hotShot

There are 29 HCP's out there with the other 3 payer. This means that our side has more than 20 HCP most of the times, 20 HCP at least often and seldom 19 HCP. On the long run, Pass is a bad choice. In a "long" match against very weak opponents I would pass, I 'll win on saver (better known) grounds. Otherwise I think, that this is a typical 2♥ opener in 4th seat. Usually this will be enough to preempt opps and usually we are in a makable contract.

I find North argument highly problematic. He should alert the 2♠ bid. The information that South did not understand North 2♦ bid is UI to North. South 2♠ response gives no indication that South did not get the meaning of North bid. There is no legal way for him to know that South needs a "wake-up". In this statement North admits that he used the UI, he should refresh his TD license. (He deserves a procedural penalty for that!) But the question remains, what would have happened, if the irregularity did not occur. Would E/W have bid, knowing the right explanations, I don't think so. Up to now there is no indication that East or West have the strength or shape to act. (If they had claimed that dbl over an artificial 2/3♠ would have been lead directing, I could ignore the question, if that is a likely agreement. I could adjust and leave it to the AC to be smarter.) Would they lead/play differently knowing that there is a small chance that South might not have ♠. Opps hold ♠ Axxx opposite Kxx both holdings are not very attractive to lead, if at least one opponent bid ♠. So I still don't see that a different outcome is likely if the explanations where correct. (Especially if the explanations is "No agreement" or "Undiscussed".)

First of all, why do E/W ask for a ruling? The TD is called immediately after an irregularity is noticed. Since E/W called after the board is finished, they did not notice an irregularity before. The timing of a TD call is often a very important fact. If E/W feel damaged, they have to explain how the damage was caused by opps. If they can't point out how they where damaged, it is most likely that they were not damaged by opps at all. It's the TD's job to check: 1) Did a MI occure. 2) Is the NOS damaged. 3) Is the damage caused by the MI. If the NOS can't make a plausible claim how they were damaged, the TD won't start an investigation, because obviously 3) is not the case. It's not the TD's job to find ways how E/W could be damaged. Assuming f2f bridge without screens: 1) Did North alert South 2♠ bid? 2) Do many pairs play Acol in that environment. 3) Did e/W ask about the 2♠ bid? What went wrong: 1) The 2♦ bid was not properly alerted. 2) The 2♦ bid was not properly explained. Since South made his confusion quite clear and this is a pick-up partnership, I would see no reason to act up to here, but South confusion is UI to North. 3) The 2♠ bid was not alerted. 4) The TD was called at the end of the game. (The TD was not called when E/W discovered that South bid 2♠ with a void.) I see no evidence that North used the UI that South is confused, however the missing alert of 2♠ might be MI and needs investigation. 1) What is the agreement on 2♦? Acol with nothing extra has strong natural 2-level openings. Acol with Benjamin has strong 2♣ and 2♦ bids and weak 2 in the majors. Acol with Multi seems to be what is actually played. What are the local Acol habits ? 2) What is the meaning of 2♠ and why was it not alerted? Since N/S won't have a system description or CC to back their claim, the TD should assume MI, if the hands don't fit the bid. What would East or West have done differently, having the right information? Without that information no ruling in favor of E/W is possible. So until I get that information I would have to let the result stand.

Once the TD decides to adjust the score, he is tied to regulations how to do it. You were OS, so you got, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

It's close, but I pull because: I am very unbalanced, partner has a lot of red cards in his hand and we have an 10-11 card fit. I'm pretty sure that opps are unbalanced in a similar way. I won't be surprised if opps can make 5♣ while we can make 5♥. In fact I don't really see them down 3 and that's what we need if 5♥ makes. Unfortunately it's also possible that both sides can only make 4(3), and we could lose a few IMPS for being down in 5. The only thing that could keep me from pulling is, if partner is known to bid 6/7, if I pull. Not only GIB would do that.

Just to understand that correctly: 1) Declarer player ♥AK in trick 2-3 noticing that North cannot have 5-4 in the majors, because South followed suit on trick 3. Noticing the irregularity he did not call the director. 2) West called the director, explaining that East might have bid differently without the MI. 3) East could have changed his 2♥ call. 4) West is declarer and did not wonder why North is leading a short minor. If declarer claimed he misplayed the contract because he was expecting North to have short ♣, I would seriously consider, if there was damage related to the MI. Fortunately this is not his argument. The results of the other tables is irrelevant. Was there missinformation? I'll assume yes. (I'll investigate closer if necessary.) Is there damage? They went down, so perhaps there is. (Declarer missplayed.) Is the damage consequence of the MI? This is the though spot here. I will investigate what 2♥ and 3NT promise exactly and under what conditions East would convert to 4♥. To my knowledge West promised 18+ HCP, but not necessarily ♣'s or 2 cards in ♥. I guess he should stop ♠. This is MP and I want to hear from East the arguments that would make him bid 4♥. If East is not very convincing, I let the result stand and remind them to appeal. (The AC has much more time and brainpower to investigate all implications.) Edit: Doesn't have West he captaincy of the bidding here? East / West know from the late alert, that NS may not be familiar with defending against polish club. gnasher's right I will have to give the N-S result some thought. But still I let the result stand and recommend them to appeal. (The AC has much more time and brainpower to investigate all implications. Thank god I'm not in it.)

