CSGibson

Hard to say playing these methods. I like to play that my 3D sets diamonds as trump unambiguously - if I have 5 hearts, I also have slam interest, since I would tend to slow down the auction with 2H otherwise. So I would bid as though diamonds were agreed, though it is also clear to me that, if playing kickback, 4S is kickback for diamonds after this start.

I agree they have reason to want that access. But if I am a security chief, I think as follows: "The more people that know specifics about security arrangements, the more vulnerable we are. If I make an exception for the Israelis, then I have to make an exception for everyone. Much better to give assurances, and not give out specifics to anyone." I would be especially worried about giving out security arrangements to countries like Israel and the United States which have an active history of advancing foreign policy through clandestine services, btw.

It seems pretty simple. The 4S bidders are betting that either S is the right denomination, that we can only take 10 tricks in spades, or that when clubs is right, the opps will do something to let us know, or that 4S won't be doubled where 5S might be, etc. The 4N bidders are wagering that 11 tricks are available as long as they get to the right strain, and are showing the 2-places-to-play in an attempt to do so. It even emphasizes clubs in my mind. The 5C bidders appear to be getting the worst of both worlds IMO - committing to one strain, and committing to 11 tricks - perhaps they reserve 4N for a different hand type.

My understanding is that the Indonesians did guarantee the safety of the competitors. As much as one can ever guarentee safety, that is, which is with meaningless platitudes. The Israelis wanted to discuss actual arrangements, which, if I were a security chief, I might balk at too.

Ok, I'm an idiot. I thought that was a program examining the likelihood of a fit, not the number of expected tricks in each contract. Also, I'm an idiot in that I bid on this hand, taking us past our only making spot, 4H.

David, I don't think we need to run a program to know that, all things being equal, we are more likely to have a club fit than a spade fit when we have more clubs than spades.

This very much reminds me of a story on poorbridge.com

5C is a heart raise which also has club cards/wants a club lead. It is assuredly NOT natural and an offer to play arter first bidding 1N, so this is the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

I prefer the style that mikeh has documented. The only hands that have made a difference are where we have right-sided NT to put the overcaller on lead, and where I decided to transfer to NT with 4 spades to the JTxx, and later got to penalty double the ops (worldclass ops) in a 4-3 spade fit at the 3 level for 800. I've had no negative experiences.

The director ruled a split score, E-W getting -420 and N-S getting -50. They went through the process of trying do discover an auction, polling leads, etc, and decided that the split score was appropriate. Notable was that the other table was playing 4H from the S, and got a spade lead (though they did not wind up beating the contract because of a club switch). I have a feeling if this came up in a nationals, it might have been a case where both sides would have appealed. At a sectional, we didn't bother.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5432had4cqt8643&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4d]133|200[/hv] Vul vs not in a sectional swiss, playing the event favorites and leaders (you are a close 2nd). RHO is a bit of a wild-card. Do you take action? If so, what?

actually, what would potentially dissuade me from allowing 5♣ is the initial 3♣ call - I'd want to know what was going on in the bidder's head that he re-evaluated the hand up two tricks. I can think of several reasons, personally, but I want to see if the bidder expresses any of them.

What agreements do we have for partner's pass? Is it simply no preference, or is it a preference for defending? Assuming its no preference, I'm going to start out with 1N, then XX to have partner pick.

Well, Ed, in the ACBL manual, under law 12 it says that "the objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred" The italics were added for emphasis by me. In this case, the infraction would not be the hesitation, or anything prior to the hesitation; it would be the use of information gained from the hesitation in choosing subsequent calls. It seems that this is very clear in that you should not adjust scores because of actions that are not infractions, like the perfectly legal action of taking time to think, then passing.

Double. My hand is off my chest, and I avoid being in a balancing situation forcing us to the 3 level.

It seems pretty basic. A first time director should get it right, and I'm shocked that you don't see it. Ask your colleagues, and people knowledgeable of the law - changing west's call is not within your rights, and would be overturned by every appeals committee because W's call was not influenced by UI, and therefore not under your jurisdiction, so to speak.

What I mean is that West's call was not influenced by UI, so it cannot be changed. If you were to consider doubled auctions, it would be because E would have been influenced away from doubling by his partner's hesitation, which I do not believe to be the case.

If West cannot double, East surely cannot - don't bother considering doubled calls, Ed. You can't make West double because he hesitated before passing.

Pass. I doubt we have game, I have two spade tricks and some help in hearts, and I think this is going down, so +200/500 seems like the best shot. I think this is clearer at matchpoints than teams, but I would pass at either form of scoring.

I don't think its a good call - if I'm reading the auction right, then all of our sides points are sitting in front of 2/3 of their sides points - but it certainly can work very well, and its definitely not a psyche, since you have no agreement to deviate from other than that you think you will get a better score by doubling 4♠. I do agree that the call is deceptive, but I do not think deceptive and psyche are synonymous - I'd treat this more like a falsecard in the play.

I'd pull north aside after the game and let him know that I was bothered by the comment, and why I was bothered. Someone who says what north said is obviously ignorant as opposed to malicious.

Well, that the lead of the doubleton was more likely to work in that case, at least, since W was more likely to have entries and a useful spade or trump ace.

In one partnership we have given up on 3c in this sequence, using it to show a good raise to 3h. In that partnership, this would be worth a courtesy raise, and partner would accept. None of my other 2/1 partnerships would get there

They expressed that they had several different options over a penalty double, some of which would make N declarer, and some S. All of the methods would show two-suited hands. Some would specifically show club shortage, but those are the ones that would make it more likely that N would be declarer. Note, if E is on lead in a heart contract, a trump lead also sets the contract, assuming W finds the obvious diamond shift.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk9854haqt984dt3c&w=s73hk52dj98ct9753&n=sqjthj6dk7542ca84&e=sa62h73daq6ckqj62&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1n(12-14%2C%20but%20announced%2015-17)p2cp2dp3s(5+H%2C%204+S)p3np4h(6+%20H%2C%20slam%20try)ppp]399|300[/hv] Edit: This is ACBL jurisdiction. Playing swiss teams, south announced the NT range as 15-17. E-W play precision (opening all 11 HCP hands, and frequently on 10 HCP), and E decided not to make a penalty double of a strong NT even though that was a systemic option. At the end of the auction, N announced the MI, and E called the director. The director took E aside, and was told by E before the opening lead that he would have doubled a weak NT for penalty. The lead was a systemic club, allowing the contract to make. Either a spade or a diamond lead sets it. At the end of the hand, E called the director back, and explained that he thought his side was damaged because a penalty double of 1N would have made it more likely that partner would find an aggressive lead of her doubleton, especially with trump control. Everyone at the table is an expert, and in experienced partnerships. How do you rule?