olegru

I 100% off track here but I hate this situation. For me it looks like an ideal “double shot.” EW clearly have agreements in similar situations and did not discuss the current one. West is not professional enough to give the correct explanation “no agreements,” he (wrongly) feels obligated to share by request his understanding of partner’s bid with opponents. By his behaviour (hesitation) and wording (assume) everybody at the table knows what actually there is no rigid agreement and West is merely guessing. Now opponents choose the natural bid. If EW are on the same wavelength NS will get the correct score and if EW are not on the same wavelength NS will ask director to give them more. No risks for NS involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferans One of 2-player variant called Rogue is a real fun. Sorry, did not find rules of Rogue in English. :(

No doubt it is one of the top 5 bridge book ever written.

My next call will be 911 Hopefully they come before partner will see my hand and kill me :) (sorry for off topic)

3♠ for me. 1NT and prefrence for first partner suit will show 4-6 points and I have more.

Completely agree with Rainer. 1♦ and 4 ♣ both are OK bids. Not unquestionable but not even close to be idiotic. But I really dislike 5 ♣ bid. As happened, North did show his hand by his biding. Partner aware about at least 10 minor cards in North’s hand and he decided to play 4 ♠. As North I would see no reasons to correct his decision.

Im payed tournament (like acbl speedballs) person entered as a substitute will be replaced by software if original player return. I don't think it is reasonable to punish people who help to "keep game running" by decreasing their " Minimum Completion Rate" stats if it could affect their accesibility to other tournaments.

Out of curiousity. I hope as "tourneys they entered on BBO" you count only tournaments player registered originaly, not including once he entered as a substitute?

Agree. I would accept with 2 Jacks. I believe it is difference in invitation stiles. Some people are like to invite lightly and need a real maximum to accept invitation. Others are conservative in invitations but do not need too much to accept them, just not a complete minimum. Did South have too much to invite or not depends of their invitation stile, but North have more than enough to accept the invitation whichever partnership stile they use.

Wow! Majority of voters blaming South! Surprize. Lets see together. First dbl of South strongest call available for him, 13+ points. 1♥ from North the weakest call available. Promise 0-6 points and 3+ ♥. 2♦ from South again one of the strongest calls available for him, at least 19+ points. 2♥ from North again the weakest call available. Promise 0-3 points and 4♥. 3♥ of South is invitational. He has more than he promised by his previous bidding but not enough to bid game across something like: ♠ 432 ♥ 9752 ♦ 432 ♣ 432 Isnt it almost exactly that South actually has? North got invited. He had maximum for his previous bidding. 3 points and doubleton in oppopnent suit! He just could not have more. And he passed! Isn't it is clear who made a mistake? I agree South is overly pessimistic, his 5th ♥ is a serious asset and in IMPs he could just bid game and hope for the best. But he probably expected his expert partner to be aware of concept of invitation.

Actually it is no correct :) I see numbers 777 at the end of your post. ;)

773555 Nice idea, but not easy to answer. It can vary a lot. 1. Systems. With permanent partner I have complicated system with number of artificial calls and I would like to make it even more detailed, but with picked up online partner prefer to play KISS. 2. Bidding aggression. Game bidding – yes, slam bidding - no, competitive bidding – yes, preemptives – not, really. 3. Carding. I like to have a lot of agreements. Main of them – signal only when partner need your signals. 4. Leads. Leads are not active or passive. Leads are good or bad. I am bad with them. 5. Competitiveness. Online with stranger? Are negative numbers permitted? It is a very different if we are talking about real games with permanent partner. 6. Discuss or not. It depends...

No sure how useful is my advice, but you can always go to http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php, type your current pickup partner name, interval to retrieve 1 month and see IMP total and IMP average on the bottom of the page. If pickup partner played this month about 400 boards and lost in average 0.7 imps per board - probably it is good ideas do not trust him too much. :D

Theoretical... in tearms of there were no any director calls or discussions about MI during the real play. It was a side topic of discussion unrelated to bridge laws.

