TimG

When I submitted a 1♦ transfer opening (otherwise identical to the already approved 1♥ transfer opening) the C&C Committee reconsidered and removed the 1♥ transfer opening. I say "removed" but last I checked the defense was still in the defense database. I think it was summer 2009 that the method was supposed to have been removed from the defense database so it has been a while. I sent a reminder about this (probably more than one) to the committee chair and someone at ACBL, when nothing happened, I wrote a letter to the (then) President of the ACBL pointing out that there was a problem in the process. Still nothing. At the time of approval, the sticking point with the committee was that the transfer opening had to be forcing. They did make me run through hoops by specifying a complete response structure and outlining all possible defensive actions -- it was not enough to say "treat the opening like a standard 1♠ opening except..." and mention the very few exceptions, nor was it enough to say "jump overcalls are xyz". It made what could have been a very short defense run to three pages (as I recall). One thing I wondered was if I had decided I wanted to play 1H-3S as limit instead of weak, would I have had to submit a whole new method and defense for approval. The committee did express some curiosity about what I would do with a 1♠ opening. I was upfront about not having complete system worked out, but described some GCC legal options for 1♠. The committee recognized they were not charged with system approval but rather convention approval and did not push this during the approval process.

Sorry, I didn't understand this to be a quiz, I thought you genuinely wanted to know the answer. Which is why I added the suitplay link -- I thought I was being helpful rather than spoiling, not everyone knows about SuitPlay. And, of course, SuitPlay's answer did not preclude further discussion.

On the second round, Suitplay plays: a] Jack from hand; b] low to Jack. SuitPlay is free, more info here.

It would be nice, in my opinion, if there were some way to obtain a definitive ruling that would be disseminated and carried out by all directors. That way, there would be no temptation to resort to this type of civil disobedience. The part of your message to which I was replying, the part that I quoted, certainly sounded to me like an attempt to draw attention to the regulations by getting caught.

I don't see mention of where you are from in your profile, but here in the US I think it is common to have a CC at club games. Pickup partners use a CC to help establish what they are playing and players often carry around CC holders with CC for a variety of partners. In short, the social aspect of club play does not mean that CC are not common.

It would be nice, in my opinion, if there were some way to obtain a definitive ruling that would be disseminated and carried out by all directors. That way, there would be no temptation to resort to this type of civil disobedience. A clear convention chart would be a nice start, but official interpretations that in effect become regulation would be nice, and would be useful no matter how clear the convention charts may become.

If I am not certain about the transfer, I agree with Pran's approach. But, if I am certain that 2♦ is a transfer, as in the case where I have been able to glance at their convention card and see transfers marked, I think it is wrong to wait for the irregularity to present itself later in the auction or to ask the opponents the meaning of the bid. Asking and then doubling in this situation is a case of asking solely for partner's benefit.

You ought to move the two "review" threads from the General Bridge section.

As others have pointed out, "unusual notrump" is not a sufficient explanation. If you accepted this explanation and your claim for adjustment was based upon he difference between "minors" and "two lower unbid", I would discount your claim because you did not take minimum steps to protect yourself. If your claim was based upon not realizing one of the suits could be spades, your claim to damage and any potential adjustment would not be compromised. In short: yes, you have some obligation to protect yourself in the event of an explanation you know to be insufficient. If she thinks her way is one of the normal ways, even if it is a minority way, I don't think she is "more seriously guilty". My guess is a significant majority of players use 2N over a minor suit opening to show "two lower unbid". Those who play "minors" are no more or less guilty of an improper explanation when they describe their method as "unusual". In my opinion, a lot depends upon the manner in which you corrected or instructed your opponent. I'm sure it can be done both politely and impolitely. I would recommend it not carry an air of authority, people seldom like to be told what to do by those not in authority, and unwelcome instructions/lessons surely come under ZT coverage.

So, you actually are interested enough to comment?

