TimG

Maine had a regional three years ago, Vermont 2 years ago. Given attendance at those and the leanings of those now in charge in New England, it will be a while before either gets another regional. One of the troubles is that in New England the two most successful regionals are held in late June and Labor Day Weekend. The other two are held in November and February. It's hard to justify moving one of the money makers to Northern New England, and expecting people to travel to Vermont or Maine in November or February is sort of silly. The last two Maine regionals were held in November and it snowed during both. BTW, I was President of the district when the contracts for the most recent regionals in Vermont and Maine were signed. It is my opinion that some regionals should move around to cover less populated areas of a District where there is still interest in bridge. It was my hope that regionals would be held in Vermont and Maine once every 3-4 years. But, it seems that was a (small) minority opinion and there are no Vermont or Maine regionals currently planned (that I know of).

Pretty cool. Don't know how accurate you had hoped to be, but you have the Waterbury CT regional in a town about 20 miles away from Waterbury.

I wonder what is preventing there from being more organized online events. I know that cheating is a factor, but really there is plenty of potential for undetected cheating in face-to-face games. I don't want to get into trying to prove it, but I imagine most of us could devise a simple cheating technique that we could get away with in face-to-face events; there is a certain amount of required trust in order to believe in the integrity of face-to-face events. I do not understand why this trust does not translate to online events. One factor, I'm sure, is that when we go to a local sectional or regional, we know most of the people we are playing against. Online, there are some people with blank profiles and even if they did provide their name, it would be much more likely that we didn't know a good number of them. The online game is much less personal. Still, I am surprised that there are not more online leagues or clubs with regular games. As far as the economy prompting more online games, I would expect that those making decision to forgo some bridge in favor of online events would first cut out minor events like sectionals and regionals before NABCs.

I don't know exactly what you are doing wrong, other than it appears you are double counting one of the 4-1 holdings. Line A (lead the Ten) wins 4 tricks against: J - Kxxx 2.83% Jx - Kxx 10.17% Jxx - Kx 10.17% Jxxx - K 2.83% Kx - Jxx 10.17% Kxx - Jx 10.17% KJ - xxx 3.39% KJx - xx 10.17% KJxx - x 8.48% and 5 against: K - Jxxx 2.83% Add those up and you get 71.22% Line B (lead the Queen) wins 4 tricks against: J - Kxxx 2.83% Jx - Kxx 10.17% Jxx - Kx 10.17% K - Jxxx 2.83% Kx - Jxx 10.17% Kxx - Jx 10.17% Kxxx - J 2.83% KJ - xxx 3.39% KJx - xx 10.17% KJxx - x 8.48% Add those up and you also get 71.22% Yes, I just copied and pasted from SuitPlay.

There are two lines. The critical holdings that differentiate them are K+Jxxx vs Kxxx+J Obviously, they have the same apriori odds of occurring. ~3% The big difference is that if you play for K+Jxxx and you are right, you get 5 tricks. OTOH, if you play for that and the situation is actually Kxxx+J, you will only get 3 tricks. Therefore, if you want to maximize your chances of taking 4 tricks, you sacrifice any chance of taking 5. The line that does that starts with Q -> A72, running it unless it is covered. If the Q is covered by 2nd hand but both opponents follow, you are guaranteed 4 tricks. (if the suit is 5-0 you were always only getting 3 tricks.) Whether the Q wins or loses to the K, your next play in this suit is T -> A7; again intending to run it unless it is covered. odds are ~74% that you will take 4 tricks on this line. I think you've missed a few things. Leading the Queen results in only 3 tricks when the opponents hold Jxxx/K; leading the Ten results in only 3 tricks when the opponents hold Kxxx/J. Leading the Ten does pick up 5 tricks when 2nd hand plays the singleton King; leading the Queen against this holding wins 4 tricks. Against all other holdings leading the Queen and leading the Ten produce the same number of tricks. You don't have to sacrifice your only chance of 5 tricks in order to maximize your chances of 4 tricks. I think (and suitplay agrees) that leading the Queen or leading the Ten will result in 4 tricks about 71% of the time. Perhaps you forgot to subtract out the ~3% for the Jxxx/K holding.

There are some major differences. (1) A transfer response is generally forcing. You don't see a lot of 1NT-Pass-2♦!-Pass-Pass. The safety factor in passing the transfer bid and then coming in later helps make it easier to defend. In contrast transfer openings (in a Moscito context anyway) are fairly frequently passed. (2) A transfer showing five cards in the suit transferred to is generally easier to defend than a transfer showing four, because in the first case you pretty much know that you don't want to play in the suit they showed. So 1NT-Pass-2♦!-2♥ is pretty obviously a cuebid of some sort and not an attempt to play in hearts. On the other hand, it has been strongly suggested that the best use of 1♦!-1♥ may well be to show hearts if 1♦ is a transfer showing 4+♥. I think it goes beyond that. In the case of GCC allowed transfers, there has already been a lot of information given to the opponents. A transfer opening is an opening salvo. Not only is the frequency of a transfer opening greater, but the likelihood that the opponents will want to compete over the transfer is also greater. I, for one, have no problem leaving transfer opening off the GCC. Of course, I think they should be allowed on the mid-chart, probably as one of the methods that does not require an approved defense.

Just add a fert or two to your arsenal...

I believe that Jan told us that the USBF has chosen to follow ACBL convention regulations in their Trials because that is what the players wanted. I agree that it would appear to make sense to have WBF-ish rules in place for some events so that payers can get experience, but that doesn't seem to be what they want.

