peachy

I would rate it poor even for a passed hand double - no shape, no shortness, no majors, no tricks, scattered values. Any bad result stemming from it would be 100% my fault and I can imagine they play the hand and "guess" everything right, courtesy of my double. Alternately, we play it in some 4-3 fit and go down, possibly doubled.

Thanks. Was too lazy to search for it, but I was sure it was covered.

Hearts and enough to invite game if doubler has suitable extras. As far as I know, this is completely standard.

Would you read the thread "of course she doesnt have kqxxx " in the General Bridge Discussion forum. One poster offered a solution that I would have a problem with. Is there a law that covers maneuvres like - "Trying to look like I got bad news" -

Spot on!

MI is clear. Damage IMO is clear even without seeing the hands (since 2SX was down 1, assumedly 1SX would have made 7 tricks). Adjust to redress the damage.

Your ruling is correct, contract 3C. 3NT is an illogical alternative in the given bidding. Responder deemed his hand worth an invite (otherwise he would have bid 3NT instead of 2NT). The reason he changed his mind could demonstrably be due to the UI he received. Any appeal of the ruling is without merit because the original ruling is so clear, in accordance with law, and all the facts are there and established/agreed upon.

The original post questions were simple. 1. Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness?? Yes, Law 76 2. Can a spectator refuse to get involved for whatever reason? Yes, no law or regulation obligates spectator to get involved or to answer. Blackshoe disagrees, saying "In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave". I am still astonished at this.

I don't like North's 2NT opening. It is much too suit oriented (has eight controls, has a singleton, and has 90% of its values in aces and kings). Many off-shape 2NT openings turn out to be "slam killers". So, if any blame is to be dished out, it clearly goes to the 2NT opening.

Find something else that you like to do instead of kibitzing when you are not actively performing TD duties such as entering scores or giving rulings etc. This will solve the problem of the dual role, and also be more fair to all players. Why should one table have the benefit - or maybe disadvantage, hehe - of having a "resident TD" there.

Suppose that I am kibbitzing at an event where you are directing. You ask me whether a player hesitated, and I don't want to answer. I know (because you've said so in this thread) that if I refuse to answer you will throw me out. Isn't that coercion? This scenario was posted by blackshoe - where his chosen action is to throw out the kibitzer. QUOTE "What did you see?" "I, um, er, um, I didn't see anything." "Leave the area, please." END QUOTE Following is the same scenario and same response, except in blackshoe's example the person is either a) trying to rack his memory whether he could have seen something or not, or b ) is lying. In the following two scenarios the person knows he did not see anything and he could be either a) telling the truth or b ) lying. "What did you see?" "I didn't see anything." or "What did you see?" "I wasn't paying attention so I didn't see anything." In all of the above scenarios, the kibitzer did not refuse to answer the TD's question EVEN IF THERE EXISTED A REGULATION OR LAW THAT FORCES THE KIBITZER TO ANSWER - but of course there is no such regulation. So what is the reason to remove the kibitzer? That the kibitzer did not pay enough attention to the happenings at the table to know everything that happened? I am surprised to disagree so completely with a person whose law expertise I have grown to respect.

In practice this means that an honest answer "I'd rather not get involved" from someone who does not want to get involved in a potential ruling, will result in being barred from spectating while a lie of "I did not see/notice/pay attention" will be accepted at face value. This goes against my sensibilities. In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave. I'm not Cal Lightman, but quite often I'll have a pretty good idea when someone lies to me. So it is not the case that your latter statement will necessarily be accepted at face value, at least not by me. OTOH, it's not necessarily the case that the second statement will be a lie — and assuming that it is goes against my sensibilities. Following this logic, spectators would then be _required_ to give full attention to what happens at the table. There is no law or regulation AFAIK to support this. The TD IMO should not be accusing a spectator of refusing to answer the TD's question when there is no way of knowing whether he did that: he could have honestly not paid attention or he could have paid attention but dishonestly said he did not pay attention. I was not assuming that "not paid attention" was a lie, it could have been either the truth or a lie and the TD has no way of knowing which it was, without access to the spectator's head... Anyway, I stand by my conviction that it should be allowed for a spectator to not get involved and to be honest about it, with no consequences to that spectator. If you find a law or regulation or CoC to support your opinion, I would be interested in seeing it.

