TimG

If 2♣ shows the majors, then 2♠ is likely either a constructive bid in one of the minors or stopper showing, right? With both majors stopped and a desire to play NT, responder could have started with 2N or 3N. I don't know whether partner has clubs, diamonds or a spade stopper and no heart stopper, but whatever it is, it seems wrong to pass 3N. But, pulling to 4S would also seem wrong; I'd pull to 4♣.

I think that GIB assumes at least a doubleton in every suit for many NT calls and once it gets it in its mind that its 6-card suit plus your doubleton is trumps, there is no changing its mind.

Maybe they were convinced by the proceedings that the methods they claimed to be playing were unsound, so decided to change their style... Or, maybe they were told by another director that they didn't actually have to pre-alert.

I've got a text file, thanks in part to Wayne Burrows's LinConverter. Justin, let me know where to send it. Tim

I can find them just fine, I'm just not sure how to go about saving them to a single file.

That is likely because each tournament organizer can set their own rules; there are no universal BBO rules for tournaments when it comes to things like undos and system regulations.

Any one care to dredge up the timeline that was produced the last time Jan made these claims? Jan's claims here seem accurate to me. I like the old way where the mid-chart included what were essentially guidelines for what types of methods it could be expected defenses would be approved. (Though that expectation often proved false.) If directors were confused into thinking that the listed types of methods were mid-chart legal even without an approved defense, it would seem easy to fix that through clear wording on the chart and education of directors. It is astounding that the rule was evidently so complicated that ACBL directors could not understand it or could not be bothered to properly understand.

My partner once held a 27 HCP and a 28 HCP hand in the same 7-board Swiss team match. I do not remember the results, but do remember that after the first a brief discussion ended with "that won't come up again any time soon".

I played a couple of MP speedballs yesterday and would like to select 10 hands from those tourneys (eliminating some hands where I was dummy or the opponents did unusual things to affect the result so that Justin's analysis would not be particularly useful to me -- not cherry picking). Can anyone tell me how to create a file with the 10 selected deals? I played these tourneys using the new web client, so there are no local log files.

From the defense database: "SUGGESTED DEFENSE Treat the opening as a Standard American 1S opening bid and use normal defensive methods:" The suggested defense does not even have a meaning for the 1♠ cue-bid overcall. Yes, it does.

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment. The defense to a 1♥ opening bid which shows spades that is in the Defense Database is: "Treat the opening as a Standard American 1♠ opening bid and use normal defensive methods" and then goes on to outline "normal defensive methods". There is one change from "normal defensive methods" and that is using the available 1♠ bid as "mini-Michaels". Using this approved defense should not require more discussion than there is time for in a short segment. You may argue that the defense is not optimum or ideal and that to defend optimally against this method would require more discussion than there is time for. But, that is a very different thing. Tim

I think you're getting that from the statement on the Defense Database page that "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." I have already said that I agree that it would be better if the things that had been submitted for approval and the responses to those submissions were public. I think you are wrong that nothing has been added, although you are probably correct that nothing has been added for 2 board rounds. I cannot speak for Adam, but my impression that new defenses are not being approved for weak openings comes straight from Butch Campbell (who I believe is the person currently responsible for handling submissions). On June 12, 2009, I submitted a defense to a weak (6-11 HCP) 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a side 5+ card suit. The defense was modeled after the existing approved defense for a weak 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4-card minor (which can be played in events with 2-board segments). The response from Mr. Campbell was: "Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time." In follow-up conversation, he added: "I am sure they will keep your request on file and address it at a later date." "They" being the C&C Committee. I have, on multiple occasions, asked both Mr. Campbell and Steve Beatty (chair of the C&C Committee) how long this moratorium might last, neither has given me an answer. Tim

That's why I put in the second auction, so that there would be a reasonable expectation that they would bid 4♥ on their own. Funny thing is that I bid 5♦ on the first auction, went for 300 and saved some MPs in the process. I don't think bidding 5♦ was reasonable, sensible, defensible, etc. even though it worked out. But, it did get me to thinking about these sorts of auctions.

You should be able to find the original write-up by going through the Daily Bulletins from the Washington DC NABC which are available at the ACBL website.

I'd pick many things to ban before toys. Lotteries and prescription drugs are the first two to come to mind.

After 2♦-P-2M-P-P-? are balancing actions as if by a passed hand, or would double here be a takeout double with something like opening bid strength?

I do not share your optimism. A few years ago I submitted a defense to a 1♥ opening which showed a Standard American 1♠ opening. The defense was approved (for 12+ board segments) and included in the Defense Database. Over a year ago, I submitted a defense to a 1♦ opening bid which showed a Standard American 1♥ opening. I used the exact same defense as was approved for the 1♥ transfer opening (except for where the difference between having shown hearts vs spades was important). After much deliberation (or at least many meetings) the defense to the 1♦ transfer opening was rejected and the existing defense to the 1♥ transfer opening was removed from the Defense Database. (It hasn't been removed from the Defense Database at the ACBL site, but the Committee Chair told me that was the decision of the Committee.) The C&C Committee is very aware of the slippery slope between Standard American transfer openings and MOSCITO transfer openings. Discussions with former C&C Committee members (when they were still committee members) made it clear that they did not want to approve methods that would give MOSCITO a foot in the door.

At IMPs, white vs white. The auction starts: P - 1♥ - P - 2♥ 2N - 3♥ - 4♦ - 4♥ Do you have any agreements about whether 4D is merely competitive or invites intervenor to sac? When partner has preempted, Robson-Segal suggest using 3N as a way to the 4-level which suggests a sac and a direct 4-level action as blocking and not inviting partner's cooperation. I wonder if this idea might be extended to the auction in question (and perhaps other unusual 2NT auctions). Perhaps this auction makes more sense: 1♥ - P - 2♥ - 3♦ DBL - 3N/4♦ where double is a game try. Tim

Following on gwnn's 4NT post, I'm curious about rules regarding 5NT. Can anyone simply describe when it is pick-a-slam, when it is quantitative, when it is grand slam force, when it is a suggestion to play, when it is something else, etc.?

In the NABC Casebook from Summer 2009, Case #6 involves balancing action after (1♣) - P - (1♠) - P (1N) - P - P The side that balanced claimed "with both sides not vulnerable at matchpoints [we] are extrememly aggressive in balancing position over 1NT (except with poor 4333 hands)...[we] almost never let declarer play a 1NT contract at this vulnerability." The committee "based upon guidance from the screening director, [told the balancing side] that such a treatment needed to be listed on their convention card and that they needed to pre-Alert their opponents regarding their aggressive balancing style." No rule or regulation was cited. I wonder if others agree with the instructions to pre-alert.

That's a good thought. I think the specific defenses could be derived from the meta defenses in a sort of formula-istic sort of way. So, when someone decided they want to play 2C = weak with a major, they could take the meta-multi defense and create a defense to 2C=multi that could be provided to their opponents.

Imagine if when the director politely asked "can you please move the boards?" the player just moved them. Wouldn't this be some nice player-director bonding, the player having done something nice when kindly asked to? I really don't see the player's "No can you?" as anything but rude.

IMPs, NV v V, RHO opens 4♠ in 3rd seat and you are on lead with ♠Q43 ♥A843 ♦Q86 ♣J84. Which will it be?

I'm in if there's room. Tim

This, along with the poll options, suggests to me that you're not really asking about artificial methods but rather non-standard methods. By your reasoning, a Polish Club system would be "natural" in Poland.