jkdood

I did in fact bid 3C at the table (rather than 4C) because there are so many 11-counts with KQxxx of H where choosing 4C defeats an attempt at the desirable plus score at matchpoints goal... ...even something like KQx KQxxx xxx Kx (13 hcp) can go -800 vs. only +130 if RHO has maybe x xx AKxxx QJTxx BUT the original main posing: once I selected 3C and LHO (passed hand) bid only 4c and pard bid 4H (red vs white)< when LHO now balanced/reopened with 5C, isn't that the so-called obvious sacrfice that creates a FP when we had freely bid a red vs white game?

well you know, 5-level at matchpoints belongs to the opponents, etc etc. Felt real bad :) like a Moron (M) etc. then again, if Justin made the same call, can't use the "M" word!!

Unless it's correcting an inaccurate analysis of fact, I believe the vast majority of spec comments (to commentators) are to suggest play or bidding highlights or insights...and don't require a reply... ...I have myself offered such observations dozens of times, even on target (LOL) and some commentators have no problem introducing the thought to general commentary, and then even adding a private thank you or agreement to the observation. Of course, not all commentators do this or are willing to do this OR can do this well, as is more than obvious from this thread. Funny thing, the ones that can and do "do it" seem to me to be the most on the mark non-distracting guest speakers.

"You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU" Well, more power to the commentators that can manage it!! To me, that's 68 interested helpful involved engaged specs wanting to share with an available "privileged" speaker!! (I'm sure thoughtful accurate insightful useful comments by the commentator don't "usually" get such an overload :P :) )

Hi Hedy I think you do a fine job, you might like to know, thanks! (You also prove the point that I am not sure Fred acknowledged that it is not (only?) volunteers but there are quite a few "invited" commentators. But I am sure you are "deserving" as proven.) You also don't shut-off your chat receiving. As you know, specs are invaluable in pointing out technical insights and interesting aspects, that the commentator will share with everyone if they consider it appropriate. Come to think of it, nothing maybe steams me as much as a commentator who turns off their chat with the stock "I am busy if it is important contact an admin" message, and refuses spec comments. They should maybe take your suggestion: learn how to improve from this thread topic, not take it personally, and in my personal opinion only, if they cannot commentate AND receive spec chat to consider, maybe they aren't up to the task! :D

Re: "The volunteers volunteer by sending Roland an e-mail (to his non-secret e-mail address)." Thanks for this info. It clarifies somehwat (and also muddies) why in the above thread Roland himself posted: "It is also a privilege and honour to be INVITED to commentate." Those in power would do well to take Fred's example and freely offer such info as he just did. Of course Fred is a special treasure to bridge, his skill and volunteering and sacrifice and dedication credentials are above reproach, and well-recognized by all. I am sure he is not thanked nearly enough, and I duly add my thanks here. I wish all in any positions of privilege would follow his fine example :D

I suppose this thread is as close to being on topic for this comment as any, you see - Joanne's thoughtful comment touched a nerve. (Yes - I have been accused of havig too many "touchable nerves" LOL yes I guess I am touchy from time to time on certain issues.) I personally have obtained a fair amount of success and reputation for some skill, and have also been active in administration at unit level, and as a writer and a teacher... but I haven't come close to being accused of being a top expert or top player. However, I think I cold claim to hold my own with many players that have: ...been part of the national appeals committees ...been on certain local and regional bidding panels ...been given a star next to their name on BBO or elsewhere ...been asked to give a lecture or presentation ...been asked to bid hands in the ACBL Bulletin's "The Bidding Box" series ...been given a spot in the Bulletin for a monthly or regular column ...been "invited" to commentate ..etc. For whatever reason, and I have some biased opinions of course, I have been routinely excluded from such activities like the above sample list. In my opinion, it is significantly a result of being "whom you know" rather than "what you know". Sure there are many exceptions, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration (as well as appreciation) for many of the experts/stars that are asked to be "in". And I really don't ususually have a problem with being "routinely excluded". I don't particularly seek such appointments and certainly don't market myself. But when we encounter the occasional sub-par performances such as the subject of this thread is about, and address it with accolades about great volunteer service and sacrifices being a major ingredient, it really irks me. Just as it irks me when (what I consider to be PRIVILEGED) commentators bore us and annoy us with comments about the "late hour", "the slow play", or anything suggesting they are not having a good time, rather than staying on track in the manner I expect. It makes me ask what (secret?) standards and strategies are in place to select or "invite" these PRIVILEGED people? I know I am not alone in this musing. I don't really care, USUALLY, but when there seems to be an arrogant-or-condescending flavored "defense" of sub-par performance seemingly directed towards many people that would be more than willing to take on the "volunteer effort", and are more than capable, (IMHO of course), then I DO CARE.

"Why me?" Your Good Idea!!! :D

No way, Justin. It's a MissAnalyst we're talkin about :D , not a MisterAnalyst

yes good idea peachy, Please tell him:)

Pard held AQTx KQ98xx x xx 5H is down 1 (spade finesse off) I chose 5H (largely because I thought pard's pass was F but also for Justin's reason) and the opps got lucky with a double, so -200 was a zero 5C is also down 1. I thought pard should double (in a FP sense) but pard thought the pass just said nothing because 4D wasn't bid earlier to set up a FP.

