JanM

This is nonsense, Jan. As I am sure you know, many/most people play "system on" over artificial Doubles and 2C overcalls of 1NT bids. So far as I know, most people who play "system on" over double (I would have said all before reading your post) also play that redouble shows a good, usually balanced hand that is interested in penalizing the opponents. For someone who said that his statement that he would be more likely to psych 1NT against a pair playing conventional doubles did not mean that he was playing a different NT range against conventional and penalty doubles to talk about "completely absurd" statements is mind-boggling to me. I did not say that the reason to redouble would be to give partner a chance to expose his psych and I am sure you know that I did not mean that. The reason to redouble is to give your side a better chance to double the opponents. That is less attractive if the 1NT opening is suspect. Not only is it less likely you will be able to penalize the opponents, but it is far more likely that redouble will force partner to expose the psyche. (to the person who suggested that RDBL was "safer" than bidding Stayman because partner's bid would expose the psyche, that is true only if you think it is good for your side to have the psych exposed). Absolutely - if my partner had never psyched 1NT before I might well have lost the ability to add and subtract small integers. I could look at my own 8 HCP, add that to the 20 or so on my right, and factor in the values that my LHO had suggested with his tempo and conclude that, based on what was left over for my partner "Great - we've got the opponents! Let's defend 2NT Doubled when I know we have far less than half the deck!". Not sure if you are trying to insult my intelligence, but you are really starting to tempt me to insult yours. Peter Weichsel, on your left, was not confident that the 2NT bid in this auction showed a 2NT opening, but I am an idiot because I suggest that maybe it doesn't. Thanks a bunch. Well your husband happens to be not only a great player, but an excellent mathematician who is more than capable of adding and subtracting small integers. He also happens to be a person who is personally familiar with "Double then 2NT shows a 2NT opening" (because I know he used to play this and for all I know he still does). So if Chip can really say that "you did something wrong" with a straight face (and say it directly to me as opposed to through your inane posts), I will certainly give his opinion the respect and consideration it deserves. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I am trying very hard not to speak for my husband or for anyone else. I mentioned that my conversations had been primarily with my husband after you accused me of gossiping with people who did not know the facts. You are now accusing me of some sort of deliberate campaign to divert this discussion from what my "friend" did to what you did in the past. Although one of your opponents is a better friend of mine than you are, the other is not. Apparently you think that a person can't be rational when discussing the actions of friends. Possibly you should consider that concept with regard to your statements about what Brad would or would not say and do. Whether you heard it or not, his statement about continuing to psych as long as the opponents continued to play non-penalty doubles was made more than once - some of the times he said something like "as long as you continue to play stupid methods, I will continue to psych." I'm sure that was to some extent in response to his opponents' attitude about this hand, but I do not have any reason to believe that it was an untrue statement. And I started this conversation by saying that you "arguably" fielded the psych. I did not intend that as any sort of attach on your integrity, "thinly veiled" or not. You responded and have continued to respond with more and more vicious posts. I won't speak for my husband on the bridge issue, but I can tell you that he has told me to stop wasting my time responding to your attacks. So next time I get off the plane, I will refrain from looking at this thread.

