[hotShot]

I 've seen nobody here assuming that west intentionally mislead south.
Maybe it was a language problem, maybe west just gave an information how he deviated from "normal" bidding in 3rd seat.
Unfortunatelly he wrote 10-11. This is a range of HCP. He did not state:
min. 10-11 or (10-11)+ or anything that would indicate that this range means a minimum.
Unfortunate i would say.

I think this can only be resolved by introducing better CC's at BBO, although it will not help at Indy's.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Apr 11 2005, 04:07 PM, said:

I 've seen nobody here assuming that west intentionally mislead south.
Maybe it was a language problem, maybe west just gave an information how he deviated from "normal" bidding in 3rd seat.
Unfortunatelly he wrote 10-11. This is a range of HCP. He did not state:
min. 10-11 or (10-11)+ or anything that would indicate that this range means a minimum.
Unfortunate i would say.

I think this can only be resolved by introducing better CC's at BBO, although it will not help at Indy's.

The 1♣ opening was not alerted. This clearly indicates that the 1♣ opening was standard, and, in turn, that the (10-11) described the minimum strength for the opening.

While South might assume that that (10-11) referred to the comprehensive range for a 3rd seat 1♣ opening, any player with half a brain would understand that this referred to the minimum range. Personally, I'm willing to give South the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's an imbicile, but merely an ethically challenged player trying to game the system.

Personally, I don't think that you're going to solve this probelm wih better convention cards. As I noted, I'd hope for the opportunity for an appeal without merit penalty.

[Walddk]

hotShot, on Apr 11 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

I 've seen nobody here assuming that west intentionally mislead south.

Should we not just assume that no one on BBO misleads the opponents deliberately!? You need very strong evidence to claim that someone does. I am pretty sure that the 10-11 point explanation lacked a + and that it therefore was inadequate.

This has not, however, damaged NS in the slightest in my opinion. South took a chance by doubling. He got his just reward when 3NTXX made. Too bad, but don't think that you can get an adjusted score by calling the Law. Accept that you must taste your own medicine and get on with things.

Roland

[olegru]

Quote

I think it was justified to call the director. Not only because of the misinformation, but also because it's funny that East doesn't bid 3NT immediately, and that West kept it open allthough 1♠ should show a much stronger hand.

Just to clean up.
There are a lot of different Polish Club approach's and

Quote

1♣: 12-14 balanced, 15+ with clubs or 18+ any shape

just one of them.
Another approach, for example, 12-14 balanced, 11+ with clubs or 18 - 24 balanced and probably, 1♠ didn't promise too much.

I believe West tried to be helpful and answered question as he understud it. Probably he got this lesson and next time will answer "no information" - most common answer which I receive on BBO.
South complain looks like a typical "double shot" - "I know answer is incorrect, but I will not ask for future description and will dbl. If it will go wrong I can complain do director." (Could he really beleive common Polish club system (It is Indy, opps can't have spesific system) can fave such a wierd oppenind 10-11 PC. I'll not buy it.)

[badderzboy]

Hopefully people can take advantage of the new functionality in 4.1.9 and beyond where you can cut & paste into BBO from a text/Word doc to try and resolve ambiguity!

And you can also paste into chat (using <--> icon) if it's too long for the text box!

That way we can all tell each other what our bids mean in different parts of the world.

Well at least I can dream...

Steve