bd71

Nobody has tried to answer this. I would tend to think it means 7+ in the major and a very bad hand that does not want to be in game across from a minimum reverse. On target or off?

So 3♥ appears to be forcing...can you help us out on the rationale for that? Seems like 3♥ could just be bidding out a 65xx minimum reverse pattern, and you could use 4♣(fourth suit) as the all-purpose forcing bid as others have suggested. Or is your thinking that a minimum-reverse 65xx hand is too rare to cater to, and you just want to bid that pattern out ni a forcing context at a lower level to keep room for slam exploration?

Here I'm with you 100%. This guy actually saw a kid getting molested and basically ran away. Forget who should have or did report this all to the cops, he could have stopped it from happening at the time but didn't...

Yes. If you read the grand jury report on the charges against the accused molester, the first-listed charges are much more recent (2008/2009 I believe). Reading between the lines, those more recent complaints likely instigated an investigation, through which older charges came to light. The 2-3 years since the most recent charges allegedly occurred seems like a plausible timetable for a full-scale police investigation, deliberation by prosecutors on whether to bring charges, and then following through and bringing those charges up through a grand jury. I think this analogy can be improved. I would start it like this: "Someone you work with closely in your business (you are the chief executive of the most powerful and visible division of your large corporation) tells you that one of your former subordinates who is still tangentially related to your business was..." Police can conduct these investigations quietly; so reporting this is NOT the same as destroying someone's career. Indeed, the accused in this case had been investigated in 1998 (or so) on child molestation suspicions by the Penn St. police department without it being publicized at all as far as I can tell. Also, Joe Paterno had significant influence over whether the guys career/life might be ruined by a mere investigation...if Paterno had referred this directly to the cops and they came up with nothing, he would be in a prime situation to help address any leaks or backlash from that. No. Ethically and legally, you must look out for children where there is a chance they are being abused and report it to the authorities. This is so much more true when you personally have the power to help manage any unwarranted backlash against the accused that may emerge.

To close the loop on this, I have quietly informed our local NAP organizers, and they are going to inquire with the pair and ensure that going forward they are playing a GCC-compliant card. Thanks to all for their thoughts.

I appreciate the generic answer, but I provided the specifics on the hand to try to get a specific answer. I have very little experience with adjustments...is this a situation when there should be one? Also, to what extent to our "unforced errors" on the hand limit the likelihood there would be an adjustment?

Re: the strength of the bid, it wasn't specified and we didn't specifically ask. Re: East's bidding, it's a good question, and I'm not sure of the answer. I didn't analyze that or other questions here immediately after the hand, but rather only in the day-after post-mortem. This was an early board played in the first session of a long two-session day. I remember the auction as shown, but it's possible my memory is faulty and that the auction was really 1♠-2♣-(X); 2♦-2♠. That perhaps makes more sense, but it is not what I recall.

Understood...I went into that detail not to suggest you missed anything, but to pre-empt any possible questions about how did I KNOW it wasn't game-forcing (and thus legal). Here is the hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sajt82hk84d3ct875&w=sq94ht2daqjt42c63&n=shqj653dk85ckqj42&e=sk7653ha97d976ca9&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1sp2c(transfer%20to%20diamonds)d2sppp]399|300[/hv] To score well, N/S needed to get at least +170 in 3♥. Other high scores were +620 in 4♥ or +800 in a doubled ♠ contract for E/W. Our +50 in 2♠ down 1 got 2.5/15. So let's play through some scenarios here. Scenario 1: Suppose we had called the director immediately after the 2♣ bid, and the director identified their treatment as illegal per the GCC. What would happen? Would we be allowed to actively discuss a possible defense, including what we might use for a two-suited takeout? Or do we just play on and talk to the director at the end of the hand? Scenario 2: Suppose we had called the director after the hand, either immediately or later in the session. Other than compel the pair to use different methods, what would all of the directors out there have done at that point? I do recognize that there are a number of things we could have done differently on this hand that would have helped us: 1. Partner could have overcalled in hearts instead of doubling 2♣, helping us find our 5-3 ♥ fit. 2. I could have raised clubs, which may have pushed them to 3♠ which I can then double for at least +300. 3. Partner could have balanced with a double, which wouldn't find the hearts but would get us to 3♣ and they again may bid to 3♠. to 3♣, but failed to and it was passed out. Partner could also have balanced with a double and 0535 distribution, but did not. 4. Hold them to 6 tricks in ♠ as other N/S pairs did. This still would not have been a good board, although obviously better than what we did.

1. Apologies for lack of clarity. This was NAP Flight B. GCC was in effect. 2. The transfer was NOT game-forcing: (1) it was not alerted as game-forcing, (2) their auction ended in 2♠, (3) transfer bidders hand was probably worth only an invite opposite a 1♠ opener, especially in a pairs event (Q9x Tx AQJTxx xx).