I am curious about two things (even though I have no standing in the matter) and would welcome a detailed account of both: 1) The Vanderbilt hand which involves the alleged fielding; and 2) In the Spingold match, the specific questions asked and answers given regarding defense to 1NT. Thanks, Tim 1) The psych in the Vanderbilt: My hand was very similar to this (I do not remember my exact spot cards but they were really bad): xxx Axxx Jx QJxx I passed as dealer at favorable vulnerability. My LHO and screenmate also passed. When the tray came back, my partner had opened 1NT (14+ to 17) and my RHO had doubled. I asked my screenmate what the double meant (contrary to what Rik seems to think, my partner I and I do not normally try to find out our opponents' 1NT defense before the match starts and then adjust our agreements accordingly). I was told "clubs, diamonds, or both majors". I bid 2C (Stayman). I assume nobody thinks this bid constituted "fielding a psych". I tried to find the Vanderbilt hand last night, but it was late and I couldn't find it quickly. I have now found it (thank you Vugraph Project). I'm afraid I don't know how to do a "hand viewer" from the .lin file, but for anyone who wants to look at it that way, you can get the lin file here: http://www.sarantakos.com/bridge/vugraph/2009/vandy/r163.lin Fred's hand was 875, A653, J6, QJ86. He was in first seat at favorable vul. He passed, the next person passed, his partner (who held A64, QJT8, 8743, 93) opened 1NT. Next hand doubled. Fred bid 2♣ Stayman. Sorry Fred, but yes, that does suggest that you might have had some doubt about your partner's 1NT opening - many people would have redoubled with your hand, which of course would have exposed the psych when Brad pulled. Next hand passed, Fred's partner bid 2♥. The DBLer bid 2NT. Fred now explains at great length why he thinks this exposed his partner's psyche. I'd suggest that if you didn't think your partner might psyche 1NT, your reaction to this auction would be "great, we've got the opponents, I should let partner know I have some values by doubling." Of course the opponents' bidding helped field the psych, but the fact that your partner often psychs in this position against players who don't use penalty doubles helped. For example, if you were playing with yourself, I suspect you would have been less likely to conclude from the opponents' bids, explanations and tempo that you had psyched 1NT. I agree that the facts (the hands and bids) speak for themselves here and I think that if I am being wishy washy you are "protesting too much." And I was also at the table, by the way. My discussion of the hand was primarily with my husband, not gossiping about what happened with players who didn't know the facts. As for the Spingold, I and everyone else within about 50 feet of you, certainly heard your and Brad's opinion of what the opponents had said. I did not hear what your opponents said when the director was summoned. I do not think that you are intentionally misstating that, only that you may have interpreted some words differently than others would - for instance, that they "deliberately" did not mention that they play penalty doubles of 3rd seat non vul 1NT opening bids. I would actually be surprised if anyone who was casually asked about their defense to 1NT and played conventional doubles except over 3rd seat non-vul openings would mention that in their pre-game discussion of methods. I know I don't. I believe you that your opponents did not mention it; I question your conclusion that this was a nefarious plot against you. That they actually leaned over backward when the bid came up to alert it and explain that in this situation, unlike all others, the double was penalty, suggests that they were not trying to mislead you.

1) I said "arguably" - I was there and at the time I couldn't tell. I have heard some discussion since & I know that there are people who believe that the psyche was fielded to some extent at least. 2) As I said, I was there and Brad definitely said something along the lines of "if you don't play penalty doubles I will continue to psych" - it was a while ago and I don't remember the exact words, but I definitely heard them and I think that other people could also have heard them. I am certainly not suggesting that you did, but I am sure that you tend to tune out comments of that sort (properly). I am not suggesting anything about whether your opponent was justified, because I honestly do not know what your opponent did or did not do or say. I know what you think they did and said. I also happen to know (and undoubtedly should not repeat) what the director thought was said. I can also understand the motivation for wanting to play penalty DBLs in that situation without specifically stating it - I think that Helene's suggestion is an excellent one and on the other hand I suspect that you would find that as unacceptable as what you think actually happened.

This approach was suggested for the USBC (Open Team Trials). The committee that drafts the Conditions of Contest for the event discussed it at some length (a few years ago) and eventually decided not to adopt it because some people thought that it gave an unfair advantage to the team that played the "slow" team in the next match, compared to the rest of the field. At least that is my recollection of the main reason not to do this. Any thoughts about that? By the way, Matthew Granovetter played much faster than he normally does in the Spingold final, after he was put on 30 days' probation for slow play, so maybe something like that actually does work.

In fairness to Fred's opponents, I suspect (but do not know) that the basis for their decision to use this method is a hand from a match earlier this year in which, after Brad psyched 1NT in 3rd seat favorable and got away with it (after Fred arguably fielded it), he stated to his opponents "as long as you don't play penalty doubles, I'm going to keep psyching 1NT." These were not the same opponents, but the argument was very loud then (and in the Spingold).

Thanks everyone! This is the first moment I've had to read the Forums since last weekend (the Spingold schedule is really grueling for "support staff" like me, especially when there are some morning meetings thrown in). Chip (as usual of course) played great in the GNT and was also a very good partner - I think he only yelled at me once, when in the middle of one of our huge third quarters I did something he didn't like :ph34r:. It was nice to meet Arend and talk with Han again and I was really happy to see all the BBO'ers in the Spingold Round of 32. Sometimes by the end of an event we forget how hard it is to make it that far and they all deserve congratulations for great performances.