Let me clarify the ACBL regulation on Multi. Not only is Multi disallowed in GCC, it is disallowed in ACBL at ALL level events where the round length is less than 6 boards. In practice this means all pairs events, including Blue Ribbon. Personally, I have a major problem understanding why this is so my correspondence to inquire the reasons from the appropriate ACBL body was completely futile, like talking to a brick wall. "It is what it is" PS. Maybe I should have started a new thread, but why... it has been lamented about enough already before

You are learning. However, not all the posters here are experienced directors. For your guidance, look for answers from those who you know to be experienced TDs.

I think they should either play or be penalized for refusing to play. The Conditions of Contest should cover this. If they don't cover it, then the TD gives instructions which table is going to be on vugraph or rama or BBO, and the players are obligated by law to follow TD instructions. If the players refuse to play, that will be dealt with separately by whatever method the CoC say; handle it like any old "no-show" for a round or a board would be handled, in addition to refusing to follow TD instruction. Seriously, if a player has that degree of stage fright, how can he/she play bridge at all. If it is a medical condition, he/she could provide doctor's note and request exception from vugraph before the event, not in the middle of it!

In practice this means that an honest answer "I'd rather not get involved" from someone who does not want to get involved in a potential ruling, will result in being barred from spectating while a lie of "I did not see/notice/pay attention" will be accepted at face value. This goes against my sensibilities.

2H always, don't hide a 4-card major unless there is compelling reason not to show it. But I don't know what that reason could be.

The link I provided shows the table/chart. Above this chart, there are links to the text of the regulation and to some definitions used in the text and in the chart. It is all there, such as it is...

What gordon said. Alert regulations are different in different countries/locations. If you are in ACBL, you find the regulations here http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html

I like the ACBL ZT idea of penalties to anyone who engages in unacceptable behavior or bad language "irrespective of who initiated the unacceptable behavior". Some folks have a sharp tongue, large vocabulary and a quick mind and they insult without using "foul language" while others may lack such skills and they will use foul words instead. Both are equally guilty and there is no need to find out who started it, IMO.

Gameforce was on already. 3H.

You are right about that humble pie... Do not argue with your opponents or partner. If you think something that happened is not right or is illegal, call the TD or let it go without comment, whichever is best in a given situation.

It doesn't matter who started it. Players A and B are both responsible for the unpleasantness at the table, regardless of who said something bad first. Need two logs to keep a fire going or something like that... I am surprised to read that somebody as TD was going as far as trying to find out what A's and B's partners did. How is that relevant? I don't know what the TD decided but I should hope B is disqualified and barred from any subsequent events in the tournament or suspended from the club for whatever time the TD thinks appropriate, for refusing to play a board. If any PP's are considered for the arguing and bad language, both A and B get it equally.

Whether Stop card regulations are a good idea or not, what you say here is definitely not the case which creates problems. When there are no Stop card regulations, some players some times will pass like a flash. With no rules suggestion they should slow down, why should they? Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Australia is the only place I know with no Stop card regulations at all. What I was trying to say is that in an auction quickly elevated to a level where if the player wants to take action, it is on the 4- level, then it is normal (or: not unusual) that the tempo might be slower than usual. However, if the tempo is lightning fast in that situation, it would be unusual. I assume the person over the 3S call needs to figure what 3S is before venturing action on the 4-level.

In many locations, Pass over the 3S is supposed to be slow (about ten seconds) whether the Stop card was used or not. If there is no mandated pause, it is normal IMO to be a little slower than regular tempo, whatever that is. But maybe there was pause beyond some 10 sec, or maybe you don't have stop-card in use. I'd like to know, before deciding what if any ruling there should be.