peachy

No, you are not alone. Seven rounds of Precision bidding, or a long auction where both sides bid, then leave them out. But that already happens by common courtesy/common sense. Do we need yet another rule, add more pages to the rule books...

For beginners or easybridgers, this advice is fine. At least put some wedge into their habit of always leading top of nothing. My experience is a beginner "never" leads trump even when the auction screams for a trump lead; something that time and experience will fix.

The hand that was last to speak is Axxx, xx, Axx, KQxx. I understand that if the TD judges that *not to Dbl with this hand is not a serious error*, he is empowered to make that judgment and rule accordingly. However, when a poll is conducted [how fortunate, the poll was conducted as a bridge problem, not a legal issue, before this even became a ruling question... :)] then ignoring a poll where "26 out of 27 people Double, regardless of what 3C means", seems to me like a case where TD who adjusts here, is ignoring the poll results and rules that his own judgment overrides poll results. This is hypothetical, I don't mean you Ed! Maybe you didn't look at the hand.

I have been on medical leave for a while and will be for a couple months more. Could y'all please give links to some fun puzzles, games, brain teasers or other stuff to get my mind off my worries. Thx!

North and South have done nothing wrong. Result stands.

This hand was good enough to either Dbl (neg) or 3D (LR or better spades). I might have made Neg Dbl. For me, Pass now is not forcing and the reason is that we did not make a constructive GF with 3D; it was only limit raise or better. You need agreements about forcing pass, for my simple mind "we constructively bid game or we are in GF auction creates FP" is a guideline that is easy to remember and will not cause misunderstandings. Other agreements exist and who knows, they might be even better. Now, I Dbl. Balanced shape, bad trumps, defensive tricks.

I haven't discussed and absent that, I would assume at the table with a partner from the US that 3D shows 5+ diamonds and denies 4-card major. Pass would deny both 4-card major and 5+ card diamonds. Don't know what Dbl would possibly mean. And 3NT is out of the question when responder is completely unknown strength and shape. This is a good topic for partnership discussion.

I viewed the thread. Not doubling was a serious bridge error; it did not matter for the decision to double whether 3C was weak, invitational, or even forcing. The double IMO is that obvious, supported by the poll in the linked thread. The failure to alert in this case IMO was not related to the failure to double [= the damage] so score should not be adjusted. However, the TD may award a PP if there is reason for giving it, for example, by history of failing to alert. The PP's are normally not routinely awarded so awarding one here is not automatic.

With a decent pickup, I assume he has a lead director in diamonds, and a spade suit. Anything else requires an agreement and since we don't have one...see above.

Even if there is no agreement specifically what it is here - if splinters are on the card, this is a splinter. When in doubt and it could be a splinter, it is. There are other ways to support clubs and make it forcing.

Please explain. Or is there a bee in your bonnet.

I don't like the auction. After 3C, I would bid 4S; after club shortness, my hand has reduced to 10 working points and four bad spades, but opener could still try with 5C. Or if opener, I would show my side suit instead of club void/singl. The contract is fine.

4S. Unless he has a history of not understanding or forgetting splinters; even if he does have that history, I think I have to bid 4S.

The TD? None of the four players or the TD have spoken here, as far as I know. This is also not a court of law, or a war with camps and sides. Just speculation on a product of the rumor mill.

In no way, shape, or form am I defending the layout or design of ACBL web site. Information there is cleverly hidden but after YEARS of trying ang trying, I finally seem to find what I need there. But there are worse ones - have you tried the WBF site? Try it if you are ready for a nightmare. Added bonus, it only functions if you are using Internet Explore, not if Firefox or others...

Manoj, If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started. None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

This is an old problem. I have never quite understood the situation to my own satisfaction so will be happy to hear what others say. Information from withdrawn action is UI for the OS. But information from table ruling is naturally AI. Meaning, the offender's partner is allowed to use the information that his* partner must pass next turn* but he is not allowed to use the information that *partner does not have an opening hand*. Tricky. 16D, 30A, 23, does the list go on forever...

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it? Quite right. When Kelvin (Ng) spoke to me, he said it was his fault for not preparing a copy of the defence in the first place. I was reacting (overreacting, rather) to later posts. Sorry. You are right.

I was one of those who originally did not share the outrage that most folks here expressed. On 1), if the rules say you need an approved defense, then you need one (it may be silly, and I agree it is - but what can one do about changing the rules on the day of the event - nothing) On 2) I believe you if that is what you heard yourself the TD's say. However, the TD's do have copies, at least one. Therefore, someone is telling porkies or someone or several someones have had a misunderstanding. Whatever it was, there were easy solutions by Ng-Tan to correct their own mistake, other than write in large letters on three sheets of paper. *The locals are friendly, ask somebody to help you get the document. *There are lots of other players in Vanderbilt who play Multi - ask around, borrow the paper, or make a copy of it at the hotel's business center. *Make a printout of the document from the webpage, at the hotel's business center. *There are several Fedex Office (formerly: Kinko's) in town, have a teammate or friend, even a stranger [most people like to help a visitor], go to one and print it off the internet. Coming to the tournament without having that silly piece of paper that the tournament rules required, was bad planning. I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault. Having read your point 4), I have now more sympathy for the Singapore team than I did before. As to 3) this has nothing to do with it. If someone else gets by without being in compliance, it has nothing to do with "my" obligation to be in compliance. Agree on 4). They should have called the TD in the beginning if they were going to call.

I wasn't at the table. It is not only wrong, it is illegal to ask for partner's benefit or direct partner to ask. I think TD did right to remind that declarer can ask questions, if he thought the declarer was in anyway unsure about that. The TD did not go far enough [no PP] in getting the point through that the dummy-to-be was in violation of at least two laws.

That east is a big fat liar. I really wanted to say that, just didn't want to duck - let alone respond to - comments about *unfounded accusations* and *lack of evidence* etc. But that is how I saw it.

Law 91B reads: The phrase "for cause" does not appear elsewhere in the Laws, and as with Law 81, its use here indicates that the Director needs a sound reason to disqualify a contestant. I imagine that the Director could instruct a non-offending side to waive a penalty, and if they refused, apply a procedural penalty under Law 90B8 that would have the same net effect on the scores as if the original penalty had been waived. One rather hopes that such extreme measures will never be necessary, however. But, as the Law is written, NOS must request it. I see nowhere in the laws that TD has the right to instruct, let alone insist that a NOS waive a penalty or rectification. I agree it would be crass not to ask, in case of severely disabled player or a bumping waitress for example. But it is a slippery slope to read something into the laws that is actually not there.

Still, it is the NOS that has to request the waiver, according to how the law is written. Right?

If that is what it means then it would in effect mean the NOS has the burden of asking for waiving, or asking for accommodating a disabled person. This doesn't make sense to me, a disabled person should be accommodated with reasonable assistance without the NOS side asking.

Completely unnecessary filler words that have no meaning as they are written. One who requests waiving, has some reason (cause?) for requesting it. Trying mindreading of the law writers, I would expect it means something like excluding some causes such as *the infractors are my friends and I want them to have a good score.* or some equivalent to that like *I always forgive my opponents on Thursdays*.