I'd like to put in a plug for Bridge Master - in my opinion, playing the Bridgemaster hands that are at or a little above your level is a great way to learn declarer play and how to think about hands. Learning how to think about and play hands will improve your bidding judgment because you will be able to visualize what partner's hand is and how the play will go.

Beat me to it. Me too

I don't know what "published conditions of contest" you're looking at. But if you look at the actual Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt and Spingold, you will see that the playing time for matches with screens is two and a half hours for 16 boards. That means that if everyone plays on schedule, a 64 board match takes ten hours of playing time, plus time between segments to compare and a dinner break. The late rounds of the NABC KOs take something like 13 hours from start to finish - that's more than enough! I have no idea what you mean by "simultaneous play" - in most serious Knockout matches, the boards are played in the same order at both tables. If you're suggesting that both tables (or all tables playing the same boards?) should wait to start board 2 until board 1 is over, that really doesn't make sense. We'd have to allow even more playing time in that scenario because a board that happens to take a long time at one table would slow all the other tables down.

I'm not sure where I fall in this discussion, but I do want to correct one implication - that Vugraph is free for the tournament organizers who put it on. In fact, my budget for USBF Vugraph for a year is over $5000. And that's for all of 3 events, and ignores some of the costs. For instance, we're lucky enough to have had laptops donated, so we didn't have to buy them. But we still have to ship them from tournament to tournament and store them in between, which doesn't get counted as a Vugraph expense. I happen to have a personal broadband card that I use for Vugraph and other USBF members have generously donated theirs so we don't pay for internet access. But we still had to purchase a router so that one broadband card could be used for all the Vugraph computers, and that also needs to be shipped and stored. The main cost of Vugraph is operators. Some are generous enough to volunteer their time. Others ask that we pay them something - not much, but something (currently ACBL and USBF pay the princely amount of $40 per session (there are two sessions per day)). When we are in places where there aren't enough local operators, we also have to pay travel and hotel expenses for them. For ACBL events, since that was the original question, it's virtually impossible to find operators without paying them something - after all, we're usually asking them to give up playing at an NABC to be a Vugraph operator for a session or two. They paid a lot of money to be at the NABC and it's unreasonable to ask them to contribute their time without some recompense. Even now that ACBL has started to pay operators at NABCs, it's hard to find them and I often find myself begging a few generous souls to do it. Maybe if we paid something more realistic it would be easier, maybe not. But it isn't free. So although I know that I don't think the organizers should make money from Vugraph, I'm not so sure that the Vugraph audience shouldn't bear some of the costs of putting it on. After all, when you go to a movie or play in a club game, you pay for the entertainment. When you watch TV, you pay indirectly by watching commercials. So far, we've been able to present Vugraph free, but there are complaints about the amount it costs, suggestions that we reduce the coverage to save money. So let me ask a different question, would you rather see coverage of the Spingold from the Round of 32 on, with two matches covered in the Quarterfinals and Semifinals, if it cost a modest amount of money, or see only the finals for free? Ditto for the USBC (aka Team Trials)?

Chess is much easier to do electronically - after all, the pieces are placed in very limited areas on a board. Both pieces and board can be easily coded for electronic transmission. On the other hand, cards are played in a less than precise manner, and it might be trickier to read them. Before you tell me that players could easily put their cards in a specific spot on the table, let me tell you about the difficulty one often has as a Vugraph operator getting a player to play a card in such a way that you can see it. And even those who try to correct their sloppy habits usually only do so for a hand or at most two.

This thread and the related ones are, of course, very interesting to me. I am a strong proponent of "live" Vugraph, because I often see the situations where interaction between operator and commentators/spectators improves the quality of the broadcast, and I also think that it's more exciting for the audience to know they're watching in real time. As a tournament and Vugraph organizer, I also hear a lot of the complaints about security. Delaying the broadcast would solve some of the security problems, although not all. I did have to laugh at these suggestions, though: If I can't go to the bathroom during a segment, I'm afraid I will be unable to be a Vugraph operator - I usually only go when there is a break for another reason (the best thing about smokers is they allow me my bathroom breaks), but once in a while I have to go during the bidding and am always grateful to the players for waiting to remove their bidding cards until I can get the whole auction in. If I couldn't ever ask the players how many tricks had been claimed, I wouldn't be able to provide an accurate report. Being able to hear the players allows me to pass on some of their insightful and/or amusing comments. Most operators don't have time to use another program (I confess I sometimes answer email during a broadcast, but I think I'm unusual there). But more importantly, if we're worrying about Vugraph operators cheating, there are lots of easy ways to do that without any electronic help. We all try very hard to control our facial expressions and body language so as not to communicate anything to the players and that is often difficult. No tournament organizer is going to have a Vugraph operator who might cheat. I'm always grateful when I'm able to find one operator per table for the number of tables I want to cover. You're living in a fantasy world if you think we could ever have four operators per table. Anyone want to be an operator for the USBF Senior Trials in Las Vegas next week?

