jeffford76

The director is confused about something. Web movements work just fine with half tables, and a 16.5 table game run as a 17-table web would be far preferable to what happened. (Or if there are only 2 sets of boards, a 16 table web with a bump is also possible.)

Depends on where you're from. In Seattle, Reverse Capp/Hamilton is understood to mean putting the M/m hands in the 2♣ bid, and making 2M natural.

I think you misread the auction. Partner isn't a passed hand.

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1h2cd4c]133|100[/hv]

The assumption that a mixed gender partnership must have a "dominator" is flawed.

North has a support double and then south should bid spades. Why would you lose the fit?

Not sure where the OP is from. I can confirm what Gordon says works in ACBLScore, having run some games that way myself. You don't have to do anything special about the "missing" machines.

I regularly say "low", not to try to be funny, but because it gives less information if a nearby table accidentally overhears me.

I agree that the GCC could be better written. But my experience is that directors will generally rule that it means what they think it was meant to say, even if there are loopholes in what it actually says.

I think the simplest solution is to allow a team to declare whatever number of masterpoints they want as their "total", so long as it is at least as many as they have. I just don't see what the big deal is if a team gets pushed down a bracket. The difference between the top team in one bracket and the bottom team in the next one up is pretty random. For this to fully work I think you also have to allow "TOP" as a designation, and potentially run multiple "TOP" brackets drawn randomly if more than 16 teams select "TOP" or in the director's judgment should be placed there. Many teams "overestimate" now, and there doesn't seem to be any penalty for it in practice.

I don't see how you could possibly be a good director if you didn't understand how best to cheat.

The actual MSC requirement is that if there is a majority choice it is required to be scored 100.

Perhaps it would be safest to alert all your bids. And maybe the passes too.

This isn't correct. In the "Not Alerted" section of the chart for "Responses to NT Opening Bids and NT Overcalls" is "Three-level natural responses whether or not it is a jump response".

I don't see why this is relevant. I can't imagine there is anyone that regularly makes claims for which the total time saved by not playing hands out is not vastly larger than the amount of time taken on the invalid ones.

I want exactly the opposite. The game is much more pleasant when people claim when they have the rest. Taking away tricks on claims that were very unlikely to be lost makes people much less likely to claim. The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

Sure it is. The director is in charge of the movement, and so can change it.

Agreed - unless there has been a problem in the past with people not showing up, this seems unnecessary.

Did the director cite any laws in making the ruling about the withdrawn card?

This isn't a valid ruling, although it's a likely one at some clubs. Both sides should get the score for 3♥. As to whether I would call in a club game - it depends on the club. Surely you know whether your club director is capable of making a UI ruling. No point calling if they aren't.

I don't really understand why "who bid too little" would be affected by the other table. If you think it's a bad game to be in, isn't the answer "Neither"? The heart hook was on for a diamond pitch. At my table they started with three rounds of clubs, so you could actually make 5 if you risked the hook later.

[hv=pc=n&s=s62haqt64d953cq74&n=sakq8754h2daj7cj6&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c1sdp2c3sppp]266|200|BAM, 4S= at the other table[/hv]

Indeed - I thought Kxx was in declarer's hand.

It's more tempting if you play the queen the first time.

Presumably you would also be capable of explaining this when the director asked why you didn't take all the tricks you were entitled to. I was interested in how to make a ruling when the player is less articulate, but you think might have played differently in a higher contract. There was an interesting story on BridgeWinners about someone who was in one contract and suspected that the score was going to be adjusted to a higher one after their partner used UI, so they played to make the higher contract (which was anti-percentage for their lower contract but it worked) because they didn't want to count on the director to assign them the correct line in the higher contract as the offending side. There were mixed reactions on whether this was ok.