Echognome

I hardly think it proves any point to give examples of hands that care only about controls showing how well they work using control responses. What about the hands where we cannot make slam and want to find the right strain for game? Kinda suck with control responses don't they? I know a few authors that taut their methods by providing example hands where they work ideally. Big whoop!

Partner is not sitting on a penalty double. I would pass fairly easily.

I agree in general, but I think your point can be made that it's always better to make the cheapest possible rebid and play relay... or else have your own bids be very descriptive and your partner relay.

What about separating the players into two rooms and having bar code scanners on the bidding and playing cards. All the Norths and Easts can sit together in one room and the Souths and Wests can sit together. Then the computer monitor can tell them what was played to each trick. You play with real cards, but the bidding and play is done by computer.

Thanks to everyone for the well wishes. I am now back to the grind at work after a few days in Napa, which means I'm back to posting on the forums! Will look forward to seeing some of you in San Diego next month.

Happy birthday Mike! Hope it's a good one.

Guilty as charged. That's what I get for replying to posts rather than to the OP. :)

I am with Stephanie and Rik to a point, but the problem could be one where the problem wasn't, say, a hesitation. To give an extreme example, suppose that instead of hesitating, that RHO winced or winked or smacked their head, or did some other silly action that would convey UI. Perhaps, you need to to establish the specific fact you think will be necesary for the infraction at hand. So, what do we think is the best thing to state: 1. "Can we agree that you winced?" (or insert the specific action) 2. "Can we agree that you might have conveyed UI?" 3. "I reserve my rights." The problem with 1. is that your opponent's partner may not have observed the action at all. So although it does a great job at agreeing a specific fact, it does a horrible job at trying to be able to play the board normally. The problem with 2 is that you are bordering on an accusation and people will be confused about using jargon from the laws and then there might be a lengthy discussion as to what UI is and how this might have been conveyed. The problem with 3 is that it doesn't establish any specific facts. I personally like 1, but I think they each have their pluses and minuses.

I should mention that I like the idea of penalizing different items. The "rich client" will make the monetary penalty trivial, whereas it makes it really painful to the "starving student". Given the game is about bridge, then having bridge score related penalties seems to make sense. In fact, I would think something along the lines of: First frivolous appeal - 1. Warning; and 2. 0.25 green points individually for each player Second frivolous appeal - 1. 1 green point individually; and 2. 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal. Third frivolous appeal - 1. 3 green points individually; and 2. 9 imps/30% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal; and 3. Warning about Ethics Committee hearing. Fourth frivolous appeal - 1. Hearing in front of Ethics committee with possible suspension from play. You can fine tune by removing an appeals "demerit" once a year rather than making these lifetime punishments. I believe this would be an effective way to get rid of frivolous appeals.

Always tough to find the right balance. If you make the penalty too harsh, you will be loathe to find AC's willing to give the penalty in the first place. Also, I like your first type of suggestion better than the second, as the second one adds an additional burden on AC's to determine what type of punishment is the most detrimental to the pair involved. It's also open to abuse in the other direction, albeit unlikely. I'm also not sure it's such a good idea to try to apply penalties going forward. It sounds like a logistical nightmare. Imagine there was a team of six, with players A, B, C, D, E, F with pairs AB, CD, EF. Will the penalty apply to A if he plays on a different team in the next event? Or will it only be when AB play together next? Or only when all six play together next? Just sounds like a super pain to sort out.

Play the most standard system you can. For me, it would probably be 2/1 GF. The questions I would ask would be: "What's your style for preempting?" "What's your style when overcalling?" "What's your style for cuebidding?" And then I'd add a few conventions I want to be sure of: Lebensohl, inverted minors, 2-way nmf, four suit xfers after 1N, woolsey after they open 1N, rkcb 1430, standard jacoby. Something like that anyway.

My answer depends on what I have agreed with partner. If I have no agreements as to this sequence, then I guess to bid 3♣. If I were playing with Phil, I would bid 2NT, as 3♦ (while forcing) would show 5♠ (which may lead to partner making a wrong valuation or selecting the wrong strain later).

South for not showing 6+ with 4♠. KJT9x is enough of anupgrade to count the hand as 6 hcp.

3=1=4=5 and 1=3=4=5 hands are often difficult hands. With a stiff A or K I typically prefer to open or rebid NT as a least of evils. I know some will agree and others will disagree. I also prefer to use some judgment. With Kxx A QTxx KJxxx I open 1♣ and rebid 1NT. With xxx A JTxx AKJTx I open 1♣ and rebid 2♣. With xxx K AKJx Qxxxx I open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. With the given hand with good "texture" (intermediate cards) in my suits, I think it's a clear opening. The T9 of diamonds are a lot better than small cards. The T of clubs is a very good card, etc. It's hard to say how the auction would go, as I'm biased by seeing both hands. I know the start would be 1♣ - 1♥; 1NT. From there it depends a lot on system. I personally play that 3♦ would show a 5-5 game forcing hand, but others might play that sequence as invitational. However, responder has a near slam force after the opening bid, so I can't imagine not finding slam after finding a diamond fit.

Aka the Condorcet Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_paradox

Why? Do you think there's a UI problem as well? I personally felt that the issue here was: Misbid or Misinformation? - To which we haven't heard the determination of the TD. Yes, I understand that the explanation of the opponents, but is that enough evidence to rule in favor of misbid? If MI, then how were NS damaged? South says she would double 5♦. I believe her (based on her hand). So that would be enough for me to rule if I deemed there was misinformation.

Did NS state how they were damaged? Did the TD establish their actual agreement? If limit raise, then misbid, no adjustment. If no evidence, then MI. If MI, then did NS state how they would have bid differently? I would like to give a 12C3 ruling, but given that you are in ACBL land, it'd be difficult to judge without knowing who is claiming they would have bid differently and what their hand was. If it was South saying he would bid 5♠, then I would poll. I don't think many would go on to 5♠, given the risk involved, whereas 5♦ is likely down. A lot of hypotheticals here, but a likely ruling would be 5♦X-2.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sahj6daq9532cakj5]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - (1♥) - P - (P); ?[/hv] What's the gameplan?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqhaj9864dq743ca5]133|100|Scoring: IMP (3♣) - Dbl - (5♣) - ?[/hv] How now?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=st3hak763dkt6cj84]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2♠) - Dbl - (4♠) - ?[/hv] Perhaps this is a WTP, but what say you?

HB Clee!

Happy birthday dude. I imagine it will be a night to remember.

Yeah. I messed up the lost tricks. 1♦ and 2♣ is right. I think most people understood. For what it's worth, I didn't blame partner. I was more interested in understanding my own actions. I'm also sure my partner understands that.

Aha. Thanks for clarifying. That does work.

I'll take your response to mean that North shouldn't double 2♠ for penalties, since if he shouldn't sit for a takeout double, then hopefully you would agree he shouldn't make a penalty double! However, I fail to see how system makes a lick of difference in that judgment.