TimG

I've recently been reading some Bridge Worlds from 1953 in which there is a debate about whether the Roth-Stone system should be allowed in ACBL events. A comment (I forget from whom) in that debate said that a five-card major approach was in fashion early in the history of contract bridge, then fell out of favor at some point and then back into favor (thanks in large part to Roth-Stone). It's funny how sometimes the "new" methods are really the "old" methods.

Again, similar arguments apply to the 1NT call. What makes opening 1NT with a singleton "natural"? A natural notrump bid is supposed to be a balanced hand, which would not include a singleton. Certainly the 1NT opening conveys a "willingness to play" in 1NT, but like you said, this doesn't have anything to do with natural. Agreed, I wasn't addressing the naturalness of a 1N opening bid (with or without a singleton), just the 2♥ opening showing either spades or hearts. To Cascade: the ACBL GCC contains this: "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." I do not wish to debate whether this is a good definition or not, but it seems to me that ACBL is free to define natural how they wish and to establish regulations based upon whatever definition they choose. Don't the new Laws provide for regulation of methods without regard to whether they are natural or conventional?

I'm not sure this is the case. Wouldn't you rather play 3N than 4♠ with AKQxxx Ax xx xxx opposite xxx xxx Axx Axxx? With AKQxxx Ax Qx Qxx opposite xxx xxx KJx KJxx, 4♠ is the preferred contract. Obviously this is extreme, but with a quacky hand you generally have to lose the lead a few times in the process of establishing winners and if the opponents manage to attack your weakness, having trumps to control that suit is nice.

Every argument you've made here would seem to apply equally well to a 2♥ opening showing a weak two in either major. Some people think this method is "good bridge" and as long as they disclose, why shouldn't they have the right to be crazy? The bid's even "natural" in the sense that partner will often pass it and it expresses a willingness to play 2♥ opposite a (semi)-balanced hand without much in the way of values. I think it is a stretch to call a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major natural. Nor do I think "willingness to play" has anything to do with natural. I might open 2♦ to show a 4=4=1=4 hand and am perfectly willing to play in 2♦ if partner has a bunch of diamonds, but that doesn't mean the bid is natural. At least not in my opinion. Isn't the "offer to play" or "willingness to play" a holdover from the old Laws definition of "conventional"?

I would quibble with this on two counts: 1) I'm not sure of the benefit of qualifying risk with "unnecessary"; and 2) I would include "sacrificing" along with "exposing oneself to risk". Someone who sacrifices income in order to make a difference in the community, as in someone quitting a high paying job and taking a lower paying teaching position because they think they can make a difference in the lives of children would qualify as a hero in my opinion. Or, at least they are doing something heroic.

It would seem to me that one argument in favor of 4S when you are not sure is that it likely is the field action. And, since you (and partner) play the hands better than the field you might as well play the same contract.

Cayugaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Well done. PFormaini registered a day after that other thread died (just in case there was need for any more evidence).

I feel less crazy. Thanks.

The Queen is listed in bold -- KQT9 -- on the ACBL convention card suggesting that it is the "standard" lead from this holding. So, I don't think your understanding is solely a result of your earlier Journalist life, though that may well be where the original idea came from. EDIT: Indeed is is only listed as standard against NT contracts. I incorrectly assumed that was what was under discussion, in fact I would have sworn that NT was mentioned in a previous post. My bad.

You'd think the availability of free double dummy solvers would make these arguments much shorter.

MARSHALL MILES SWISS TMS - 9 Tables / Based on 42 Tables MARY JANE FARELL OPEN PRS - 14.0 Tables / Based on 31 Tables The Swiss was a smaller event, but based upon more tables.

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P. Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts. Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time. I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes". How many of these had five-card spade suits? The frequency of those will increase the chance of 2♠ failing. A quick 100 deal sample shows 81 5-card spade suits and 19 6-card spade suits. 5 of the 81 and 2 of the 19 made 8 tricks in spades (double dummy). No deals resulted in 9 tricks in clubs.

