TimG

I'd open it 1 club, the Rule of Spades applies. I don't know the rule of spades, but I call KQJxxxxxx trumps (even if the smallest spot is the deuce).

I'm not weird, but everyone else is.

Is LHO going to sit for the XX with something like xx xxx Qxxxx Qxx? Since double isn't purely penalty, I expect not. If LHO has much more and thus is willing to sit for the double, the chances that RHO has some source of tricks goes up (because his 15+ or equivalent is likely the "or equivalent"). If the opponents sit for 1NXX, they are likely right. So, probably best to start describing your hand immediately and pass on the apparent opportunity to make a cheap game and score some redoubled overtricks.

On the first, I think opener has ♠KQJx and nine solid clubs (or similar). jdonn would have opened 4N asking for specific aces. The second could be a 5 or 7 hand.

For what it is worth, when I exchanged e-mails with Jay Baum (ACBL CEO) about this matter, he wrote: "This subject is not getting much attention (surprising)." I would suggest writing to him. If you feel strongly, get your friends to write to him, too. His e-mail address is Jay.Baum(at)acbl.org.

Well, we are talking about two things that are related. There seems to be a strong majority for 1♥ on the first round. I'm not as convinced as others that it is cut and dry, but putting that aside, now that we have gotten to: 1♣-1♥-1N-P; P-? are we sure we want to play 2♥ when partner has three hearts? After all, he was so weak that he could not muster up a raise over 1NT despite his 3-card support? Justin said that finding 3+ hearts would be a good thing, I am not so sure. Is that worded better?

Well, granted it's proving very debatable, but if you think acting now is too dangerous then I'd say 1♥ has worked very well by showing you that before it was too late. It told you the heart strength is over you and that your side probably has the minority of the strength. In other words, if you think passing now is right then you are glad 1♥ put you in a position to make that judgment. I expect that doubling would have put us in the same position, though usually with a little less of an inference about hearts, after either 1♣-DBL-1N or 1♣-DBL-RDBL (or even 1♣-DBL-1♥ with an even stronger inference about hearts). And, partner would be in a position to compete to 2♠ or 2♦ without intervenor taking further action which commits the partnership to the two-level without a known fit (as in 1♣-1♥-1N-P; P-DBL).

Except for exactly 3 hearts, we'd find all that out by doubling 1♣ rather than overcalling and we would do it at a lower level. Yes, I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way. But, at this point, do we really want to find partner with 3 hearts? After all, he was unwilling to bid 2♥ over 1N. so are you saying now that the main advantage of 1♥ has gone, we should ask for an undo and double? No, which is why I said "I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way" and moved on to the situation at hand. But, I do think it is something to think about.

Except for exactly 3 hearts, we'd find all that out by doubling 1♣ rather than overcalling and we would do it at a lower level. Yes, I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way. But, at this point, do we really want to find partner with 3 hearts? After all, he was unwilling to bid 2♥ over 1N.

I live in Maine and am a member of the Maine Unit, not EMBA (Eastern Massachusetts Bridge Association). That does mean we are both members of District 25 (New England Bridge Conference). I believe Jason (jchiu) has move out of District 25. Tim

I generally think of ACBL management to mean the CEO and Memphis staff, not the Board of Directors. This rule was put into place by the Board of Directors. I think it is a pretty feeble attempt and if it is, as you suggest, a case of window dressing they ought to have done something less inconvenient for those playing in the events.

Probably a better plan than 5NT. How else can you invite 7NT except by bidding 5NT?

What kind of responding hand would be concerned about only the high trump honors? How do you show 4S on the way to 6N?

If this were a true test, and they used me as the subject, I'm sure many enhanced (and unenhanced) interrogation techniques, would quickly become torture.

