't view this as a BIT. The only thing I would view as a BIT is seeing the lead, maybe staring at it for a second, then picking up a drink and drinking before leading.

I think people are just offended that they think SB is trying one on. I would want to understand what happened further before I made any decisions. To me these two scenarios are completely different. Scenario A - The person had either picked up his glass to drink or began the act of picking up his drink before the trick was lead. Very closely related would be picking up his drink after the card had been lead, but not noticing the card had been lead before beginning to pick up his drink. Scenario B - The person looked at the lead, then picked up his drink. Then decided to follow suit. The point is shouldn't we establish whether we view the drinking of the beer as a stall tactic or not? If the act appeared to be to create a BIT, then I think the ruling should follow the "could have known" section of the regulations. If the act appeared to be just a normal drinking of a beer, then I think the ruling should be no BIT. I don't know about others, but I have had someone BIT without a bridge reason done to me and it's not a pleasant experience. What made it tolerable was that I got a ruling in my favor on the actual occasion. However, it wasn't pleasant that it was done in the first place. It probably comes down to a needing to be there and hearing from all of the players to make a decision, but I wouldn't conclude on the basis of the facts as presented that it was one way or another.

I agree with Gonzalo. I think if the player says that this is a strong opening bid in her system, then why fight it and try to recharacterize it as a psyche, deviation, or misbid. I would simply say then that this is agreement is legal/illegal based on the guidance from my NBO.

Perhaps I am confusing matters, but why would it be any of a psyche, deviation, or misbid? Isn't this a question of whether the pair is playing an illegal method? The bidder said that this hand constituted a strong bid in their system. As such, I cannot see how it fits into any of the categories above. The bid was the system bid and was intentional. As such, aren't we only to judge whether the agreement is legal?

Partner has the the following hand: ♠9xxx ♥x ♦AKJTx ♣AKx There is no club ruff, so 4♠ rolls. I bid 3♠ only and we didn't get to game. I think partner is right not to bid 2♠ on the lousy suit and I should have done more. It also let me rethink snapdragon doubles in this one particular sequence. I should add that I took the low road because of my club holding. Of course the opening was on a hand with xxx in clubs!

Yes. Unfortunately.

Form of scoring: Swiss (7 board matches) [hv=pc=n&s=sa9653hqt3dt53c92&w=s82hj86dak876cat4&n=sqjt7hk5d2ckqj765&e=sk4ha9742dqj94c83&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c1h1s2c(Lim+%20Raise)2spp3d(Game%20try)3sppp]399|300[/hv] Assess the blame for missing a makeable game.

Form of Scoring: Swiss (7 board matches) [hv=pc=n&s=skjt8h962dq7cqt92&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1d1hp(Dbl%20%3D%205%21S%2C%20%21dHx%5Bx%5D)2hd3h]133|200[/hv] You play Snapdragon doubles. The one-level double hasn't arisen before with your partnership, so you don't take the chance that it shows additional distribution that you don't have. What's your call now?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak92hk93dt9cak84&n=sj54hq5dak874c963&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np3nppp]266|200[/hv] You have a normal auction to 3NT. LHO leads the ♥6 at trick 1 to dummy's Q, RHO's ♥2, and your ♥3. The opponents play standard carding. I considered playing each of the suits before finally deciding on a line. I think there are cases to be made for each one. What's your choice?

I don't understand your partner's 3NT bid at all. She already showed 18-19 balanced and does not have a club stopper. I think it's a fair question you raise though in your original post. I think we have all played with partners that love a particular aspect of system and we agree to play it as a compromise. She did say it was her favorite convention, not the best convention. I think your best bet is to learn it the best you can according to how she plays it. She won't expect that you will know all the continuations and how to deal with interference and all of the negative inferences involved, but that is ok. Try to refocus your energy and that of your partner by asking meaningful questions on what different competitive bidding sequences mean and what her style of preempts, overcalls, jump overcalls, etc. are at different vulnerabilities (if you do not know already). It is not worth your time individually or your partnership time to spend a lot of time on a convention which is unlikely to show up that often when you play and you will just do your best to survive when it does.

