gordontd

Indeed so. And in the original post, we are told that the explanation given was that the player should transfer to the major suit that she holds. When she then bid hearts, it seems far from clear to me that her suit was spades.

I think 4♠ is a wild bid.

Does it? If asked what is the meaning of my 2NT response to a 1NT opening, I would say "transfer to diamonds". I think that answer would be perfectly clear that I am showing diamonds - and it doesn't necessarily mean "bid diamonds".

While I was at the event, one of the players involved told me about this ruling. Because I was there as a player and not a TD (and it was early in the morning!) I didn't want to get drawn in to a discussion about it, but when she said "it asks me to transfer to my major" I assumed that when she bid hearts she had hearts. I must say I've never before encountered this system being described in this way, and I don't think it was adequate disclosure. I would probably have ruled the same way as the TD at the table, and been surprised that the AC overturned it, but I wasn't there so perhaps the players presented additional information that led the AC to believe the explanation was adequate. Of course, I'd be perfectly happy for EW to keep their bad result.

It's probably quite like reading the Bridgemate upside-down, when you turn it so that the rest of the table can see it.

Congratulations indeed to Justin, but I'm slightly puzzled that posters here seem to regard winning a national pairs event as more significant than reaching the final of the Bermuda Bowl.

it might.

[hv=pc=n&s=s543hk73dak9754ca&n=skjth65dq3ckq8653&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h2dp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] This hand came up against Frances at the weekend, and her partner tells me I took an anti-percentatage line. The hands are rotated and it's done from memory so the spot cards may differ. The lead was the ♥J which I won in hand, cashed the ♣A, and crossed to the ♦Q, West playing the 10. When I played the ♣K East showed out. How do you play the diamonds?

Keycard won't tell you whether you're off two heart tricks.

I understood there are two different forms in use to indicate the final pass of an auction. Is that the case?

We recently had exactly the situation given in the original post, and we decided after a great deal of discussion and consideration to rule that the contract had been doubled, because we thought it was more likely that one side might have unintentionally pulled out a double card than that both members of the other side might have imagined a double that had never happened. (The integrity of all players at the table was not in question). The ruling went to appeal and was upheld on the basis of Law 85A1.

Worrying about setting a precedent would be a good reason to avoid giving a wrong ruling :rolleyes:

I think they would be really useful, and I think increasingly people will use downloaded versions of the laws (on smartphones or iPads) at the table.

So 1C-1S-2C-2H is non-forcing, 1C-1S-2C-3H is not a splinter bid, and 1C-1H-2C-2S doesn't show longer hearts than spades?

What were they on? I wouldn't put much faith in the views of players who think you show 5-5 in the majors by starting with a 1H response.

This seems to suggest that you think TDs should make rulings that they believe ACs should not uphold.

Nobody [edit - other than Campboy] cares about the misinformation?

Okay, a variant on this. Imagine you discover it after it's been played three times in the fouled state. Now you will necessarily have two sub-fields and no artificial scores. Do you leave it as it is so as to have six scores in each sub-field, or correct it and have nine in one and three in the other?

This prompts me to ask another question of TDs about your practice. Imagine a board is played correctly for six rounds and then fouled, which you discover after the seventh round. Do you leave the board in its new state so as to have two equal subfields, or do you correct the board and award artificial scores at one table?

Even after reading all the responses I still don't really know what this thread is about.

There's a bit about them at http://chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/ I think most players just treat them like weak twos, but don't worry too much if they only have tolerance for one minor when making a takeout double. It's worth agreeing what a double from fourth hand means if they've made a Pass-or-Correct 3♣ (or 3♦) response.

If you expect them to go easy on anyone, I think you'll be whistling in the wind! Well done to all of them!

I'm not unhappy yet.

I've just seen the Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Koningshof on 18th October 2011. They include the following:

Some years ago my partner & I had a lot of luck and were doing well in a three-session major pairs event. We went into the final session leading, with Zia & Robson in third place. They had a good final session and by chance we played them in the last round of the event. I shall forever cherish over-hearing Zia say to Robson, as we approached the table, "these are the two who are our competition". Someone who makes a point of making compliments that can be overheard is Tony Priday. If he realises you are within earshot and is about to play against you, or is scanning down a ranking list, he will often make a flattering comment about your bridge.