Echognome

Adam - It sounds like you got some bum rulings over the years according to your post. I've had several bad rulings (at least from my POV) as well. As per the alerting of obvious bids, I've wondered sometimes whether there should be a standard defined system per region. The U.S. may be the toughest for this having large numbers of players playing both SAYC (or some variety) and 2/1 (or some variety). Anyway, all bids according to the determined system are not alertable. Any variance from the defined system is alertable. Obviously, you would also need a standardize competitive system. The problem with that is that you will have a pretty complicated alert system, even if the system is supposed to represent the most commonly played system. I know the EBU alerting system is very easy to describe, but is often non-sensical when compared to what we consider standard bidding (e.g. 3♦ - (3♠) - Dbl is alertable if penalty, but not if takeout). But the rule is simple. So you have a tradeoff for a simple rule versus a more complicated rule that is standard. The simple rule has the advantage of not having to change when "standard" does.

I'd say more East than West. West has declined NT twice. I like the hand construction from Nigel, but for his construction of where 3NT was right from East's point of view, he placed West with both missing spade honors, whereas west placed east with solid clubs and the missing diamond honor. However, I don't think either player did anything egregious.

Although the diamond suit is good enough for a weak 2, the four card major, combined with our heart holding sway me towards passing. The fource card major is weak, but it'd have to be something more like xxxx x KQT9xxx Jx before I'd eschew the spade suit.

I'm still not convinced whether partner's double should be snapdragon or values.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sjt865hkj2dqt54ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (P) - P - (1NT) - 3♥; (Dbl) - ? 1. Are you raising partner? 2. If you pass, it continues: (P) - P - (1NT) - 3♥; (Dbl) - P - (3S) - (P); (4S) - ? Do you double? 3. If you bid 4♥, it goes: (P) - P - (1NT) - 3♥; (Dbl) - 4♥ - (4S) - P; (P) - ? Do you double?

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sj853ht8632dqj52c]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) - P - (1C) - 1S; (5C) - ?[/hv] What say you now?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saj872hda983cq953]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - 2♦; ?[/hv] Uncontested auction. Do you play 3♥ as a splinter? What's your bidding plan regardless of what you play?

There is no good bid to describe this hand with standard methods after a 1♣ - 1♠ start. In addition, what I believe is "standard" is probably not standard for many people. Using what I believe most of my partners would play, I would start with 3♦ splinter and then follow with 4♦, trying to show that I'm missing a club control for partner. With the actual hand, partner will show his ♣ control and we will explore grand. Hard to say we'd get there, given the bias of knowing both hands. Playing with Phil opposite, we have a gadget (which isn't perfect either) and I would use that, bidding 2NT (strong 4-card raise, usually 17-19 bal, but could be unbalanced). Over that partner responds artificially in steps (min, no shortage, LMH shortage) and we cuebid from there. Given partner's actual hand, he would show extras and no shortage and we would go from there. (we generally do not show shortage with a stiff A)

The OP's system seems to be an effective preemptive system.

Someone can correct me, but I believe you take over the seed of your opponent in the bracket if you defeat them. So, although you might have a tougher earlier round match, you will have easier subsequent matches. That being the case, I'd say your odds decrease only slightly (and only because you have to play an additional tough team in the early rounds). Of course your chances to reach, say, the quarterfinals drop significantly. But the chances of winning outright means you are going to have to beat good teams regardless.

Agree with the auto 1♥.

I think the diagram is a bit off. Shouldn't dummy be on our right? Anyway, this is an alarm clock signal and I'm having a hard time figuring out what partner wants. My first thought was a spade, but if partner really wanted spades to defeat the contract, why didn't he lead one? It would surely be our best bet if his spades were good enough. So, I'm going to take a chance and lead a small club.

I will let my partner out in 4♣. I bid 2♠, then bid 3♦ over 3♣. If partner bids anything except 3NT, I bid 4♣.

Well you may also have the agreement that double is "I want to sacrifice unless you don't think we should." But I didn't want to assume any such agreements. Note that I understand people are saying that double is just a strange enough bid that partner will work out what we think it means.

Pass. I don't think double is lead directing.

I pass 2NT. At white, I don't think we need to push for the bonus as much.

2♠ on the first one. The suit quality makes we feel this is the right call. Dbl on the second one. The heart suit isn't good enough to overcall on.

I think if we have an 8-card fit in both minors, clubs is very likely to be the better spot. Agree, except this helps partner evaluate better if we have more on.

I would double. I really want the spade lead and the double is not likely to cost a lot extra. I expect to beat them maybe half the time with a spade lead.

Is partner's double snapdragon? In that case, I want to bid 3♦. Else, I will bid 3♣.

Happy birthday!

Hand B. With hand A he would switch to his diamond singleton right when he got in with the club.

I think 5♣ was too much with your partner's hand. 4♣ seems reasonable. Not that it will necessarily change your decision to sac, but it might.

David, I agree with you. I would have accepted being ruled against more readily than having the TD throw his hands up in the air and say "I can't decide, so play another board." Of course, I would have been disappointed to be ruled against, but I would have lived with it. As per the not talking to me, I found it incredulous. The opposition claimed they misunderstood, because of my accent. I think it would have been wise for the TD to talk to me to assess the validity of that claim. I still don't understand how one couldn't hear the distinction between Spade, Heart, Diamond, and Club. They all sound very different. Finally, I want to note that dummy was also british, so his only advantage in understanding my accent was that we had spoken several times before. But heck. Bad rulings happen. You just shrug and move on (and vent to the forums later). :wacko: -Gnome

This discussion brings back a bitter memory from when I played in England. I played once in a team match where I was in a difficult contract (that turned out could not be made with the actual lie of the cards). I played a card from hand and LHO showed out (which was surprising given the bidding), then I called for a card from dummy, who detached it and played it. Then RHO showed out (which was obviously more surprising). Now I called for the next card from dummy and RHO realized what had happened and said we had a problem. There was no TD around, so we had to call for a ruling. The full hand was relayed to the TD over the phone and he spoke to both team captains and asked to speak to my LHO, RHO, and dummy. He never spoke to me. The opponents claim was that they heard me call for a different suit, despite the fact that I had physically played the card from my hand and dummy had physically played the card. If either revoke had become established, then I would make my contract and we would win the match. The TD thought about it for awhile and determined... that he could not make a judgment on the board and we would have to reshuffle and replay it. We lost.