TimG

I vote for 2♥ if that's a weak two-bid and I'm playing standard methods (i.e. not a light initial action type system). It seems obvious to me to get into the auction (especially first seat favorable). But, I've just recently reread Robson-Segal's pressure bidding chapter. Tim

Was your reference to WJ10 in jest, or do you know of a project in the works?

WJ05 says of the preparatory 1♣: "With this variant of the opening it is 12-14 HCP balanced". There is a later note: "I don't recommend opening 2♣ (Precision) with both 4-crd majors (4-4-0-5). Practice shows it's better to open 1♣, and bid on as if we have 4414 distribution." But, I cannot find any other mention of 1♣ including 4414 hands. How to rebid with 4-4-1-4, though rather straightforward, is not described (or at least I haven't found it).

Not really. While 2D is five diamonds it's in 12-17 range. 2H/2S are natural with exactly 4diamonds and 12-14. 2NT is natural without 4card major and with 4diamonds (12-14balanced). Sorry, you are correct.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits. Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation. I don't think "it's a consequence of other systemic choices" makes it any less conventional (even though that is no longer defined). But it's still a natural opening. The fact that there are side suit implications doesn't make it any less GCC-legal. Are you telling me that all natural openings are allowed in GCC events? 2♥ showing hearts and another suit is a natural opening. If you want, I can define other openings such that they cover single-suited hands with hearts so that we are left to infer that the 2♥ opening contains a side suit. But, I don't believe this is a GCC legal method.

In WJ05, after 1♦-2♣ 2♦ = five diamonds 2M = four of the major and four diamonds. 2N = four diamonds, balanced, no four-card major 3N = 4=4=4=1, 15-17 EDIT: corrected 2N, thanks to bluecalm

Hmmm. It does have clubs so it is 11-14 HCP and 4414 that is trouble? I'm not sure I get your point. A hand in the 11-14 range that is 4414 can't be opened with 1♣ because the weak variety of 1♣ shows a balanced hand. 1♣ seems the best option, the lie that will likely work out best. A hand in the 15-17 range that is 4414 can't be opened with 1♣ because the medium variety of 1♣ shows an unbalanced hand with at least 5 clubs. Probably best to also open this hand 1♣, once again the lie that will likely work out best. Maybe I have missed something that is particular about specifically 12 HCP and 4414?

Perhaps the answer is not to siphon off players into "secondary" events that start at the same time but rather to add a day to the Blue Ribbon Pairs and Reisinger. Then the "secondary" events could start on Day 2 or Day 3 of the "premier" events. This might get you down to a one section final in the Blue Ribbon and would allow the Reisinger to accommodate more entries without making deep cuts or moving away from a one section final.

13-17 with that shape are also trouble, aren't they?

We never hold this shape. At least not in combination with that number of HCP. I suspect the answer is to open 1♣.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits. Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation. I don't think "it's a consequence of other systemic choices" makes it any less conventional (even though that is no longer defined).

I think this really boils down to "concurrent". It doesn't really matter whether it is Open v Mixed, Open v Women's or Reisinger v NA Swiss. Did you notice that the new President has said that a rating system will be amongst his priorities? Tell him you think that's a great idea when you see him in Newton. I know I plan to.

I don't think this list is meant to detail every case, otherwise it would not say "most" doubles rather than list all the specific doubles; it does not appear exhaustive to me.

Didn't Lauria play the wrong card form dummy in a famous final deal from a past BB? And, in the most recent bid 6S out of the blue instead of 6H when hearts had been agreed? In the last team trials someone mistakenly passed a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening bid. I'm sure there are more that we don't hear about. I'm also sure that, as you've pointed out, fatigue is a factor in these mistakes.

I would not call speedballs "high level tournaments"... My Full Disclosure description of 1♣ includes "forcing", though on the occasions that I type an explanation (FD doesn't always work) I do not include "forcing" in the description.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits. If Polish Club is banned in any GCC ACBL events, it is news to me. I've been playing it in ACBL speedballs for over a year (maybe 25-30 events) without anyone expressing concern about whether it was legal. As hrothgar has pointed out, I do not use the 2♦/2♥/2♠ openings suggested, but they are not essential to the system (as TylerE pointed out). Tim

If responder investigates with 3♣, that gives partner a chance to make a lead directing double some of the time that a club lead is best.

When comparing double dummy results to real world results, I found that the opening lead was all of declarer's advantage and in fact that the defense performed better vs double-dummy after the opening lead was made. I was looking at average tricks taken (in various NT contracts played at IMPs), rather than frequency of one lead being better than another. So, it's quite possible that the passive lead produces: 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 = average of 9 tricks while the more aggressive lead produces 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 10, 11, 11 = average of 9.1 tricks but that you would want to pick the aggressive lead because it wins with higher frequency (at MP) or wins more IMPs. It's quite possible that the real worlds results suffer from people sometimes choosing the passive lead, I made no attempt to classify any leads as passive or aggressive, standard or non-standard, etc.

I think you should eliminate all cross qualification; I don't think Mixed should count toward Women's.

I think you've answered your own questions, sort of: not for the masterpoints.

1♥ followed by 3♦.

I'm curious what the systemic agreements are that lead to this.

♠ A973 ♥ AT ♦ T3 ♣ T6432 Pass - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ 2♠ - 3♥ - Pass - Pass 4♠ - all pass GIB made a simple raise and then jumped to game. #1525, bd 17.

♠ A72 ♥ 62 ♦ J85 ♣ KT962 After P-(1♠)-DBL-(2♠), GIB doubled (described as "Responsive, 3+ C; 3+ D; 4+ H; 11- HCP). The auction continued: DBL-(P)-3♥-(P) 4♣ - (P)- 4♥-(4♠) P - (P) - 5♣-(P) 5♥! Not that I'm especially proud of my actions, but GIB's 4♣ was described as "5+C; 3+D; 4+H" so "correcting" 4♣ to 4♥ seemed reasonable at the time. I'm guessing that at some point GIB decided I had a big single-suited hand with hearts. But, I'd suggest that the description for a responsive double should not include "4+H" and/or once GIB follows the responsive double with a new suit the descriptions should change so that "4+H" is no longer there. Tim PS #1011, bd 5

Today GIB held ♠ AQ9753 ♥ Q ♦ KJ7642 ♣ -- and saw (2♥)-2♠-(3♥). GIB bid 4♠. I later looked at the explanation for the bid and saw "3+ S". Is this a similar situation to the 10-card suit? GIB doesn't have rules for this kind of support of partner's overcall? Edit: #1011, bd 26