I can hardly remember when I had to type my BBOWin password, or the forum password. But the new Flash-application tends to forget the password every new version. I'm sure that this will improve if the software will stay at a specific URL and Updates are less frequent.

If a player asks about an unalerted bid, he generates UI. The purpose of the alert is to allow questions about the bidding without generating UI. One should take it as: "Opps you better ask about this bid." So we act as if there were a standard bidding system that everybody knows and alert any deviation. Unfortunately there is no universal standard bidding system. So there is deviation from club to club, from country to country. I have not seen a good solution to the general alert problem yet. But it seems logical to define that a 2-level raise should be stronger than a simple raise, and alterable if it is not. I think the new rules define weak hands as 0-9 HCP. Off Topic: There are jurisdictions who forbid to alert pass, dbl and redbl. Just imagine the trouble that causes.

GIB simulates deals/partial deals that fit the knowledge it has. This knowledge is basically restrictions from bidding and played cards. Now lets say it simulates 10 partial deals (including sidesuits) and it finds the card that produces the most tricks in most of the deals. The next time GIB is to play a card it generates 10 new partial deals (with less cards) and finds the card that that produces the most tricks in most of the new deals. These 2 steps do not have to go to the same (right) direction.

While the offending side has to prove their agreement, so that the TD can judge between wrong bid or wrong information, the laws on the NOS are much more relaxed. The question is: Is it likely that NS will bid over a weak 3♣. Knowing the average strength of players on BBO, North bidding 3♠ over 3♣ can be considered a common B/I mistake, reopening with the South hand seems not unreasonable. Bidding in BBO tourneys is often (unreasonably) aggressive. I'm not sure, if it's likely to reach 4♠ with estimated 20 combined HCP. I would ask about their methods and if they have a plausible approach I might award 4♠. The wonderful thing on BBO to have so many different cultures, is a curse when it comes to alerting. If all 4 players claim to play SEF or polish club, I will consider, if they should have protected themselves, but in a random BBO tourney you can't expect anything. And please consider: If North had asked about the strength of the 3♣ bid, the UI created will almost force South to bid.

You can have electrical charges, dipolar objects with a partial charge and you can have neutral objects that polarize each other in a way so that there are very weak electrical charges that can interact. Te latter is called van-der-Waals interaction.

Actually it depends on the agreement E/W have, but since East did not make a move over 3♣, 3♣ won't be a forcing raise. If E/W don't have a posted CC, to prove that the bid was wrong or a psych, i would assume that they play some sort of inverted minors. In that case N/S were damaged by the missinformation (missing alert is an MI) and the score should be corrected. Bidding 3♠ seams reasonable whatever that makes.

One underrated effect when playing precision is that 1♣ 16+ limits all other openings to a max of 15. Since there is a lower limit too, responder has a very good estimate on partscores and sacrifices. In your approach to the 2 level, you leave a much wider range for 1 level openings, and have to deal with it. (This is why you see lots of "SAYC" player open 2♣ with semiforcing hands with less than 22 HCP.) Multi openings with (undefined suits) weak and strong hands in general, are vulnerable to opps aggressive preempts. Your partner with intermediate and slightly better strength, will have trouble to decide between pass, rising the preempt, bidding game or going for slam.

Thanks for posting the script, so I could rerun it and use the statistic to calculate average suit length. The added code is: # Average suit length sdev CL_length sdev DI_length sdev HE_length sdev SP_length CL_length add [clubs north] DI_length add [diamonds north] HE_length add [hearts north] SP_length add [spades north] puts "Average length CL:[CL_length average] DI:[DI_length average]" puts " [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] HE:[HE_length average] SP:[SP_length average]" Your results: My run of 10000 hands: Your average ♦ length is higher, because you added: Adding that condition I get: 4.0000 2.0926 2.9074 4.0000

You can't help what doesn't exist. Doesn't the refusal to play against an Israeli team have to do with not recognizing the legitimacy of the Israeli state? I don't think so. My guess is that the Lebanese would be willing to play Scotland and England even if they don't recognize Scotland and England as independent countries. I'm quite sure TimG is right, it has to do with that fact.

