peachy

3C. Hand is strong enough for this. In my methods which do not include artificial 2C or other gadgets (assumedly OP would have said if they had such methods, so they don't either), 2D does not promise five card suit so raising diamonds with only 3-card support is premature.

The Cayne matches are unique in the sense that there is a host's representative kibitzing and seeing what kibs say. In normal circumstances the host (or the players) do not see what kibs are saying - and couldn't care less. BBO has rules. Those who break them should be reported. Then, a yellow boots the individual. Simple enough? But I still support the idea that a table host should have control of who can kibitz the host's tables at team matches. Not sure how much programming work this would be, and even if it would be only little, I wouldn't see this anywhere near high priority.

I feel sorry for your playing the six but your second post description indicates that the six should be ruled as the played card. The laws do not protect us from our mistakes or mental lapses. If it were at a tournament, I would accept the windfall as your opponent and not feel at all that is "not bridge". At the club it is more informal, I might or might not call the TD, depends.

Pass. Nobody knows which suits you have. You don't know whether they have a 4-4 heart fit and are going to crash and burn on the 5-0 split. You don't know if spade lead is best against their contract. You don't know what contract they are going to be in. You don't want to encourage partner to sacrifice, or to think your side has a minor suit fit. So many bad things can happen if you double. Leave them alone. The opening muddled the scenery, let's not make it clear for them.

West should not jump to 5C, there is no rush when GF has been established. West's hand is way too good.

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation. I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting. If it happens often enough that partner is made aware of the possibility, then it is no longer a psych. However, you can make the agreement (and with frequent occurrence, it already *is* the agreement) that over weak 2H, new suit is either natural and strong or weak hand with heart support and any number of spades. Just alert it and explain appropriately. Alsp, this is not only for online setting!

This L7C requirement approaches something rather curious L7C: after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding If it is given that a board arrives with one or more cards face up, then to return those cards face down at the end would be an infraction of the requirement to restore them to the condition that they arrived- face up. LOL, good one...

Yes, you should go to game if 3H was a GF two suiter [stronger than a 2H reverse, which is also forcing]. Do not pass forcing bids. Even when passing a forcing bid would give a good score, it will be NO GOOD because it plants seeds of mistrust for future. A lot of people would think 3H was splinter, agreeing spades as trump. But perhaps you don't have splinters on card.

Your troll sniffer was turned off :) However, I do not believe Nigel meant to be a troll. He was doing what he has been doing for a long time - expressing his views on how he wants things to be.

You did not say it was a "no psych" tournament. If yes, then the psych is an infraction of the rules of THAT TOURNAMENT, though it is not an infraction of any law, and on that basis I would adjust - - - if I were for some reason acting as TD in such an environment - - - I doubt that I ever would. On BBO, tournament organizers in free tournaments at least, have the freedom to make their own rules even if they are not in compliance with the laws [example: banning psychs].

There is no word *properly* in the law 7C, so the law says no such thing. And a good thing too, because then someone would need to define what is proper and what is not proper. I never thought it needed to be spelled out that cards are returned to the pocket face down. However, when talking about a law, we should stick with the actual written law, not add your own edits [*properly*] to the text.

So the argument is that under the current laws restoring all my thirteen cards face up to the pocket is no irregularity? Ridiculous. And be aware that in a set of laws; if a superfluous clause to confirm the obvious is inserted in one law but not in another the implication is that the "obvious meaning" is not intended where the clause is omitted. Law 7B has the important effect of eliminating the (negative) consequences from all but the most extreme violations of Law 7C. What "violations of Law 7C" do you mean?

The opponents did not commit an infraction. If you think they did, you should explain what infraction you think they did commit. No infraction, no adjustment. But the TD was out of line, he should have had the ability to explain things in civil language. I am going to assume this was a free tournament.

The player did intend to pass, his own words tell us that he did. At the time it was his turn to bid, he was having a "senior moment" and he did ot see that he was in third seat. Senior moments are not protected by the laws, mechanical errors are. Some judgment cases exist but this is not one of them. Pass stands and his partner is under UI restrictions [not allowed to use the knowledge 1S was opened, nor the knowledge that his partner didn't see it was third seat].

hope this link works http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Best to read the regulation. There have been a couple incorrect statements presented here, including the "land of the free" by Free. http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Law 7C could easily have two words added to it: "face down". Returning Cards to Board After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them face down to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side or the Director is present. In another thread it has been argued that boxing a card or cards when returning them to the board pocket is not illegal. It should be.

ACBL SUperchart says: 1. Artificial weak bids at the two or three level (including those with strong adjuncts) must possess, a) a known suit or :) one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit bid. It is not legal in GCC or Mid Chart. Even in Superchart, " Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." is not allowed so if you can convince the C&C Committee that this would not be the primary purpose, you can make an application to have that convention allowed. Read it all yourself http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Having the skip bidder controlling the duration of the pause relieves his LHO from this burden and lets LHO concentrate on his call with no distracting responsibilities. LHO is then free to call as soon as the STOP card is withdrawn even when done before the ten seconds have elapsed, but still cannot be "penalized" for waiting the full ten seconds he is entitled to. If the STOP card is maintained too long LHO may not call until it is withdrawn. Simple as that. Nobody, certainly not I, have said it isn't simple enough to follow the regulation, be it Norwegian, EBU, or ACBL, whatever. I just prefer the simplest regulation = let the next-in-turn be solely responsible for taking the mandated pause. No fussing with the stop cards, and no opponent assigned to be the "tempo police".

I bid 2S, favorable vulnerability. Fight for the partscore or for a sacrifice if lefty is strong with heartfit. I would Pass if we are unfavorable because the risk for -500 or worse is not worth taking when the only target is to fight for partscore. I don't see any chance for game our side.

Between rock and a hard place...I don't know how this regulation works but I sympathize with players who have to obey it. Difficult when there are only two types of doubles defined. I am sure you get "real" answers to your question, mine is just a "note of sympathy".

The reason for using the stop card is so that the next player can think, if he needs to, instead of having to also estimate the length of his pause. Estimating ten seconds is not hard work or difficult to do even if one has to choose a call to make. Anyway, I still find the whole stop card annoying; even where its use is mandated, the next person must still take about ten seconds when the stop card is withdrawn too fast, right? So using the card is not adding value or benefit to the game while the pause itself does add a benefit.

3D. Next bid hearts again unless partner rebid 3NT. Partner has not denied diamonds and 6D is possible if he has them, even in a minimum hand that had to bid the default 2S.

Denies 3-card hearts, shows spade values in 3-cards, maybe only two if the clubs extra long.

And if the stop card under non-ACBL regulation is withdrawn after five seconds instead of ten? None of the different Stop Card regulations work if players don't understand the reasons why such regulations exist. Or if they for various reasons choose not to follow them. I have a preference for ACBL style regulation = keep it as the next-in-turn bidder's responsibility to take the mandatory pause. Simple, whether stop card was used or not. I particularly dislike the skip bidder to take the stop card out, hold it in his left hand with outstretched arm right in my face, suspended in air or temporarily planted in front of me. I've seen this only at NABC's.