peachy

This is a tough problem. The range of the not-vul overcall in 1D-2C can logically begin lower because it takes away so much room. Then again, they opened in third seat and their responder passed 2C, that responder doesn't hold much. I plan on passing 3C when he bids it over 2S unless my 2D and 2S bids have created a situation (by agreement or by some expert standard that I don't know about) that I promise to act one more time over 3C, but I don't think such promises can apply for a passed hand. I'm not too confident about my choice but it is a non-vul game, if we miss it I'll have to hope we beat them in other hands ;)

Dbl. It is only a small loss if 6C is cold on any lead AND teammates are also in slam but undoubled. If teammates are in 5C, nothing matters except when spade lead is needed to set six. They didn't use any science in the auction - distant chance that my partner has four clubs and my diamond holding could be a big enough nuisance. With a spade lead, I'd expect we set it half the time.

First overcall, second I am not sure which is better, but probably overcall.

Wouldn't you first like to know more regarding how many spades responder has? DHL Double !, why don't you let the discussion flow? You posted a problem, others respond to it.

2D is what is called Reverse, in standard bidding. It shows a medium-range hand (about 17) and is a one-round force. You need to agree on a method to show weak hands after opener reverses. Without agreements, the standard is to play that 3C is forcing, at least in the area where I play (Western US)

Rdbl, I really do not want to steal their spade suit but I can understand 3rd seater tendencies which make 1S bid as good as Rdbl. Almost, anyway. Pass and 1NT are IMO out to lunch.

4H is the limit raise with good 3-card support. 3H is "everything else" with 2 or more hearts, including weak false preference and limit raises that have fitting clubs and/or control rich max. I have this agreement with the partners I have agreements with. In 2/1 where 1NT is forcing and includes hands that in SAYC or similar systems might not bid 1NT, fast arrival does not apply after 1NTF response. Even with uncertainty or no agreement about meanings of 3H and 4H, opener's minor should not be raised except with a singleton or void in hearts or with a hand that wants to be in 5m or 6m opposite potential three-carder with opener. The JS might be manufactured for lack of a better bid (like Axx-AKJxxx-x-AKx).

This TD needs to be educated. He cannot just refuse to give a ruling.

It was a poorly timed and poorly asked question. The question of ONLY about the 3NT bid [i assume the answer was *diam stopped, enough for game* ?] and AT THAT TIME =just before doubling, to me would mean that the suit he wants led is diamonds and that dummy will not have diamonds stopped afterall. To me, it was an illegal attempt to direct the lead (diamonds) through the untimely question, without actually naming the suit. I formed this opinion in a flash before reading other responses. After reading David's and other responses, I am surprised that the consesus seems to be it means nothing or nothing much. If it is "nothing much", what is the "something" that differentiates "nothing much" from "nothing"? Please don't use a artillery, but I would like to hear reasons why my view might be wrong.

This is bad. Do not distort your shape with strong hands. 1D with 5-6 minors is fine if your hand is minimum.

3C. Second choice 3H = asking for heart stop, but with this many clubs opener sometimes is void...oops. 2C is not gameforcing to anybody I know, but it does promise another bid (or another chance for opener to bid). 2S logically cannot show extras; if it does, we are completely screwed any time the opponents overcall and opener has a minimum hand with no club support and no extra length in diamonds.

Matter of meta-agreements. For me: All strange bids are forcing and natural if there is any chance they could be natural. However, the 3C bid is not strange. It is obviously natural and logically forcing. How else is responder going to bid a hand like xx-AQJxx-x-KQJxx or something resembing this one? I assumed strong NT opening.

This phraseology allows the ruling to be against whatever turns out successful. If 1S-...3S-4S and 4S makes, it is ruled as 3S making 4. If 1S-...3S-P and 4S does not make, it is ruled as 4S down 1. Long time ago there was a thread on blml [where I no longer visit or post, don't need the headache...] on something like 1S-...3S-6S. Apparently opener - who was familiar with the workings of the UI laws - held a hand that was teetering between accepting and declining an invite, was frustrated that whatever he did, Pass or bid 4S, then if the result was good to them it would be taken away. So, he bid 6S - something that was definitely NOT suggested by the UI at all. But when that silly 6S results in 6S making six, the TD adjusts to 4S making six. The reason being that had there been no UI, he would never have bid 6S so the 6S bid was caused by the hesitation. Go figure. I am as much puzzled by the UI laws as anybody else.

