jeffford76

If someone does only play half, it seems reasonable to just double the first half margin. It's not like the victory margin playing completely different hands is all that meaningful anyway.

Are the rules any looser? This seems like a clear opener in 4th seat to me. [hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|jeffford76,Robot,Robot,Robot|st||md|4ST52HAQT86D853CA5,SQJ64H3DA642CK976,SK983HK972DKQ9C82,SA7HJ54DJT7CQJT43|sv|E|ah|Board%206|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|]640|480[/hv]

Seattle actually just polled its players. Among the 750+ MP group it was very evenly split between 1/7 and 10/3. Among the under 750 MP players it was heavily in favor of 10/3 (approximately a 5:2 ratio).

I assume by "wrongly explained" you mean that your actual agreement is to play a strong NT in this position. In that case you are obligated to announce your actual agreement, so say "transfer" and bid 3C. This will give partner UI, obviously, but you still have to do it. If your actual agreement is to play a weak NT in this position, then you have UI, so you say nothing (as your actual agreement would not require an alert) but bid 3C, and you keep bidding according to your strong NT system. This is all settled law despite people claiming other things on BridgeWinners.

Depends on which director you get, I think. I have run into ones who think actually having the agreement that you are asking, but may not care about the answer falls under the prohibition on "destructive" calls. And by "ones" I mean the response from rulings@acbl.org.

Not true! I had a balanced 7 count. :) Thanks for the match smerriman.

As others have said, 11-15 is legal, but I wonder if you wouldn't find it easier to open with 12-15 and pass the balanced 11 counts.

I'm in again. Hopefully I won't be sick this time.

I think it is possible to expect an appeal regardless of which ruling you select, and also to not be in doubt that you are giving the correct one. I would prefer directors to make the ruling they think is correct.

Bidding 2♣ with exactly 3=4=3=3 shape is totally normal. 2♥ shows 5, and you want four trump to make a forcing raise. It's different if you bid 2♣ on other shapes. I use it as GF clubs or balanced, and of course alert it.

Minimum off-shape takeout doubles are not alertable in the ACBL. However like any agreement, calls must be fully explained upon the request of the opponents. Are minimum off-shape takeout doubles marked on their card? If this is a normal double for this pair, then they should be. And they should also be giving better explanations of what hands start with double.

Depends on the event. For a regular club game you can have a playing director with as many tables as you want. But for STACs, you have to have a non-playing director if you have more than 16 tables. At the club where I regularly direct large games, when there is a half table there is a definite preference to have me play to fill in the movement (calling someone in as a partner) rather than to have a sit-out. I think the biggest one I've played in was around 21 tables.

I'm in.

Why is that? If the bid had no meaning, then it shows literally any hand. A replacement bid surely shows some subset of all the hands, which is fully contained within the set of all hands.

We've had this disagreement before, but I think that a director who wishes to award "not played" can use Law 8A1 as a legal basis for it.

In that case it doesn't matter anyway. The point was that the regulation is intended to prohibit conventions over something like 10-12 or 16-17. I believe it's also intended to prevent 10-11 or 14-15 (counting it as a six point range), but I don't have any special document I can point to for that.

The part on the GCC about "including those that have non-consecutive ranges" means that for this purpose your range is 10-21, a 12 point range (not 11), so conventions would not be allowed.

I suppose I should have stated this in the original post, but the actual agreement was a preempt. I wouldn't have posted otherwise, as there wouldn't be any misinformation, and there wouldn't be any need to make a ruling.

Sheesh, I keep switching E/W, sorry. East said he would have doubled. West said that would have been cards/takeout. I meant why would West sit for East's double? As to your last question, isn't deciding that the point?

3NT makes 7, and it's not hard to do so (4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, 1 club). Why would east sit for a cards/takeout double of 3♣?

[hv=pc=n&s=sk2h98432d72ck953&w=sat96hkq7dkj83c64&n=s7543hjdt9654cjt7&e=sqj8hat65daqcaq82&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2h(!H%20%2B%20minor)p3c(pass%20or%20correct)3nppp]399|300[/hv] 2♥ was properly alerted, but explained upon request as an opening hand with hearts and a minor, not a preempt with hearts and a minor. 3♣ was not alerted, but was asked about and explained before the 3NT bid. After the hand was over East said that he would have bid differently with correct information, doubling instead of bidding 3NT. I asked West what double would be in that position, and he said that it was undiscussed, but that generally would expect cards / takeout. Do you adjust the score? Remember it's 2016, so you can weight now in the ACBL if you want to. At least one of the players regularly reads here, so be nice. :)

I see quiz auctions like this: 1N - P - 2♣ - (2♦) - The pass should also be in parentheses. Also it's not clear to me what the quiz filter is doing - I see the same questions. Cool idea!

I'm not sure people playing in a Flight A NAP final will take well to their non-regular partner trying to teach them. :)

Three "f"s in my username.

This is standard operating procedure at the club I help run. One pair has to take a ferry home, so they get the last sit out. No one has ever complained, though.