Ant590

Yeah, presuming the hesitation from North existed, I think pass is a LA for South. I would expect this type of hand to be routinely appealed, the committee not change the ruling but give the deposit back. As for the ♦K argument --- LOL.

North does not have UI about south holding clubs, the 2♠ bid was agreed to show this. North has UI that south didn't know if 3♣ was a superaccept or not. This may influence his decision to pass 3NT rather than bid 5♣, but IMHO with his holding the UI suggest bidding 5♣, not 3NT. South decides his hand is worth a GF opposite 15-18 balanced, and decided to show his 6-card club suit along the way. Seems ok to me. Result stands.

From South's perspective hasn't partner just shown a hand with long clubs? In which case with extras south can make another move? If the pair have no agreement as to the difference between dbl and 3♠ what happens?

I find it easier to enter the auctions in the main text, and to use the FULLHAND button for entering the hands, scoring type etc only. Then at least you can Preview Post a few times to check all is well.

I think the all/never idea is terrible. Three main issues spring to mind at first: (1) Say a pair have agreed "never", but the meaning of a call really does make a difference to their bid: (1♥) --- dbl --- (3♣) alerted. You may play different system after a natural forcing, natural constructive, natural weak, fit jump, splinter, or Bergen. What do you do, guess what it means? If you think such a bid will be on a system card, make the auction more complicated and repeat the question. (2) Say a pair agree "always" and they play a pair playing symmetric relay, where almost every bid is alerted, and for one bidder their bids all mean the same thing: "says nothing about my hand: tell me more about yours partner". This will slow down most game and slam auctions and delay the movement. (3) What if a pair differ or forget their agreement to always or never ask. There are enough rulings and appeals centred on bidding UI, let alone the a director having to rule on 1 and/or 2.

I have played with partners who always follow declarer's tempo, regardless of how complex the hand is (some because they're much better and need to think less, and some who are not but do anyway). Sometimes I need to slow down and think and I'd be quite peeved if this was argued to be an attempt to influence partner's thinking. For instance if a partner notices I'm thinking and slows down their game to allow me more time per card, is that unethical?

I note the likeness to the ruling #5 (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36315), where south was offered the chance to change his bid with the correct information, and after doing so and it not working out, then accused the opponents of tempting him back into the auction unfairly. Is it the case where south can always attempt a save in this type of situation, and has a chance of getting a ruling in his favour whatever the result? I fail to see how knowing that East has bid Leb helps South at his first turn. From South's perspective East could still have diamonds at this stage and West's 3♦ bid some sort of Paradox support for clubs? -- either way his is going to assume his partner for a single-suiter in the other minor probably. The issue for me is if the 3♠ bid is permitted, or is it a panic bid and pass a LA?

If Garbage Stayman is possible then the 1NT bidder can not make game-forcing bids. I would devote time to learning a defense to a double of stayman, but just play naturally to suit bids. FWIW, here's my counter-defense to stayman doubled: (1) Bids have their previous meaning, but deny a club stop (2) Pass initially shows a club stop then i. Rdbl is Stayman (either garbage or game forcing) ii. 2♦ shows five diamonds, and a 4 card major, invitational iii. 2♥/♠ shows 4+ cards and is invitational (3) Rdbl is a suggestion to play then i. 2♣ = garbage stayman (can be passed) ii. 2♥/♠ = 5M4oM, signoff iii. 2NT = invitational with a 4 card major

For (1), a good use of rdbl is "bid 2♦ partner, I'm about to place the contract (or pass), regardless of your hand." This allows advancer to play in his suit, and also allows exotic things like fit jumps / non jumps for hearts for bids that do not start with rdbl. (2) Yes, this is how I play 2♠ here (3) Yes, this is the standard meaning for a direct 2NT. I prefer 2♦ then 2NT after 2♥ to still ask for the second suit, but after 2♦-2♠ both suits are known so 2NT becomes an balanced invite with stops in the minors. One other thing is to arrange whether to anchor to the longer suit or take an "Asptro" approach and anchor to the weaker one.

