hotShot

North produced an UI by the BIT, but thats not illegal. The question is how and if at all this UI influenced south bidding. 3♣ seems to be strong and forcing probably GF. It might be interesting to know if it is agreeing ♠, because 3♥ might be a Cuebid than. 4♦ is a new suit of an unlimited partner and it is forcing South is forced to bid (so pass is no LA), what could south bid? South showed 4♥ and 5♠, both seem unsupported by partner so 4♠ seems the only bid. 5♠ is a clear slam invitation So it seems that the UI was irrelevant, result stands.

A dbl on 3♣ shows at least opening strength and shortage in ♣. So South can expect North to have no wasted points in ♣. ♠AQ(J) ♥KQ(J) ♦Q Are the relevant cards missing and thats just 13(15) HCP. So if North indeed does not have wasted ♣ values, he holds 12 + of the 13 missing relevant points. So any bid less than 7 is to weak, with wasted ♣ values 6 is save to bid 6♣ (if we fear partner has wasted values in ♣) or 7♣ are a very good plan to investigate the fit. If North bids ♥ we may need to correct it to ♠.

As we already have a GF going, there is no need to rush and a need to describe your hand. What reason should there be to use "4th suit forcing" now. I can start a slam try any time later. 3♣ should show a biddable suit 3+ cards with suit quality. I would consider that natural.

I don't think we need a different set of laws for online bridge. The existing ones are good enough. Just because a few § are no longer needed, as the software prevents the trouble from happening, no new ones are needed. BBO tourneys are a market place and the goods offered are tourneys, with and without qualified TD's. Right now the interest in free tourneys is larger and the interest in qualified TD's is small. But all it would take now, is a fully qualified TD that runs (regular) tourney's. He would have to define some basics, as he is the sponsoring organization. Of cause he would not play in his tourneys and he might want to have some kind of fee for his service. The problem I see is the kind of tournament to offer. People don't take short tourneys seriously enough and they don't want to make a commitment for a longer one. So maybe the product offered does not have a market yet.

Favoring the NOS in the laws alway had in mind, that the OS will have to appeal. Without an appeals committee favoring the NOS is just unfair. But the people are used to be favored by the TD and get away with it, if the OS don't care to appeal. I agree that not all LA's might show up, but I prefer a solution that will work on it's own to one that involves other resources. It gives the TD at least some sort of hint. But i agree that it would be a cool feature. The the main problem that some (or even a lot) of online TD's know that they have little knowledge of the laws of bridge and if a player selfskilled as Expert+ claims to have better knowledge of the laws and demands an adjustment, they make the adjustment even if it's wrong. (I have seen this with f2f TD beginners as well).

1) 3♣ I want more information on partners hand. As far as we know now, he might have only 4♠ and some flat distribution. 2) Holding a sort of 4 looser hand opposite an opening, I will make a slam try. If your system allows 4♣ as a slam try I will use it, otherwise I hope partner understands 4NT. 3) What is the minimum opening strength for partners 1♥? rule of 18 => 3♥ 12+ HCP => 4♥

The BBO environment has done a lot to ease the live of TD's. Most of the problems a f2f TD has to solve won't happen. Insufficient bids, bids/play out of turn, revokes, correct movement mistakes and calculate the tourney result are all solved by the software. So only the tough problems like BIT (Break in Tempo), UI (unauthorized information) and MI (Misinformation) are left. (And the subbing that is unknown to f2f TD's.) Here we get to a big difference between f2f Bridge TD's and BBO TD's. A f2f TD's job is not to practice justice, but to keep the tourney running. That is why the rules for these tough cases say, that the TD should decide fast and when in doubt favor the non offending side. The offending side should take the case to an Appeals Committee and they have the time and even additional rights to do justice. A BBO TD has to do the judging by himself and without a proper time frame. Unlike a committee he can't discuss the case with others. I hope the BBO environment will improve in the following way: 1) The software should delay fast bids (they should at least take a second) and mark every bid that took longer than 3 (name a different time, if you like) seconds to make. This way fast bids are harder to detect for the players and slow bids are recorded for the TD to be seen. 2) The TD should be able to mark boards as "waiting for decision" or "under investigation" and the results given should be marked as "not final" until all boards are reviewed. 3) The TD should have some sort of bridgebrowser feature showing him, what other players of the same skill level, bid/played at that point. If the tourney is large enough there should be all LA's covered.