Theoretical question. All green. 2 ♦ opening by N alerted and explained as “destructive, at least 4-4 in majors.” Convention is legal by convention policy in place. Actual North’s hand is something like: ♠ AJxx ♥ AJ9xx ♦ 108xx ♣ – EW got in ridiculous contract and claimed that they would never bid it if they were aware “destructive” opening hand could be so good. NS confirm that this hand is inside their range for 2 ♦ opening. By word “destructive” they mean that their bidding after 2 ♦ opening is not constructive and have very limited options to investigate game. Basically they treat as a “destructive” any opening with 10 or less points. Would you call it misinformation or EW were supposed to ask additional questions to make sure their and opponents understanding of “destructive bid” are the same.

If I am forced, I am forced. It is not my business for now what partner wants to achieve using forcing 1NT instead of some other system bid. My duty is make another bid and let Partner to clarify.

I am wondering how many IMP will be penalty for entire team for murdering a kibitzer by team member in the toilet room. <_<

Probably it is my English, sorry. I was under impression that words "dual message" mean that one played card gives two messages in the same time. If played card means "I like clubs, I don't like spades" it is the "dual message". But I am failing to see how message "I like clubs" could be called the "dual message approach” depends on particular agreement I used to deliver this single message.

Sorry, but it is not what Roman discards (as I am playing them) are. There is only one meaning for each card played. If I discard even card I use Lavinthal, but if I discard odd card it means I like the suit. If I discard, for example, 2 of spades there is only meaning "I like clubs." There is no any second meaning of this discard. There is nothing about spades. If I discard 3 of spades there is only meaning "I like spades." There is no any second meaning of this discard. There is nothing about clubs. There is no "dual message" from any card, each card has single certain mean which depends if it is high or low, even or odd.

I believe the best way to make GCC events fun for everybody is not only prohibit dual meaning leads and carding, but make illegal any moves (bids, leads, carding) with meaning (or even with sence). Offtop In the second day of NAOP B final last year, after I claim Director that I remember and can show every card played in a certain board (we were asked to move before result was submitted due to bridgepad problem and submitted result was not a real one) he reply "If you remember all cards played in the board you should not play in this event."

Sorry, I am a little confused here. Did penalty for smoking was mentioned in condition of contests? If yes - what is your question? If not - where did penalty come from?

2P_Marlowe: Didn't I say exactly the same B) Probabaly it is just my language problem. Anyway just to confirm I am 100% agree with what you said, and there would not be a slightest complain about procedure penalty if director feel that this kind of "bridge sin" deserve it. Splited resultes could make sence too... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do agree that TD could be in a difficult possition if software does not allow him to do any of this things (I simply don't know). In this case we probably should ask developers if they can give these options to directors. But even if it is true and director had no other choices, give players "something for nothing" for my opinion is a much worse, then let person stay unpenalised for not alerting this kind of bids.

Standard SAYC I guess. If I am not mistaken it is what get set by default on acbl games. Note: it was the first bid in the first board for first time partnership in speedball. We simply did not have time to agree anything or change convention card. I completely agree that I supposed to alert 3NT bid and put explanation “no agreements” no matter how stupid it looks. As I said before I do not care a bit about my result there. Procedure penalty for absence of alert could be appropriate, not sure if software allows it. My main concern is the bridge game. Adjustments like that one spoils players. They learn that it is better do not defend themselves by asking for a meaning (just click on the bid, not too much work, isn’t it?) but keep silence and then call director asking for adjustment. Once again if used convention could be somehow unexpected for that particular opposition, adjustment could make sense. But do you really believe players with J and 10 in BBO profiles with cards they hold could expect 3NT bid be anything other than Gambling? For last 5 years (maybe more) nobody opened natural 3NT against me.

Thanks for answers bluejak and blackshoe, and special thanks for Cascade. ;)

1st round of online tournament. Player in the first sit opens 3NT gambling with no alert. No questions. All passed. Result down one after very reasonable but unliky lead. There is no way to determinate what would be result if 3NT would alerted - no opponents have a clear bid after 3NT. (One of them have 3 aces and jack in 2344 distribution, second 6-4 in majors but only 7 points). Player in fault claim what they are just picked up partnership with no discussions and no agreements, but, of cause there is no proof of his claim. What would you decide as a director?