For what it is worth, I did not come up with the idea of 1C = 4 spades and certainly did not devise it in an effort to exploit a possible loophole in the GCC. Jean-Rene Verne (the total tricks guy) has proposed a system with two one-level opening bids to show spades, one for hands with exactly 4 spades and one for hands with 5+ spades. The system that I wanted to play was an offshoot of that.

JoAnne, I suspect your father showed you how much he cared for you in many ways besides the gifts you received on your birthday and Christmas. I bet life with your father was special year round. And, that if he had never given you a gift on those days, you would still have had special days with him, just perhaps not on the same date every year. I also doubt that birthday and Christmas presents from his parents would have been a cure to the rejection your father felt as a child. Tim

I readily admit to being a crank when it comes to Christmas. But, I don't see how doling out an agreed upon amount (whether it is cash or a gift card) serves any purpose. In my mind, the best gifts are thoughtful. There is no thought, symbolic or otherwise, in buying the prescribed gift card and handing it out on Christmas Day.

Is this as silly as it sounds, or am I missing something?

I understand your contempt for our actions. Certainly some of it is justified. It was an attempt to get a ruling on the record by doing something that was apparently illegal. Which probably means we were showing some disrespect for the game and our opponents. But, if doesn't mean we have "no respect" for either. Our agreements, had we not been opening certain 7 HCP hands, would have been to open 8 HCP hands. We "stretched" only one point. There was no "system invention" unless you call shifting a range by one point an "invention". Our opponents were pre-alerted and made no objection; we were not ruining their game.

I'm sure you are mostly right. But, if we had been playing a convention that was not allowed, the director would have said "you can't play that method". He did not tell us that we could not agree to open a 7 HCP hand (and we were clear that Richard had done this by agreement).

This is exactly the problem. I have seen the opposite ruling made by regional level directors (at least about first seat openings). Honestly I don't care so much what the rule is... But isn't the purpose of a bridge league so that the rules can be the same in any serious game I play in? Do I need to ask the director before the start of each event if he will allow me to open seven-counts with 6-4 in two suits, and then change my methods if he won't? I agree with you about consistency (my ruling was also from a regional level director, though I have forgotten exactly who). And, was really providing my example as a case of inconsistency -- it seem in contradiction to the GCC which (at the time) made specific mention of HCP.

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level. Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate. Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape). The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count. So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director. When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away. So, I guess HCP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value. At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

I don't find that a problem. It seems to be in the spirit of the GCC that players are not to be expected to defend against opening bids which may or may not be based upon length in the suit opened (except for 1C and 2C to allow strong hands). I think if we are to follow the unwritten spirit of the GCC the 0+ or 1+ Precision 1D should not be allowed. I do have a two small nits to pick with Gerben's chart, however. Item 6a is redundant -- it is covered by item 7. And, I do not see why three-suited openings should be allowed for 2D and 2C only. I would combine 4 and 6b into one item and allow it for any suit opening at the 2-level. (I understand Gerben's choices were influenced by trying to duplicate the content of the current GCC, so that this second nit is a little off topic.)

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc. Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs. Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal. You are talking about natural calls. Indeed I am. That was my point.

I was wondering about that. Take a look at this. I'm sure there are parka's for more extreme conditions, maybe for those participating in the Iditarod or climbing Mt. Everest. But, for 99.99% of us this should do the trick.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc. Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs. Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal. I would expect that it is easier to defend against 1C = exactly 4 spades than 1D = 0+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand. Easier but for the unfamiliarity, that is. It is sort of funny that you are arguing that 1C = 4 spades should not be allowed because it shows a suit which makes things easier for the opening side. But, when people want to play methods like 2D = weak with either major, you will now claim that this shouldn't be allowed because an opening with no known suit is hard to defend against.

I don't think anyone really believes % off gimmicks, anymore. They look at the bottom line and determine whether they want to spend that much on the item. Sure, people will wait until a price comes down to a certain level, but that level is in absolute terms rather than in % terms; it has to be under $100, not it has to be at least 65% off. I have made zero Christmas purchases this year and don't expect that to change in the next ten days. But then, I have a 12 year-old daughter and a 10 year-old son, neither of which has ever received a Christmas present from me. As an aside, I don't think any coat is worth $700. I really don't mean to be insulting to anyone, but what would possess anyone to spend $700 on a coat?

I asked, and I was serious when I asked. I am not upset with the answer and did not attempt to persuade Mr. Beye that he was wrong and should reconsider. I have not asked anyone else and will not attempt to convince any ACBL director that the method can be played. But...it seems to me that whoever drafted the GCC wanted to allow Precision and Precision type systems. And, rather than say that, made a generic allowance for 1C and 1D openings. One reasonable interpretation is that they thought it was appropriate to allow 1C and 1D to be used artificially, not just specifically as Precision. Another reasonable interpretation is that they wanted to word things such that Precision variants would be allowed, but intended the extension away from purely Precision to encompass only Precision-like systems rather than broader artificial methods. I really didn't think of my question as trying to take advantage of a loophole, but rather just trying to find out what the official position was. I now know.

They referred to it as a "2006 case". Though one could imagine the case started in 2006 and was not settled until recently, the gist of the article suggested to me that the settlement was a year or two in the past.

I think we should designate Ax(x) opposite QT(98)x the forum combination.