richlp

You open 1♦ and partner bid 1♠. You realize your mistake and, given a second chance, mistakenly repeat the same mis-bid. Now your partner makes a different bid??????? What did I miss?

Haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't see my question addressed in the next 5 or so posts so here goes.............. If 3 ♦ is some kind of Bergen, why (and at what point) does West have an auto 7♥bid? AFAIK, regardless of which particular version of Bergen is being played, all 3♦ shows is a heart raise with more than pre-emptive values and less than a game force. The expectation of 4-6 in the reds can't possibly be accurate. Even opposite two aces, and therefore no minor suit loser, are the chances of covering the 3rd round spade loser good enough to warrant bidding the grand - even for a player in the class of one who would Blackwood with the West hand? When my Bergen Raise partner bid 7♦ my strong inclination is to suspect an original misbid - what else can it be, a try for 7NT rather than 7♥? I would cancel the 7♦ bid and rule the contract to be 6♥.

Just my opinion......... Small brag ... my favorite hand for the past several years had a many-time national champion congratulating me for playing a hand well. The client at the other table failed to make the crucial play and the board made the difference in the match. These are the kinds of things that keep the game exciting after several decades of play. The relevance is that, for a serious bridge player which - judging by your concern for following the rules - you are, playing "good bridge" is more important than winning. Showing well against an expert provides more satisfaction that beating a mistake prone team. Perhaps not right away, but my guess is that it shouldn't take too long, you will find that if you play well you will hit the overalls in the "X" bracket (and eventually the "A" bracket). If you don't play well, you're probably not going to do very well in the BCD anyway (and even if you do, what's the satisfaction of being the least bad team in the field?)

I'm well out of synch with everybody here but, depending on the definition of tolerance, North's explanation doesn't match his action. Would South have passed with a 12 count, balanced distribution and 3 cards in diamonds? If not, then their definition of tolerance doesn't match mine (certainly not impossible). If the pass showed a minimum of 4 diamonds then that certainly should have been mentioned.

I typically put the high heart on the table and then face my hand. I've never had anybody challenge this on "might be careless" grounds. If you ever catch me challenging a claim as you presented it, feel free to bar me from your club. (If there were only one outstanding heart I might feel a little different about somebody who challenged the claim, but would never do so myself)

I agree completely. Perhaps I didn't phrase my response (to a possible failing line proposed by Iviehoff). A player bad enough not to consider the possibility of a bad break is not good enough to recognize the line he proposed. A player good enough to recognize that line is also good enough to take the simple line to make the contract.

Sorry. Can't agree. Players bad enough not to realize the possibilty of a bad trump break are not good enough to realize that they can force South to ruff and then pick up the trump Unless he's not good enough to count past 12 trumps and thinks that after one ruff he'll be able to pull trumps from the top. Players in that class are probably too afraid of claiming to be in this position in the first place.

While I would probably have bid 5♥, I'm also clearly not of the class of player involved so my opinion on that doesn't count. However....... In terms of a ruling on this hand, is it relevant to consider the question of damage? Should a poll be taken to see how many West's would have continued to 5♥ if East had passed 5♣ in tempo? FW(little)IW, I probably would have (what kind of neg X can East have with no club honor that doesn't make 5♥ a good contract and is it fair to assume N/S have 100 honors for bidding to the 5 level?) How many would be needed to do this for a ruling of "no damage" to be warranted?

Thanks for the input but............ You obviously don't know me very well.

My browser is showing the last message as May 6. Checking to see if it's my problem or there really haven't been any posts. The Appeals section goes back to April. The Laws and rulings section is up to date

Florida.

Perhaps even Kosher for Passover. Unless there are recorder memos about this pair I would find it hard to rule anything other than result stands.

"Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades" I'm unlikely to be in this bracket, but count me as one who would never ask. When I ask I get "promises 4S" with the occasional "We'ld have alerted if it didn't." Dummy puts down 8xxx of spades. Partner gets in and successfully decides to play on Spades. Declarer correctly calls the director and points out that my question passed UI that I have spades and that partner had other (less successful) logical alternatives and is prohibited from choosing spades due to the UI. Especially in a high bracket I assume that my opponents will alert clearly alertable calls.

"But to adjust all we require is for 3♦ to be an LA" for the class of player involved. Even after all the discussion, I'm not sure that is correct.

Back in the late 70's a friend came up with a system called "Precise Major" in which an opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ guaranteed exactly 5 cards in the suit. With 6-4-3-0 distribution the system bid was 1♣ which was non-forcing. All the local clubs allowed it (this was back in the day when innovation was considered a good thing and allowed conventions were not restricted to what the lowest common denominator of bridge player would tolerate) and we played it in a couple of sectionals (always getting director approval beforehand)

Gordon. For the logic challenged among us (Ok ..... for me) does your reply mean East has doubled. This cancels any rectification for South's bid out of turn. "The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn" South may now bid anything he likes. South's desire to bid 2♣ in an undoubled auction is AI to E/W but UI to N/S Thanks.....Rich

I don't think the comments about BAM are relevant. The thread title says "ACBL Club Swiss" and I've NEVER seen a Swiss played at BAM. Perhaps the phrase "we lost the board" added some confusion. FWIW........ My feeling is that, even though you were willing to settle for 3♠ rather than 4♠, that's not your current choice. By bidding, the only losing case is when both 4♣ and 4♠ both fail (I think it's a 4 IMP loss). If 4♣ makes and 4♠ is down 1 that's a 2 IMP pickup. Contrast that with the substantial gain (I think 9 IMP) when 4♠ makes and I don't see pass being a logical alternative. Had you bid on I don't think I would have adjusted (although a poll could certainly change my mind about that).

I don't think there is a plural. "First bite", "Second bite", "Third bite", etc just like "First bit of the byte", "Second bit of the byte", etc.

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game. My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

In the absence of the insufficient bid it's hard for me to believe 4NT would be anything but natural. I'm not sure exactly what kind of hand it would show but I would find it impossible to construct a hand that could only bid 2♥ at its first turn and now make a Blackwood bid (implying slam values if sufficient controls are present) opposite an opener that made a game invitation. I can't cite chapter and verse the way many here can, but did the director really rule North MUST correct to 4NT? Surely North could have doubled or bid 4♥ and accepted whatever penalty was prescribed by the laws on insufficient bids.

I agree with just about everything you've said but I need a clarification on one point. "That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke." Does "that remark" refer to "What are you doing?" or "Oh, I revoked."? I think it is the question itself which draws attention to the irregularity and not the response about the revoke.

I think this makes for an even worse ruling. If the director thought 2NT was bid based upon UI then the contract should be rolled back to 2♦.

Why isn't dummy allowed to wake you up? This isn't a UI or MI situation. My head says "High Club" but my mouth says "High Spade." Dummy starts to play the Spade and I immediately say "Didn't I call for a Club?" No pause for thought. As soon as I see the card move I make my comment. Dummy's action certainly woke me up but wouldn't my change be legal (assuming I can convince the TD that as soon as dummy started to play I realized what I must have said)?

Do these alerting rules apply when there has been previous penalty double? (Perhaps it should be in the "Why I lose at Bridge" forum but) To me, bridge logic dictates that once a penalty double has been made all future doubles are also for penalty. If so, then I guess an adjustment could be warranted even though the logic of the auction indicates the double of 2♥ almost has to be penalty.

Cham....................................................POO