Trinidad

Autosplinter for me too. Rik

Partner's first double already promised something in clubs or a very strong hand. With the very strong hands, he would have bid a suit (single suiters), some number of NT (balanced hands) or cuebid (either on the first round or later) if he wasn't prepared to defend 3♣X. Since he didn't, he was already prepared to defend 3♣X if we would have had a few clubs and a misfit. He must be willing to defend 4♣X now. I would say down two, and we don't make anything. Of course, if you would have the hand for it (e.g. a weak hand with lots of major cards), you are allowed to pull the double. But you don't have such a hand. BTW, partner cannot turn up with short clubs and long diamonds (as Helene suggests). In that case he would have passed over 1♦. (After all, what was he going to bid if you would have bid clubs?) Rik

Dear Helen(uh), I was in Amsterdam recently and never met or heard of any lady whose was named 'Husbandssurname-Maidensurname'. Must be a bugger to sign cheques and stuff. Maybe it is different in the provinces or somewhere? I know Dutch tend to have long (and totally unpronounceable) surnames but isn't this a bit over the top? Alex Since Dutch women have more and more professional careers before they get married (compared to the 1950's) and continue them when they are married, the modern trend for women in The Netherlands is to keep their maiden name as their last name. My guess is that about 70% of the Dutch women marrying today would keep their maiden name and virtually never use their husband's. Changing names creates confusion in some careers. (As an example, think of scientific articles, where the first article in a series is published by A. Jansen and the second by A. Smid-Jansen. Are these the same authors or are these two different people?) However, the traditional style is as Helene described: The wife takes the husband's last name. That is how you would call her ('Mrs. Husbandsname'). In writing, it would be 'Mrs. Husbandsname-Maidenname'. But nowadays women can do what they want. I am happy about that since my last name consists of two words (the 'van Beethoven' type) and my wife's last name (with a Nordic origin) consists of two words. If my wife would have taken my name, then in all official documentation she would be forced to write four words for her last name. That wouldn't make her life easier, would it? Rik

Thank you for clarifying clearly that we do not have a misunderstanding of the case. That means that you think that a statement in itself is evidence that the statement is true. In this case, the statement is: "We agreed that 3♠ is a limit raise." It is your job to investigate whether this statement is actually true. The statement in itself is no evidence that it is true. That is faulty logic of the type that you sometimes see in the watercooler. After all, as Adam points out, if the statement itself would be evidence that it is true then all accused would be found guilty (unless they can prove their innocence). Basically, when a hand doesn't fit the explanation of the bid there are two possibilities: I) The bid was correct and the explanation was wrong. That is an infraction. II) The bid was wrong and the explanation was correct. That is no infraction. Law 75C says that the TD is supposed to assume case I) when there is no evidence to the contrary. Law 75C just points out where the burden of proof is. (Similar to accused are innocent until proven guilty.) Obviously (at least to me), the explanation itself and the hand that didn't fit the explanation are not taken as evidence in determining whether it was I) or II). Rik

After my last post, a psychologist would probably be fairly sure that I have a brother with blue eyes. But after this post, he is not so sure anymore. ;) Rik

How can it not? So what? You may discount it (it is self serving), but it's still evidence. Since most of your posts on directing issues are pretty good, I guess that you got East and West mixed up somewhere. (Or maybe I got them mixed up.) Otherwise this just doesn't make any sense to me. Your position seems to be equivalent to the following: My statement: My brother has brown eyes. You want to use this statement as evidence that this statement is true, whether it actually is true or false. In reality my statement isn't even evidence that I have a brother. Seriously: I do have a brother. (Do I or am I kidding you? Again?) _________________________ The only evidence that East's statement gives is that East gave this statement. If you make the reasonable assumption that East is a normal, ethical player you can probably consider it evidence that East believed it to be true at the time. But it does not constitute any evidence at all that the statement is true. In fact, it isn't even self serving. After all, at the time that East made the statement he wasn't even remotely aware that a director might be called later. So, there is no evidence at all that East's statement is true (other than the fact that West didn't correct it, which is self serving). Therefore, the TD assumes misinformation, in accordance with law 75C. _________________________ You can even look at it in a third way: Suppose that you are correct and suppose that the fact that East made the statement is actually evidence that East's statement is true. Then all misexplanations without other evidence would be ruled bidding mistakes. Then tell me why would the lawmakers write a sentence in law 75C that the TD is supposed to assume misinformation lacking evidence to the contrary? After all, in every single case there would be evidence to the contrary. In every single case where a TD needs to decide misinformation or misbid, the player gave an explanation. If that explanation itself would be evidence that this explanation is true, there would always be 'evidence to the contrary'. In that case the sentence in Law 75C would just be a waste of paper and ink. You can safely assume that the lawmakers did not intend to waste paper and ink. Therefore, it was not their intent to consider the explanation itself as evidence that it is true. Rik