A problem with shorter segments is that the entire day ends up being longer. Not only are there more breaks, but it is less likely that the time for a slow board will be made up by the end of the segment - and although sometimes the same boards are slow at both tables, that is not always the case (one table bids a difficult slam and so takes a long time in the play; the other table doesn't bid slam or bids a different one and so is faster). Also, when the bathroom is in the playing room, so that the dummy can go to the bathroom, that saves time over waiting until a break (whether at the end of 8 or 16 boards) for everyone to go. When we play behind screens, the day is already very long, adding more time is not a good option. In Vugraph matches, when all matches are using the same boards, we can't start the Vugraph of any match until all matches are ready to start. This means that we either have to make the "faster" match wait for the slower match to catch up, or we have to let the faster match start and begin the Vugraph broadcast partway through the segment, or we have to use a different set of boards for the slower match. None of these alternatives is ideal, and adding two more times when we'd have to deal with disparity in timing of different matches would be worse.

From the ACBL General Convention Chart, under Carding (the Mid Chart and Super Chart refer to the GCC): Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee.

Hamman, at least in the days when I used to kibitz him a lot, actually does sort his cards when he picks them up, looks at them for about a second, then shuffles them and holds them closed for the rest of the bidding and play - it's a real challenge for a kibitzer B). Weichsel, on the other hand, doesn't sort at all. At the recent Trials, he opened 2♠ on a 5323 hand with almost opening bid strength. The Vugraph commentators wondered why, as did I (I was the operator). When the hand was over, someone asked Peter what his shape had been and he said "6322." Then a short discussion occurred about who had the 13th club, and Russ, sitting across the table from me, looked at me - I sort of nodded at Peter, Russ said "he was really 5323?" I nodded. Peter, shocked, argued for a moment, then said "I guess I should start arranging my cards" :) My funniest recent experience with how people hold their cards was kibitzing Chip at the Cavendish. I guess I should explain that I virtually never kibitz Chip, because Lew doesn't like kibitzers (the fact that I'm one of the luckiest kibitzers in the world and have been offered money to kibitz, doesn't change that :)). He's very careful to hold his hands really close to himself and close them up during the early stages of the bidding (tough on the kibitzer). But then when he starts getting interested in the auction, he often fans his hand out and holds it so anyone who even glanced his way would see it. I guess I've never noticed from across the table, because when an auction gets interesting I'm always looking at my hand and avoiding looking at him. I commented on it and of course he's completely oblivious to what he's doing.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the World Open Pairs truly is an open event. Pretty much anyone is allowed to enter (the only exceptions might be those whose entries are rejected due to past bad behavior or cheating). Xcurt's memory is too long :unsure:. Back in the misty past, when I went to my first World Championship, and probably before Fred started to play bridge, there was limited entry to the Open (or was it Men's, I don't remember) and Women's pairs. Each zone got a certain number of pairs. ACBL assigned those slots to pairs based on performance in the National pair events (the NABC's were still called Nationals back then). The reality was that usually other pairs would be allowed to play if they showed up, but not everyone knew that - my partner and I were just below the qualifying level for the Women's Pairs in New Orleans and didn't think to try to play, although we would have been allowed to. I'm not sure when the change to a truly Open event, with several qualifying stages, took place, but now anyone can enter the first stage of the Open and Women's Pairs. The field those first days is completely different from the field in the finals, because players still in the team events are allowed to drop into the semi-finals and finals, and pairs of World Grand Masters (I think - maybe some other title) are also allowed to drop into the finals. But a few of the pairs who start the first day do make it to the finals.

I think that 5431 is treated as 3-suited. Ekeblad-Granovetter WBF card is here: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...Granovetter.pdf That should be essentially the same system.

