TimG

This may be a problem in some cases, but in Boston the two sites were connected. And, some of the regional events were in the "NABC" hotel. Then again, maybe people did not know they were connected and this did affect their decision on whether to attend.

I think it is very common to be confused about reverses. I frequently encounter players who consider reversing with 55 to show the extra values. I also frequently encounter players who are happy to reverse without extra values. Just last weekend, a player at my table opened 1♣ with ♠943 ♥ - ♦KJT3 ♣AK6432 and then rebid 2♦ over partner's 1♥ response. When dummy came down, declarer said something like "reverse shows 17+". Bottom line: reverses in Standard American are commonly misunderstood.

BWS is a summary that can fit onto a page or two.

allow me to add another question d) are such anonymous sponsors common? There have been a few cases of system designers hiring teams to promote their projects. There were Precision teams in the 70s and Romex teams in the 80s, for instance. I doubt it is common practice, but have no inside information.

I 100% agree with your implication. *sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP. Which is why you added your opinion rather than stick with the facts or simply provide links?

The problem is not the existence of materials, materials exist for anything you would like to play. I think you under-estimate the potential audience. I think there is something called BBO 2/1 -- or at least there is a default CC on BBO for 2/1. If an author could take this 2/1 system and write a book around it, there would be customers. The book ought to be designed to describe the base system to advanced beginner/intermediate type players who are looking to move from standard American to a 2/1 system that they can play with pick-up partners online. Or, that they could use as a base for more regular partnerships. More regular partnerships would likely add to the system...but that just means there is potential for a sequel. Yes, materials exist for for everything, but not every description of NMF or 4th Suit Forcing is the same. And, putting it together in a coherent system really isn't as easy as a la carte conventions.

And, you thought he was serious?

ACBL's GCC already takes away the weak two-suited openings. I know: not a factor for everyone, but sadly it does apply to me.

I think it would be a good project for an enterprising young author to put together an "expert standard" book describing a coherent system with detailed discussions of the methods -- sort of a Bridge World Standard book rather than summary -- that would be sufficient for pick-up partnerships and would serve as a good base for those wishing to establish more detailed partnership agreements.

1C-1D-3D seems a rather awkward sequence for WJ05 (showing 18+ to less than a game force). I wonder if there have been some modifications to relieve pressure here. A couple of options come to mind: Widening the range of the 1D opening bid. Using a 2D opening to show GF hands (thus 1C-1D-2D is no longer artificial). I wonder if anyone has experience with either of these modifications, or has other suggestions. Or, maybe you can tell me that while this appears to be a problem, in practice it seldom matters.

My understanding (which I picked up either here or in rgb) is that this team has an anonymous sponsor.

Thanks, this is something like what I was envisioning, much easier that it is already laid out. Tim

Josh wasn't in Boston, was he? That accounts for -1.

I did a quick search (here and google), but came up empty. Can you describe the Idzdebski style transfer checkback?

Yes, 4cM + 6♣ and a GF is a problem. Also 4cM + 5♣ and 10-12 is a problem. Yesterday, I held x QJxx ATx Kxxxx and rebid 1N after 1C-1H-1S. Not so bad, but I would not have been so happy if the auction had instead started 1C-1H-1N. I did not search for any past threads, but will do that now.

Interesting point, but I note in such places as......Chicago, LA, and SD there is plenty of convention space away from "downtown". I do not know about other towns but locals should know. :) OTOH downtown often gets you closer to clubs....super dinners and plays...etc etc. OTOH I just wonder how many just go for bridge, bridge and bridge and clean, safe hotel room with a fun packed bar. :) The last time the NABC was in LA, wasn't it really in Long Beach? Far from downtown, anyway. But, your point is well taken: an NABC in Oakland would not be as popular as one in SF. NABC attendees do make their travel decisions based upon plenty of non-bridge related considerations.

I think the reason that NABCs are generally downtown is that's where the convention space is. Orlando, for instance, isn't downtown. Presumably because there is plenty of convention space away from downtown. In New England, the options for a regional are rather limited because of convention space, I imagine it is a whole lot more difficult for a NABC.

I don't think it takes much to tip the scales for many potential NABC participants. It would be interesting to compare numbers in NABC events to regional events.

This question seems more than a little leading. I will add mine to the chorus of voices that thinks an internet survey, especially one conducted on BBO forums would in no way be representative of general membership in the ACBL (or likely any other national bridge organization).

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way. I did not mean to gripe about an inconvenience, but I can see how it may have sounded that way. The gripe about guessing was not about the inefficiency of the process but rather the apparent arbitrary nature of the decisions.

I am reasonably confident that if I wanted to use a 2D opening bid to show a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and a 4+ card major, the committee would not consider* my submission. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed. I am also reasonably confident that the committee would not consider a 1D opening which shows 8-15 HCP, 4+ hearts and is non-forcing. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed. I do not have a real problem with either of these methods being disallowed. But, I would like to know upon what basis these methods are disallowed. And, I would prefer this basis not to be a general "the committee feels it is against the best interests of ACBL membership to approve these methods" but rather reference some objective criteria. * By "consider" I mean get so far as to evaluate the merits of the defense and provide feedback where they think the defense is lacking. They would dismiss these methods.

The mid-chart says: What is gray, or at least a bit unclear, is which of these "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" will be considered by the C&C Committee and what criteria will be used by the Committee when considering whether or not to approve such methods.

I do understand that "allowed" means "approved" for purposes of the chart. It might be useful to call some methods "permitted" or "approved" distinctly from allowed or disallowed. Some methods are specifically allowed, some are permitted (so allowed) and some are specifically disallowed. To cover all other possibilities, avoiding ambiguity in rulings, all other methods are called disallowed, but this is not the same "disallowed" as those methods "specifically disallowed". Not all of these methods that have not been specifically disallowed are destined to forever be disallowed or unapproved. What you want to call this category of methods does not really matter to me as long as we recognize that they are distinct from those methods specifically disallowed.

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future. Whether you look at it that way, or the way I changed it to: Disallowed -- absolutely Disallowed -- possible approval Allowed you have a category where methods may or may not be approved based upon the thinking of the current committee. There should be objective criteria in all cases rather than relying upon the subjective views of the committee.

It may seem logical, but the specifically disallowed methods: 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods. 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. 3. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.) 4. Forcing pass systems. 5. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game-forcing. 6. Opening one-bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) 7. Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these methods. 8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened). are things that will not be approved no matter what. If I submit an opening one-bid which by partnership agreement could show 6 HCP, there will be no approval, no questions asked. There are other disallowed methods (anything not specifically allowed or disallowed) which might be approved. Not all disallowed methods are treated equally. Maybe my three categories may be better described as: Disallowed -- absolutely Disallowed -- possible approval Allowed