TimG

Wow, suit play lists 16 lines, by far the most I've seen for a suit combination. Changing the spots to T32 opposite AQ654 reduces the options to 7 lines.

When this topic was raised in New England a few years ago, there was nearly universal sentiment to stick with the familiar schedule. The "changes" in our regionals have been along the lines of adding a couple of bracketed KOs, more single session events (Swiss teams and MP pairs) and bracketing the Swiss team events. I'd be very interested in hearing about how your attendance has been for the "unique" events and for the regional as a whole. I personally am of the opinion that regionals would benefit from variety in the schedule, but that it might take a few years for new events to catch on and become popular. The break-in period is something that the organizers must commit to enduring rather than seeing first year attendance drop and abandon the experiment.

I believe that is was once the case in ACBL that you were not permitted to ask about bids not made, things like "what would it have meant if you had bid 2♠ instead of 3♠?", but that this has changed so that it is now OK to ask about alternative calls. I do not know about asking about potential future bids. I can imagine that it could result in UI if not done very carefully. I once had an opponent ask me how high we played negative doubles in the situation at hand and after getting the answer make a bid one level higher. I'm sure his partner had more information than he would have had without the question. But, it also seems to me that the opponent who asked was entitled to the answer.

I've never encountered this. Though I tend not to speak while I am dummy and I do not complain when my opponents do, so it's easy to see how I haven't encountered a problem. Have you been the speaker or the complainer?

That is some evidence. But, the mid-chart authorized method is specifically for a weak opening, not the "minimum opening bid" method under consideration here. One could conclude either that ACBL permits the weak opening, but not the constructive opening, in mid-chart events, or that the constructive opening is considered natural and does not need specific authorization under the GCC or mid-chart.

Won't a 1♠-2♥-3♦ start, where 3♦ shows extras, get you to 6♦ rather comfortably?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits." So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies. so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced? Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods. how about "exactly 5, unbalanced hand" If your methods guarantee a 4+ card minor, this is still not good enough, as your description could include 5431 where the 4 card suit is hearts. A Precision type 2C opening bid which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major is allowed in GCC events. Yet, there is no regulation (specific approval) to cover it. The inference is that it must be natural and non-conventional. It seems to me that defining 2S to show an unbalanced hand with 5+ spades and fewer than 4 hearts is no different. Whether you can extend either 2C to be defined as "exactly 5 club in an unbalanced hand without 4 diamonds" or 2S to be defined as "exactly 5 spades in an unbalanced hand without 4 hearts" is another matter.

DELETE I think I misunderstood gnashers question (and thus my answer was off the mark).

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits." So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies. That's one way of looking at it. But, #6 allows for a 2C opening showing two specific suits, neither of which is clubs. A 2C opening showing the majors needs specific approval because it is not natural. So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval. I don't see why a 2♣ opening bid showing the majors AND 10+ HCP would require specific approval, as the regulation clearly allows the bid. What I'm saying is that the regulation (specific approval) is there because this opening bid is not natural. So, the opening bid would not be allowed without the regulation (specific approval). 2S showing spades and a minor doesn't need a regulation (specific approval) to be allowed because it is natural. The answer to this is that the ACBL considers that "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" to infer "conventional methods". And, while 2S showing spades and a minor is natural, it is also conventional. ______________ What is your opinion of 2S = unbalanced with at least 5 spades? Yes, this could be 54xx and I intend that rather than mean this as a workaround for spades plus a minor. I would also use 2H = unbalanced with at least 5 hearts (including 45xx). Would these be conventional?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits." So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies. so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced? Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods. What if you define the 2S opening as 6+ spades or 5+ spades with a side 4+-card suit?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits." So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies. That's one way of looking at it. But, #6 allows for a 2C opening showing two specific suits, neither of which is clubs. A 2C opening showing the majors needs specific approval because it is not natural. So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

I have been told by ACBL that "ALLOWED **Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed** infers conventional methods." I have further been told that conventional is defined as "a call or play with a defined meaning, which may be artificial". I'm not sure how to parse that definition.

