jnichols

Where is this definition to be found?

The difference is that everyone in the room can tell which of white or not white apply. The announcement should either be "10-13" or "13-15", not some combination. On the other hand if its hearts or no hearts no one except the opener knows which one applies. And that is a huge difference.

Are weighted scores permitted when ruling on a claim? I was thinking you must decide on a specific number of tricks. I'm in the ACBL so we haven't been using weighted scores. Starts January 1!

I thought this forum was for simple rulings http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

If the player calls at LHO's turn and the player has already called then it is treated as a change of call, not a call out of turn.

The Howell schedules used in the ACBL (published by the ACBL and Baron Barclay) for 5 tables have the stationary pair (highest number) at table 3. Board 1 starts at table 1. For 7 tables the stationary pair (highest number) is at table 4 and again board 1 is at table 1.

The general rule in the ACBL is that negative inferences are NOT alertable. Used to be they were, but not any more.

Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠?

I have no idea why this might have happened, makes no sense to me. It could be a programming problem. It would help if you let those who can investigate and correct the problem know just which game/section this happened in. Instead of just griping!

"Could be short" is the required announcement. for a 1♦ opening. ♥♠ won't be short, so no announcement

I will allow that if it wasn't the player's intention to distort the description of his shape then it is not a psych. But a player who claims to be playing a natural system will have a quite difficult time convincing me that it wasn't their intention.

It's a gross distortion of length (more than one card) so I vote psyche

All three chards (GCC, Mid, and Super) contain the same prohibition - "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto." The GCC contains a further prohibition on psyching conventional responses to natural openings

I was feeling quite smug, that's for sure.

Whyever not. I have had two hands that I can remember where I was in 7NT and based on my partners Blackwood responses I was able to claim before the opening lead. (I doubt there were more than two - I would certainly remember!) Obviously, my partner could have fouled up her responses, but that would be my problem.

Question: Isn't a Kibitzer/Spectator someone who is not a participant? Where do the Laws permit a participant to observe at another table. ACBL Disciplanary Regulations make it an infraction to ask for information uring a session about a board that we have already played. Our club does permit players to watch a another table when they have a sit-out. But, we permit anyone at that table to bar all players from watching. We do also permit a player to bar one SPECTATOR. But in the 15 or so years I have been playing I have only seen a handful of SPECTATORS at the club.

Note: The ACBL's regulation on removing the stop card are different from some other jurisdictions. But the requirement to wait 10 seconds is still there.

Yhat's the "warning" I would use

I would favor the first option as well. Warn the pairs in question at the time, and remind all the players occasionally when starting a Howell that they should be carefull. If a pair has a habit of getting this wrong.and warnings don't seem to help then maybe a PP, but this just isn't that serious a crime.

But most of us are just Bridge players, not game-theorists. People often take actions that would qualify as "irational" in game-theory terms.

I think that is the prescribed EBU card, rather than a proscribed one. (so much for our little diversion)

The EBU card is certainly proscribed here in the ACBL

The board is fouled. If there are other pairs who played it in the same condition we have some valid comparisons that will allow us to matchpoint the board per the "fouled board procedures" If no one else played the board in that condition then the "fouled board procedure" tells us what score to assign. However, what we do not do is adjust the score based on E/S suggestions of what would have happened if they had played the board in the correct condition. That is irrelevant.

How strange! When this thread was staqrted a large majority of the people who have posted to it thought that the explaination of the 4♣ bid was quite clear. )Myself included.) A small minority apparently thought the explaination was unclear. They are quite clearly correct since half of the majority are centain it meant on thing and half thought it meant something else. Perhaps not so strange - we seem to do this a lot

And why is South bidding 5♦?