Possibly relevant question - are US world championships teams funded, or do the players (or sponsor thereof) pay their own expenses?

It's a relief that, after a close 17-13 vote, the matter was finally settled by the decisive margin of four to three. IMO, if the BoD is to be allowed to overturn a decision made by another committee, it should require more than a simple majority.

Partner had eight clubs, thought dealer was psyching and wanted in on the action. I was a beginner at the time and decided 3NT was the right call, which made. 5♦ was cold but I have a suspicion partner would have corrected that to 6♣ - so maybe my 3NT bid wasn't so bad after all. Unfortunately I didn't record the hand.

What happens if a player qualifies for the mixed team and enters the seniors trials; their team wins but that player doesn't meet the board requirements?

The possibility that it could be in a pro's financial interest to enter an event and then try not to win it is certainly concerning.

Hey DG,

“Act as if you didn't hear it” has no basis in law - it's just a rule of thumb that people give. It is only meant to refer to bids and plays you take when you are in receipt of “helpful” unauthorised information.

In such situations, it is irrelevant whether it was you or partner who forgot the system - all that is relevant is that you have UI that tells you that you are having a misunderstanding.

Correcting explanations is a completely separate matter - your duty, when playing without screens, is just to make sure that oppo are given the correct explanation of your agreement at the first legal opportunity (having called the TD first, not that many do in practice, in my experience).

Thinking about what would have happened playing with screens is useful in unauthorised information situations because screens are strictly better than no-screens in this context. In terms of misinformation, screens aren't any better than no-screens, in fact they tend to create more serious problems, so there is no advantage to thinking “what would happen if we were playing with screens?”.

Regardless of whether screens are in use or not, oppo are entitled to the better of “the result obtained at the table” and “the result that would have been obtained if both oppo had been given the correct description of your methods”. They aren't entitled to be awarded “the result they would have got if they had been told that you were having a misunderstanding”.

The auction once started

(1♣) 1♦ (1♠) ??

and my diamond holding was AKQJxxxxx.

5/5 majors invitational when partner has shown four spades?!

And yes, Richard - I wish that was close to the most sophisticated thing I have to (choose to) remember at the table!

I play 1N:2♣, 2♥:3♥ as forcing but 1N:2♣, 2♠:3♠ as invitational. 1N:2♣, 2♠:3♥ agreeing spades leaves you plenty of room for your slam-tries, unlike 1N:2♣, 2♥:3♠.

Yes, far better than the alternative.

Under WBF rules, if the tray comes back after 30 seconds with my partner's sign off, and I wish to bid on, how do I know whether to pass for ethical reasons, or bid because my partner's screenmate may have chosen to hold the tray back?

The aim should be to even out the tempo of the passing of the tray, not to randomise it.

Wow, 15 seconds (with screens) is very different to tbe EBL/WBF approach, unless there has been a recent change. In Tromso, no adjustment was given after -

1♥:3♦ (4-card limit raise)
3♥:4♥

because 30 seconds wasn't deemed sufficient!

Edited because text in square brackets didn't appear

1-30 David, not 1-15 and 17-31.

Thanks for the reminder to book. By the way, my confirmation email says $165/night.

Minor point - it was the round of 16.

GF. Clubs or =4 hearts or single-suited

Six votes for 4♥ at this table

I bid 4♥ on a similar auction at the table (no double of 3♣)

Sabine, I agree completely; I will take the same position as you and Roy.

The majority play the teams and the pairs, so it evens out. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle for the players or staff to change to the ACBL model.