savphantom

Can someone please explain how to get Red or Yellow backgrounds for 'Alert' into posted diagrams? Also how to get or enter concise pop-up text? Can you reverse or close the text to let you read the auction easily rather than closing/ reopening the topic. Thanks

Thanks for the thoughts; The local strong critic of +/- 2 IMP argues on the line that "For 20 board match our Max Win is 34.1 IMPS with 1 IMP = 1 VP so 34.1 is 50% above the average result of 0 so Average+ or 10% above average should be 6.82 IMp thus the adjustment for 1 board is 6.82/20 or 0.341 VP per board." Not being a serious maths or statistics man I suspect averaging a result from 20 boards is not relevant to the value of 1 or 2 boards cancelled where you lose all chance of playing well or being lucky. Also hard to believe the authorities such as WBFLC have got it all wrong for so long.

Using X-Imp Pairs competition to select Pairs for representative team and problem occurred with much discussion. What adjustments to scoring should be employed to deal with a fouled board(removed from 1 Match) or curtailment because of withdrawal because of illness when no substitute is available or allowed to play several boards to complete a match. View is that +2 IMP for average plus is a windfall for three or four boards not played. Generally elimination stages would involve 10 pairs, playing full Howell type movement over 3 or so sessions and matches of 16 to 20 boards. In Australia where common to use VP scoring WBF Scales 0-25 VP.

[hv=pc=n&s=saht9dak8765c8532&w=skt6hq5dqjt3ckj64&n=sq875432h743d2ct7&e=sj9hakj862d94caq9&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1h3d3n4s5hppp]399|300|Alerted Diamonds+Spades<br>East bid 4H insufficient over 4S Not accepted corrected to 5H[/hv] Score +200 NS NS very experienced players, recent partnership , EW have less tournament experience. Report of actual NS agreeement not confirmed. Table director recalled by NS to suggest their misinformation of 3♦ may have damaged EW. East stated that after Partner bids 3NT he is always bidding Hearts. South holding a Diamond pre-empt rather than two suits does not affect his intention to his bidding Hearts. He was sure he would bid 5♥ over 4♠ also. Table director ruled no adjustment. Table score stands. Director-in-Charge overuled the table decision and awarded score of -1100 to NS based upon 4♠X by North. A possible action for East with knowledge that South held only a Diamond suit. North appealed. Appeal Committee investigated in detail East's confidence in bidding on in Hearts. Specifically inquired whether doubling 4S could be a potential bid. East was adamant that she saw no alternative to bidding 5♥. did not mention passing 4♠ as an option she might consider. Committee found that players of comparable standard using the methods of the EW partnership did not have a logical alternative to bidding 5♥. Committee decision was Table score 200 NS to apply. What would you rule in Appeal? Do you believe adjustment should be made on the basis of actions slightly more experienced EW players might take or weight scores from actions such as 4♠ North, 4♠X or 5♥ East?

Reposted sorry about prev incomplete effort. You are correct that I am not familiar with Polish Club systems as no leading players in my city use it. I cannot see how the auction 1C P 1D(neg) P 1H X P 2C 3C Shows Clubs and 18+ points. whatever 2C was showing! Perhaps an auction like 1C P 1D P 2C or 3C might show Clubs and 18+ You must be lucky directing players who know their systems and have clear convention cards and reliably alert I experience situations such as 1C(Std but maybe2) 2NT alerted and then explained as lowest two undid suits but the partnership confuses C+D or D+H. Similarly after a Precision 1D opening. I consider a player who hears an opponent cue bid his artificial opening bid and does not protect themself but assumes they are playing like his partnership is contributing to his own distress.

To mgoetze You are correct i am not familiar with Polish Club as at the principal clubs in our state capital no leading players are using it (Australia) I o not understand how auctions like !C

Cue Bid Confusion Are we still shooting everything that moves? Ruling table score of 3CE -4 stands under Law 21A. Agree West has been given MI by South explaining 2C as a cue bid, without explaining what is shown by a cue bid in this auction. Highly irrregular for South to ask and West to explain 3C by East without obtaining a meaning for 2C. Expect that West should call the Director when South seems unable to explain 2C. Astonished that East did not seek explanation from North, his screenmate, of the meaning of 2C by North and risked a "cue bid" in a void when he knows little more than partner is negative. His bid of 3C is self inflicted and not caused by misinformation provided to his partner. East - West need sound systemic agreements to distinguish 18+ with Hearts from a minimum balanced hand with 3+ Hearts to demonstrate how they are damaged resulted from this case of misinformation or was it misbehaviour?

