peachy

Splinter, clubs agreed.

Pretty normal 3H except unfavorable at IMPs, maybe I also pass unfavorable at MPs. Those queens are tricky, they could combine well with what partner has, or they might be a nuisance for the opponents if they declare, or they might be worthless, but luck favors the bold much of the time.

Since you have been a little critical of the ACBL regulation, maybe the first thing before doing so would be to actually read it first, eh :) What makes it bad, and even worse than you thought? I find it just fine. The onus is on the player whose turn it is after the skip bid, to obey regulation and pause appropriately. How could it be bad to place the burden of compliance on the shoulders of the person who *is* the one responsible for following the regulation?

Your understanding is not correct. ACBL does not require for the skip bidder to do anything. The recommended ACBL procedure is to place a Stop card on the table, then make the bid, then take the Stop Card away, and the next in turn player should pause about 10 seconds while considering (or appearing as if considering) his call. The use of the Stop Card is not mandatory, nor is any sort of warning. But the next in turn player must pause for the required time REGARDLESS of whether the Stop Card was used or any warning given or not given.

The "gross and deliberate misstatement" part is judged "as compared to their partnership agreement". In the posted case, it is quite possible that the pair had very little bridge experience and no common sense and the 2H bid was in accordance with their agreements (if they even had any to speak of). Many novices do not understand the concept of reverse, they just bid the suits they have. I am fairly certain that the 2H bidder had no intention whatsoever to make a misstatement, or to psych.

1. Reisig 2. Fred 3. Inquiry 4. Ritong 5. macaw

If the TD instructs you to do something, you are obligated to do it. The TD handled the case well, IMO. Whether the TD could have moved the boards himself, we do not know (he might have been in the middle of ruling or he might have been carrying boards for other late tables himself) and actually do not even need to care. Players are obligated by Law to follow the TD instructions. Refusing for the given reason is ridiculous.

After the initial Dbl, we cannot now Pass because partner's Pass was forcing (created by my Dbl) . He did not Dbl 2D and left the decision to me so I will bid 2H since I cannot Dbl 2D either.

Well said!

Then your definition of a constructive raise is not the same as it is generally known (7-10 or so). I do see the smiley, what does it mean?

First is penalty, I don't think there can be any doubt about it. The second one suggests penalty unless opener's hand is very offensive (very unlikely since opener passed on his second turn to bid).

I was told in very clear terms that the committee does not keep minutes, its deliberations are not disclosed, and that it would be improper to approach individual committee members in search of any information. All I had was a simple question to ask the committee: What were the reasons why Multi was designated as an MC6 method? MC6 meaning, allowed in Mid Chart events with a round length of at least six boards. I don't know any of the committee members. Even if I did, I find it not quite right to try to get in through the backdoor. The information should be forthcoming to the membership whether they know anybody on the committee or not.

NegX looks normal. I would not want to even consider passing. Given that the opps are weak players, I expect their preemptive suit to be semisolid even when they are white vs. red, my partner is unlikely to have wastage in that suit and I have support for everything, including spades if partner rebids them. Edit: Oops, opponents are not weak players. But my answer is still the same.

It all starts with the "open and transparent process". It is mind-boggling why there are no meeting records from the Competition and Conventions Committee. I posted something in the General Bridge Discussion also, airing again my frustration about it = I faced a brickwall covering well-kept secrets several months ago.

I have it from good authority (e-mail correspondence with Butch Campbell) that a) the CC committee does not keep meeting minutes or record of any kind b ) even if they have occasional minutes, those are not published c) it is improper to ask individual committee members directly anything about the decision process c) the committee or its individual members will not give reasons for any of their decisions and no part of the process is published on ACBL website. I found this out months ago when I asked what the reason is why the CC committee has designated Multi a Mid Chart method that is allowed only in events where the round length is at least 6 boards. Which means it is never allowed in any pairs events, even the Blue Ribbon. All of that makes no sense. First, it should be a requirement for all committees to keep meeting records. Second, the reasons for a decision should not be a well-guarded secret kept hidden from members.

With hearts, always rebid 2H. With 4-4 minors, 2C unless disparity with suit quality AKJx diamonds versus xxxx clubs makes you decide to bid diamonds. I am usually a "shape bidder" so normally 2C with 5=0=4=4.

NT scores better at MPs. And this is the ultimate MPs... !

One cannot find evidence, let alone proof, for every auction that could ever happen whether there is forcing pass or not. The NS pair was constructively bidding game, therefore FP applies over their competition. A common well-known metarule is that when our side is in GF auction or has constructively bid game (not 1H-X-4H, or 1H-4H, for example) then FP applies. So IMO South's Pass was forcing. by general bridge knowledge if the NS were advanced level players or experienced by some years, at least. The final double is fine, IMO.

This is a competitive double. Letting them play at the two level in a known fit is losing bridge. Partner is limited by his inability to Rdbl. Secondly, he didn't bid a non-forcing 2D over their double. Thirdly, his double is "under the trump" although likely they both have diamonds but technically, it is "under the trump". All clues point to takeout'ish values but not enough for an initial Rdbl and no 3-card heart support. PS. I probably Pass because we don't have a fit anywhere, 2DX making would not be a tragedy when I expect we go down in our partscore.

On the auction 1C (1NT) 2D (2NT), clubs is the only suit they have shown stopped, probably twice stopped. Failure to lead clubs shows common sense, trying to find a better lead. Blindly leading partner's opening minor suit seems hasty and thoughtless at best, in this auction, IMO. If the club suit was an overcall by partner, things would be different.

Shining even a clearer light to this good observation: each individual player is defending about twice as many hands as he declares.

If you want to analyze, you do not need to do it with your partner. But if both of you are interested, it is good to discuss the hands that either partner wants to discuss, for purpose of getting on the same page with partner. For example, clarifying system, filling a hole in system, clarifying defensive issues, going over reasons why some card was played or why passive or aggressive lead was necessary/not necessary. Leave declarer play out of it unless you want to point out your own declarer play error; or, partner asks what he could have done differently as declarer.

The auction and the calls in the auction that is still going on, are AI to all four players, obviously. I challenge anyone to find a law that says the calls in an auction (with no illegal calls or other infraction) are not AI to the players.

To me, this appears to be a typical slip of the mind, declarer did not realize clubs were blocked until after dummy had played. He was careless; also mindboggling why he did not claim instead of playing on. I would not allow change.

If a stage fright affected person needs accommodation, I am certain it will be given and there would be no problem! However, that person should have the common sense to request the accommodation in advance, not in the middle of the event. TD's have other things to do than waste time in re-arranging table assignments in a significant event (significant enough to be broadcast).