Lobowolf

Here's a similar situation (to my hypothetical where north may not have been unethical) I had in a National - Partner opened 4♦, which by our agreement was Namyats. From my hand, I thought it was probably 98% likely that partner had forgotten the convention and really had a long diamond suit. What are my options? I certainly can't tell the opponents that don't play Namyats, when we do; they're entitled to know our agreements. I can't tell them that we play Namyats, but my hand suggests that she forgot - that gives UI to my partner. I could just bid as if I didn't suspect partner had forgotten, but why? I don't have any UI; I made a bridge determination based on nothing but my partner's bid and my cards - all authorized. So, I alerted, explained that our agreement was Namyats, and when RHO passed, so did I. It's important to note that it was my PARTNER then had an ethical burden, after my LHO took action -- my alert of her bid was unauthorized, and she has to avoid taking any improper action (such as rebidding her diamonds to make sure I know she has diamonds, not spades).

I don't see any meaningful difference between this analysis, and analysis that would support racially restrictive events aimed at underrepresented groups in the finals of championship events (though perhaps people wouldn't find those objectionable, either). Barring some clear evidence supporting inequality of opportunity for competing on a level playing field, I don't accept that mere inequality of results justifies offering opportunities for one gender at the exclusion of the other. Bring back the men's events, or get rid of the women's.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members. I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events? I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs.

It sounds like north may have given you misinformation, but it's actually still not clear; I'd want to check their convention cards, or interview them individually, out of the presence of each other. "I thought you had clubs" could mean that judging by is own hand, north took a position and assumed that his partner forgot their agreement.

Some people don't think that would be a bad thing. I would be just as happy to see women's events eliminated, and senior events have a higher age threshhold and not 'count' as national titles. I also wouldn't mind adding junior events and of course also not counting those as national titles. Restricting by age but not by gender (or anything else) seems appropriate to me. I agree; I was actually being facetious.

I dunno...might hurt the turnout in the restricted events.

Yup, first play the hand, then worry about the director call. With respect to the director call, the first question is whether you were misinformed, or whether you got the right explanation (i.e. assuming someone screwed up, was it north, in telling you what 2♠ meant, or was it south, in bidding 2♠ with the wrong hand). In general, if you got the right explanation but south screwed up, you're out of luck (unless it worked out in your favor, in which case you're in luck). If you got the wrong explanation, you may be entitled to redress. You're entitled to a correct explanation of the opponents' system. You're not entitled to have the opponents always remember it; if they screw up the bidding (as opposed to the explaining), it's a jump ball.

FWIW, I also disagree with the pass over 2♦. Yeah, it's an aceless 4333, but 10 points and 3-card support for a suit partner has bid twice is nothing to be embarrassed about.

3♣ for me

Or it could be analogized to the difference between adding 1 part per billion of arsenic to my drinking water and adding 100 parts per billion. (I believe the current EPA level of acceptability is 10 ppb, but adjust as needed until you arrive at my points). Maybe that's not interesting, either, but it sure isn't trivial.

Bid 3♦, and if and when someone bids 3♠, lead a ♣.

Nope, I could not begin to guess what you might have been thinking. :) Opening 1♥ is well.....................sort of weird. Maybe we should just post brilliant bidding decisions on here, if you think this is weird you probably haven’t been playing on BBO long enough. ;) Thanks Ken, Josh for the helpful replies. Most of the ground has been covered, but to pinpoint what I see as the crux of the question -- As Josh pointed out, reversing would be an overbid, but let's say that it wouldn't, i.e. pick a random 5-5 hand that would be strong enough for a reverse. Jilly's subsequent posts suggest that she thought the original hand might be close to qualifying, so she considered reversing to show the strength. The point is that while reversing shows extra values, failing to reverse doesn't deny extra values. It's entirely appropriate to open 1X with a 16 point hand, then rebid 2 of a lower ranking suit. A common novice/intermediate error is jump-shifting with this sort of hand to show extras. So the "1♠, then 2♥" sequence wouldn't suggest a minimum opening hand; it would only deny the strength (game forcing, so 19ish) needed to jump shift. But the reverse would show longer hearts than spades. Sometimes for those hands that aren't strong enough to jump shift, it takes three bids to show your extra values.

There's also an equivocation at play here, too -- Schenken's opponents bid differently than today's players. What was "best" against one group of opponents is not necessarily "best" against another. A 2009 Schenken certainly might disagree with his earlier position based on nothing more than modern opponents' tendencies. Similarly, a top poker player in one era/location, playing against timid opponents, might claim that bluffing in situation A is best; faced with different opponents, who call more often, he might opine that it's not best in an identical situation.

Many of the world's most brilliant chess players in history were wrong about a lot of things, as those who have stood on their shoulders (and computers!) have evaulated things further with the historical advantage of a better starting point. Theory evolves.

Bid 'em! If partner has hearts, they'll be better than yours, and while 8-7-5-4 doesn't look like much, they're certainly large enough to ruff a couple of spades.

Have no fear...clearly unconstitutional. "Brighton officials said the ordinance would be subjective and the call will be made by police officers" is a great sentence. I guess the City Attorney was out sick when they wrote up that press release. Whether a law's wording would necessitate its being enforced arbitrary and capriciously is one of the most fundamental tests for unconstitutionally vague laws.

I think it's a close call between 1NT and 2♥.

Am I playing against human beings in a typical stratified game, an A-flight event, or a computer? I'll take my chances with the 2 off of dummy in a real world club game.

With respect to your original question, I think it's a function of whether and to what extent people have been hit by the economy. I think people who have been hit noticably will spend less than normal and take advantage of the reduced prices on the items they're used to buying; people who haven't been hit, or at least not very hard, will spend the amount they're used to spending, and enjoy the extra quality it brings them.

It's all relative. Lots of people wouldn't miss $700.

Is the question, how much does it cost them to buy the item, or how much does it cost them to lease the property, pay the utility bills, the costs of the goods they sell, the salaries and benefits of their employees, their insurance premiums...

I play Puppet Stayman over 1NT with game forcing hands; the auction is 1NT-3♣, with opener's rebids as in a 2NT-3♣ Puppet auction (so there's no issue with 1NT-2♣; 2NT). With a hand of less than GF strength, responder can't use it and we're in the same boat as everyone else. On the GF hands, though, I'm very glad to have it available. The "invitational to 3NT" 3♣ response is extremely rare (I don't remember the last 1NT-3♦ auction I had), and I prefer opening 1NT with most 5332 hands in the suitable range.

On a slightly less facetious note, you might point out that there was no guarantee that 4♥ was making, and if it went down, then -3 wouldn't be much of a bargain.

"All the cool people on BBO Forums agreed with me."

Seems to be fairly unanimous. I think this post best sums up the most applicable reasoning. I'd add that 5332 distribution with 2 of partner's suit and 3 of theirs doesn't support competing at the 5-level. It's not like a hand with more extreme distribution that might be much more useful on offense than defense.