I believe: 1♣ = Strong, artificial, forcing 1♥ = 8+ HCP, either balanced or 3-suited 1♠ = Artificial, asking (sorry I failed to mark it as an alert - if I remember correctly, this hand came up when I was distracted by something else). 1NT = 12-14 HCP 2♣ = Artificial, asking 2♦ = Some Splinter 2♥ = Artificial, asking 2♠ = Club singleton 2NT = Artificial, asking 3♦ = 3 hearts (Weichsel actually wrote x 3 x 1) 3♥ = Artificial, asking 3NT = 5 spades (now he filled in over the x's 5 3 4 1) After the auction, Rodwell or Meckstroth commented that it had been "very efficient" since the answers to the relays had each been one step above ;)

I'm not sure I can actually add anything to this discussion, but I'll try to put in one place what I believe has already been said by others. 1. The USBC (otherwise known as the Open Team Trials - the name United States Bridge Championship was a vain attempt to garner some publicity - maybe newspapers would be more interested in writing about a "Championship" than a "Trials" - it didn't work, but we kept the name from inertia) is indeed a completely open event. Any team of 4 US citizens or residents can enter. If they aren't already USBF members, they have to join USBF and pay dues. If they aren't citizens, they have to demonstrate that they are permanent residents and haven't played for another country within 3 years. But essentially anyone can play. I happen to agree with Uday & Danny that it's a great event to play in. The one thing I regret about helping to run it is that I am no longer able to play in it, even though the best I ever did when I did play was reach the Round of 16. 2. When the Team Trials were first changed from a very limited event (4 teams played - the winners of the Reisinger, Vanderbilt, Spingold and Grand National Teams) to an open event, the ITTC (International Team Trials Committee, then an ACBL committee, now a USBF committee) decided that performance in the major championships during the year before a Trials should give a team an edge in the Trials. I do not remember whether the GNT was one of the "Major Events" at the beginning, but now it's only the Vanderbilt, Spingold & Reisinger - a good thing for me, as it means that my husband can "afford" to play with me in the GNT, although of course that was not the reason it was removed from the relevant events - that was because it was considered unfair to teams whose members happened not to live in the same District). So the ITTC set up a scale of Positioning Points that are awarded for finishes from 1-16 in the KOs and from 1-14 (making the Finals) in the Reisinger, and a number of PPs required for byes to each KO stage. A bye to the Semi-Finals requires, in addition to the number of PPs, a win in one of the 3 events. A few years ago, the committee decided to add the previous year's Trials to the events that award PPs. A year or two later, it decided that PPs earned in the previous year's Trials should count only for a bye to the Round of 16. 3. Over the years since the Trials became open, there has been a lot of discussion in the ITTC about exactly how byes should be awarded. I am sure there will continue to be discussion of that issue, and the ITTC, like the Trials it governs (the ITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Open Trials; the WITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Women's Trials; the SITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Senior Trials) is open to anyone. If you want to join in the discussions of exactly how byes should be awarded, you are welcome to attend meetings or participate in the committee's email discussions, which are very extensive. Two years ago, when the committee was discussing the format for this year's event, there was a lot of discussion of whether it would be better not to have byes to the Semi Finals in a year in which two teams are selected. Some of the committee's more mathematically inclined members even did analyses of the odds of this, that, and the other. After discussion, the committee voted that there should still be Semi Final byes, but if I remember correctly, increased the number of PPs needed for a Semi Final bye. 4. The primary reason to award byes is in order to include the major NABC events in our selection process. The ITTC believes that means we are more likely to select our best team(s) for the World Championship. And much as we want to run a quality event that everyone can enjoy playing in, our primary objective is to select the best team to represent the US. I doubt that I've added much to the discussion. Now I need to get to work on things like the schedule for the Senior Trials, which starts on July 6th in Las Vegas. If you live in Las Vegas and would be interested in being a Vugraph operator for some of the sessions of the Seniors, send me an email ;)