I'm suprised it was judged for there not to be a BIT --- even if the stop card was out for 5 seconds (everyone agreed it was 5-7 seconds), NSs reaction suggest that East was thinking for more than 5 further seconds. On the other hand perhaps East is a really slow counter.

But then again, if you were being unethical you would come up with a better excuse than "our chances to win are gone"...

Smells fishy unless one of the team was feeling unwell.

Speaking of Avatar, did anyone see it in 2D? Do those that saw it in 3D think I'll be missing much if I saw it in the local (non-3D) cinema?

1. No. Partner is short in spades and still couldn't pre-balance. 2. Yeah, I dbl here and pass the inevitable 2♦

When playing in the MBC it seems the scores for the previous boards (on the "My Results" section on the right side of the screen) are very reluctant to refresh. I have to click on a board and then other tables for the score to update. Is it possible to automatically refresh the scores per board more frequently, as is done with the current score box on the bottom left of the playing area?

(I think you have EW and NS switched in the commentary) There seems to be UI, so time to give the south hand to players for a poll?

Ok, thanks for the many replies. It seems the consensus show hearts. Sadly our terrible system kicks in again: 1♠ - 2♠* 2NT** - 3NT * constructive ** long suit GT somewhere 3NT shows: Accepts any long-suit game try Denies a second suit, defined to be Hxxx or better. Followups to this are cuebids - presumably people are bidding 4♣, keycard, 5♣ is exclusion.

It seems to me that before the first card was lead South had full information about the agreements of EW, and chose what turned out to be a foolhardy bid. If west had forgotten to show or chosen to withhold his heart stopper, then it is only a misbid, and accusations of goading are without evidence. I'd let the table result stand (and expect an AC to keep the deposit if NS appealed).

I quite like the egg-timer idea, but can see the table atmosphere clouding (any many more director calls) if a player thought beyond the sand.

The meaning of the completion may not be optimal, but in the context of the system it works ok for us. The big issue, for me at least, is that we play in the UK, where weak NT openings are common. So if we were to pass with whatever subset of minimums, we're often making it easier for the opps to balanced compared to the field who are opening 1NT and transferring with at least some of the hands we open 1♣ Of course, if we pass with 5+ suits at the 1-level and it goes P-P-P we're usually in a good place, especially if opener has a 1=4=4=4 type hand.

Our meta-rule says that this is a FP situation, for a t/o double has been converted. However, we weren't 100% sure that such "psyche-revealing" doubles should not set up a forcing pass. How off the wall is this? Would people play a FP in analogous but lower level psyche-reveal auctions? (1♣) - dbl - (1♠) - dbl (2♣) - ?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saqj3hj6dj8763ck8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner opens 1♦ and RHO overcalls 1♥. Should I start with a double to show spades, or make a forcing diamond raise (via 2♥)?

(3♦) - pass - (3NT) - dbl* (pass) - pass (4♦) - pass? * t/o diamonds Two quick questions 1) Should dbl be a t/o or is just "values" better 2) Should pass be forcing here?

When the Web-version of BBO appeared I found it very difficult to find how to make a new table. The route is currently: 1) Click "Help me find a game" 2) Click "I want to find or start my own table" 3) Click "I want to start a new table" I think that (1) implicitly implies (to my common-sense at least) that such the game BBO is helping you to find is pre-existing, rather than new. Recent posts to these forums asking how to start team games and bidding tables give evidence to this view. I believe the "I want to start a new table" link should be placed on the main page, under the "help me find a game" and "show all tables" links.

Ok, I'm not sure what the usual treatment is for completing a transfer Walsh bid, but suppose it's as follows: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ showing (1) 11-13 balanced without 4 hearts (2) unbalanced minimums without rebiddable clubs or a spade suit 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ showing (1) 11-13 balanced without 4 hearts (2) unbalanced minimums without rebiddable clubs (3) 1=4=4=4 minimum Suppose further that a simple raise is to play. Under which circumstances should responder pass the completion (rather than raise)? o All hands without game interest? o No game interest and a five-card suit (the type of hand that would transfer and pass after a weak NT opening) o Sub-minimums with 5+ cards o Some other set of hands?