CSGibson

Yeah, the two winning positions are if they have a singleton trump Q, or if they have KQ tight. If the former, you must play out your diamonds, using them as faux trump to get rid of the ruff potential, if the latter you must put another trump on the table. Looking at the opening lead, it looks like Versace was missing the AKQJ of hearts, and we know his spades aren't great either, so he might have just been doubling to warn against the 5 level (not sure if they are in a forcing pass situation), or because he has KQ tight and an ace. Restricted choice argues one way, the bidding the other. Partner did very well, I thought, to get it right; I'm pretty sure I would have talked myself into the losing line.

No! This is incorrect by a lot! non-forcing means that your NT does not include invitational hands. Semi-forcing means that it does. They are not the same.

I strongly prefer forcing NT in context of a 2/1 system. Just because opener is balanced, it doesn't mean that 1N should be played on all contracts where responder has to bid it, this allows responder to actually play in his long suit opposite a balanced hand.

[hv=pc=n&s=skthdaq2cajt97653&n=sqj953h72dkt983c8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c2c(Majors)p4h5cdppp]266|200[/hv] This was the decisive last hand, BBO Forums down by 3, Versace on your left, JEC on your right. Opening lead is the T♥ to the J♥ and ruffed, and you play the A♣, getting the Q♣, 8♣, and 2♣. What line do you take now?

Since you will more frequently lead aces when declarer has preempted, a common expert corollary to the A from AK agreement is that it is off against preempts, or other situations where an ace might be a common lead, like at the 5 level and higher, and in partner's bid suit.

Partner's double does not prohibit you from bidding, traditionally it just says that W does not have 1st round control of hearts/and/or is not inviting 7. I think your hand is good enough that you ought to consider bidding 7.

Congratulations Atul!

Setting: A loudmouth who has an inability to shut up, and who just got done criticizing your previous day's partner for giving lessons to his new partner for the day. He is playing in a partnership where he is a much weaker player. Partner and I are playing 2/1, and have the auction as follows (at teams, unfavorable vulnerability) (P)-1♠-(P)-2♦ (X)-P-(3♣)-P (P)-X all pass. Dummy comes down with: [hv=pc=n&n=s852h742dkj42c852]133|100[/hv] After this goes for 1700 (declarer making no clear errors), the doubler asks his partner why she bid 3♣ after all he had done was make a lead directing double, saying that it was a horrible bid on her part, and blaming her for the result. The other table was in 3N making 6 for 690 (takes two of three finesses to make 6N on 30 combined HCP).

Evaluating bridge players based on BBOskill may make you feel good, but it is really pointless and the height of idiocy to make that your primary evaluation of other players on that wildly inaccurate site. I've read Zel and Helene - they are good, thoughtful players. I suspect that you are not based on the way you come across in the forums - people who call names instead of bringing forth intelligent ideas are usually doing so because they cannot bring forth intelligent ideas.

You are being very argumentative here to imply that the wall does not refer to the side of a physical structure in such an authoritative tone. I'm under 40, social media savvy to some degree and familiar with a facebook "wall", and I completely understood what Barry was talking about. Were you honestly confused, or being deliberately obtuse?

To get a sense of what the ruling and process for the ruling would be when presented a similar case, as done in the OP, and to share what I think is an interesting situation that the director staff did not immediatly know how to resolve with this group as an interesting problem. My thought is that the OP should be treated as 100% fact, and that if you need extraneous information, you would ask for it, same as a director presented the case at the table would. The fact that this scenerio closely mirrors an actual situation I experienced at the table is irrelevent to the ruling IMO.

I don't think its completely relevent as to whether you can give an accurate ruling as to what actually happened at the table - the director won't consult you, and the ruling has already happened. Mostly I was wondering what would be the ruling on the facts as presented, and what other facts you would seek out before making a ruling. Only when the integrity of the facts were questioned did I add the other stuff to illustrate that this is not a steamrolling of opponents or anything like that, so much as a curiousity question. Perhaps even responding to that post was a mistake, as it distracts from the main point, but I wanted to re-route this a bit to actually discussing the case, not debating the OP's accuracy.

The facts as stated in the OP are not in dispute - both teams agreed to what occurred at the table, and the explanations given. What I have not stated, but which is also true, is that while the director was taking the statements, he at one point told the NT opener that he had twice opened with singletons and had similar auctions exposing the singletons while playing against him. Also, the previous day friends of mine had also played against the pair, and had the auction against them of 1D-1S, P* where the pass was alerted as having psyched 1D. This is a known action pair, and this was not the first recorder filled out against them for similar activity, as it transpires - if anything I had deliberately smoothed my own perspective out of the OP to try and put the NT opener in the best possible light.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt962hqjt6dkck9&w=sj753h975daq42cj5&n=sahak8dj9875caqt7&e=s84h432dt63c86432&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(16-18)p2h(transfer)p2n(Singleton%20ace%20of%20spades)p3hp4hp4np5d(1%20or%204)p6hppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL, 20 point VP swiss. The lead was the ace of diamonds, and south soon wrapped up 6 hearts. Before the lead, the alerts were explained, and S carefully explained that 2N showed a singleton spade, probably the Ace. After the hand, it was pointed out by E-W that it is illegal in ACBL land to have an agreement that revealed a singleton by the 1N opener, and the 1N opener disagreed, and while doing so confirmed that 2N would only be bid with a singleton spade. The director was then called. When the director arrived, N-S agreed with the facts as presented, but then indicated that it wasn't really their agreement that 2N showed a singleton - the S player indicated that this auction had last come up 3 years ago and that the N player had a singleton ace then. Everyone at the table is very experienced. At the other table, the pair bidding found their way to 6N, off 1, on a start of 1♦-1♠-2N What is the correct ruling, and what is the correct procedure to follow to determine a ruling?

I had decided to let it be - I tried to keep the thread headed in a useful direction for me and not on these stupid tangential points, but one admonishment is all I had in me.