I'm coming to this thread a little late, and there have been many excellent posts, but I want to add just a little bit. Skorchev criticizes both commentators & operators. As someone who has been both, and who has also recruited both, my initial reaction was anger. And even after thinking about it some more, I don't have much sympathy for Skorchev's position. Of course commentators are not all World Class (as commentators, that is - whether a person is a World Class player has nothing to do with it). But all of them are giving their time to make the broadcasts more interesting for the thousands of spectators at home. Some of them (I certainly fall into this class) aren't great at fast analysis and make mistakes - but sometimes their mistakes are instructive to me as a spectator. Some of them use GIB so they don't make mistakes of analysis, but then don't "see" the hand through the players' eyes - for some spectators that's helpful, for others it isn't. Overall, the mix of commentators provides a lot of insight into what is going on and makes the broadcasts interesting for spectators. As for the implied suggestion that Roland should somehow make sure that every commentator is exactly what every spectator wants and that they always understand the players' bidding & play, that is so laughable that I don't know what to say. I am constantly amazed that Roland manages to find enough commentators for all of the Vugraph we give him to cover, and that most of the time the commentators do a great job. Having once made the mistake of trying to recruit my own commentators, I can tell you that Roland's job is more work than you think it is. And he's somehow there for 24 hours a day making sure there are enough commentators at each table. To suggest that he might have time to consider "provoking" someone who had complained about the quality of commentary by asking him to comment is truly absurd. Operators also make mistakes. If you've never been a Vugraph operator, please don't throw the first stone. I consider myself World Class as an operator (not player or commentator :)), but Wednesday afternoon, when declarer was running a suit in which she had 5 cards and dummy 4, I managed to block the suit, locking her in dummy. When she played the fifth card from her hand, I couldn't show the play any more. That was a clear error (after all, she was calling dummy's cards and they were easy to see). I have many, many times played the wrong card for declarer or a defender because the player played the card in such a way that I couldn't see it. I try very hard to find out why a bid was alerted and enter the meaning in the bidding diagram, but I can't always do so - did your partner or you make an effort to show the note about what 2!c meant to the operator? If you didn't, don't blame the operator or commentator for not explaining properly. We now pay operators (not much, but a little) and still it is incredibly difficult to recruit enough to cover a major event. As a result, some of us work all 4 sessions every day - and it is work (enjoyable, interesting work, but work). It's exhausting; it's always tough to see all the cards that are played; by the end, it becomes almost impossible. To repeat what someone (Peter?) said above - did you volunteer to help on the final day? If you didn't, don't complain. Is Vugraph perfect? Of course not. Is it amazingly good, informative & entertaining for the thousands who watch? Yes it is. Do those of us involved get a little upset when someone who obviously hasn't tried to help complains? Yes, we do.

I'm confused by this. I thought that it wasn't allowed to require any specific number of HCPs for a natural bid - that (I thought) is why the ACBL instead says you can't play any conventional responses to a 1NT opening bid that has a lower limit of less than 10 HCPs. I realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, and apologize for that; I just wondered.

One reason not to play variable NT isn't mentioned in your long list - that is the impact that the 1NT range has on the rest of your bidding. It just changes your feel for hands, particularly in competitive situations, whether partner's 1m opening might be a 4333 12 count or promises either shape or strong NT values. It's difficult to change from weak to strong for different partnerships and really hard to change because of vul (or even I think position - I agree with Cascade that you want a different structure when you open a weak NT opposite a passed partner; our approach to that is to play a different structure, not to change the NT range). So the memory issue doesn't have to do with the opening bid - it is more remembering what you're playing in competitive auctions. I know it's an issue because I often get problems I'm given wrong if I don't remind myself to recognize that the pair bidding the hand play Strong NT - my instincts are just off base. The same thing happens to me when I'm commenting on Vugraph; I have to make an effort to realign my thinking because of the fact that they didn't open 1NT on a hand where I would have. There's some danger in playing weak NT in 3rd position vulnerable, so Lew & Chip actually do vary that - 3rd, vul they play strong. But I haven't gone for enough numbers to worry about it, and my life is simpler if I play the same range throughout.

I agree - wouldn't think twice about it. And my vul 1NT range starts at a good 12 :rolleyes:

The combined score was calculated as a play through event. There were 27 board sessions on Saturday and 24 on Sunday, so the Sunday score was factored down to account for there being fewer boards. So the total score was Saturday score (2 session total) + 8/9 of Sunday score. Given your BBO name, you'll probably be amused by the fact that the reason you were originally told the wrong order was because there was some confusion about how to calculate the total (I'd like to blame it on Excel, but in fact it was GIGO), which resulted in the first list counting the Saturday scores double.