Pass (I would have opened this hand 1♠ in second seat, but I get your point.) Where are you going if partner doesn't have spade support (e.g. x Jxx AKQxx Axxx)? And if partner would have spade support, wouldn't he have doubled on a large portion of those hands (rather than bid 2♦)? Note that I wrote: "a large portion", not "all". When you bid 2♠, you can expect partner to bid 3♦ (or 3♣). Wouldn't you then rather be in 2♦? It's just not worth chasing the possible 3 card support in partner's hand. The risk is too big, the reward too small. Rik I totally disagree. Partner is not unlikely to have three (or four) card spade support. But also if he has a doubleton spade you may have improved your contract, and if he has a maximum you might just be able to make 3NT or 4♥ or something. Given that LHO opened 1♥, I do find it highly unlikely that we will make 4♥. 3NT is more likely, but still very far away and the "or something" would then have to be 5♣. (I assume you are talking about game contracts.) That is also very far away. The thing that you can realistically hope for is that partner has spade support. That is not far away. It is entirely possible. But is it likely enough that you want to force partner to 3♦ on a misfit? I would say no. Maybe a simulation says "yes". When it comes to lead directing, the same reasoning applies. If partner is on lead then you may want a spade lead. But do you want it so badly that you are willing to pay the price of forcing partner to 3♦, if the opponents pass? Rik

Pass (I would have opened this hand 1♠ in second seat, but I get your point.) Where are you going if partner doesn't have spade support (e.g. x Jxx AKQxx Axxx)? And if partner would have spade support, wouldn't he have doubled on a large portion of those hands (rather than bid 2♦)? Note that I wrote: "a large portion", not "all". When you bid 2♠, you can expect partner to bid 3♦ (or 3♣). Wouldn't you then rather be in 2♦? It's just not worth chasing the possible 3 card support in partner's hand. The risk is too big, the reward too small. Rik

there's no mention of fit non jumps in the OP so maybe the OP didn't have the agreement with this p. Given that OP is a passed hand OP needs to have a long spade suit or some degree of fit for diamonds (otherwise he shouldn't bid at the two level). Making the reasonable assumption that OP would have had a bid to show a weak two in spades it is reasonable that 2♠ shows some fit for diamonds. This is not because OP has an agreement with his partner to play fit showing non jumps. This is because it doesn't make sense to bid 2♠ on limited values without a fairly secure place to play. If OP plays weak two's (or Multi), this "fairly secure place" must be diamonds. (Without weak twos, it could be spades.) Or to put it in a different way: One cannot bid 2♠ on a so so hand and a misfit. Since OP passed originally, he cannot have better than a so so hand. Since he bid 2♠ anyway, he cannot have a misfit. Therefore 2♠ shows at least diamond tolerance. (I agree that "fit" is claiming too much, but 2♠ does imply diamond tolerance.) Given that 2♠ implied some diamonds, I think that I have shown my hand already. Therefore, I pass. Rik

Although a fine ideal in practice the devil is in the detail. How do you know what your opponents will expect? One problem is that the 'general' knowledge of BBF poster (whatever their skill level) is far, far greater than your average club player - to my mind this means that 'reasonable' alerting strategies appear far more reasonable in this forum than they would in real life. For example, even in the very short list above you will find a lot of disparity in the UK over the meaning of a double of a jacoby transfer. However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles. Paul But quite obviously, the list of alertable doubles should depend on where you are playing. All alert regulations depend on where you are playing. After all, the general idea behind alerting is that you alert bids that you think your opponents may not understand properly without additional information. As an example, a Polish club opening should be alertable in the USA. But probably not in Poland (I have never played in Poland, but you get my idea). A 1♠ opening that is frequently bid on a four card suit might be alertable in the USA, but not in the UK. In China, a 1♥ opening that could be made on 20 points might be alertable (if "everyone" is playing a strong club system), etc. So in The Netherlands (where I play) most players will treat a double of a Jacoby transfer as lead directing (I don't, which is why I put it in my list). But if in the UK the opinions are divided on the meaning of the double, it is clear that opponents will not expect your meaning of the double regardless what it means. Therefore alert. Rik

