peachy

Pass. We don't have game and they are not making, not even close. If someone didn't have what they promised, then so be it. Pass.

Penalty or at the very least, strong desire to defend 2HX. The balancer can overrule with distributional offensive hand, but unlikely that he even has such because he would have either opened or he would have balanced with something other than Dbl. If X now is not penalty, then we in reality do not have a penalty Dbl available at all, unless balancer takes another action and his second action is a second double but how often does balancer risk losing the edge of having pushed them a level higher. Mission accomplished, now shut up, is the most common scenario.

This took place in ACBL. If you ask a hundred ACBL players what Reverse Drury is, I am willing to bet 99 of them will say "limit raise in spades" or something similar that shows a fit for opener's major. This is not a 50/50 one way or another, non-fit is so rare that it could be ignored, in ACBL.

Kokish was not used and this auction does not interfere with Kokish. Without agreements, 3H is setting hearts as trump and telling partner to start cuebidding. I am fairly certain this is the mainstream meaning, with or without having Kokish on the card.

2S would probably be mainstream but I don't like it. You would make the same bid with Qxxxx-AKx-xxx-Kx as you would with this, a much more powerful hand and suit. I play the variant where 1S-2D-3S shows a good 6+ card suit (does not say "solid") and slight extras like 15+ so I would bid 3S. Any thought of a diamond raise at this early time is silly.

The "Yes, exclusively" option was not there. That would have been my choice. The reasons I don't like the other version is that the card pictures seem to be thinned-out, slim, or something (don't know why but it is harder on old eyes), I never could catch on how to navigate there and didn't like how things look and are located there. So I am an "old dog" and will hope that we continue to have the old version. I understand that upgrades and fixes from here on forward will only be made or available in the new version, not the old one, but I can live with that.

Historically, Drury (or Reverse Drury) did not promise fit, but I have never encountered anybody who plays it that way; fit showing on the other hand is very common. "If" Drury was their agreement "and" it did not promise fit, the explanation was lacking. Lacking, in the same misleading genre as saying 1D (Dbl) is "Takeout Double" when in fact it just shows 13 points and can have 2-3-4-4 or any other distribution, including long diamonds. Without any further facts in the OP case, such as possible UI presented by N when he heard the explanation, or, no system card to support what actual agreement was, I would not adjust. The damage was not related to the explanation. Opener can easily have only 4-card heart suit so underleading the ace in the hopes that opener had a five-card suit was a gamble that did not pay off.

I don't know what this means. You need to use the "old" windows software. http://online.bridgebase.com/intro/install...ide_for_bbo.php Ooh, I get it now. I don't use the web BBO at all, I tried it a couple of times but I can't be bothered to learn its differences...

I don't know what this means.

Bidding is the easy part of bridge in the beginning, most of the time. Play a simple system that is common where you play so you can find lots of partners. Nothing wrong in learning many systems, I just happen to think it is unnecessary waste of brain cells in the first, say, five years of playing bridge. There are other areas of the game where the possibilities for improvement are much greater!

There is nothing wrong in a cautious preempting style.

I don't like the takeout double at all. If you felt you have to bid with this hand, then go ahead and open 1C in first seat. I like that better than the delayed takeout double. The robots like to bid a lot with shortness in the opponents' suit - a pretty solid principle in general, but sometimes they also "forget" that you were a passed hand before you made the delayed takeout double.

What matters A LOT in preempting is the vulnerability: Nobody-We-They-All. The soundest is second seat "We" because in that case one opponent has already passed which makes it a 1-in-2 chance we are preempting partner instead of the opponents while in first seat the chance of preempting partner is only about 1-in-3. The least sound is 3rd seat and "They". A close contender for the least sound is 1st seat and "They". I think it is best to keep your guidelines flexible; that keeps the opponents guessing - which in fact is the whole reason for preempts. So mix it up a little:) The price you pay is that on occasion it is partner who has to be guessing, whereas if you prefer strictly structured preempts you are just painting a roadmap to the opponents whether they end up declaring or defending. Few decades ago rules such as 3-2-1 were common, but those are no longer much used. The "rule" is now more like Umpteen-3-1. Even if you don't like that for your own preempts, at least should be aware what others commonly do.

I've been trying to catch Hanoi or inquiry online but despite me being online close to "constantly", I have not been on at the same time for many days now. I guess there is plenty of time to bid the second round so I'll just keep waiting for an opportunity. The trouble is my partner is an avid club player so he is not online or available as much as I am.

I would have bid 2S over 2H, I like to have our shape clear in a GF auction when there is no reason not to get it clear. In the given auction, I would think 4D is kickback for clubs.

There is not only a number of witnesses over several sessions, but also photos, of signals that correlate with the number of hearts. What more should be needed, a confession?

1H response is right and descriptive. Not many has a specific descriptive bid that says '7 hearts to two top honors, no shape, nothing on side'. I like 4H a powerhouse with 4+ cards and no singleton, but I suppose *18-19 balanced* is close to the same. Pass is very normal. I would not even be thinking of going on.

The link to this event in the BBO Upcoming Vugraphs list is incorrect. If anyone needs it, here is thecorrect link: http://ubridge2010.nsysu.edu.tw/result/round.php?rid=7

I see nothing wrong with consulting top level experts how a different level player might act. Because: Top experts are experienced, often over decades and/or over tens of thousands of hands. They are usually also teachers [and even if not teachers, they often have clients whom they coach] and as such quite familiar with how various level players act/bid/play/defend. They have encountered thousands of all level players at the table. They were once themselves "not-top-level-expert" etc. etc.

Thanks all for Law85a1: 1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. If this indeed applies to UI and the TDs can determine via expert player consulting that there is 100% agreement that the bid "is not possible without UI", it seems they surely went astray in not referring to C&E. EDIT: "Or adjusting!" 2ND EDIT: In which case, there's nothing "wrong with bridge", just some timid, uninformed, or otherwise not-up-to-par TDs here. The standard of making a charge of unethical conduct is higher than "balance of probabilities" so adjust could have been made on the score, but not a charge of unethical conduct because the strength of evidence the way ACBL regulations have set it, is lacking. If expert testimony is qualified evidence, then there is that, but there is no other evidence. So any charge of that kind would be unfounded on the basis of "insufficient evidence". Besides, it is not the TD who makes such charge, it is the C&E committee who examines any case brought to them and decides the outcome.

Reference please? Is this in writing anywhere? TY. The bridge laws, L85 for example. This is not restricted to UI rulings.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it. But none of those are top level experts or people who would even try to play in Spingold. Right?

lg62/peachy would like to do Round 2 some time on Saturday 8/7, prefer afternoon Pacific Time.

Why? Because if South thought it was their agreement the TD is likely to rule that they have that agreement (especially given Law 21B1). By saying something at the end of the auction, South avoids some of the affects of misinformation in the auction, and completely avoids damage from misinformation in the play. I said "when there is no agreement". Maybe I should have said "When South knows there is no agreement". I think it is wrong for South or anybody else to assume there is an agreement when there is no agreement. Furthermore, it is MI to explain on the premise there is an agreement when there is no agreement. Maybe we are saying the same thing, I don't know. But South cannot unilaterally create an agreement during the auction when there was no agreement before the auction began.

Even world class experts don't agree amongst themselves about what agreements should be in place regarding Forcing Pass. Here is a good discussion about the topic: http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202009-06.aspx