gordontd

From the Orange Book 7B2:

♠2

If double is for takeout, I don't think you should be doubling. Pass seems the solution.

Presumably the ruling was based on the idea that dealer's LHO would not have bid 3♦ with the correct information, but that dealer's partner would bid 4♥? Do you have the hand of dealer's partner?

I seem to need practical assistance on two fronts: I had intended this to be in Laws & Rulings, but it has appeared in Appeals & Appeals Committees. Would an Administrator please move it? Secondly the hand diagram has appeared Centred instead of Left-alligned, although there's nothing I'm aware of that should make it so. Does anyone have an explanation for this, or a suggestion as to how it could be rectified?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj954h874dakq8c7&w=shkjt652d32caqt52&e=st82ha3djt9765c63&s=sak763hq9d4ckj984]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♥ - 1♠ - P - 3♣ Dble - 3♦ - 4♦ - 5♦ Pass - Pass - Pass 3♣ was intended as a fit-jump, but not recognised or alerted as such. Dble was intended as penalties (alertable in the EBU), but not recognised or alerted as such. 3♦ was intended as natural, but after the 4♦ bid South thought that it had been a cue-bid, although he didn't alert it as such. 5♦ was intended as a cue-bid. Final result 5♦-8 Thoughts?

You can take the girl out of the ACBL...

The AI that East has is: West has a better than minimum opener West has at least five diamonds (I assume, unless there are system issues of which we aren't aware) West has the ♣A West hasn't got the ♠A North has overcalled ♥ With this information, it's hard to see that Pass might be an LA for East.

Indeed not, but she has inexplicably put "ACBL" as the sub-heading even thought the actual case happened in the EBU (I gave the ruling).

I'm not sure if it would meet your definition of a real tournament, but it might be of interest to you to know that at the Young Chelsea we run our Championship Pairs games on the last Thursday of each month in which there are no bidding system restrictions. Most players don't seem to take much advantage of this (they did more when we first started it a few years ago), but you would be welcome to come and play a FP system there, with adequate documentation and a suitable defence. Further information is available at http://www.ycbc.co.uk/Disclosure.pdf

Why unnecessary? The TD is there to help, and it sounds as though help was needed at your table. btw I certainly wouldn't have interpreted a Systems On tickbox to apply to this situation.

It's saying "I'm not going to listen to your carefully considered and reasoned ruling, made after due consultation. I consider that you will be wrong whatever you may say, if you don't rule in my favour" In my experience, when players say this they are trying to influence the ruling. I have had one player become abusive when I ruled against him after he had made such a comment, and when I suspended him from the session he threatened to "take [me] outside". I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a player making such a comment, about intending to appeal any ruling made, is simply trying to save the director extra work.

One might say a card is moving in mid-air, or we might say it is held in mid-air, and I think we'd know what is the difference.

What would be the difference between saying: "face up, touching or nearly touching the table" or saying "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table"?

It's not, but the consequences of it happening, especially when using current assignments, are different.

I agree that there's no evidence of misinformation, so no reason for adjustment, but I'm also intrigued by the argument that's presented by the EW side in the original post: EW bid to 4♠ when they thought that North had spades as well as hearts, but they would have defended 2♥ if they thought that North only had hearts?

I'm sure it does, but one would nevertheless expect West to be proceeding on the basis that their side have the majority of high-card points. That turns out to be true on the hand, but only because East is a long way short of his bid. With a normal minimum opening bid opposite, West should be expecting a useful doubled penalty from either contract. With regard to West saying that he rarely notices exactly what his partner's full hand is, it's worth noting that the Orange Book says: I'd like to have been there, but at this distance it does look like fielding.

If you score in matchpoints or %, every board carries equal weight as in other matchpoint events. That sounds like a desirable thing in a matchpoint event, but the problem is that with fewer rounds, and longer ones than is usual in other matchpoint events, it's possible to have a very good or very poor match and for this to have a disproportionate effect on your final score. This is especially so in the early rounds when strong pairs can meet very weak pairs. I once started a Swiss Pairs playing against a pair who it turned out had never played in anything other than an occasional club duplicate before, and we scored 94% on our seven-board match. I'm happy we only got 20 VPs for that. Having said that, I've played in and run both sorts of events (when Bridgemates were first introduced the only software that scored Swiss Pairs didn't convert to VPs), and I think there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

But why are Swiss Pairs scored a round in arrears anyway (now that Bridgemates are available)? Smaller events, like the ones I run at the Young Chelsea, are now run using current assignments, but it does make it slower because we have to wait for the slowest table to finish before assigning, posting, and starting the next round. At a large event like Brighton that effect of slowing down the game would be greater, and any scoring error would be unlikely to be noticed before the next round had started, and might require a couple of mis-match adjustments.

Was 2♥ artificial?

Do we use them for Swiss teams? I think they have been used for Swiss Teams, but not much. The scoring programmes can certainly do it and they may well be used a bit more for Swiss Teams in the future. The reason I've held back from using them is because of the danger of mis-matches if there are scoring errors. Doesn't the same hold true for Swiss pairs, where Bridgemates are always used? The difference is that Swiss Pairs are usually scored a round in arrears, so there's time to catch mis-scores before the asssigned round starts.

Assigning? :P

The trouble with 3♣ as a one-round force is that you can't show preference for partner's first suit (or indeed raise partner's second suit) prior to investigating slam without risking being passed out in a part-score.

There's no need to open 2C "with the sort of hand that would want to GF opposite a random 6 count", because you can open a suit and partner will respond. It's hands that expect to make game opposite less than a response that might need to start with a forcing bid.

I think it has always been standard in all systems with wide-ranging 1-of-a-suit openings(Acol,SEF,SA etc). Actually in traditional Acol it wasn't game forcing, just a one-round force. But then in traditional Acol 1-of-a-suit openings weren't that wide-ranging, because Acol-twos took out many of the strong hands. However now that "everyone" plays weak-twos in Acol it's usual to play opener's jump-shift rebid as game-forcing.