MFA

I don't fancy passing 2♥. I might have tricked partner into bidding a four card suit. Game is not impossible; xx, Kxxxx, xxxx, xx is good for 5♦; ♥K & ♣Jxxx is good for 3NT. I like taking a cautious view, but here 2♥ could be a ridiculous contract, I think. 2♠ is only forcing for one round and doesn't promise a rebid, so we can get out in 3♦ which is a big favourite to make.

NV vs NV. ♠AKQ8 ♥A4 ♦AKJ94 ♣87 I had this nice hand in a team match against a young dutch team in the Bonn tournament. (pass) - 1♦ - (1♠) - pass (1NT) - DBL - (2♣) - 2♥ (pass) - 2♠ - (DBL*)... My X of 1NT was in principle takeout of spades. I felt I had too much not to do something. In that context partner's 2♥ didn't promise the world. LHO's double of my 2♠ cuebid was "don't lead my suit"! What now? Are you ready to take your chances right there in 2♠X? Would be a rather amusing situation :(. Any other comments? Please don't focus too much on whether to open an appropriate no. of notrumps instead of 1♦. That is not the point.

Clear 1♠ overcalls for me.

Yep, open teams & open pairs.

If he has a doubleton diamond, it is ♦AK or ♦AQ. Which he can't have when he switches. So partner is 2515, 2614, 1615 or 1516.

Actually, 8% of the tables in play reached 3NT. Hmm, in the fields I usually play in people love to the extreme to bid 3N with any kind of hand containing a running suit. :)

♣K. Partner couldn't bid 2♥ in spite of a heart suit, values and shape. His suit is probably not that great. I think trying for club trick(s) rates to be right.

Pulling deserves a disaster.

4♥, because of the void.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that. Well, that piece of information we can be reasonably sure of. Fred was one of the players polled. He was also asked what LAs were made more attractive by the UI (or some similar question). Since there was some confusion early in this thread (everybody who had watched the VuGraph assumed that we were talking about a BIT after 3NT, while Fred's comments suggested that he thought that the BIT came after 1♥) Josh asked Fred specifically. Here is Josh' question and Fred's answer: I was told the hesitation was over 1H. So, if we believe Fred (and I really don't see any reason not to believe him), the TD told Fred that the hesitation was after 1♥. From there, it is a very small assumption that the TD indeed thought the hesitation was over 1♥. Much bigger assumptions have been made on BBF. :( Hence my conclusion (with the usual disclaimers) that the TD was confused about this whole case and made a couple of mistakes. I am certainly not aiming at a crucifixion of the TD. To err is human and the last time I looked TDs were still human. But to me (with the usual ifs and disclaimers) it seems clear that the TD erred. Rik My best judgement from the entire thread is that TD didn't confuse where the BIT was when he made the ruling. And I feel very confident about it. Perhaps Fred did confuse it or the TD did when he approached Fred, that I'm more unsure of. From what I've read, I am not ready at all to say that TD made a mistake. It could still be that his ruling was perfect. Therefore my reservations. You can have your own opinion, of course.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI? Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more. I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that. If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case. The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass... and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack. No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

Hmm. ;) Methinks that barman didn't get my joke about a director losing a deposit for appealing his own ruling. But I admit it was extremely bad. :D Edit, ok I get your point :P.

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling. I do not understand how do you appeal a ruling when there is no ruling? I assume the committee is an appeals committee not a ruling committee. I assume the director is a ruling director not an appealing director? In my experience there are very few appealing directors ;) Hahaha. Perhaps the bad appealing directors got tired of having their initial rulings changed, and the good appealing directors got tired of losing frivolous appeals' deposits, when their rulings were fine in the first place. So now there a only very few of them left. :P

Transfers are crucial for right-siding after a balancing NT, so system on is the simplest approach.

I find it absolutely clearcut to bid 2♦.

Don't like the idea. Sacs are part of the game, but the highest bid should be "I can take all tricks in notrumps". Edit: And one could go on. Shoud 9♣ then not be allowed? Perhaps partner sacs in 8♦, but we would like to overrule him in 9♣. Etc.

Yes, NE same side, SW same side. I think you are making this sound way too 'easy'. If TD finds, as you describe it, that S may have been convincing N that there was a BIT, then TD should dismiss the case. When the call comes from the wrong side, there is a firm initial conjecture that there was nothing noticable on the other side, since that is where one would expect the call to come from, if there indeed were a problem. It's not a problem that W is thinking if the other side doesn't notice. So when the TD rules as he does, we must assume that he feels quite certain that N didn't need any convincing from S because the UI was crystal clear, and that the wrong procedure of S calling the TD was due to either S not knowing the rules or that he just got too eager in the heat of the battle.

The skip bid rule is off with screens but it's correct procedure anyway to take just a very few seconds even with a clear-cut bid after the skip bid. But one doesn't have to do that.

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly. Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs. Exactly. The game is about the score. If the score is incorrect then the integrity of the entire event is compromised. If the ruling is incorrect then the score is incorrect so it needs to be fixed. Wayne, have you ever been on an AC that did not forfeit the deposit in a case of BIT and consequent UI? I haven't and I have been on a few ACs, domestically and internationally. Roland I don't think that there can be any ethical obligations to appeal a ruling when one disagrees. Regardless of what difference the score of the board means for the rest of the field. One could easily lose a deposit. I don't agree with Roland, however, that EW should be particularly likely to do so in this case.

Is it so bad? I mean for once we actually do have a very powerful suit to introduce and also the playing strength for a 5-level bid.

I've seen this type of issue mentioned before in other places. As someone who has yet to play with screens, what is the proper procedure for BIT. Is it a requirement that a director call *MUST* come from the other side of the screen? Or just that it usually should? In the non-screen case I know that some partnerships have one player who is much more likely to comment on a BIT than the other, but I'm not sure how that would translate to the screened world. 'Must' is too strong, but just barely. It's wrong procedure to call from the wrong side of the screen, and the director should be very quick to neglect the claim of a BIT if there is any doubt about it at all. It's the main point of the screen that it 'absorbs' a lot of huddles. So with screens both players have to look after themselves and the partnership can't appoint a sherif to take care of all the nasty things.

That would mean that dummy called the TD, right? This is strange. I could understand declarer wanting to call TD from the wrong side of the screen, since he couldn't expect partner to be observant about what happened.

I tried 1♦ which was pure meat for the commentator vultures, since they had been waiting all day to see one of those reckless and pointless overcalls finally result in a true disaster. And so it was. Partner unsuccesfully led ♦K from ♦Kx and we conceded 140 instead of 110 in 2♥. This one annoyed me, because for some reason I passed, which is out of character for me. We sold out to 2♠ 8 with 3♥ our way. I'm positive that it's right to bid 1♥. Bidding is right since partner has Axxx, x, Axxxxx, xx and 4♠ is a lucky make. Yes he might have overcalled 2♦ but that doesn't really matter. I think it's 3♥ if anything. X to show clubs and then pass seems pointless when we are wishing for a diamond lead. X followed by 4♠ looks like a suicide attempt to me.

Partner had ♠A ♥AKTx ♦Ax ♣AKJxxx and passed 5♥. Which was a good idea, since there were 11 tricks after a diamond lead. Clubs were 3-2 but hearts 1-4 with a stiff Q with opener. I was somewhat amazed that advancer trusted partner to have heart support. I'm used to X+cue+new suit is forcing without fit. So I would probably have bid 3♠ splinter (all jumps are splinters for us) and then 5♣ over 4♥. But it's a difficult situation to handle.