Re aquahombre 30 Aug 201 "But in this case, and for this pair, would a sufficient 3H really be invitational? Maybe they use a tool or extend the negative double for real invites. This particular auction is quite common, and many pairs do not show extra values with a pressure 3H response and the sufficient bid has virtually the same meaning as the insufficient bid. It would be worth investigating before making a ruling, even in jurisdictions where the STOP card is not treated as a requirement. " Is this too academic - TD just says L27 is applicable? L16A authorised information derives from legal calls and plays not unused STOP cards as well L21A Call Based Upon Caller's Misunderstanding seems to leave the IBidder with no recourse. Australian viewpoint !!

Verbal from player 4 days after event. Swiss Teams match completed and scored. Captain interrogates returning pair to find they doubled a 5 Club contract and it made. Very disappointed, goes over to other table, fossicks in waste bin and retrieves the bidding slip. Apparently auction contained an “inverted minor” bid, but no alert. Captain rushes to Director and demands the score be adjusted and the double be removed from 5CX. This demand is complied with, result changes from draw to win. Facts: 1. In Australia, regulation requires inverted minor bids e.g. 1C Pass 2C which seems weak but promises 10+HCP and 1C Pass 3C which is weak to be alerted. 2. Pair who doubled 5C state, while the inverted minor bid was not alerted, they were both familiar with the opponent’s system here and knew the meaning during the auction. 3. Director apparently did not discuss issue with offending side before altering result. Questions 1. Would you have advised the “offenders’, the non-alerting side to appeal? 2. Can a Captain request a ruling for an irregularity at another table? 3. IMO there was an irregularity, no misinformation and no damage therefore no adjustment would be applicable.

Chris Which law would you apply? LHO has not seen a partner's card. Depends on facts of situation. :ph34r:

Following Lamford 26 March 2009. EW are playing 4 card majors with 1C opening at least 3 cards long. 1NT = 15-18 so regret the artifact" 1C1" in original post which could suggest 1C was non natural. The order of events 1C 2NT(alerted) Ask and explained discussion with SC questions and Director called then East bids 3H. Auction and play continue. Recall Director. savphantom

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s85hkdak943cq9754&w=skqj9hq72dj107caj6&e=sa7432ha984d8ck82&s=s106hj10653dq652c103]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1C1 2NT 3H P 4H P P P 2NT alerted and explained as taking it as DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR[/hv] When the explanation for 2NT was given East noticed the NS system card stated the agreement was "Lower unbid suits" Director called. said why do you want to know? South strongly confirmed the agreement a Diamonds plus a Major not the statement on convention Cards. Director left table to play the hand. East bid 3H as Unusual over unusual for the card explanation of 2NT showing game values with Spades. West believing the NS system was Diamonds and a Major sees 3H as 5 card Heart suit. After making 9 tricks in 4H, EW called the director and claimed damage from misinformation. Believing they would reach 4 Spades not 4 Hearts with clear information of NS agreements. Score adjusted to 4S E 10 tricks. Issues to consider: Is East entitled to challenge the explanation during the auction based upon disagreement between CC and table explanation? Do not consider that North's misbid of 2 lowest suits rather than "unbid" suits precludes EW receiving adjusted score? Can EW have a prior agreement to adopt a spoken explanation not the written Convention card? Serious issue with UI available to NS players of their partner's misunderstanding. Given the situation should the Director declare which systemic agreement is the available to EW not merely that they know of confusion in the opponents? Was it director error, so should rectification should use L 82C ? http://forums.bridgebase.com/style_images/1/icon2.gif

Second hand report from major national event. 1S PASS Alert Opener declares to the table "you don't alert 1S Bill"! Responder says he "saw" 2S as the opening bid. Australian Regulations require alerts for 2 suited openers such as Spades and a minor. Generous dose of UI obviously. While I did not hear more details of the auction or if the non offenders could claim damage from UI, What action should the director take if called at the Ui?