To support my instincts with numbers, I've been doing a little simulating. My instincts told me that opener can't have 4♥ and that the bidding reduces his ♦ length a lot. Note that with the given definition for he 1♣ opening the only unbalanced hand with 4441 shape has a single ♦. Defining the opening: Balanced: 2-4M, 2-5m and 12-14 HCP (not 5♦4♣ or 4♦4♣ assuming an 1♦ opening for these) unbalanced with Clubs: 0-4M, 0-3♦ and 4+♣ Information for South [space]Average length in _______________ [space][cl] [space] [space] [space] [space][di] [space] [space] [space] [he] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space][sp] Opening_____ 4.4768 [space] 2.4381 [space] 3.0455 [space] [space] 3.0396 East has 5+[di] 4.5797 [space] 2.2396 [space] 3.0888 [space] [space] 3.0918 South has 4[di] 4.7220 [space] 1.9580 [space] 3.1442 [space] [space] 3.1759 North has 4[sp] 4.2634 [space] 1.7872 [space] 2.9494 [space] [space] 4.0000 South has 5[sp] 4.2414 [space] 1.7310 [space] 3.0276 [space] [space] 4.0000 As you can see from the numbers, opener will usually have 4-5♣, if opening 1♣. We don't expect opener to hold a 4 card-major most of the time and even less to hold 4 cards in both majors. Informations gained from the bidding reduces the expected ♦ length, but I overestimated that effect. This is one of the rare (or not so rare) cases where one side has a 9 card fit, while the other side does not even have a fit at all. (9666 opposite 4777).

I apologize for my poor English, I meant to say: North showed 3+♣, 4♠ and usually won't have 4♥.

Those are two rather surprising assertions. How would South bid with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ? I argued that South can't bid 4♠ over 2♠. I don't see how that is related to your question. Holding Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx he can only place 7♦ cards and can no longer assume that North is short in ♦ and with only an 8 card fit on their side, it not even clear if opps have a fit at all. To answer your question with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx, South can bid redbl, 2NT or 3♥ depending on agreements. 3♠ should be reserved for a different type of hand e.g. with a 5th ♠.

North showed 3+♣, 4♠ and should not have 4♥. South has 5♠ and 4♦ and he can conclude that his partner is short (0-1) in ♦. (His side has a 9 card ♣ fit, opps will have a 9 card ♦ fit or 2 8-card fits in ♦ and a 2nd suit.) So his shortages in ♣ and ♥ gain in value. But this also means that partner is only 11+ unbalanced and I don't think that bidding 4♠ is obvious. North has a high minimum and not much reason to bid over 3♠. I don't think one should assign blame to the players, if a near minimum hand and an invitational hand make game because of perfectly fitting shape and honors. There are methods to investigate more below 3♠, but you did not mention any.

You are a little unspecific about the liquid, surface tension depends a lot on the liquid. If the liquid is water, the molecules are dipolar and have electric attraction to each other, while the attraction to molecules in the air is of a much weaker different kind. And yes the molecules from the surface are pulled inside. This is why a drop of water tends to be round. Now imagine a crowd of people around someone who is giving away money. Everybody wants to get to the middle to reach for the money, but is not easy to get from the edge to the middle because the is already someone, you have to push aside. This is similar to the situation a water molecule at the surface is in. It wants to be covered from all sides, but to move to the middle other molecules have to be moved away.

Bridge is a game and a match even a European Championship match is not important enough to risk: 1) even a single day in prison 2) getting a victim of malicious wounding (does not matter by whom) 3) being killed (does not matter by whom) 4) suffer from other sanctions (disposetion, fines, ...)

To evaluate the answers, we really need to know the answers to some implied questions. 1) Does your partnership open 2♣ with less than 22 HCP? 2) Does your partnership open 2♣ with 2-suited hands? 3) Does your partnership consider a long 6+ suit with a 4 card side suit 2-suited? 4) What is your answering structure to 2♣? Do you have a 2nd negative? If partner has other answers than 2♦ available, what do they promise? If your partnership does not open 2-suited hands with 2♣ and opener can't have 4♥, the bid has to be forcing. If you open 2-suited hands with less than 22 HCP in 2♣, than it would be wise to play 4♥ NF here.

I don't know much about the situation in Lebanon, but I guess the Lebanese team does. Some facts: 2005 people like the Lebanese Prime minister Rafik Hariri and the journalist Samir Kassir were killed, for political reasons. Maybe my informations are outdated, but I was told that military courts are integrated into the regular legal courts in Lebanon. Lebanese citizens that enter Israel are put in front of a court-martial. Remember that the 2 countries are currently at war. So I guess that it is considered a crime not to boycott a match. Further reading:Lebanon: A Human Rights Agenda for the Parliamentary Elections I really doubt that excluding Lebanese teams from any sport competition, and by this separating Lebanese people further from the rest of the world is helpful. Sport organizations can't resolve the conflicts of the world, but at least they should not contribute additional anger to it.

This is an issue of politics interfering sports. What if a professional chess player would play chess against the will of his government? Would you see this as a similar situation? The chess player was Bobby Fischer the year 1992. I think the US government issued an international arrest warrant. Fischer never returned to the USA.

I use a simple rule: Opener did not make a limiting bid yet.