TimG

They were called "Christians" or they were called something that was later translated into "Christians".

This American had no idea. I would have guessed that "bugger" was about the equivalent of saying "oh heck".

I one had opponents insist they were playing 1340.

I suspect that even the best directors will admit to needing some further education. I think reporting the statement is the right thing to do...so that the director can be educated by the appropriate person. Attempting to educate the director yourself is unlikely to have good results.

I wonder how mad the guy would have been if you'd done that when the king was offside?

I must admit to not knowing much about the Middle East. Does "Arabian" have some religious connotation? It just seems odd to me that you say Lebanon is Christian and Muslim rather than Arabian (which I thought was a geographic designation rather than a religious designation).

In April, I asked Rick Beye: "1) The GCC allows an "all-purpose" 1D opening bid. In a GCC event, may I use a 1D opening to show hearts (and 10+ points)? Or, would this not qualify as a 'all-purpose' use?" His response: "NO, that would not be 'all-purpose'." Even before the most recent changes, a 1♦ opening promising 4+ spades would not have been allowed -- even though, as you say, is appeared to fall under the "4+ cards in a known suit" rule. It would have required an approved defense, and the C&C Committee is very reluctant to approve transfer type opening bids. If you check the defense database, you will find that there is an approved defense for a 1♦ opening bid which shows 5+ hearts (is forcing and is in every other way identical to a standard American 1♥ opening bid). You will also notice that it is approved only for events with 12+ board segments. In April, I also submitted for approval a defense to a 1♥ opening bid which shows 5+ spades (is forcing and is in every other way identical to a standard American 1♠ opening bid). I was told that the request would be forwarded to the C&C Committee and that "the time frame is indeterminate." I also told Mr. Beye that I would someday like to be able to play transfer openings in a strong club system. He responded that this would be limited to SuperChart events and that it was "highly unlikely you will see these methods approved for Mid Chart events." He later told me that the method would be SuperChart because the "4+ cards in a known suit" rule was being removed from the mid-chart. Anyway, the "all-purpose" clause cannot be used to allow a 1♣ or 1♦ opening which promises 4 spades. And, it sure sounds like it is going to take quite some time before transfer openings are permitted at the mid-chart level (at least in a strong club system or in events with segments of less than 12 boards). Tim

Given how light people are overcalling, this seems like an ultra easy pass.

Is that supposed to be bad for you? raw eggs are supposedly bad. Most bread does not contain eggs. Cookie dough on the other hand...

Is that supposed to be bad for you?

Edit: Oh, sorry, I get it -- 2N if intervenor raises directly to 2♠.

So, double shows about 4252?

I specified NF.

Thanks for the input. For those who bid 1♠, if the auction is: 1♣-1♥-Pass-1♠ 2♣-Pass-Pass-? I'm guessing you now bid 2♥? Also, for those bidding a NF 1♠ which may be only a four-card suit, what do you expect from a raise from partner? 1♣-1♥-Pass-1♠ Pass-2♠ I'm guessing that this doesn't promise more than three-card support. What kind of strength does it show? Is there a minimum number of spades you need to hold in order to pass 1♠?

I know this is a different venue than the World Championships, but when a member of the US Women's team made a political statement at the award ceremony, many people thought she should be sanctioned. Aren't the Lebanese women also making a political statement with their refusal to play? Should they be sanctioned as well?

I think the Laws are pretty clear that only agreements must be disclosed. In your case of Ghestem vs weak one-suiter, the opponents' bids probably change meaning -- for instance, a spade bid is likely a cue-bid of some sort after Ghestem, but not after a weak jump overcall -- so giving, in effect, two explanations has potential for disaster since on the other side of the screen there will be only one explanation.

If you're going to eat the mold, why bother cutting it off first?

After a non-forcing 1♠ or 2♦, does intervenor's 2♥ rebid say anything about strength or just an expression of unsuitability for advancer's suit? What kind of a range would you put on intervenor's simple raise of advancer's suit? Suppose you do play transfer advances, is this too strong for a transfer to diamonds and then a correction to 2♥? Simply not enough hearts? Or, flawed in some other way?

Is it forcing?

IMPs, red v red, you hold ♠KQTx ♥Kx ♦QJxxx ♣Tx. LHO opens 1♣, partner overcalls 1♥, RHO passes. What is your plan? Assume transfer advances of overcalls if you wish.

Bad things can, and do, happen when you make overcalls such as these. In order to do a thorough study of this one would have to consider implications on auction that don't start with an overcall - it's probably impossible to consider everything. The good might outweigh the bad, but I think it is much closer than you make it out to be. And, I don't think either camp can prove their case.

When last in Montreal, I thought the Beaver Club was a strip joint...

If spoken word for word, I would expect "wtf" to be a reaction to something injurious or causing affront. As in: "What the f*** did you do that for, a******?" "wtf" can also be an expression of confusion or frustration. As in: "what the f*** is going on here, it should be easy, but I just can't solve this puzzle." I'm sure there are shades of meaning in between -- shades that would be easier to understand in spoken form rather than written form. When I read the thread title "WTF partner", it sounded to me like partner had done something wrong and the poster was upset. Upon reading the post (which I did not do until this thread was started) I think the poster simply was expressing confusion at the situation and not directing anything at partner. In short, I don't think the use of "wtf" in this case was particularly helpful in expressing the poster's thoughts. I don't really know whether the poster meant a mild "I wasn't sure what this meant" or intended some ill-will towards partner "a good partner shouldn't put me in this position". Can't 90+% of North Americans have a poor vocabulary? I suspect strongly that 90+% swearing is an overbid and that a significant portion of those that do swear limit the company in which they do swear. I think that those who swear are often not making best use of their vocabulary. I neither swear nor possess a good vocabulary, which leaves me severely limited; it would be a shock if anyone understood what I am talking about. Back to the original use of "wtf". Some of us have heard a milder form of this expression: "what the freak". Just as there are miler forms of "f***ing" ("friggin", "freaking", or "frickin") and other swear words. I wonder whether Jilly would have been offended if the poster had written out "what the freak" or if someone used "frickin" in a post? If not, just imagine that "wtf" always means "what the freak".

Your overcall fetched support from partner. I don't really mean to be especially critical of the overcall or the non Ace lead. I am merely pointing out that nothing was accomplished with the overcall on this hand. A missed opportunity of sorts.

On this hand, not leading a spade (or cashing ♣A and shifting to a spade) will allow declarer to pitch all the spade losers. It's only the difference between making exactly and making with two overtricks, but that's still 2 IMPs. IMPs that proponents of this overcall will claim are easier to save because of the intervention.