What could a self learning FD do? It could create a database entry for every bid stating which partner and how many HCP, ZAR-Points and what kind of distribution he was holding. It could than disclose a message like that: player XYZ and ABC had the bidding sequence 1[cl] 5 times before. [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] min [space] [space] [space]max [space] [space] [space] [space]avg HCP [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]12 [space] [space] [space] [space] 17 [space] [space] [space] [space]12.5 length [cl] [space] [space] [space] 3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]4.2 length [di] [space] [space] [space] 2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3.9 length [he] [space] [space] [space] 1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3.5 length [sp] [space] [space] [space] 2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]3.4

People don't read the tourney description before they enter a tourney. So they don't know how many boards the tourney has and they don't care about a pickup partnership. So they feel free to leave whenever they want. Asking to be subbed is the polite approach, most just run. Although there is no price to win, some player seem so eager to win, that they leave at once, if one score is/will be not good enough. 8 min / board are the usual time given in f2f-Tourneys. But there you usually have to handle boards and write down the results..... So I think that playing online 8 min/board is a bit long. I found that about half of the field has finished in about 6 min/board and that is is only a small amount of player requires more than 7 min/board.

If TD's were allowed to adjust any result that they think "would or could skew the field" where should it end? Eliminate misplayed boards, because declarer should not have made the overtrick or because declarer should have made his contract? Eliminate misjudged bidding, overbids and underbids or bad sacrifices? All of this should not be adjusted, as different results come from mistakes one side makes or does not make. Just because the TD needs to handle intentional bad play and cheating does not allow hin to adjust anything that he does not like or understand.

The only reason that would allow the TD to adjust this board would be if he had reason to think NS were cheating. (Law 73 but that would require some explanation). Assigning an artificial score as Av+Av+ is only allowed if the TD thinks the board got unplayable (see Law 12). I don't see anything that would have made the board unplayable. The 4♠ bid did not requite any alert, so there is none missing. No hesitation is reported so there isn't any UI involved. (So law 16 seems irrelevant.) Laws 20+21 handle misinformation the TD did not name any and no question or MI is reported). The contract made so i don't see any reason to assume that south just wanted to destroy the result. So no case of Law 74. There is no law to protect the field. Some laws even deliberately damage the field, e.g. awarding an extra trick for a revoke, that can't be won otherwise. Although I don't think that 4♠ is good bridge, it is definitely not a psyche and it has some merits. South has only 6 looser and white/red even down 3 might be acceptable. So bidding 4 is pushing it to the limit. Holding 5 cards in both black suits there is a chance of 66% each to find 3 cards with partner. So a fit or even a double fit does not seam unreasonable. Bidding 4♠ shuts down all of opps communication and leaves them guessing. Looking at the south hand opps are likely to have fits in both ♦ and ♥. South would prefer to hear opps play 5♦ (which will not make) to 4♥ which might make due to lucky play or bad distribution. So 4♠ is taking a risk (perhaps even a big risk) but it is far from being unreasonable. I don't see any indication that cheating is required to make that bit. North did not run from 4♠X and he did not make a SOS-redbl. Since south expected to play a doubled contract (even up to -3), why run from it now? So the directors ruling seems completely wrong to me.

I pass. I expect partner to hold 4♠, 3+♥ and 2+ in each minor. I'm not sure we have a fit anywhere and opps may not have one either. But if partner has some 15+ HCP opps don't have the majority of points.

Why is 2♠ not a possible choice? Your 1♦ opening should suggest that you hold only 4 cards in that suit, since you would have opened 1♠ otherwise. It should neglect a ♥ stopper because you could bid 2 NT if you had one. It should show a stronger hand, which is what you have. If partner has a ♥ stopper he can bid 2/3 NT, without ♥stopper he can pass holding 3♠ 's. Playing 2♠ with just 7 trumps is not to dangerous. With only 2♠s he will have 5♣ or 4♦ to bid a minor. Without that option double seems most flexible. Pass is not very helpful to partner, since you could hold an unbalanced 12 HCP hand.

