peachy

In a regional this week, the auction was (2H) X (P) X. I made the second Double. When TD arrived, I volunteered "sorry, I didn't see my partner's double, thought there were two Passes to me". The TD said I should not have said anything because he was going to take me away from the table and ask me something. Anyway, my double was cancelled and I was allowed to make any call I wanted but my partner would be barred from the auction. With KQJxx-Kx-x-AQ9xx I had to decide what to bid, it was the semifinals of a KO. While I was thinking what the best action would be I said "I guess I should have got another cup of coffee...". Then I bid 6S. Seeing my bid, TD said "I don't think you need any more stimulation...". LOL. I managed to make it, dummy showed up with Axxx-J-AQxxx-108x. My question is, why would the TD need to take me away from the table first?

Hence, IMO, it is "forcing" and should be announced as such, as ACBL regulations prescribe. It is hard for locals to understand their own local regulations, so imagine how much they handicap foreigners :wacko: How many foreigners to ACBL do you know that have said they were handicapped by the ACBL regulations? You imagine foreigners are handicapped. I imagine you are imagining things . Majority, if not all, of the foreigners who play in ACBL, are ACBL members because they play in the nationally rated events where only ACBL members can play. As such, they know and have access to regulation information as much as any other member. Or even a non-member. Or even nige1. So if there is any uncertainty, that uncertainty has nothing to do with whether one is a foreigner, an ACBL member, or a man from Mars.

Technically, it is not alertable that opener's rebid in a suit, over a forcing NT, promises a 4-card suit although common rebid structure is that it could be a 3-card minor (or even a 2-card club suit). Technically, it is also not alertable if a natural 1S opening guarantees an unbalanced hand. However, these are things *I* would like to know about if I am an opponent and know that my opponents play 2/1 1NT forcing because I may make assumptions that turn out to be false. I know I can ask, but it would be silly to begin asking every opponent after they open 1S or every opponent who rebids a new suit over their partner's forcing NT. I think pre-alert would be nice (for me), but is this unexpected enough to warrant a pre-alert? I don't know. However, when in doubt, alert, covers it all. I know you are an ethical player and would not want to gain through technicality because the alert regulations are imperfect or unclear. Have you contacted the ACBL, and if you intend to, would you mind sharing their response (if you ever get one).

Do you know of even ONE person who agrees with the statement you posted about Drury?

South made a mistake of bidding 6D. I don't know if this auction creates FP for NS, (it shouln't because responder was a passed hand) but *if* it does, then Dbl is automatic, warning partner not to bid more. If it doesn't, I'm torn between Pass and Dbl but I would never do the solo 6D with this type of hand = bad distribution, bad majors, badly placed SK.

One thing that worries me slightly in this and many similar posts elsewhere is the suspicion. Players make completely stupid and pretty unbelievable mistakes about 10,000 times as often as players try to deliberately take advantage of the Laws. So if something completely stupid is offered, I believe the first reaction should be "Oh, no, not again!" rather than "I wonder what he was trying to do?". Suspicions aside, and I do agree I am often more suspicious than others. Given the facts and knowing the answer by the IB'er was an honest one, how would you rule, David? Does it affect your ruling that the OS are beginners?

I think the player was telling tales when he said "I did not see the 2C overcall), but who know, maybe they routinely hide a five-card major in the auction... What reason is there to hide a 5-card spade suit, wouldn't he bid 1S if he "didn't see the 2C-call by opponent". For ruling, allow the person to substitute a sufficient bid that has the same or more precise meaning as what 2C over 1D opening, without opp overcall, would show. What that bid would be in their methods is anybody's guess, 3C now would not show clubs and 10 points, but the curiosity of the player not wanting to bid 1S without competition is significant. If he didn't want to bid 1D (P) 1S, he can't possibly want to bid 1D (2C) 2S now, and even if he did, that would not be allowed without consequent restrictions to his partner. My head hurts. Someone else apply the Law...

In ACBL, the 2C bidder's next bid is alerted if that next bid shows a hand that does not promise a 4-card major (does not have to deny it, just "does not promise" ). Like in using 4-suit transfers, 1NT-2C-2x-2NT, the 2NT call is alerted because it may or may not have a 4-card major.

3S rebid by opener is normal, shows a solidish suit (one loser in suit at the most) and sets trumps. 4D by responder is cue, then opener rebids 4S denying heart control and we end up probably in 5S. Jump to 6S was a bit weird, so was 3NT when slam is still VERY possible. Just go along with opener and give him the diamond cuebid.

