gordontd

What do we call it when we give non-balancing adjusted scores? We call it "a split score". If you are tempted to say that you don't, may I say that there are several examples on this forum where you have.

This strikes me as both pedantic and wrong. I think it's covered by L12C1a & L12C1f. I usually tell players that they are allowed to change the call if it was influenced by the misinformation. That way anyone with doubts can ask me after the hand is over to look at the actions taken, but I'm not going to look at the hand and offer an opinion during the auction period. In practice, I don't think I've known of a situation when someone wanted to change their call in these circumstances for a reason other than that it was influenced by the misinformation, but I have no doubt that such a case will shortly occur at a certain North London bridge club.

L86B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play

I think it depends on how it is done.

The problem with this being the case is that the packs (at least the ones we use here) have A next to 2 and so the players immediately move their aces (and no other cards) so that everyone can tell how many aces the other players have!

Neither of these are jump shifts. The "shift" indicates a new suit. Not that I am disagreeing with you that GIB's behaviours here seem strange.

This was considered at the last EBU L&E meeting and it was decided that neither forcing nor constructive non-forcing meanings were unexpected and therefore were not alertable, but "weak" was unexpected and therefore alertable.

I wrote to the WBFLC about this law earlier in the year, as follows:

I see no evidence of this.

This description suggests there have been at least two leads out of turn. How was I on lead to play a low heart to partner's queen? How could declarer lead the DK when he had just ruffed a heart in dummy?

http://www.ebu.co.uk/competitions/brighton

Rainer, Do you share the original poster's overcall style of "...fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here"?

Of course support doubles would be better, but that pesky Law 36 gets in the way.

If the laws have changed four times since you started playing, you must have been playing for 40 years so that doesn't seem unreasonable. 1975 1987 1997 2007

In this specific situation? I don't know. In general, quite high.

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

You think that if the misexplanation had not occurred, she would have played the diamond suit the same way?

Why do people on BBO insist on... jumping to game with only four cards in their suit after I've made a simple raise? Just curious :)

I wouldn't understand his explanation - I'd have to ask him for more information.

I'm surprised by how many people think they can bid 2♠ without being concerned that their partners will think they have five of them. I think I can bid 2♥ without it showing three because on minimal hands with three hearts I would have raised on the previous round, and with significant extras I would bid 3♥ on this round.

As opposed to ... what?

You play 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♣ as artificial? How do you show simple preference?

2♥

A: Yes of course B: Yes of course C: No D: Play some other game PS Just realised this thread is a necro.

Actually in the context he gives (Acol with no transfers to the minors) it is the traditional method.