I gave south these cards and north the cards from the opening post. This means that EW have 25 HCP and bid P-2♠-P. Still, I gave east something of a normal weak two: 6+ spades or 5 spades in a 55 or 54 hand (but not 5 hearts on the side) and 6-11 HCP. That means west had at most 2 spades and I also restricted west to fewer than 6 hearts. Double dummy simulation results in 2♠ going down about 95% of the time and 3♣ making about 1% of the time. I know that double dummy has its flaws, but this hardly seems like "3♣ probably makes".

Where are these 50 table two-day online events?

Opposite a passed partner?

I don't believe it is legal in a GCC event even if it promises 5+/4+ (unless it promises 10+ points). Nor can I find a weak 2♦ opening bid showing 5+/4+ in the majors on the mid-chart.

When a 14 table Flight A pair event runs concurrently with a 14 table Flight B event, the masterpoint award for the Flight A event is not based upon 14 tables, but rather something between 14 and 28 (or maybe on 28). The awards for the four session events are also dependent upon not only the number of entries in the 4-session event, but the number of entries in the "secondary" events that start at the same time as the 4-session events. So, my guess is that the concurrent pair game was smaller than the concurrent team event.

I think the problem comes when you explain 4NT as "asks for keycards with spades as trumps".

Well, 2♣ doesn't mean just clubs. It has two possible meanings: 1) 6+ clubs, or 2) 5+ clubs and a 4-card major. Significant to me is that 2) does not read "5+ clubs and a side 4-card suit". That would just amount to an unbalanced hand with clubs. (Let's assume for the moment that "unbalanced" doesn't make something conventional.) It is the exclusion of diamonds as one of the possible side suits that makes me think this 2♣ is conventional. I do agree with you that this 2♣ opening is natural. That does not preclude it from also being conventional. No matter how you look at a 2♠ opening which shows 5+ spades and a 5+ card minor, it is a natural call. Natural and conventional are not mutually exclusive.

What was the first trick? I lead the King and expect partner to give count.

Thanks. As you probably know, Mr. Beye's job responsibilities have changed, so his ruling may not carry the weight it once did. Though it sounds like his successor is of a similar opinion. Yes, I find the inconsistent application of the rules frustrating. I do not so much mind the basing of rules on gut feeling, so long as one person's gut feeling sets a precedent and that gut feeling is then applied consistently. I don't think the Laws or ACBL regulations define either "treatment" or "convention". And, the most recent Laws allow for SOs to regulate just about anything, including "treatments", don't they? I am curious, though: how would you define "treatment" and "convention"?

Even though I have opinions here, I am also looking for answers. It may seem like "lawyering" to some, but I don't think it unreasonable to look for consistent application of the rules or to hope for clear rules. That the answers often change depending upon what ACBL official is asked supports the notion that the rules are not clear enough.

2S showing spades is natural and not conventional. 2S showing spades and a minor is natural and conventional. This sort of topic has been discussed "everywhere" on occasion and it still keeps popping up. The ACBL GCC language on _this_ is pretty clear; see what ArtK78 quoted. Here is what Art said: I have two issues with this. 1) #6 above can apply to a 2C opening which shows majors, that is the suit opened does not have to be one of the suits shown. It does not seem to me that it is unreasonable to treat an opening bid in a known suit differently, especially since: 2) A 2C opening bid which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4+ card major is allowed, but not specifically allowed. Does not the "or 5+ clubs and a 4+ card major" make this natural and conventional? If so, why is it allowed without specific mention? If not, why is this 2C not conventional while a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the major and a 4+ card minor is conventional?

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic? I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not. Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not. fortunately I dont have to distinguish. You're the one that said we all know the "spirit" of the GCC. Now you seem to be saying that you don't, or at least that you cannot or will not explain it.

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic? I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not. Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not.