TimG

Hmm? "Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed" So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed. Except that new methods and defenses may be submitted for approval. If no method that isn't already listed would be allowed, why the approval process? There are effectively three categories: Disallowed Allowed -- unapproved Allowed -- approved

I have looked at the new mid-chart. The most notable change in my opinion is the removal of the item allowing "any call which promises four or more cards in a known suit". Before this change, I could look to the mid-chart and know that transfer openings should be allowed with the submission of a proper defense (though "proper defense" was nowhere defined -- there are still no guidelines for what a defense must contain in order to be approved). With the new chart, I am left wondering about transfer openings. Except for the single approved transfer opening, it is clear that transfer openings are not allowed because there are no approved defenses. But, there is nothing in the "DISALLOWED" section that would preclude transfer openings. So, I am left to think that there is some chance that, if I submit a "complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense", further transfer openings could be allowed. The big problem I have with this is that the C&C Committee can basically do with my submission what they want. They could (I'm not saying they have or they would) disallow my submission on whatever grounds they want, for whatever reason they want. If they think there is a slippery slope between my method and MOSCITO, they could disallow my method to prevent MOSCITO from ever being approved, for instance. The mid-chart ought to be written in such a way as to not allow the Committee to effectively or apparently create their own legislation. If a method is allowed (or not disapproved, if you prefer), then a defense ought to be approved (or a clearly written explanation of the failures of the submitted defense ought to be provided). The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played. But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved. The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee. (Please note that, in my opinion, the real legislators are at fault for approving a mid-chart that contains this gray area and for not demanding clear and complete reports. The committee is dealing with the hand they were dealt, they did not create the gray area, but must deal with it.)

I throw'em in and ask for a redeal.

Yes, usually it is more important to protect opener's holdings. But, I think the advantages of transfers lie more in the ability to bundle more hands into a single call -- in this case you can use 2H to show either a weak hand with spades or a variety of stronger hands. In the old days, 2S just showed the weak hand with spades and another bid (3S) was needed to show stronger hands. The modern methods are undoubtedly more efficient.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room. Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds: AQx Txx KQx AJxx

Magister 2C is a Polish version of NMF which applies to auctions such as: 1C-1H; 1S-2C 1C-1H; 1N-2C 1H-1S; 1N-2C that is when ever responder has shown a major, opener's rebid is consistent with a balanced 12-14, and fewer than 3 suits have been shown (1D-1H; 1S-2C is not Magister, but 4th Suit Forcing). As part of Magister responder's second round jump (1C-1H; 1S-3D) shows 55 and is GF; responder's simple suit rebid (1C-1H; 1S-2D) is natural and non-forcing; responder's 2NT follow-up to Magister 2C is forcing (so responder with a 5M4m GF can rebid 2NT and leave it to opener to introduce the 4cm); responder's new suit after Magister 2C (1C-1H; 1S-2C; 2D-3D) is GF and shows a 4cM and 5+ in the new suit; but, responder's 3C follow-up to Magister 2C is a club sign-off From this you may see that it is WJ05 style to respond 1M to 1C with a GF with a 4cM and a longer minor. Anyway, I'm wondering what responder is supposed to do with 4S and 6C after a start like 1C-1S; 1N?

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

A slow pass of 2H?

I'll pick this one.

What does 1D-3D mean in strict SAYC?

I'm not advocating for an initial 2C -- I just think passing and then bidding 2C is sort of crazy.

I think there are two very different effects of unusual systems. 1) Uncertainty caused by the methods. As a very simple example, after a multi 2D opening, not knowing whether heart and/or spade bids are cue-bids. Discussion and creation of a defense should get around this effect. Though the nature of the method may make it more difficult to defend than standard methods, whether they be familiar or unfamiliar. 2) Uncertainty caused by confusion about which defense applies, or how a defense applies. To use David's example, the Martel-Stansby auction where they "overcalled" 1S and were now unsure whether their agreements over a 1S overcall or a 1S opening bid were in play. One is uncertainty caused by the specific method; the other is uncertainty that might arise from having any unusual method in play. It is my opinion that the uncertainty caused by 1) is good system design and that the uncertainty caused by 2) is the "undesirable" effect.

Opener will practically never double on this auction if he waits until he is 4-4 in the majors. Perhaps there is a more frequent use of the double that is also effective?

Most would play (1H)-P-(1N)-2H as Michaels, I think. Most would play (1C)-P-(1H)-2H as natural. Some who play Michaels in direct seat, do not in balancing seat, preferring to leave (1H)-P-(P)-2H to show a very strong takeout. I think an official Michaels would only apply to a cue-bid of their opening bid in direct seat, but that the principle has been extended to cover other auctions. Best to discuss these things with partner rather than relying upon general consensus.

I'm not crazy about passing 1D and then coming in over 1N -- seems like an invitation to the opponents to get things right. No, I don't think I balance now. Partner had a chance to hit 2H, bid spades, or support clubs and chose not to do any of those things. I'll go quietly and hope the bad trump break is enough to go plus.

Everyone cares about that, Claus. This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here. This seems to have gotten more than a little confused in translation? Fred said: "Everyone cares about that." "That" referring to the "survival of the game". That there are officials (past or present), vugraph commentators, top level players, bottom level players, BBO forum members, etc. that are NOT participating in this thread in no way means that they don't care about the game.

Maybe this is because you are wrong more often than most! <BIG smiley>

You'll notice from my member number and date joined that Han and I happened upon BBO forums at almost the same time. I'm only 7004 posts behind...

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count? Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think?

I'm not sure you can call all these "reasons folks were playing a multi 2D". Take #1, for instance. Perhaps they were playing 2M as a two suited opening because they were able to play 2D as multi to handle the weak-two type bids. For #3, maybe the pair liked sound weak two-bids in the majors and were left with 2D undefined, they picked weak multi as the best option from amongst the leftovers. Anyway, it seems like something of a chicken and egg situation.

I have a bit more than I might, but partner passed up the whole 3-level to bid 3N. If he wanted to suggest alternate strains, he could have, but chose not to; he may have had some doubt when he bid 2N, but 3C seems to have cleared things up for him. I pass 3NT.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat. If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts, partner is not a bridge player. Even more so because it is hearts (over a spade opening). I would expect 2S-P-P-3H to have a narrower range than 2S-P-P-3C.

I agree, it will be difficult to set the constraints for responder's pass.

I guess the opening poster should have just said: LHO opens 2S, which is passed to us, we have 9 HCP, what to do? No need to give the actual hand so that considerations beyond HCP can be made.

Aaron, Is there anyway to sort by date? Or, to display all January regionals, for instance?