trevahound

I can't make a ruling until I poll it. I find a few similar players to E, and give them their hand and the auction with perfect tempo by everyone. If E's are passing the perfect tempo double, or most are at least seriously considering it (I suspect most pass the double), I adjust. Slow doubles usually express doubts about defending, in my experience, but I won't know if passing is a LA without a some questioning of others blinded to the problem.

This isn't a complicated ruling, and this director is ignorant if he thinks the quality of director advice on these forums is poor. However -- I believe it's wise to not take a bad ruling at a club game personally, or be so worried about justice and being vindicated that you lose perspective. Most clubs do not have access to directors of the caliber on these forums. Most club directors (at least where I am in ACBL land) make very little. In our club, we make far less than minimum wage when you consider set up and tear down time, and it's as much volunteering as working. It's fine to explain why you think his ruling was wrong. IF the club supports appeals (and they are not required to, and many/most here don't), you're fine to ask for an appeal, but when you've pursued it that far, let it go. It's just a game, and if you got a poorer score than you deserved that evening, it doesn't make you a poorer bridge player in any way. As a club director I appreciate hearing why you think I've made a mistake in my ruling, but if you've shown him that, and he's not agreeing, and the club's fine with that, we're done with what we can/should do. There is no regulating authority that's going to overrule a club's ruling on a hand. I've received many poor rulings (some particularly poor) over the past ten years or so. C'est la vie. I've appealed once, and that's only because the director in question was telling me I'd have to pre-alert all my opps that we responded ultra light to opening bids, just because partner responded with Axxx xxx xxx xxx once. I didn't care about the ruling on the hand, but that sort of pre-alerting would be nonsense, and misleading to future opps.

We give what we consider count here, unless there's a strong reason not to, and we only show even (or encouragement) with two, and treat four as odd/discouragement. So, it's count as in 2 or fewer, or more than 2, not as in odd or even numbers. I bet you could call it attitude instead of count, and say we only encourage with 2 or fewer. You say tomato, I say parsnip.

I wonder what E thinks of his partner's doubles when he thinks this hand is little enough that he should run? If South's slow pass is agreed to or otherwise established, I would adjust to 2nt-1. There is no way on earth pass isn't a LA after opening a medium-weak NT, and squirming or longer thinking definitely suggests not passing over passing. If North is experienced, I think this is flagrant enough to adjust and issue a PP, and I rarely feel that way. Edit: As to whether or not the pass should be alerting, I don't know where you are, and I'm not sure I even know the answer for where I am (ACBL land), but the pass after the announcement of transfer seems self-alerting to me (like a cue bid) -- unusual enough that opps should be alerted to something unusual and ask otherwise. I mean, what would they expect the non-alerted meaning of pass there to be?

I see your point, and absolutely agree with the common decency that we don't have to cause unnecessary offense, period. So, do folks have to continue to play bridge after an infraction to retain protection? How much better would you make the East hand before passing 3m became so wild and gambling that you felt they contributed to their own poor score? One more J? One more Q? Bear in mind, you're red at teams. I don't like individuals who try to lawyer their way to an undeserved score. It's probably not relevant that I find that distasteful. But I have seen (and been on the wrong side of) multiple rulings that essentially boil down to whether or not the NOS get a double shot. Here, the offending side's irregularity seems so minor (who's on firm ground with every partner they ever play with on this?), and the NOS seem so likely to understand that N/S may not be on firm ground here, and E takes such an extreme position given the circumstances -- that all seems relevant, to me. It seems like E might be saying, "I don't need to bid game, as I'll get it awarded to me afterwards after we ask awkward questions of our opps who will step in it while trying for full disclosure".

It sounds to me as if N explained that he believes their agreement is natural, not conventional, when two different suits have been bid. Did the director determine what South thought? In other words, did South think he was bidding according to their agreement, or that he thought they had no agreement about this situation and was hoping to be on the same page in an undiscussed auction? That's not an infraction, I believe, but we don't know what South would say yet. I would also like to question East a bit. His partner opened a minor, vuln, and he has basically a strong NT, and gives up on game (vully, teams) at 3m? What does he expect a minimum opener by partner to look like? I would imagine passing 3m to be so unusual and gambling that I become less sympathetic to requests for redress, but I'd be happy to hear why I shouldn't feel that way. I open as light as anyone in these parts, and that's still a GF opposite anything I'd open 1m with in first seat hot at teams. C'mon. Sure, partner could have Kx of ♠ instead of ♥, but they could split, or not be led, or 5m could be on. I am not yet convinced that passing there is "continuing to play bridge".

1♠ for me, and not at all ashamed.

Forgive my ignorance, here, please, but what would one assume an unalerted 3♦ to mean? I would presume that if it genuinely wasn't alertable, it was a second suit, and by definition of my first call likely to be only 3 cards in length often. Or is W arguing that he'd only double if it did show honors? Seems like he might want to double only if it was not alerted, not other way round. And W is on lead. I sometimes find myself on lead when I've made a lead directing double, but I don't call folks over from other tables to brag about it. :) Cheers, Brian Zaugg

My nt is 10-13, so after the equivalent auction, 2nt is 14+ balanced and GF, 2M is natural and unbalanced, as is 3♣ if ♦ is our suit (1rndF), and 3m is unbalanced and minimal. Jumps are shortness and generally somewhat slammish. Kickback would be on, if one had that kind of freak. In any case we're forced through 3m. Cheers, Brian Zaugg

I don't think Cappelletti is efficient or wise vs str NT, but if that's your preference you can trivially play it and keep 2M as natural (doesn't promise a minor on the side). Instead of 2♣ meaning any one single suit, use 2♣ as one minor, or a M/m two suiter. This leaves 2M as natural (I'm a big fan of that regardless of the rest of our structure), and with the M/m two suiter you start with 2♣, pard puppets to 2♦ (to play if partner's suit is diamonds, else waiting), and you rebid 2M over that. Pard can respond 2nt to that if he wants your minor (or, alternately, you could agree that 3♣ by partner is pass or correct). Mike makes some excellent points about what we're trying to accomplish vs various NT ranges, and how that should affect the methods we select. Reread his post. Brian Zaugg

3nt. Someone has a heart stopper. And I'm running if doubled, unless partner plays XX = doubts (not my preference).

Art, did you read it as a t/o double of 1♥? I don't think any would object. Here I need to tell partner I had 3 diamonds mixed in with my hearts.

Thanks for the replies, all. I was the opener, South's double was preceded by a very long bit and some apparent agony, and then LHO (North) who is a friend and mentor (and a platinum life master) bid 5♥. We were not harmed or damaged in any way, but I wanted to know if passing was an logical alternative with his hand, as not passing was absolutely clearly suggested by the table UI. I would have passed, but these situations are hard at the table, and passing might not be logical at all. Thanks again - Brian Zaugg

This is my first time trying to post a hand and a poll; apologies if I have the wrong forum or poor technique. Club game, matchpoints, strong field for a club game, all experts at the table. You are 2nd chair, all vuln. [hv=pc=n&n=st54hkt98632dtc53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d(14%2B%20if%20balanced)p3d(Preemptive)4s5dppdp]133|200[/hv] Your call. How close is it? Thanks in advance. Also, better posting technique is welcome as well. Brian Zaugg

Double, but 3nt over pard's 3♠. 3nt might easily win though.