A decade or so ago i sent in this hand to the Bridge World panel: 1C by partner, 1S by rho, you hold; xxxx x KJTxx Axx FWIW, The nbr. 1 choice of the panel was 2C. sure this hand differs some, but seemed reasonably similar as well.

There are no wonderful choices with this hand for the auction you had. Most experts would chose 2C. But it is flawed and far from perfect. Other "flawed" choices that might receive votes or support: Negative double (lacks 4 hearts) Pass (may never catch up) 1NT (no spade stopper) 2D (100% forcing and too weak and no good rebids) I recommend 2C, but you can always pass if you fear a final bad contract of a 3-3 fit or something. But more likely pard may have Jxx Kxx Kx AQxxx and this will alllow him to bid 3C over the expected raise to 2S. 3C is a nice spot.

I chose 3C because I was going to pass a 3H minimum response by Pard (he was third chair.) I'll wait a bit longer before sharing the results.

Matchpoints, sectional, red vs w, pass as dealer: (Jxxxx AJTx QJx x) LHO:p Pard 1H RHO: 2NT 3C by you limit raise in hearts (agree?) LHO: 4C Pard: 4H, p,p... LHO: 5C, p,p... Is Pard's Pass F? Does it matter? What action do you take? Results l8r of course

OK, so it's not a "Rally Cheer" (Not sure what that is, anyway) But M-M is right, I do a lot of "without-thinking" clicking :P

Well, I thought I figured out that after the mandatory K of diamonds onside you should work the squeeze rather than the spade finesse with maybe some end of hand guesswork, but then I saw the contract wasn't 6C after all, as i first assumed! M.

"Somewhere between Worldclass play and "don't think, just click" there must be room for tourneys of decent but non-expert players wanting to do their best." Here, here! (Not in here on BBO but the English rally chant of course, LOL) Of course, experts and world-class labels are uhh quite uhh well very VERY subjective!

This may be slightly off-topic (sorry) but the idea of speed and thought is mentioned here. I enjoy the many mini's and organized play here, but unless it's a private table with opps (and specs) you may know, the rules seems to be: Do not stop to think ever unless you want abuse. Abuse is ???? zzzzz what? people leaving, commenting, etc. This even happens in organized table play (non-tourney) with no clock running. I have heard this thought from many others: it makes online bridge (for some) very unappealing. Sure there are other reasons but I think this might be the most major reason for a large number of experienced players to regularly eschew the wonderful online play available 24/7 without "setting up" a game (which is often a tedious or time-consuming bother.) It would be nice to hop in to a tabe and play, and be able to "take your time" when appropriate, and not be abused. I have no answers, just wonder if anyone agrees and is working on possible solutions; re: etiquette, special play areas, etc. (just trying to think out of the box.)

Haha, I didn't even know matchpoints were a possible choice, just to help you make your point!

You could make a case that since both calls were made before attention was called to the irregularity, that they are indeed considered simultaneous calls, under the bridge law definition, not the conversational or conventional one. IF this is so (and some interesting points about it were made earlier in the thread) there is a covering LAW: LAW 33: SIMULTANEOUS CALLS A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call. It is getting harder and harder for me not to think that 1NT is re-instated and "normal" out of rotation aspects accrue to the 1D bidder, despite what might be some opinions of "current or standing practice". NORMAL of course is: "If the second call was out of rotation or insufficient, the call can be accepted as a legal call by the LHO of the offender. 1. It is accepted automatically if LHO calls. 2. If LHO does not choose to accept it, the call is canceled and the appropriate Law and/or penalty is invoked." PS: True LAWS definition of Simultaneous Calls seem to require that they are made "at about the same time", not sure how many seconds that is and it doesn't really seem to say precisely. But in our example posting case, this description ".... and opens 1♦ (out of order, as north is dealer). Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT" it seems like there must have been no more than a few seconds between calls, if that. Considering 1NT and 1D "simulataneous calls" does not seem like such a stretch to me if we have no evidence the 1NT call was meant to "save the day" by a pard who saw what happened and rapidly acted on it before "attention was drawn".

Thank you for the explanation. I do wonder why, if this is a known rules treatment so to speak, why it is not in the Laws. (I also wonder why a lot of committee and TD "practices" are sorta known but not known - to the general bridge-playing public, like a secret.)

"It's not explicitly stated in the laws that we do it this way, but this is the way we do it. " I agree with the first part (and it seems the letters of the laws would allow the 1NT OPENING BID AS DEALER to stand) and wonder WHY you say the 2nd part, on what basis other than "the way we do it"?

I don't propose to say that we know (and interpret) the laws better than those that have earlier dwelled (dealt?) on the above mess, but legally anyway it seems we have fleshed out that: The 1NT bid (made pre-attention-drawing) is legal and should stand The partner who said 1D has made an illegal out of turn bid (TD called and his LHO can decline or accept it) If declined, bidding reverts to dealer's LHO, and the normal penalties for bid out of turn are imposed upon the 1D caller (and his side.)

Well, in your current example isn't it legally and morally your turn to call, and 1NT simply insufficient?