This is what I want! If we together can come up with this definition, then we can go to our NBO and ask them to think about adopting it. I know this is what you want. And believe me, we are very much on the same side. We share a very strong feeling that "special doubles" should be alerted. We also both know exactly what those "special doubles" are. So there, we are in complete agreement. In a case like this, you can follow two strategies: 1) You can formally describe what a "special double" is (or alternatively describe what a not "special" double is). 2) You can make a vague rule saying that "special doubles" need to be alerted, without saying much more. (I used the idea of a "meaning that your opponents may not expect" or something similar.) You give some examples and hope that everyone knows what is meant. You and I are beta scientists. We believe strongly in exact logical or even mathematical descriptions of everything around us, including bridge conventions. Our first instinct is to go with strategy 1, the formal description. But not every bridge player is like you and I. For many players and directors it will be easier to understand the more "intuitive" "definition". (Just imagine that a definition might be intuitive! YUCK!! ;)) Even for the two of us, mathematically disturbed geeks ;), an intuitive definition works. You just wrote a few lines in a posting (definitely not a definition). Imagine that someone comes up with a list of 100 doubling situations and an intended meaning for the double and asks both of us whether it should be alertable. I am pretty sure that we would come up with the same answer on at least 98 of them. We may well come up with the same answer on all 100. Without any formal definition. Everybody knows what "special doubles" are, but I think a formal definition will be hard (if not impossible) to come up with. And if you can come up with a formal definition, it will be incomprehensible for many players. To me, it is similar to defining "water". Everyone knows what it is, but how do you define it? Therefore, I think it is wiser to go with strategy 2: The "we all know what it is" definition. (If it looks like a special double, walks like a special double and quacks like a special double, it probably is a special double.) Not because I am in favor of this kind of definition in general, but because I think it works best in this case. Rik

I wouldn't be able to sell it to my partner, my team mates and my fellow club members if I wouldn't try to get the best possible score on a board (as long as it is in accordance with the bridge laws). And most important of all, I wouldn't be able to sell it to myself. So, no, I will not be "gentlemanly" if it is any serious competition when it comes to letting opponents off the hook after errors or infractions. When it comes to general behavior at the table, I think that I behave as a gentleman. The only exception that I allow for behaving "gentlemanly" when there is an irregularity is when an opponent inadvertently drops one or more cards while sorting them. I will try to do the very best not to see those cards (though the laws do not require me or anybody to do this). My personal reason for this exception is that dropping cards is usually more related to the opponent's physical health than to his bridge ability. My impression is that many high level players follow a similar reasoning: Bridge related mistakes you will have to pay for. Mistakes due to disabilities you will not have to pay for (as long as no bridge harm was done, e.g. because partner saw the card). Rik

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make "special doubles" alertable. Obviously, it is difficult to define specifically what "special" means, but most players have about the same feeling about it: Support doubles, DONT doubles, snapdragon doubles, colorful cuebid doubles, DOPI and the whole bunch are "special doubles". Doubles showing otherwise diffcult to bid hands (takeout doubles, card showing doubles, optional doubles, etc.) and penalty doubles are not "special doubles". You could try to come up with a specific definition, but I agree with David that that will be very hard to do. Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do. This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them. Special doubles will then be alertable. Most of those doubles occur in situations where you have various options on how to play the double. Therefore, opponents cannot have an expectation of what the double means. I know that the vague definition strategy has its drawbacks, but it works a lot better than very specific definitions that turn out to be not watertight. (Not to mention that a long list of definitions will loose 99% of the players.) Rik

Originally SAYC was a variation of Standard American in face to face bridge. It was mainly used in individuals and competitions with limited conventions. (I disrespectfully will add that they were intended for older people. There were conventions in SAYC, but they were so outdated that younger people would not be able to understand them whereas common modern (in those days) conventions were not part of SAYC.) The SAYC system came with a preprinted convention card. (Or maybe it is better to say that the SAYC system was the preprinted convention card.) This convention card was printed on yellow paper. Hence the name Standard American Yellow Card. I feel really old when I write that I actually have used these Yellow convention cards. Rik

