glen

There are no "opportunities" in ACBL tourneys. However if kibitzers were banned, you, a non-paying person (assuming you just wanted to watch at that point) would still be able to "choose your tourney" from the others available to kibitz. "Kindly don't impose your wishes on the" customers.

I especially like the section in the forward about prep work, including:

Shouldn't that be Oz None?

Last night we saw (on BBO of course) Fallenius working on bidding with Fredin, and tonight Welland (roy on BBO) is having a team game with partner Willenken (junior on BBO). A posting on the usbf site discusses possible changes: USBF article: The Teams They are A'Changin' Still no word yet if Gitelman-Moss switching to a big club ;) Not sure what it means by "Nickell (Freeman, Meckstroth-Rodwell, Hamman-Soloway) etc." unless Kokish the coach is the etc., but that would be eok (typo now fixed, see posting below)

Here's today's joke via email: Guy gets on a plane and finds himself seated next to a cute blonde. He immediately turns to her and makes his move. "You know," he says, "I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger. So let's talk." The blonde, who had just opened her book, closes it slowly and says to the guy, "What would you like to discuss?" "Oh, I don't know," says the guy, smiling, "How about nuclear power?" "OK," says the blonde. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff -- grass. Yet the deer excretes little pellets, the cow turns out a flat patty, and the horse produces muffins of dried poop. Why do you suppose that is?" The guy is dumbfounded. Finally he replies, "I haven't the slightest idea" "So tell me," says the blonde, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you clearly don't know *****?" --- --- Then using the above to get the google search phrase: joke blonde "know *****" one obtains 28,000 links to jokes, which we can start repeating 1-by-1 here. Such as: Q: What do you do if you're attacked by a troupe of circus performers? A: Go for the juggler. ... and ... So you all know that some women don't shave under their arms, right? So a certain woman goes into a bar and stands at the end of the bar trying to get the bartender's attention. She waves her arm and a drunk halfway down the bar calls out "Hey bartender! get that little ballerina a drink!" A little while later and the woman would like another drink so again she waves her arm trying to get the bartender's attention, again he does not see her and again the drunk down there call out "Hey bartender! get that little ballerina another drink!" This happens again and the bartender asks the guy, "how do you know she's a ballerina?" The drunk says "any lady who can lift her leg that high has got to be a ballerina." --- ---- which is to say this joke posting can be the pits

Repeating my reply from rgb with a typo corrected: Since the ACBL begins Responses and Rebids part 7 with "7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids..." this strongly implies that the feeling is that 15+ HCP = strong, even though under openings one just has the vague "a strong hand". However for bonus fun describe 2C and 2D as 15+ HCP or 8+ tricks, to allow upgrades due to playing value. For a discussion on how strong is strong: the 2C with 12 HCP thread (clarifications on ACBL ruling for 2C please)

- this space for sale to the highest bidder - okay 7NT wins -

I was talking to a semi-pro hockey ref today, and he told me that a screaming swearing crowd gets a ref going – the ref does not want to make a mistake and wants to catch what needs to be caught. However I don’t think screaming bridge players will work the same, either during the tourney, or afterward on some forum to register suspect rulings. Jtfanclub had it right – email acbl@bridgebase.com, nicely describe the complete hand and what occurred, and the date/hand number etc for the details. You might not be aware of this email address, as it is not announced during tourneys, but now you do, and if you can, pass it along. As to the problem, the 3♦ bidder should have described their agreement, but I would have to see the chat log before I could guess the TD handled it wrong in some way. Personally I’ve had good success in obtaining the help of TDs in finding out stealth agreements, albeit they can be quite busy from time-to-time and sometimes pulling the agreement out of the opponents takes a few tugs. An online club owner has suggested that it is not necessary for players of strong calibre to endeavour to find out these agreements, but I feel if there is an agreement that it should be provided if asked for, and that TDs should have the time available to assist in this.

Did you partner notice that even if she had bid just 3♥, it is unlikely that the opponents will find 3NT, or even if they do, on a delayed pass-or-correct auction, now the ♥ lead stands out more? This focus on your lead is the wrong lesson to take from this hand.

What type of Multi is this where partner does not make a bid over 3♦ with 4-4 in the majors? How did that part of the discussion go?

Depends on partnership style for 3rd seat opening bids - if style is still decent opening bids I would make the 3♠ fit bid - if quite ratty 3rd seat hands allowed I could understand 3♣, but I would still bid 3♠ myself as I like the playing value of this hand in ♥s. After the 4♣ let-me-push-you-to-game bid, responder can "picture" opener with short ♣s - with 4 trumps and source of tricks in ♠s I would push on to 4♥ here.

Btw speaking of Indy events, I liked this article: Like every other year...

