gordontd

(8x13+3x17)/sqrt((11x12)/2)=19.08 Yes :)

Really? How does that work?

Yes, you are quite correct - with screens you alert and explain your own calls as well as your partner's to your screenmate.

In that case I apologise for my earlier comment. However, I wonder if you know that using Ctrl+ will enlarge the text on the whole page for you - not just the bits you wrote - without affecting what anyone else sees?

This is wrong. In the online game, it is the bidder who self-alerts, but in any event it is the understanding between the partners that matters, not the partner's interpretation. Oh, and please don't shout - it doesn't give your posts greater authority.

This is a problem because they do pause, necessarily, whenever they have a problem that requires thought.

For anyone who can remember a time before computer-dealt boards, you cut the cards after you shuffle and before you deal them.

I'd like to find out more about EW's methods. In my experience players who pass hands like the West one (especially players in the ACBL) are inclined to expect less of their partner's third in hand openings. If East might open that hand with the ♦A replaced with the ♦J, then it becomes a bit less clear to double 4♥.

It's interesting that although there is unanimity about the 2♠ bid, there's considerable variation in what people prefer. I'd be inclined to make a second double, which to my mind shows only three-card spade support with extras. I don't strongly object to 2♦, but I could imagine other circumstances when it would lead us to play in diamonds when spades (at matchpoints) are better, since I think it rather cancels the message of spade tolerance.

It would certainly create a problem if that weakest possible response happens to be 2♥

It did make a difference this time, to the tune of one major penalty card.

Have you ever thought of a career as a greengrocer?

I'm sure there will be people here who will be fed up with hearing me say this, but I take as my authority Max Bavin who told me that there is no limit in the Laws on the TD's ability to deem that an exposed card is not a penalty card. Indeed when I discussed this very case with him, that was an option that he thought was available and legal, although he said he wouldn't use it unless he thought there had been some deliberate attempt to induce an error.

Or those with your partner's hand just saw the "8 loser hand" and raised to 3♠?

I thought they hadn't considered the possibility, which is why I brought it up.

Actually we may not need to: if the revoke is not established, it is within our power to deem that the exposed card is not a penalty card. Should we do that?

No. Passing 2D would be standard. While you wouldn't expect your partner to have nearly as strong a hand as it did, you didn't have enought strength to bid 2NT and you knew the hearts were wide open.

This seems to be based on the idea that it's the number of matches, not the the number of boards, that's important. Two-board matches don't have the same value as 24-board matches.

I would expect "standard" to be that 2C-2D-2M requires another bid from responder in line with an Acol 2M opener, to facilitate bidding two-suiters.

The EBL screen regulations require any such change to have been made under the TD's supervision. Our EBU screen regulations don't allow any change under L25B in any case, and I have been led to believe that the EBL version of the wording was due to careless drafting and they wouldn't really allow a change of this sort.

Sure: all you have to do is win your county teams of four championship and qualify to play in the Pachabo where it is used.

Yes, I thought of Patton Schedules after I posted, having recommended them recently for pivot teams with a small number of contenstants. On the same theme, there are also mirrored sections as used for pivot teams in Brighton.

deleted

In many robot tourneys they swap you with your partner robot when you would be dummy, so that you always play the hands. This is very popular for obvious reasons.

I'm still not clear why this bothers you: one board out of twenty-four has the same weight whether it is part of a two-board match or a twelve-board match. Presumably you don't victory point two-board matches or use them as knockouts? I don't see gnasher having posted in this thread at all. I wonder which point you mean. Then I think we still do not totally understand each other, because one of those features (playing the same opponents in the same round) is not a feature of most multiple-teams movements, only a very specific one known here as a Flower movement. Yes, I know this is all off-topic, but it's interesting to some of us and the original question has been answered.