I am aware of the fact that in practice in these cases, the TD is rarely called by the offending side. I just want to point out that the non offending side is accused of double shooting, while you have more reason to accuse the offending side of trying to get away with their misexplanation. After all, the offending side has two bridge laws that tell them to call the TD and the non offending side only one. In reality, I think there is no need to accuse anyone of anything (other than ignorance). I just think that neither side knew when they were supposed to call the TD (a result of the common practice of not calling the TD for misinformation). It is most likely that both sides thought that the TD should be called after the hand. This means that the non offending side didn't try to double shoot and that the offending side didn't try to get away with their misexplanation. Call it innocent ignorance. In the end, the TD gets this mess on his plate and he needs to sort it out. I think it is fair to rule that the non offending side could have bid 2♦. It leads to the result that was likely achieved if there hadn't been misinformation. I also see that it has the unwanted side effect of giving the non offending side a double shot. But what do you think is fair? Letting the offending side get away with a misexplanation ànd with the fact that they didn't call the TD when they were supposed to? That to me is clearly not the way to clean up the mess. If the non offending side were more experienced players than the offending side, I have a lot of sympathy for the split score: The non offending side gets to keep their poor result (they should have called the TD immediately). The offending side gets the score adjusted to allow for a 2♦ bid (and tell them that they would have had a chance to get the table result [in the play] if they would have called the TD when they were supposed to). In either case, the offending side will get his score adjusted. And therefore, they have no reason to be upset. Rik

I follow your reasoning, but there is an important fact that is often overlooked. You claim that East was taking a double shot for calling the director after the hand had been played. In your opinion, East should have called the director before the play. I agree that the TD should have been called before the play. But I disagree that it should have been East who should have called. The laws say specifically that North is supposed to call the director in this situation (Law 20F5). Other than the infractions committed by NS (misexplanation by South and failing to call the TD by North) all players broke Law 9. All players should have called the TD once it was clear that the explanation was wrong. This law 9 is a general law regarding calling the TD in the case of any irregularity. But law 20F is the law that deals specifically with wrong explanations. And it is very specific about whose duty it is to call the director: The partner of the player who gave the wrong explanation (North in this case). Accusing East of double shooting comes close to blaming him for the fact that North didn't call the director. On a more practical side, I think that none of the players knew when the director was supposed to be called and by whom. They all messed it up because of a lack of understanding of the rules of the game. Then the TD needs to clean up the mess. He needs to come up with as fair a ruling as possible. I think his ruling was the fairest that was possible. If North would have wanted to avoid any possible double shooting by East, North should have called the director when he was supposed to. Rik

Do I understand that your goal is to get more bridge players in the area? Then why don't you start free introduction lessons at the library in cooperation with the existing bridge teachers? It could go like this: You give lessons one evening a week. You will teach lesson 1 and 2. In lesson 3, you will introduce bridge teachers X, Y and Z, they will help out with the lesson. They will applaud your initiative, but they will also get the chance to express why they are better teachers in the long run. (After all, this accreditation must be good for something and these teachers should know what it is good for.) Then, you take care of lesson 4 through N. The week before teacher X starts a new class, you invite him over again. You encourage your students to take X's course. Some of your students will go on with X. And you will be closer to reaching your goal of having new bridge players in the area. With the other students you go on, until Y starts his course, etc. In return for your cooperation (the free advertising), the existing bridge teachers might encourage some of their students to visit your bridge club. With a little communication, coordination and cooperation this has the potential for an "everybody wins" scenario. And winners are never rubbed the wrong way. Rik