My ACBL district held it's finals for B-level North American Pairs event last Saturday. (***See below if not familiar with this event.) We played a pair that used transfer responses to one-level suit openings (e.g. 1S-2C = diamonds) against us on one board. It was alerted when made, but there were no pre-alerts or anything of that sort. Our lack of preparation for this did help them against us because my partner held a perfect two-suit takeout but we obviously had not discussed defensive methods against this. I suspect other pairs at this event would have had difficulty in defending these methods as well. During the event, I did not even consider asking whether this was GCC compliant, so didn't draw attention to it. It's only after reviewing the hands that I started to wonder. In another BBOF thread, multiple people have suggested that this treatment is not GCC compliant. Things get really interesting when you consider that this pair finished 3rd, and thus qualified for the national finals. 4th place team was not far behind (and it was not me and my partner...we finished 9th so we're too far out for this to matter). So...several questions for this group: 1. If this issue were raised with the director or organizers, is there anything that they could and/or should do about it at this point in time? 2. I would appreciate folks thoughts about whether I am under any type of ethical obligation to bring the information to the directors/organizers? 3. Do people have a recommended way to handling this at the table...should I just confirm with the opposing pair whether they have checked if something is GCC compliant? Should I call the director any time I have a question about something like that immediately when it comes up? Should I just ask the director after the hand? ***For those who aren't familiar with this event, it's an annual "grass roots" event where you originally qualify over the summer in local clubs for the "finals" in your local district, then 20-odd District finals are held in the fall and the top 3 pairs in each District qualify for the national finals held during the Spring Nationals.

Not sure how common there are, but I faced them for the first time recently. RHO opened 1♠, LHO responded 2♣ alerted as transfer to diamonds. Several questions about this: 1. This was not a high-level event (ACBL "B" level NAP); are these permitted? I didn't even think to question it, and I now can't find specific mention of this at all in the ACBL Alert Chart or GCC. 2. What is the best way to use a double after this sequence? Partner did double, and we were on the same page that default meaning of double of conventional bid was lead-directing suggesting he held clubs. My question is whether it is more useful to use double as two-suited takeout? 3. Should I even worry about 1 and 2? Is this something I'm likely to face more than a handful of times in the next few decades?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt2hkdakt96ca32&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp2hd3h4cp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. What's your call?

I'm not sure I see such a strong parallel here. 4-card overcalls are typically forced, "least bad option", type of solutions. Yet aquahombre did a good job of identifying two types of hands where NMF is an easy, "WTP", forcing bid without having more than 4 spades. My answer to the OP would have been "it ultimately depends on how you agree to play it", but I would expect standard NMF to NOT guarantee 5 spades, although that's the most frequent hand type.

1. P=10, 5♦=6, 5♣=1, X=0 2. I would have bid 3♣ over 2♦. Now, I will bid 3♣ for real. 3. I have considered declarer play before when not told the bidding, the vulnerability, or the scoring. But I've never thought it through without being given the dummy. 4. 4♥.

Fair enough. If you pass initially, opponents bidding is 1♥-2♥. Anything now?

[hv=pc=n&w=sak75hqd975cqt952&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1c1h1n2h]133|200[/hv] Infrequent partner. Never discussed, but his bid likely denies 4♠. Do you act here with the short ♥?

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hakt8653dat94c2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1cp1hp3np]133|200[/hv] Infrequent partner. No special agreements or discussion of 3N rebids. Your bid?

"Easier schedule" is an understatement. Tomorrow, Italy plays 3 of the bottom 6 teams. They need to average 19 VP to mathematically clinch first place. Against the lowest-ranked six teams Italy has already played, they blitzed 4 of them and averaged 23 VP. The race for 1st is over....good luck to Justin/USA2 to beat out Netherlands for 2nd.

It's ironic that you bring up a jdonn "rule" when his series of articles at Bridgewinners is titled "Breaking the Rules."

For those bidding 2♠, how will you respond to partner's 3♠?

[hv=pc=n&e=skqjhaq87643daqc3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1hp1sp]133|200[/hv] This is problem 1 from the hands that appear in the August issue (write-up in the September issue). Can't learn from the expert guinea pigs; they didn't face this exact situation because they saw a different initial response. So...given the 1♥-1♠ sequence, what do you bid here?

[hv=pc=n&s=saj4hak2dqckq8743&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp]133|200[/hv] What the bleep do I bid now? A good partner I haven't played much with suggested a jump-shift to 2♠. I would assume that shows 4, but even so, is that maybe the least bad lie here?

SAYC bids diamonds first "up the line", even with a 4-card major. See page 5 of ACBL booklet... http://www.acbl.org/play/toolsSupplies.html (Edited to correct URL error)

1. If using 18+ as your double-then-bid HCP theshold, seems fair to me to think of the West hand as equivalent, or at least close to equivalent. You almost certainly have a fit somewhere and you have a 5-loser hand. I would NOT think it accurate or fair to describe the West hand as a mere 15-pointer. 2. Would appreciate some discussion of what people feel is the best threshold to use for double-then-bid (using whatever metric you want...hcp, losers, etc.). I have seen people describe this as anywhere from 15+ to 18+. Is this just arbitrary and a matter for partner agreement? Or is there some threshold that people think is fundamentally more sound?

[hv=pc=n&s=sat742hq83dakcq72]133|100[/hv] What's your first bid when partner opens 1♥ (no bidding by opponents)? If 1♠, what's your later plan? How would you bid later after rebids by partner of 1N, 2m, or 2N? Given the problems you may have later in making a forcing bid that shows ♥ support, is there an argument for J2N with only 3 trumps?