I am both a woman and a senior. I see some rationality in senior events but none for women's events or Mixed Pairs. If women really needed their own events for whatever reason, then why does that reason then not exist at senior age? There are no Senior Women's Events... Because there is no reason, I think. It is all just leftovers from the early times when this was a game for men. Cultural changes have affected women in other ways too than their participation in playing bridge, for example we are no longer referred to as Mrs. John Smith. It is high time the bridge world joined the rest of the worlds. Bridge is marketed as a game that "everyone" can play on equal footing. Those who excel in high level competition, usually have the best suited skills for such activity. It just happens to be mental skills instead of physical. And "if" womens events persist, then for equality's sake there should also be men's events.

I think it is a good ruling. But what surprised me A LOT was the statement by the AC that the appeal had substantial merit. What merit? I cannot find any. It was a ruling delivered by establishing the facts and applying the appropriate laws and there was no way in my opinion that it could have been ruled otherwise.

It is a useful convention because it allows us to handle the 3-1-5-4 or 3-1-4-5 hands that would be difficult to bid otherwise after a 1NT opening. Most systems have adequate methods (Stayman, 2-level transfers, Texas) to find major suit slams after partner opens 1NT so that 3M as "slamish in one major" is not needed. Even if you used 3H and 3S as 5-5's, those hands can be handled in other ways while 5-4/4-5 minors and slam range are difficult if not impossible.

All South. 4S is unlikely to make and South cannot know if 4H (if they even bid it) is making. I would go further, he has reason to believe it is not making. After the adventure into 4S, South could have converted to 5D because when the opponents doubled 4S, it is certain we are doomed in 4S.

The few times I have been a commentator I have been wondering about that actually. When I point out that someone has clearly made a mistake, it might sound like I think I am a better player than who is sitting at the table. Of course, that's not true - everybody makes mistakes, and everybody who watches carefully can catch mistakes by players that are better players than himself. But does it sound like I think so? I don't know. Some mistakes are "mistakes". Some mistakes are the result of a long thought process that I do not have the privilege to follow (not being that person and/or not capable of same thought process). Something that I might consider a mistake, could actually be a superior line but I am too "dumb" to understand it at such short notice. Some commentators whose name nobody has so far mentioned, actually are the object of common ridicule - they are just too dense and self-important to be aware of the possibility :D

With gameforcing values, it is counterproductive to distort the shape of the responding hand. 1S, completely clear.

I find it extremely peculiar that there are separate Women's events, and agree with nigel-k that it feels like an insult to Women because gender is not a factor in bridge. I haven't really researched the history of why this is so if someone knows, share please how it all began and why the separate events still exist!

I don't think it is a good idea to vote. There different commentators with different backgrounds that serve different kibitzers. What I like in a commentator is that he: (substitute he for she etc) - introduces himself and maybe other commentators working with him - knows what the event is that he is commentating on - knows the basic system of both pairs at the table. Or at least of one pair... - will not make guesses on a bid which he doesn't know what it means - makes only neutral and FUNNY jokes. No feministas who ridicule males and no blonde-jokes - knows a little background info on the players on vugraph and shares this - is not biased in rooting for one or the other side - has enough knowledge to analyse the plays and bids - there are several who are sooo bad at this - they could be better off silent or asking some trusted kibitzer to help - able to fill the time with relevant info (or even irrelevant trivia) when action at table is slow or on break - has the courtesy to close the table with appropriate appreciation to those who set it up, organizers etc, and the kibitzers - provide links to tournament information Considering that the comentators are volunteers, this is a big and demanding list of "duties" and requires a little homework to do before the event, but there are a lot of good ones who have all of the above and then some. Amazingly enough, a junior, Adam Kaplan, is one of them. And there are many others. However, not every commentator needs to be a top expert, the job can be done with bridge skill less than that of the players!! Just my two cents.

I've read the responses so far and agree - a disciplinary hearing would be the right way to handle a deliberate and intentional breaking of the laws. Moreover, at least in ACBL, a partnership may not vary their system for reasons such as "who the opponents are" or "the sun is shining/not shining". Varying methods is allowed depending on vulnerability and/or seat. This is a second illegal act in addition to intentionally hiding methods.

There have been good responses from bluejak and campboy, most prominently about finding out what the agreement on 2C was so we know whether it was misinformation (wrong explanation) or a misbid. I would rule that the 2H-3H-4H bidder has lost his mind and all connection to reason. No matter what is judged of NS actions, EW should keep their score and be thankful they were not doubled.

Before going straight to "What are the LA's?" we have to determine what the UI from the BIT is. Given that both of them were relative novices, one can assume their hesitations could mean anything and/or nothing at all. They are unlikely to know about the UI laws either. If they had been a little more advanced or expert, the logical conclusion is that the hesitator was thinking of doubling, which makes Dbl by opener a LA he should not choose. Result stands. But I am willing to listen.

Congrats, nice!