I'm neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the freedom of religion clause simply prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It does not, IMO, absolve the practitioners of any religion from liability for their actions in practicing their religion. As an extreme example, suppose a group decided to adopt Aztec religious practices, requiring frequent (and messy, but that's not really relevant) human sacrifices. If a defense on the basis of freedom of religion would get them off the hook, I'd have to say our society is crazier than I ever thought it could be. As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned, I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know. You seem to think that religion should be forced to operate within the laws of a nation. Fair enough, and I agree, but that is not the reality. Most western countries have some law that forbids discrimination on the basis of gender. Nevertheless, it is not a coincidence that there aren't any female catholic priests. Is that ok to you? Or do they get away with it by referring to the freedom of religion? Many western countries have a law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. But if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then that is ok again, based on the freedom of religion? In practice, the freedom of religion argument is frequently used for not following laws. If a religion is allowed to violate laws, which laws can they violate? I agree with you that an Aztec human sacrifice is a little more extreme than discrimination, but where do you draw the line? And which religions are allowed to violate the laws? - Only the ones that are in some way recognized? If I start the Church of the Hasty, am I then allowed to drive 85 mph on an empty freeway because it is my ... given duty to do so? - Only the ones that were dominant in the population 50 years ago? (Meaning that Dutch protestants are allowed to force women to wear the characteristic long grey skirts, but that muslims are not allowed to force women to wear a vail.) If it were up to me, there wouldn't be a freedom of religion excuse for religions to break laws while at the same time law makers shouldn't invent new laws that have as their only purpose to obstruct the freedom of religion. But things are not up to me... Rik

I thought it was obvious but I guess I should have stated it. The reason partner can not have that hand is that he passed over 1♣. Personally I will never (ever!) pass over 1♣ with a hand that bids this way opposite a 1NT overcall. This has nothing to do with our methods (except to the extent my methods are to overcall or bid michaels on hands where it is completely normal to do so), and has nothing to do with what rho may have since partner had already passed over 1♣ by then. And for that matter it has nothing to do with the speed of the 3♥ bid. All it has to do with is partner's pass over 1♣ combined with his later bidding. So the 'partner cannot have the hand' argument assumes none of the (1) (2) or (3) that you said it assumes. Even if you came up with some example of a hand that is 5-5 in the majors with this strength and passes over 1♣, which I wouldn't believe, the only conceivable explanation would be horribly bad suits and short honors in the minors. That argues for the 3NT bid anyway, especially in the face of the 1♠ response. Did you look at the 1NT hand? Then you would have seen that it contains a very nice 19 HCPs. (I think it is fair to say that someone who sees this as a 19 point hand is a pessimist. :)) Assuming that the partnership was in sync about this range (and why should we assume otherwise?), it is reasonable to expect a range for 1NT of 17-19 as the absolute minimum. It may also be 20-22. That makes it clear that 2nd hand doesn't need much to invite game. Maybe you would have acted over 1♣ with something like ♠QJxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Q ♣Qxx. That is fine with me and I believe you, but I doubt that is standard. If you then keep in mind that this hand has at least 4-5(!) points to spare for the actual auction, you will see that there are quite a few hands where second hand couldn't act over 1♣, but can force to game (or invite) opposite the extremely strong NT from 4th hand. This is not caused by the fact that these second hands are so powerful. It is caused by the fact that the 1NT overcall showed a powerhouse. I can buy your argument that with the relatively poor major suits (that the 2nd hand must have) 3NT would (could) be the right contract, but that argument needs to come from the player himself. That wasn't the case. Rik

In a world where you frequently run into psyches, it makes sense to have bids in both X and Y as natural. But in a culture where psyching is rare, in my humble opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use a bid in a suit that has been bid naturally (and unlimited in length) on your left as natural. I currently play in The Netherlands. In the past four years that I have played there, I have seen one psyche at my table and I made it myself. As a result, if I make a bid in a suit that has been bid on my left, it is not natural by my definition. Some typical examples: 1♦-Pass-1♠-2♦: overcall in hearts with clubs on the side 1♦-Pass-1♥-Dbl 1♠-2♦: Natural 1♦-Pass-1♥-Dbl 1♠-2♥: Cue 1♦-Pass-1♥-Dbl 1♠-2♠: Natural 1♦-Pass-1♥-Dbl 1♠-Pass-2♥-2♠: Natural (LHO has a limited amount of spades, pretty much exactly 4, or is psyching) Rik

The second system is popular in Sweden. You could take a look at: http://www.syskon.nu/system/002_fallenius_welland_2-1.pdf I played it with one of my partners when I was living in Sweden. The purpose is to clarify immediately whether you have a weak NT hand (accepting the transfer) or a real club suit (not accepting). The only bid that is ambiguous is 2♥. Depending on your style, it can show: I) any minimum hand with four support II) - a minimum unbalanced hand with four support (reevaluating to about 13-14 since it is unbalanced) or - a maximum weak NT hand with four support (also evaluated as about 13-14) In case II) minimum weak NT hands (worth about 11-12) will rebid 1♥, just like weak NT hands that don't contain support. Rik