I agree. My question is then what are the rest of the posts about? It seems as though the opponents agreed that the claimer's statement was indeed correct. What more is there to it?

We are obviously not given the claim verbatim. Although I understand the possible interpretations of the claim statement as presented by the OP, the opponents, who were there, agreed that the ♦K does indeed fall. I fail to see why a TD should not accept the now agreed number of tricks. Isn't the OP's question whether the score can be corrected, not whether the opponents were right or wrong in agreeing that the trick would be won or lost? I personally think many posters cannot see the forest for the trees.

I guess the esoteric, but related question, is whether it should be a public randomization device, which is disclosed (which would be relevant in Gwnn's example) or a private randomization device? I think a randomization device can be crafted if one thought hard enough, as a few examples were mentioned above.

I don't understand the relevance of the question Phil. Declarer stated a clear line. If the ♦K falls then he claims an overtrick. It may have confused the opponents initially (that it needs to be Kx or K rather than just K singleton), but they agreed to it afterwards. Seems pretty straightforward to adjust.

Sorry I was late to the party. Happy belated birthday!

Happy birthday Richard. Hope you have a great one!

I can see head-to-head result being one tiebreaker, but of course you could have a 3-way tie between A, B, and C where A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A.

I agree with your statement that most opponents will think we expect to make, but then we are not sure we will make ourselves are we? I think we would be quite happy if it goes 6♦ - (6M) - Dbl. It's certainly a gamble. But I do not see how the likelihood of a sacrifice will be any less if we open at the 1-level. We are certainly taking away as much space as we can. I by no means think this is the only right answer on this hand or that there is even a right answer for hands like these. It just feels to me that this is a good hand for a 6-level opening as much as any. Of course to define the quintessential hand for opening at the 6-level defines how likely you are bidding to make and how often opponents should sacrifice over it. This hand seems like opposite the right yarborough we might make xxx xxx xx xxxxx or we might go down opposite a fine hand AKxxx AKxxxx --- xx. That's the nature of the gamble.

It doesn't sound like this will be popular, but I think it should at least be considered opening 6♦ on the hand. I am weighing the likelihood we can have an intelligent auction where we can decide between 5♦, 6♦, and 7♦ and one where the opponents compete and find a great sacrifice or we are left further in the dark. I know this will put considerable strain on partner (especially if partner holds 2 aces!), but we are also putting considerable strain on opponents and that is always fun.

1. I would just bid 6♥. 2. General plan is a dummy reversal. It will require some friendliness and good guessing in clubs.

I'm curious what people think about North bidding 2NT rather than passing 2♥? South should have a reasonably sound opener in 4th? Given the vulnerability should we try for the penalty or to get to our best game?

Have played "guess the system" where you and your partner pick a system separately and act as though your partner is aware of what you have chosen and take their bids accordingly. You have to guess what system partner has picked in the fewest hands possible. I have only played that online. In a real tournament in Ireland, I played with some of the university players and the most exotic thing we played was psychosuction openings and psychosuction responses.

I would prefer 5NT to 6♦ if it wasn't interpreted as GSF. As it wasn't listed as one of the options (even to reject because it means GSF), I will assume I will not get much support. I should mention that I would rather bid 4NT (slam try), but 5NT would be a choice I would consider.

Moreover, the existence of a Nash Equilibrium is dependent on the ability to employ "mixed strategies". See, for example, the Matching Pennies game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies There are other types of equilibrium depending on whether the game has incomplete information or imperfect information; whether the game is static or dynamic; and whether the game is deterministic or stochastic. Search the following terms: Subgame Perfect Equilibrium Bayesian-Nash Equilibrium Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium Sequential Equilibrium Stochastic Game You can (obviously) spend a lot of time learning these concepts, but I will say that most of them have been studied extensively before!

Call the TD and clarify the time left?