[akwoo]

The request for a ruling became moot since we blitzed the match, but our table tried to give the directors an impossible problem.

Yesterday (the final Sunday) at the NABC, "regional" 0-4K bracketed Swiss, top bracket (we would've been in bracket 2 but asked to be placed up).

---

At this point I ask South about 3C and was told it was invitational. I passed. After the board was played, South agreed that 3C was agreed to be weak and he had forgotten.

Here's the problem for the directors. This is a problem where skill level makes a big difference. I think almost all weaker players pass (I've only got 14 hcp!) and almost all stronger players bid 4♠ (I need 2 cards from partner, and he rates to have that much given the correct info from opps).

I've got 800 masterpoints... and I've won the 0-2.5K Micro-Spingold. There's a reason we won the bracket by a 40+ VP margin. Who are my peers? Is there even anyone in the event who would've doubled 3♣? (Also, in this situation, given we're the non-offending side, what's the threshold?)

Opps are known to me and are a strong pair for the field.

[jillybean]

I very much dislike polls , if you say you would have bid 4S with the correct information, that is how the Directors should make their ruling.
Finding peers, or worse , hearing a Director say, as I did today, “you’ve got xx losing trick count , you can’t bid 4S” is no way to make a ruling. We continue to protect the OS and dismiss the NOS if it doesn’t fit with the Directors style.

[awm]

I've seen enough ridiculous statements by players about "what they would've done" after the hand that I disagree with Jillybean here.

As far as "peers", I think by virtue of playing in the event, your peers must be assumed to be players at the level of the event. I'd try to poll the top players in the 0-4k, or in a similar limited event. While it might be the case that you are a much better player than everyone in such a poll, were that the case it would argue that you should perhaps not be playing in a 0-4k to begin with.