Bad_Wolf

Its in the minutes of NZ bridge meeting dated Feb 11th as circulated. Thats all I know. Gerry

Hi, Quote: Moved that NZB ratify the following interpretation of Law 27B1(b) as adopted in some other jurisdictions:- “(b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same distributional meaning as, or a more precise distributional meaning than, the insufficient bid (such distributional meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid), or the Director deems that the information gained by the insufficient bid is not likely to damage the non-offending side, the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following” CARRIED What are people's opinion of this. To me it reads more like a rewrite of the Law than an 'interpretation'. Australia and New Zealand have agreed to this, I don't know what other 'jurisdictions' have.

Ok, thanks guys

"The bridge culture in Australia reflects the national psyche. We distrust authority, preferring to sort out disputes ourselves. Directors here are underworked. After all, "We all live in a convict colony, convict colony." Oh how I wish this was true in NZ, at least in one respect - if you say the slightest thing out of place here that could be regarded as 'rude', they all run to mummy like a three year old with a boo-boo.

Thanks, but I have read the charts and there is nothing to tell us what 2 (or three for that matter) level openings are permitted. "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" - one assumes that this is not meant to ban traditional preempts but how do we know? I hate to belabor the point, but where do we discover what we are actually allowed to play?

Hi, We are considering playing in some ACBL tournaments on BBO for the first time and I have a couple of questions about the GCC as posted on BridgeBase. Firstly I realise that these charts were written prior to the 2007 laws, and thus weak twos for example were automatically allowed - natural bids yadda yadda. I guess my question is really how do we find out what is actually allowed now? Is there another document we can consult? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to start an argument about anything, we just don't want the embarrassment of getting yelled at for playing illegal methods on our first time out (we'll do that another time!). Thanks in advance

I play this too and posted it here once. I thought it was part of ROMEX but I could easily be wrong. It seems to work well.

I once met a pair who claimed their opening suit lengths were 5543! They had opened 1C. At the time we stupidly played methods contingent on openers club length. We asked what they bid with 4432, they had no idea, of course. "we just do the best we can" sort of thing. It all depends on familiarity of course, in a simple natural method everybody knows that 1s-2c might be less than 4 clubs, so one doesn't need to "appease the lawyers", but if I strike a moscito pair who open 1d and say "9-14 4+h unbalanced" I will be surprised if it has only 3h. If they claim that this is a hole in their system I will say "bullshit". I liken the current case to the moscito example, and thus agree with Nigel.

sorry, in the jurisdiction psyching any possibly strong artificial bid is illegal.

Hi all, what does the word 'deliberate' mean in the definition of a psyche. I have always assumed that it meant 'not inadvertent' or 'not accidental'. I ask because of a ruling where a bid was ruled as not a psyche because although the directors agreed that the bid was a 'gross misdescription', the intermediate level player did not, and thus did not intend to psyche. It seems that, if correct, this interpretation is open to a lot of abuse. Not that its really relevant but the player opened 2D game force (with a 2C 8 playing trick available) on something like AQJxxxx Qx Ax xx