Shouldn't that be "what about women" - it says erect statue

Ask Larry about "Anyway, I bided my team by raising to 3♦ to await developments" - and they say that bridge is a timed event. The article is quite good: Biding My Time article

I second the minority Justin opinion, if the 3♣ was marked by a break in tempo. I say "break in tempo" because 8 to 10 seconds for some folks faced with a slightly unusual situation would be their normal thinking time. So if 3♣ took noticeably longer than normal, then it makes 5♣ far more likely to succeed.

The logic is that there is another chance for our side - on 2, 3, and 4 responder is to double if s/he would want opener to pass with the 4 card stack. While responder can't double with 1, the opponents are in a bad spot so leave them there and don't give overcaller a chance to introduce a minor.

In 3/4 seat, opener without good opening values and 6 or longer in the major, will usually open a "weak" two in the major, if the hand is opened. Thus when opener does not have good opening values, usually opener will be shorter than 6 in the major. Most expert partnerships play 1NT semi-forcing by the passed hand. This means that 1NT covers the range up to a maximum passed hand. However they also play 1NT here as denying a fit, unlike the "1NT forcing" scheme where some hands with a 3 card raise first start with 1NT, then rebid in opener's major. With a fit, the passed hand either bids the major directly, or uses some form of Drury. After the 1NT semi-forcing response by the passed hand, opener without good opening values will pass, unless 5-5 or a 5-4-3-1 short in the other major. Thus if opener bids over 1NT, responder knows opener has at least good opening values, or has a shapely hand. So responder can continue over opener's rebid to show invite values if they are held, knowing that opener will have some playing value.

- -

First, I'll assume with game forcing values, that 2♣ promises a major. Best use is passable takeout but easier use is penalty. The takeout double does not promise the other major - just shows a hand that wants to compete if responder does not have overcaller's major. So 1NT-2♣ (2♠);-Dbl-3NT still shows 4♥s. A hand with four ♠s and game forcing values will pass 2♠ doubled. 1NT-2♣ (2♠);-Dbl-3♠ also shows 4♥s, but also notes that responder is not providing any help stopping ♠s if the final contract is 3NT. If your partnership has not had this discussion then do not play double as takeout. If responder has both majors and is weak, when hearing the takeout double they will know the opponents have at best a 7 card trump fit, but have decent values. So responder if quite weak will usually run to the other major, sometimes landing in just a 7 card fit, but with close to invite values will pass the double. The other thing responder will worry if less than invite is about how exposed are responder's values in the overcaller's major. The reason this is not worried about so much when invite or better, is that overcaller's partner will then usually be both relatively pointless and have few cards in overcaller's suit, so overcaller will not have the communication to get to dummy much to play through responder's holdings. Playing penalty doubles are much easier. If opener doubles, responder closes eyes, opens them at end of hand, and if doubled contract makes, questions how opener can double for penalty with a weak notrump. So a comfortable situation for responder. Opener meanwhile can say, "hey, you know I just had 12-14 points, did you expect the world's fair for my penalty double?". So good position as well for the post mortem exchange. The final words will be something like "maybe we should play takeout doubles there." Weak notrumpers are never allowed to say "maybe we should switch to strong notrumps?". If this ever happens, please phone Kokish for an immediate intervention.

Please report to the government as soon as Views on this thread hits 500 - though you might claim that some sets of views are by the same people, they will wonder why anyone would come back to this thread

I think I will faint the first day I see an ACBL online BAM event

Thanks for posting the full hand. So East broke tempo but had no reason to break tempo - ♦s were likely the best spot, but weak suit makes a jump wrong in case it hits shortness. The ♣ ace was not enough for the set, it was the extras in ♠s that did the trick. However since this is BAM it does not matter whether it was doubled or not given the result at the other table. So call the TD because there might be a tempo problem, they ask players to continue while they study the hand, then they see result from other table, everything is cool, and players can play the rest of the event without a fun reduction.

This one is clear cut - either the event had a TD or not - if no TD, the players keep quiet. If there was a TD, then call the TD, but let's see the four hands just as the TD would.

Perhaps I don't understand this - the declarer passed over 1♦, then when partner found a reopening 2♣ bid showing ♣s and a limited hand, found a jump all the way to the 4♥ landing spot? Any *** to add to that side of the auction? Assuming the auction is correct, players who live in green houses should be careful throwing out stones, in case they get returned.

If one describes 1♥-1♠ with the exactly same meaning for 1♥-2♠, this is clearly not full disclosure to the opponents (even if the partnership would just deliberately and randomly decide between the two bids, they should provide that info). So at this point, we can conclude that while "the explanation is completely according to book", the book is not complete, and thus just providing these descriptions would not result in "You have been informed of your opps". The one exception would be if the opponents were using that book, and so were just providing the description as given in the book, without having noticed or thought about that 1♥-1♠ was exactly the same as 1♥-2♠.