gordontd

Actually the numbers were very slightly up this year, and last year they were significantly up on the previous year.

No, there isn't, but you were saying that you would give as an answer to the question of what you would do at the table, that which you believe to have subsequently been indicated by others as what they would do. This reminds me of a student politician I knew who would only support policies that he believed were supported by the majority of the electorate.

By this logic, we will soon be of the opinion that bidding is not an LA!

You seem to think that none of us can have any idea how others would behave in a given situation. I do not think this is true, and would probably have to stop directing if I did.

I do not think it wrong to poll 10 players, but I would regard it impractical to require it of ACs or TDs. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) you did this in the case at Brighton where you chaired an appeals committee for me, and I do not think you needed to, since it was so blindingly obvious that even one of the appellants had told me he agreed with the ruling. There is also the question of who belongs to the "class of players" in question, and one might argue that the winners of the pairs do not. I think I am probably a pretty close match for the players, being (I think) of the same rank and experience, and playing the methods in question with all my most regular partners.

You cannot have a "some" without having a class of players "of whom...". If they belong in that class of players, then they are not irrelevant.

They were not polled - at least not by the TDs or AC. One of them was asked to be an appeals consultant, and the other was sitting at the same table so presumably contributed to the discussion. I do not know what they said, except that the consultation took some time and the appellant decided to appeal. It is because we do not know what either party says in these consultations that ACs are not supposed to be told, nor to take into account, whether or not an appeals advisor has been consulted. It sounds as though you know a lot more about this than any TDs or AC members.

Why is it irrelevant what gnasher & wank think, but relevant what (you say) two other players think? I do not know where you find this law or regulation, nor do I think it would be a good one.

Well he managed to get two prizes - they qualified for the main pairs final and did well there, and they won the secondary final in the teams. I think he also managed to meet a few BBF posters - vampyr & lamford who won the secondary pairs final, and RMB1 who was directing along with me.

Unless you have three hosts, as some clubs do. But even then you can end up with a half table when three players come without partners and refuse to play with each other.

If it were clear what it meant, we wouldn't have had this thread.

I usually use 7 mins a board + 1 min a round. Still give 15 for 2 boards, but 22 for three.

See you tomorrow!

I once made a ruling in this sort of situation based on the left-over bid on the table constituting misinformation. I later discussed it with the Chief TD of the WBF, and he agreed that this was a reasonable approach.

Over here, in the home of the weak NT, it's more like 95%.

Well there was an exciting finish indeed, and Heather Dhondy & Brian Callaghan came from behind to beat both of them: dburn (with Nick Sandqvist) came second, and vampyr & lamford third.

Matchpoints. The youngest player was nine, the oldest probably in their seventies, average probably low forties. When we had a twenty-four hour one about five years ago, the oldest player was nearly ninety.

Maybe you should organise it? Update: lamford & vampyr have now overtaken dburn & partner, but it's very close at the top. gnasher is coming up a bit too, but probably has too far to go.

We're coming towards the end of the Young Chelsea Marathon. 32 pairs are playing 93 boards in under twelve hours, with an £800 prize for the winners. Currently in the lead is dburn, followed by vampyr & lamford. Other forum members playing include lanor fow, gnasher (last time's winner), and campboy.

Pension plan?

I think it means that it ought to be clarified, but that in practice it's unlikely to cause a problem (outside of the feverish imagination of lamford :) ).

I think either meaning is reasonable, but it would also be a valid interpretation that none of this applies, since no suit was doubled.

I imagine Mr Bennett would have liked Myrtle to have taken this advice.

...but we don't have delayed alerts (to answer more fully aguahombre's question).

I'd want more than a post-facto statement that he would have redoubled to accept the assertion and adjust. Did he give a believable reason? And why did he not ask if he thought it made a difference, when he could easily have done so?