WellSpyder

What??? Do you seriously expect us to remember what we are arguing about?

Don't worry - it won't!

Perhaps we should have another poll to determine how many native English speakers would say "the same age as I" (ie implicitly "the same age as I am") and how many would say "the same age as me"......

D*mn! I was going to post exactly this comment when I saw Phantomsac had posted to this thread, and then I got distracted by having to do some work. Now I find someone else has got there first. :(

I must admit that if an opponent responded in this way to me I would be calling the director now, rather than waiting for another question at an inappropriate time.

Do you actually know it was the same auction, or simply that the hand wasn't played in 4♠? Perhaps West found a bid rather than just a hesitation over South's pre-empt?

In that case I can only suggest funnyman changes his username and tries not to upset the computer again, otherwise it seems like he will always be destined to come off worse with finesses.

I don't really know how the BBO events work, I'm afraid, but I think you should consider sitting EW for a change rather than NS (or vice versa if you normally sit EW) - if the finesses are always failing for NS then they will be working for EW.....

Fine. But let's not forget the need for proper disclosure. OP implies that this pair properly disclose that their so-called strong bid might have as few as 13 points. But do they disclose that it might have as few as 8?

How true - except, of course, that MY understanding is indeed "standard".... My partner finds it just as annoying when I try to present something as "standard" in the context of what our future agreement should be, let alone our implicit current agreement.

I can't find the spoiler, and it is spoiling my morning!

Good point. Looking at the EBU regulations for using screens suggests that the possibility of a 25A correction remains after the tray has been moved, but I can see no suggestions about how this should be approached by the player concerned.

Erm, how does he become aware of his finger-fumble? If he can see the errant bid then presumably the tray has not yet been passed to the other side of the table, so his partner has not yet had a chance to call. If the tray is already the other side of the screen then he should no longer be able to see what bid he placed on the tray....

I thought it was an interesting question, and credit to you for asking it in the way you did rather than an ATB. I looked at the title of the thread and thought "that's easy - I know the answer to that one. NO!" Then I looked at the hand and thought "actually I'm less sure of the answer than I thought I would be".

It is presumably also more likely that a trick you blow in your long suit is a loser that declarer could in time have discarded on another suit anyway if you had avoided leading the suit at T1.

I expect everyone noticed it, but felt it wasn't very relevant since the law is clear about which revoke is subject to (non-equity) rectification.

I picked 3N NV, on the grounds that it was the most likely game to make. I was worried about all those 100s when V if I was wrong, though, since it could go very wrong when it went wrong, so I chickened out with 4H, like most others. But I wasn't entirely convinced by my own choices or reasons in either case.....

I have now seen the write-up of this case by the AC, which states: "We gave due weight to the poll conducted by the TD, and considered that hesitations tend to show extra values rather than marginal values. We considered pass an alternative with two unstopped suits and given a spade lead would be through the AQ." I'm not convinced by the alleged tendency for slow invites to have maximum values rather than minimum values, but whether or not one agrees with that, I am bothered by the fact that on this particular occasion the alternative to inviting that was being considered was passing rather than bidding game. I am also bothered by the lack of any apparent recognition that south has already denied a good hand in support of ♦s, and given the lack of any confirmation from VixTD I suspect this wasn't allowed for in the poll, either. However, I suspect polls will always include opinions that don't fully recognise the implications of the auction, and that simply means ACs should give due, but not undue, weight to them. At any rate, the case has been decided. I have two suggestions for the future, both reflecting points I have touched on earlier in the thread. 1) I don't see any reason why TDs should limit polling on the issue of what is suggested to those who are undecided about what to bid. It is hard enough to poll sufficient people as it is, and there is no reason why others who have been given the auction can't have valid views on what is suggested. 2) If ACs are going to base their conclusions on disregarding a statement from one of the players on what they were thinking about, I think it would be good practice to at least give them an opportunity to explain their point of view, rather than for subsequent discussion of the hand simply to be on the basis that the statement is a given. If there is any agreement on one or both of these points, it might be worth looking at current guidance to the relevant participants to see whether further clarification would be useful.

I wasn't raising the question of what North thought relative to what his peers would think was suggested, but rather the question of what South actually had relative to what North's peers would think was suggested.

I think my partner felt that either bid was possible, but the doubtful value of ♠Q led him to be cautious. That was certainly his feeling. VixTD would have to confirm that one way or the other, but I think the difficulty of ensuring that those polled have a full picture of the implications of the auction is always a reason to be a little bit cautious about the results of a poll, and indeed is one of the reasons why we have ACs at all where these issues can be explored in more detail.

South's options at his second turn were: 2♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and no particular enthusiasm for ♦ 3♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and enthusiasm for ♦ Anything else to show a strong club, with 2♣ the default option unless he had a good suit of his own to show. (11-13 balanced hands without a four-card major are not opened 1♣ - see post #2.)

I hope BBO forum members don't come under the category "anyone" - or do we risk losing your contributions when you lose your liberty for sharing your interesting experience with us?

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

I don't think we should criticise lamford's contribution to this discussion, indeed I think we should be grateful for it. I don't think anything has been said that devalues the appeals process or undermines the confidentiality of discussions between the AC members themselves, and I for one am grateful for a chance to understand the sort of thinking that affected the AC's decision (however much I might disagree with some of the judgments involved!). It is at least clear to me now that there is more scope for judgment in the ruling rather than simply logic than I had perhaps appreciated at the time, even if some of the judgments expressed seem to be based on a lack of understanding about the systemic inferences available (I'm thinking of dburn's rather forthright comments in particular). I gave the south hand to a Tollemache-standard player from another county who I found myself travelling with after the EBU's AGM yesterday and his judgments were: a) it makes sense for S to bid only 2♦ rather than 3♦ on the second round of the auction given that ♠Q is likely to be of limited value; b) once north bids 3♦ over this it looks clear to bid 3NT. 4♦ might be an alternative, but 11 tricks looks a long way off. c) when pressed, he accepted that passing 3♦ might be a LA. d) when shown the north hand, he said he would probably have passed over 2♦. I really do not think, therefore, that it is obvious north has a maximum invite and that south has no reason to accept, even if that is your final judgment.

I don't think that the fact that you personally appear not to agree with North's assessment of his hand is necessarily a particularly convincing reason for disbelieving his statement that the alternative bid he was considering was passing.