Why would partner have to think/hesitate twice, if he does not have values? So opps 4♥ has to be (very) light or a preempt. Assuming he does not have values, than he should have some distribution. Probably he could not bid a natural 2♣ or 3♣ over the 1♣ opening, but 3♣ or 4♣ over 2♥ should have been natural (6+cards) and weak. If he can't bid his clubs over 2♥, there is no reason to hesitate after 4♥. If he had 5♠'s, he could have bid 1♠ over 1♣ or 2♠ over 2♥, even with little strength. Again if he had no bid at 1/2-level, why consider it at 4/5 level. So distribution with little HCP can hardly be responsible for partners "Sorry, I have a problem".

In the bidding questions we often read that people will pass the first round, hoping to get a better chance to describe the hand they have. As usual when the next chance comes up (if it comes up at all), there is still no good way to show your hand. So you tank and create a UI situation. So partner has a hand that has no bid over 1♣. A 4225 hand (or 4135) comes in mind. Obviously he holds more than a few hcp and 4♥ is preemptive. Opening strength might make sense. Suggested leads are in this order: ♣, ♠.

Good example! I think this touches a very general subject: Using an unusual system, convention or NT range against weak players will give you some advantage, sometimes even a big one. But this does not mean that the method is good, it just means that weak player can't handle them. At low level you can gain more, by changing your bidding system in a way your peers are unfamiliar with, than you can gain by improving your play.

What are the limits for partner to act in 2nd seat? Opps just missed game and it is very likely they are not in their best fit. So whenever you act, better be sure to score plus. 1♣ - p - p - ? Now partner would have bid ♦,♥ or ♠ with (4)5+ cards and Y HCP. If Y can be less than 12 you should not dbl with 9. You should act very solid because most likely opener will benefit more from your reopening. 1♠ - p - p - ? Partner had no 1 level bid left and no 2 level bid he could make. How strong do you have to be, to have more than combined 20 HCP.

4♠ is obvious, because my partners won't open very strong hands with 1♠.

1. 2♥ should be enough 4 now, if partner has vasted values in ♠ we won't make 4♥. So let's save us some bidding space. 2. 6♦ Partner has 3-♠, 1- ♥ and 9+ cards in the minors. I don't think he has more than 3♣. This leaves him with 6-7♦ and a hand to strong for a 3♦ opening. ABx - AKxxxxx xxx or Bxx - AKxxxx Axx are good enough for 6♦.

If your agreement includes openings like that, your partner does not have a 2♣ response. My agreements would include that hand, and partners hand would be a 1NT rebid. Leading to 1NT+2.

Isn't what you describe the mysterious undetectable "dark matter" that is supposed to hold the universe together?

If a claim is refused, a lot of UI is given. If the ♠Q is onside, the opponents would most likely accept the claim, so refusing the claim makes it more likely that the Q is offside. So playing for the drop seems to be using this UI. One should state a line of play, when claiming and as the rules state, playing should stop, once a claim was made.

Questions always produce UI for partner, so you should only ask, if the answer really matters. Before raising a suit, knowing if the double was penalty is relevant, so it is ok to ask. Now this is a familiar scenario, LHO is unable to disclose the agreement. But he does not say, that there is none! So it is ok to continue to investigate. Note that each question has been of the type: What would XXX mean? Up to here everything is fine. The following question is suggesting a meaning, and it suggests to partner that you want to play 2♠, if it's a penalty double.

The relevant laws are 25 and 26. You can find them at http://web2.acbl.org/laws/auction.htm and scroll to law 25

You are allowed to change your bid, if it was as soon as you bid, and if you can prove that you did not change your mind about your bid. If your methods (hope you got a CC) are 6♠ just K and 6NT KQ, then obviously you did not change your mind. Now that you did not stop the auction, you have to pass. By the way, if you intend to bid the grand anyway, you are allowed to change your bid any way you like, if your LHO has not bid yet. But if you do, your partner has to pass for the rest of the auction. So if you want to bid the grand anyway, stop your LHO immediately and bid the grand.