I agree that this defense requires little memory and is easy to play. However, there is a defense against forcing pass that requires virtually nothing in memory capacity: Forcing pass vs Forcing pass. When RHO passes, you just look at the convention card in front of you and bid accordingly. If your hand type is not mentioned on the card, you can ask the opponents. :) Rik

I personally like the format that is used in the world championships (ice) hockey. There, the difference in strength of the teams is quite large. The way they do it (or at least did it until recently): They have 12 teams and put them in 2 groups of 6 (A and B ). In these groups they play a round robin (5 matches per team). The best 3(?) advance. A new group of six is formed (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 and B3). The A teams have already played each other and the B teams have already played each other. The results of these earlier matches are counted in this round robin. Thus, the A teams only have to play the B-teams (an additional 3 matches). After that, the final is played by the highest two teams (or maybe there is a semifinal 1-4 and 2-3 first, but you get the idea). The way this might work for bridge with 32 teams: Make 4 groups of 8: A-D play a round robin (7 matches) The top 4 teams advance: A1-A4 and B1-B4 get into group E, C1-4 and D1-4 get into group F. In group E, A teams only play B teams. Similarly, in group F, C teams only play D teams. (4 additional matches). Again, the first four advance. Again, you need only 4 additional matches to complete the round robin for the best 8 teams. This means that you have a winner after 15 matches. Of course, it is important to play all matches over the same number of boards. I could imagine that you would make the matches longer during the tournament. In that case, I think you will have to let the A teams meet each other again for some additional boards. As an example, I could think that you play 7 8-board matches on day 1 (56 boards for the first round robin). Then, on day 2 you start by letting the qualified A teams play each other again in 3 8-board matches. Now, these teams have played 16-board matches against each other. Then, you let them play the B teams in 4 16-board matches (88 boards for the second round robin). For the last round robin you could go to 32 board matches in a similar way. Or you could stay with 16 board matches and have cross finals amongst the top 4 teams (with carry over). Rik

My partner and I play very aggressive preemptive raises of overcalls. About 10 years ago we played a big tournament in Sweden that lasted a week. A few hands into the tournament my partner overcalls and gets doubled (no alert). Since I wasn't entirely familiar with the Swedish alert regulations at the time, I ask what the double means and get: "Penalty, obviously." back. I was about to raise, but if partner is doubled for penalty, a preemptive raise seems a bit odd. So I pass, and the player who just explained the double as penalty takes it out with something like three trumps. After the deal is over, when we see all the hands, we call the (Danish) director. We tell him the auction and the explanations and say that if I had known that this double was takeout or "cards", I would have raised preemptively. The opponent restates that it was a penalty double. I ask why he took it out and he replies: "I could see from my hand that he can't have a penalty double, since I have three trumps myself." The director rules that he seems to have explained the agreement correctly and made a judgement call. The director also shows with his body language that he doesn't believe that I would make a preemptive raise with the trash that I held. The result stands. A few boards later, new opponents. Same thing again. I overcall and get doubled for penalty, my partner doesn't raise. Penalty double is taken out. Director at end of deal. Same ruling. By the end of the day (64 boards) we have had 8 of these penalty doubles. Every time (except for number 4) we called the director: same ruling, but he now encourages us to keep calling him. (On the fourth case, I decided to make a preemptive raise anyway and was promptly doubled for penalty. This time it actualy was a penalty double and partner went for a number.) Before the next day session, the director comes to me. He has talked to his Swedish colleagues and told them that Swedes shouldn't explain general strength showing doubles as penalty. He had gotten some kind of "When in Sweden, do as the Swedes." answer which clearly had annoyed him. He told us where he would be directing that session and told us to make sure we were in his part of the tournament. And yes, after a few deals, there is a new "penalty double" and we call after the board. That second day and the rest of the week, we got every "penalty double" case ruled in our favor. This director said that we had deserved that for "having to put up with all this nonsense" for a whole day. :) Rik

And yes... As expected, Geert Wilders is held in a Brittish cell. And as expected, he is furious about it, in his own typical way in a phone call to the Dutch press agency ANP. If he isn't careful, he may be convicted for hate crimes in two countries, one of which he wasn't even allowed to enter. :) Edited on Feb 12 2009, 12:55 PM: Geert Wilders has been put on a plane back to The Netherlands, about an hour ago. Rik