gordontd

4♠ certainly seems like an overbid, but I imagine East will go on over 3♠ anyway. I'm not sure how much blame there is to assign - it's not a lot worse than 50% (if they find the right lead). Were they vulnerable?

Hi Eric :) It's like Cappaletti but with the meanings of the 2♣ & 2♦ bids exchanged. So, 2♠ shows ♠ & a minor

Lucky you, if you don't often get interrupted in the middle of dealing boards :rolleyes:

Then that would make it even easier to misboard.

It's possible. The boards are out of order, and the operator notices that, for example, Board 22 has been dealt in Board 23. So they get changed over by hand and a mistake can easily be made in the process.

As an aside, these screen regulations are tautological, since inadvertently selected calls can be changed under L25. Fot that reason, in the EBU the latest Trials regulations (for the upcoming Seniors Trials) have had the second option deleted.

I used to think the standard in Acol was to bid as though raising partner's opening bid, so 3♠ is a limit raise. However I've learned from previous discussions of this nature that there's some variation in understanding. The one Acol-based book I found then that discusses it explicitly, Sally Brock's "Double Trouble", doesn't play the double jump as pre-emptive.

I remember having a L15C ruling where one of the players asked to talk to me away from the table. She asked if she really was compelled to repeat the calls she had made the first time around. When I confirmed that she was, she said "but I wouldn't have psyched if I'd known he was my opponent!"

A psychic call which, if allowed, would carry with it a virtually guaranteed score of 60%. I suppose the player could try to convince us that it's not a purposeful attempt to preclude normal play of the board, but I think I'd take some convincing.

L15C: The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

They're widely used here. I don't notice the bar-codes at all, and I'd be surprised if anyone did who played with them much. Brains are good at editing out the stuff that's irrelevant to their needs.

Do good players not like them?

You make a forcing enquiry, and if partner turns out to have the major for which you don't have support, then you bid your diamonds.

I can't imagine that any East who had made a limit+ raise of clubs would pass out 2♥ - indeed I wouldn't expect it to be systemically possible.

It's hard to work out exactly what you say happened, but it sounds as though the revoke was established and should not have been corrected. When was the tournament director called? Aside from winning the revoke trick, it does not matter which member of the partnership won the tricks.

Some might be considered madness :D

...and if your partner then rebid 3♦?

Too bad people don't weigh up the evidence before jumping to conclusions - then he wouldn't be accused of cheating.

♠ A Q 9 ♥ K Q 10 ♦ A 6 ♣ A Q J 7 3 MPs, 2nd in, NV vs Vul (P) - 1♣* - (1♥) - P (P) - 1NT - (P) - 2♦ (P) - ? 1♣ was Polish 1NT rebid showed 19-21 (yes, you know you have one more point than that) 2♦ in principle is a transfer, but because of the overcall you think it must be natural You are playing with a fairly new partner and have gaps in your agreements What do you bid now?

Without wishing to disagree with what you say, this last point is only part of the issue: the other important question is what your rebid will be, and whether you will be able to adequately describe your hand after, for example, a 1♦ response.

What is this talk of canapé? Presumably his 3♠ bid showed ♥ + a minor, and then 5♦ showed his minor. It wouldn't be my choice to bid this hand that way, but it doesn't demonstrate anything sinister.

Yes, it's all quite straightforward really.

His partner's bid has said "I'm not going to ask you which major you hold, because it's more important for me to tell you I have diamonds". In that context, why would you bid a major your partner doesn't want to know about, rather than supporting his minor?

Although it doesn't answer your question, the same sort of problem that arises with these hands when responder bids 1NT can be solved by playing transfer rebids.

Not in general, no.