The quality of toilet facilities has nothing to do with the quality/level of bridge or the playing level in a bridge event. I understand your frustration bit lets still try to be real... :)

I would think it is general bridge knowledge that 2NT cannot be natural (he would leave it in with a hand that attempts to make 2NT). However, if there is something in the ACBL Alert regs that say this must be alerted, I'll believe it when I see it. Thid auction is a little similar to Sandwich NT. Alertable when by unpassed hand, not alertable when by passed hand, or something like that.

It could be a clever ploy to bid an insufficient 3S (although it might have been a simple mispull) if partner is weak we may get to play 3S, and if partner has values he can raise to 4S. Disciplined 2H opener is truly put into a bind through the opponent's infraction, I think the TD should use his power given in the Laws 'when no law is directly applicable to redress damage' to make sure the infracting side does not gain from the infraction.

All well said. I would also think it is time to discontinue events where participation requires one (or both) to be of certain gender or age, except juniors. I always thought it was a tainted victory for women when the Mens Pairs was changed to Open Pairs many years ago; logically, at the same time, Womens events should have been discontinued, for consistency in treating each gender equally. That also solves problems in the current ACBL masterpoint award structure that JLall was detailing. PS. I am a woman.

It depends which forum. If you are referring to the ruling given by a top Australian and World TD referred to in rec.games.bridge, then you have quoted the wrong Law book: that ruling was given under the 1997 Laws which were different. I must have missed the date of the case completely. It makes sense now! And yes, it was the thread you suggested, on rgb.

There was discussion about a TD ruling where declarer was allowed to change the card he designated from dummy, after both his RHO, he himself, and his LHO had played a card to the trick. Some said this ruling was correct. I can't get myself to agree... What do you all think? Here is a quote of the Law that I thought applied. Law 45 - - - 4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. ( b ) U ntil his partner has played a card, a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

Not stupid, it is smart if you expect your partner does not know it is supposed to be quantitative, perhaps a friendly lesson mode afterwards if you think they might appreciate it in the given group Anyway, I also Pass with your hand.

Perhaps they Pass, as some species of Forcing Pass? Just guessing...also curious.

I would like the idea of giving all members a Premier membership after, say, 60 days, from when they joined. This Premier membership would be dropped for reason. Renewal to Premier membership would be given for, say, 120 days, after no problems like rudeness or leaving table in the middle of the hand or other offenses or problem causing. The member should ask for renewal of the Premier membership him/herself after the certain time has lapsed from him losing it, with promises of the desired behaviors. It would IMO mean more when the member himself commits to behave in the desired manner. But all in all, I am not sure a Premier membership is necessary. There will always be rotten eggs spoiling the fun or the serious bridge, whichever type of player we are . Just mark them as enemy as you identify them as such.

Oops. I didn't read the thread before I answered... It was already solved.

Not even attempting to read Fred's mind!. here is what I think though. I think you had 3-card heart support, spades stopped (maybe a suit) and now you wanted to investigate game or alternate strain and showed diamond stopper for 3NT. Sometimes the balancer's actions allow us to reach game. If you don't lusua;;y go with this strategy, then I think you had a diamond singleton:)

This will be absolutely unanimous. 4H is a descriptive bid, saying I have clubs and 4-card hearts and strong hand so I expect 4H to make opposite a minimum response. It is not a signoff. Responder should have started slam investigation.

But it is, at least where ACBL is concerned. They've been working on the website, but it's still not the easiest place to find things. When I was on the Hall of Fame Committee, I was constantly trying to find the link to the Hall of Fame. I still have to remember that it's under "About ACBL" but at least there's now a link. And about approval of new methods, there is now a description of what has to be included in a submission of a method and defense: Would an example be an improvement? Of course. Will we get one in the near future? I don't know. But this is more than used to be available, so hopefully we're moving in the right direction, even if slowly. Thanks for the inside information. Nice of you to defend the CandC committee, but the bottom line is they are serving no-one with the secretive attitude, backdoor politics, lack of record keeping, and lack of accountability to either ACBL or its members. I do understand the members are volunteers. That does not IMO excuse it.

2S. Partner's common hand types include 5-3-2-3. This hand is not strong enough to invite and passing 2C would be desperation not called for.

Someone who thinks doublejumps into a new suit are natural, does not play splinters at all. Apparently no strength-showing reverses either, if they need 3H as natural. All those, please raise your hands so I can mark you as enemy:)

Natural. Advancer is short in spades, opener has about 18+ with probable 4-card spade suit.