TimG

I don't think amounts to directing the play. I don't think dummy was really preventing an irregularity, but rather protecting her side's rights. I don't think there should be any objection to that. Does anyone really want to gain because declarer wasn't aware she had rights and wasn't bold enough to call the director and ask?

The proposed changes to the NAP failed (no championship flight and no increase in the flight B masterpoint limit).

Most of the responses have been made with the understanding that the player was intentionally taking extra time at a critical point. This may not pass specific information regarding the hand other than it is a critical point. Like others, I see this as unethical. I also agree with Helene (and Art, I think). I think it is OK to deliberately slow your tempo so long as it is reasonably constant.

This has been proposed to the Committee. It perhaps did not reach the serious consideration phase since it did not appear in the Summer 2009 minutes. Or, maybe it is part of the convention chart discussion that was tabled. Tim

If the shuffle is sufficient, this should be the case, shouldn't it?

Isn't the ♦Q an illusion? [hv=n=s2h2d2c2&w=sahdqjca&e=shda876c&s=shdkt93c]399|300|[/hv] Works the same way, doesn't it?

I don't understand what "untruth" was told to tempt south back into the auction. West's explanation is consistent with his bidding and cannot be deemed to tempt south back into the auction. East's correction doesn't seem like an untruth. As Tyler points out, if E/W knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have missed their vulnerable game. N/S are frustrated by turning -150 into -500, I'd warn them against accusing the opponents of nefarious acts (perhaps even suggest that an apology was in order) and initiate disciplinary action if they persisted at the table. (I would be willing to discuss the matter with them privately at a later time.)

I know you said "according to the minutes", but see items #14 and #16 on the mid-chart.

I do see the difference, though I am not sure it really matters. The minutes could just as easily have said "A request was made to approve a defense to the 1D opening bid" and concluded that the Committee felt the defense inappropriate for the MC level. Out of curiosity, what suggested defense did you submit?

I find it remarkable that a Precision 2♣ opening is legal at the GCC level because it is a natural bid (showing clubs). While a 2♥ showing 5 Hearts and 4+ cards in a side suit - also natural - is illegal for midchart events... Maybe I am misreading it, but doesn't that say a WEAK 2 showing 5♥and4♠? That is VASTLY different from an opening range hand showing same. One is constructive, the other is not. Flannery 2♥ is a legal method, even in GCC, if I am not mistaken. Is a constructive 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4+ card minor mid-chart legal? Is it GCC legal? One could read the charts such that the answer to both these questions is "no". The GCC specifically allows two level openings which show two known suits and a minimum of 10 HCP. No where does it sanction a two level opening which shows one known suit and one unknown suit. The only additions to this on the mid-chart is for a weak opening of 2♥ or 2♠ which shows that major plus an unknown minor suit (Item #12*), and for a 2♥ opening which shows 5-5 in the majors (Item #14) or 5-4 in the majors (Item #16). So, the method is not sanctioned under the GCC or the MC. You may argue that a constructive 2♥ opening showing hearts and a minor is allowed in a GCC event because it is a natural method. But, that argument does not depend upon "constructive", or at least nothing in the GCC's definition of natural says anything about strength promised by a natural call. The GCC needs clarification as to which natural methods are allowed and which are not. Tim * The request that led the C&C Committee to review mid-chart item #12 was to change the wording from "showing a weak two with a 4+ card minor" to "showing a weak two with a 4+ card side suit". The request was not for specifically 4♠ and 5♥, but rather for 2♥ showing hearts plus an unspecified 4+ card suit suit. I do not know why the Committee said "[c]urrently the both majors convention is not legal under MC" in light of mid-chart items #14 and #16.

This item from the minutes: highlights a problem. This method is not be MC legal as there is no approved defense for the method and it does not qualify under items #1-5 on the MC as not requiring an approved defense. After reading this, I gained a bit of sympathy for the pair that was the subject of Case #20 in the Washington DC NABC+ Appeals. If it's not clear to the committee that a defense must be approved before a method is MC legal, it doesn't seem so strange that experienced players and directors can't figure it out.

A method submitted on May of 2009 probably wouldn't be discussed at the Summer 2009 meetings -- the process tends to be slower than that. If it was a weak opening, it is likely being tabled indefinitely. But, you should have received notice if that was the case. There was mention in the minutes of at least one MC method rejected: the 1♦ opening which shows hearts. Along with that, the approved defense to a 1♥ opening which shows spades was removed. (Though it was still in the Defense Database last time I checked.)

I do agree with you that the two are different in nature (one promises a side suit, one does not) but both are natural. I believe the GCC needs clarification as to which natural methods are allowed and which are not.

I think it is difficult to define necessary. There are forcing club systems that use 1♣ for both strong hands and "standard" club hands. There are also forcing club systems that use 2♣ specifically for club single suiters rather than possible club/major two-suiters. Some very good players think Flannery is a necessary part of standard methods. There was a Flannery exception on the GCC for many years. It was not that long ago that the exception was changed to cover any constructive two-level opening that showed two specific suits rather than just 2♦ for the majors. It is my opinion that if you are going to allow a 2♣ opening which is either 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major, you ought to either: 1) make it clear that this is a exception; or preferably 2) allow all 2-level openings which show either 6+ in the suit bid or 5+ in the suit opened along with some possible 4-card suit suits (similar to what was done for Flannery type openings). Claiming that the 2♣ treatment under review is allowed because it is natural while disallowing other natural bids, even other natural bids that are very similar, without making the charts clear in this regard is a mistake. Tim

I think it is possible to point out the flaws without pissing off members of the committee. I attempted to do just that last week after first reading the minutes. I also think it is a good thing if lots of people point out the flaws and/or offer their opinions. The more people who comment on specific items the less likely we'll be considered a fringe minority or crackpots.

The end result may be reasonable, but the reasoning the C&C Committee used to get there appears flawed.

Baby steps.

Minutes from the spring and summer 2009 meetings are now available at the C&C Committee page at acbl.org.

At the summer 2009 meetings of the C&C Committee (ACBL) a motion to not allow “Please no alerts” passed. I do not know how this rule is being disseminated.

I am not expecting glamor, fame or fortune!

I'd like to see what directing is like. Seems safer to be a co-director to see what goes on rather than set one up myself. Anybody running a tournament that they wouldn't mind making me a director for so I could get my feet wet? Thanks.

I can't really tell from Ray's site: do you need a premier membership to join the ladder?

Will there be a break for Superbowl Sunday?

It won't appear if you log off first. I think this is a welcome feature. Much better than finding oneself logged off due to hitting the browser back button rather than the BBO back button or accidentally closing the BBO window rather than "recent tournaments" window.

(That's 20.4%, 46.0% and 69.6%.) My constrainst were: North is balanced (5332 or 4432 or 4333) without 4 spades, and with exactly 3=4=3=3 or 4+ clubs. I get 22% (9495), 48% (6362), 74% (4143) after adding in the 3=4=3=3s and increasing the sample size to 20,000. I imagine the difference is big enough to mean that we've done something slightly different in our samples, i.e. one of us has done something wrong. I already left one shape out of my original sample, so I'm willing to concede that it's probably me that made the error. Edit: I used: shape(south, 2335 + 3235 + 3325 + 2434 + 3424 + 3334 + 2344 + 3244 + 3433) to produce these numbers.