I suppose the question is really: are natural bids "methods"? "Convention" is only mentioned in a few places: 1) In the name; 2) In the opening paragraph, where it says the listed conventions must be allowed (except that clubs have final authority to regulate conventions at games conducted solely at their clubs); and 3) In the allowed sections, some conventional methods are specific allowed; and 4) In the disallowed section, some conventional methods are specifically disallowed. No where in the chart does it state that "natural" methods are allowed (though it does define "natural"). As I said in the opening post, the chart says (in bold) "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". Emphasis on methods is mine. I can certainly understand that the intent was to allow natural methods and am not suggesting that I (or anyone else) should call the director and complain the next time someone opens 1♠ in a GCC event. But, if a natural 1♠ opening is allowed even though not specifically allowed, what other natural methods that are not listed should also be allowed? What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength). This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart. Does that mean it is allowed? Tim

I was just looking at the GCC and read "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". Not conventions, but methods. No where is a weak two-bid specifically allowed. Nor, for that matter, a 1♠ opening bid of any sort. Didn't there used to be some general statement to the effect that natural methods were permitted? Am I misreading things, or are methods such as 1♠ opening bids not allowed as the GCC is worded?

So, 6D-1 pushed with 3N-1? This really is a non-problem as posed since any inference from responder not bidding 3♠ to show this hand is obviously invalid.

I believe those are the anonymously logged in folks using the web client.

What would partner bid with 55 in the minors and game going values? It sounds to me like you and your partner disagreed about the slam invitational nature of 2♠ and it would be better to clear up with him whether this sequence is a slam try or not (and how it differs from the same sequence ending in 4♦ instead of 5♦) rather than trying to be right about it here.

If you actually log off (instead of exiting by closing your browser window) these settings will be saved. That works if I log off and then log back in without ever closing the BBO window. But, if I log off and then close the window, the next time I come back to the web-client I am back to the default size rather than the resized window.

Oh great! I just had to play. ctrl-w toggled the size. ctrl-h does nothing. And, now I can't get it back to the original size! :-)

I have a two questions that likely have to do with my personal browser settings, but I'm checking anyway. My default browser is Mozilla Firefox. When I go the bridgebase site and click on "Click here to play or watch bridge in your web browser" link, a new window is opened with the web-client (without the usual toolbars and tabs) which is a good thing. If I bookmark http://www.bridgebase.com/client/client.php and attempt to use that to get to the web-client, the window (or tab) that BBO is opened in comes with the tool bars. Does anyone know if there is a way to get to the web-client in a single step rather than two steps: go to bridgebase.com then click the link? Second, and of more interest, I generally resize the panes in the web-client. These settings are not saved for my next visit. Is this a fault of my cache/cookie/etc settings or is the resize information intentionally not saved? There doesn't seem to me to be an obvious option setting in BBO to save the resize, but I have missed such things in the past. Thanks, Tim

That would be a lead out of turn, wouldn't it?

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Read it again, he was talking about Lendl changing his game for the grass.

I don't think opener's 2♠ says he is weak (as in sub-minimum), I think it says he is distributional. He could have a perfectly sound opening bid. I think opener's worry is that the penalty against 1NTX (if it exists) won't compensate for the game (or rarely slam). Give opener something like JTxxx KQJxxx Ax -- and he might easily envision intervenor with the ♥A and some number of running clubs. Give responder AKxx Tx Kxxx xxx and there is plenty of room for intervenor to have his bid and little reason for responder to lead a non-heart against 1NTX.

If he had a minimum with 5-6, he would open 1S. I suspect he has a pile of rubbish and is 4-6. I would bid 4S. If he's running from 1NTX, wouldn't he try 2♥ with 46xx? He has no guarantee of a spade fit and if he's so weak that he's scared of defending 1NX, he should also be worried that the doubling will start, shouldn't he? Especially when he is bidding on JTxx at best. So, wouldn't it be better not to bypass 2♥ in case that is the safe landing spot?

Perhaps this is an exception, but generally when the vugraph commentators come unglued over something like this it seems to be that the commentators are influenced by being able to see all four hands and know that the game that is about to be missed is making. During the Open Team Trials, Steve Weinstein caught some flack for rebidding 2S after 1S-1N (forcing) with AKT852 95 AT8 A3. Of course, game was on and responder passed 2S. Weinstein scored up +170 and lost 2 IMPs (+230 at the other table on the same auction, I believe). Maybe the Senior who is the subject of the opening post, Weinstein, and his counterpart in the Open Trials all made slight errors in their evaluation. But the commentators are often quite bold in their criticism, almost like they are talk radio hosts trying to stir the pot, especially considering they are generally inferior players to the ones that they are criticizing and that they often appear not to have even glanced at the convention card of the players at the table.