Suppose you agree that a 2♦ overcall is natural. What about this sequence: (1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-2♦? Is this a good raise to 2♥ or a natural bid in diamonds? You can play around with this sequence a lot, but I've never seen 2♦ played as natural. Most play 2♦ and 2♠ as various kinds of raises. The need for defining certain cue bids as x and y goes away with transfer advances however. When you play transfer advances, don't transfers usually start at the cue-bid and end at the transfer raise? So, in a sequence like (1♦)-1♥-P-? transfers would start (and end) at 2♦. If, however, 1♦ could be short and you decide that a direct 2♦ overcall of such a 1♦ opening is natural, does the "cue-bid" exist? So, I don't see that transfer advances obviates the need to define what is a cue-bid.

Suppose instead you hear (see): (1♣)-1♥-(1N)-P; P-?

Suppose you agree that a 2♦ overcall is natural. What about this sequence: (1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-2♦? Is this a good raise to 2♥ or a natural bid in diamonds?

A few years ago the answer was the US Congress, but it turned out to be a hoax. I suspect you should check the facts before getting too excited about this one.

In your BBO directory on your computer... Folder 'Flags' perhaps? :) Does that really work? I would expect my flags folder to be used for displaying other people's flags on my computer, not the other way round. If you delete your own flag it works. But I didn't test it on other people's profiles... I haven't deleted the entire folder, if you want to know, just try it ;) Deleting the local copy of the flag does not work. You cannot see your own flag, but others still can.

I can't imagine there is a single unit board member in New England who devotes "several hundred hours a year to their unit". There may be a few club owners and/or teachers who spend a few hundred hours in non-playing bridge activities who are also Unit board members. But, these people are getting paid for their services and they are not performing them as a condition of being on a Unit board. There is a good case to be made for the players in an event not being responsible for creating the rules under which the event will be run, at least where it comes to security measures. People have mentioned that similar bans are already in place in Australia, the USBF and the WBF (I think also in Europe, but I can not remember for sure). I imagine that those who proposed and voted on the rule had input for players who play in NABC+ events and who have played in USBF and WBF events where the ban was in place.

V/NV, IMPs, P-P-1♣ to you holding ♠AQJ ♥K98xx ♦KQ9x ♣x. Double or overcall 1♥?

I was talking about, and giving examples for, the auction suggested by jdonn which did not involve any cue-bidding or doubles of cue-bids. I even quoted jdonn's "I want to be in slam after the auction I would have" so it would be clear which auction was under discussion.

I suspect it varies from District to District, but in New England, the Unit Presidents appoint District Executive Committee members (what you would think of as a board). We also have a larger District Board of Delegates (also appointed by Unit Presidents). The officers of the District are elected by the Board of Delegates. The District Director is elected by the Unit Board members. Other notes: There are some Units with small memberships -- there are a few in New England with fewer than 500 members. There are also some very large Units -- I believe there are Units in Florida that have more members than entire Districts. The 3000+ members in the Philadelphia Unit is probably more than some Districts. I believe Jason Chiu was a member of his Unit board when he lived in Eastern Massachusetts. He was also on at least one District Committee (I know, I appointed him when I was President of District 25). As I have said before, when I was President, I attempted to fill committees with younger people -- some of them quite reasonably declined because of time concerns -- though this isn't a large pool to draw from. I am now 40 and have not been involved in bridge organization for about 3 years. I served on a Unit board when I was in college; I was a voting member of another Unit board by virtue of being the editor of the Unit newsletter; I have been a member of the District 25 Executive Committee and Board of Delegates; I've also been the President of District 25. As far as I know, I was the youngest person (by a fair bit) on any of those boards/committees at the time I served. Edit: lest there be any doubt, I am not a pro player...not that anyone who reads my posts would ever confuse me with a pro...but just to clarify because of the mention about non-pro young players serving.

I'm a little confused: why would you use keycard when you are missing a single keycard and then signoff in 6♠ when partner shows up with the missing keycard?

In New England (District 25), which is made up of eight units, the District Director is elected by the unit boards. So, very few individuals actually get a vote. (In this case, your poll options make little sense -- when I was a member of the unit board, I voted; now that I am not, I do not vote.)