Although it may amount to the same thing, I think it is a little different if you go about defining your other opening bids and then use 1♦ as a catchall for everything that is not defined. I say this because it seems to me that the "catchall" option was the intent of the regulators when they wrote the regulations. It was meant to be in the context of a strong club, but they intentionally wrote it sufficiently vague so as to allow for catchalls in other systems. I doubt they imagined a system that would be otherwise GCC legal and would use a 1♦ opening to catch just hands with 4+ spades, but really why should one otherwise GCC legal system be allowed to use a catchall 1♦ while another otherwise GCC legal system is not? I'm sure we've gone round and round on what "all-purpose" means and it's doubtful that we all came to agreement. I would point out that regardless of how it is described to regulators or officials, the explanation given to opponents should not obfuscate. It would be improper to explain a 1♦ opening which shows spades to opponents by describing all your other opening bids and leaving it to them to figure out that this means 1♦ promises 4+ spades. It seems to me that it would also be wrong to do the same with regulators and officials. I would have little respect for someone who asked an official about the 1♦ opening which shows 4+ spades by referring to it as a catchall and not also explaining that a consequence of system is that the opening always includes 4+ spades.

I disagree that it is the regulators' job to dissect methods to determine all inferences, positive and negative. Your arguments about other players not being totally forthcoming mean nothing to me, their doing it does not make it right for others. To me, what you suggest is akin to using an illegal piece of equipment in a sporting event and thinking: so long as the ref doesn't notice, I've done nothing wrong.

As Richard (or Adam) said, this is sort of a matter of who you ask, when you ask. I've asked those who should know -- I forget specifically who, but it was in the process of submitting methods to the C&C Committee for approval -- about using an "all-purpose" 1m opening to show a hand with exactly four spades and was told I could not do this. I've probably got the e-mail someplace, but am not going to bother digging for it right now because even if I produce it, someone is going to say the person who told me was wrong. Is there one person, or body, that everyone here would consider an ultimate authority as far as ruling whether a method is GCC legal? Edit: I found this brief exchange between myself and Rick Beye (who was at the time Chief Tournament Director): NO, that would not be 'all-purpose'. [The giant text was Mr. Beye's choice.] Although I once did want to use 1♣ to show exactly four spades, I cannot be sure that I asked specifically about that rather than relying upon the above ruling to determine that it would not be permitted.

Only trouble is that transfer openings (at the one level) aren't mid-chart legal.

East seems to acknowledge that there was some chance 2♦ would get passed out regardless of whether he asked. I don't understand what he was hoping to accomplish with his pass. I'm kind of curious what his options were over 2♦. And, would the meaning of 2♦ have affected the meaning of his calls? All this wondering is basically in an attempt to understand to what degree east stopped playing bridge. Unless he comes up with something very convincing (what I can't imagine) I would not be inclined to adjust the score.

Would it make sense to use 2♠ for the 4♠-6♣ hands?

As long as you're willing to limit yourself to mid-chart, you ought to send a defense to transfer opening to the C&C Committee. There's really no chance that they will approve the defense, but I think it is a good thing if the committee regularly sees such requests. Maybe, just maybe, it will eventually soften their stance a bit. I don't think it matters what you call it, I knew you had in mind a light initial action strong club when you said "MOSCITO". I was expecting a "majors first" approach, but I learned quickly enough.

You removed the part to which I was responding. The point was, as you well know, that their image could take a hit either way.

I, for one, have no problem with any of the players, client or professional, who are moving to Monaco for an opportunity to play in the Bermuda Bowl. I do think that if the WBF is going to hold championships with country representation, the rules ought to be more strict. I don't see those as contradictory viewpoints.

Some will be of the opinion that this move to Monaco is damaging to their images.

I gave you and upvote, figured it was probably your first one. Imagine my surprise to find I was the 13th! I wonder whether bridge players really take great pride in representing their countries. Is a Bermuda Bowl victory sweeter than a Rosenblum because the Bermuda Bowl victory was for country while the Rosenblum was not? It might be harder to win a Bermuda Bowl, in part because of the national qualifying, but assuming they were equal bridge achievements, would a Bermuda Bowl victory be worth more to the participants because of the country representation? I've never had the opportunity to represent the US and never will, so perhaps I cannot say for sure, but I don't think country representation would increase the value for me. I do not take pride in the US because the US has had a string of Bermuda Bowl champions. This is not limited to bridge, I don't take pride in the US because they win gold medals in basketball or win more medals than other countries in an Olympics. I do not think less of the US because the US Soccer team has never won anything. I realize that I am to a great extent going against popular sentiment. I guess I wonder to how great an extent.

There is a difference between letting the defenders figure it out and actively concealing it. McBruce 's impression is clearly that declarer was actively concealing the revoke, I think we have to accept that. Given the active attempt to conceal, I don't think the procedural penalty was out of line.

I'll do it for you.

duplicate...wish I could just delete it.

I was rooting for Boise State this year, doesn't mean I think Oregon and Auburn are bad for college football.