TimG

It's sort of funny that the thing that was missing from your description of "responses" is still missing when you add all those unnecessary definitions. What sort of hand will partner pass with? And that's important because the defense has to include what fourth hand's bids mean after 1♥-P-P. As stated above: with a hand that would have passed a standard 1S opening, responder bids 1S. The auction 1H-P-P never occurs. I would like to have an approved defense for a non-forcing transfer opening, but I stipulated that the 1H opening was forcing to 1S to avoid this issue during the approval process.

I agree that "reprehensible" and "unfair" would be good descriptions for the "no agreements" response. But, I get the impression that an explanation like: wouldn't really satisfy many opponents of unfamiliar methods (and more importantly, wouldn't satisfy the ACBL committee responsible for defense review). If I am wrong about that, I apologize. When I submitted a defense to a transfer opening to the C&C Committee for approval, I described the transfer opening along these lines: a 1H opening shows a Standard American 1S opening (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP), responder bids exactly as he would over a standard 1S opening except that with a hand that would have passed 1S, he bids 1S. That was deemed inadequate by the committee, I had to spell out that a 1N response showed 6-10 HCP and was non-forcing, a 2S response showed 3+ spades with 6-10 HCP, a 3S response was invitational with 4+ spades, etc. When I hear Jan complain that an adequate description of methods is impossible to obtain, I imagine that someone has described a method as I initially did the 1H transfer opening (which was deemed inadequate), not that they avoided their obligation with "no agreement".

I would contend that natural weak two-bids can never be adequately described, if you hold them to the same standard as the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades. If a weak two-bid is described as 5-10 HCP, usually a 6-card suit or good 5-card suit, with an eye to vulnerability and position, we're doing just fine. If asked for clarification, we might say that opener seldom has a side 4-card major (and when he does it will be weak) and try to describe what we mean by "good" suit. Would we open Jxxx AQxxxx x xx 2H? Sure. What about J9xx KQTxxx x xx? Sure. J9xx KQ9xxx x xx? Probably not. Will my partner's judgment be exactly the same as mine? No. Might my judgment be a little different tomorrow? Possibly. This seems to me to be OK, but perhaps that it just because I haven't played at, and tried to describe these subtleties at, the highest levels. Yet, it does not seem to me that if the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades was described to the same degree, leaving some judgment to the practitioners, that you would consider the method to have been described adequately. I think full disclosure is somewhat approximate by nature; judgment cannot be 100% quantified and explained. But, this does not mean that disclosure is imperfect. It just means that judgment cannot be codified, if it could we'd have computers doing some damn fine bidding. I think we are in basic agreement, except that I would say an accurate approximation is full disclosure rather than a practical compromise.

I don't think it is the case, either. I believe that canape methods require a pre-alert, but not a written defense, for instance. Variable NT ranges might also be an example.

Natural bidding methods may well be sound, but other methods (such as Precision, which is less natural) have also proven to be sound. But, the existence of a single sound approach should not preclude experimentation with other approaches.

Didn't someone make something of a mockery of the America's Cup a few years ago by defending a challenge with a catamaran (which created a complete mismatch)? I'm not suggesting that forcing pass systems are the catamarans of bridge. Just citing a sports example of a difference in equipment rendering the competition meaningless.

Here in Maine, we speak similarly of Canadians.

Come on, is it really that hard to play with a woman for a few hours? :lol: One year, I played in the Mixed Pairs with a lady who went completely off the deep end, almost getting us thrown out of the event, having multiple 7-minute discussions with the TD's, and threatening to send a bomb in the mail to one pair we played against. We scored up about a 35% in the first set, and then the bomb threat set kicked in. So, As the one and only time I ever played in the National Mixed Pairs ended with me being on a watch list as an associate of a suspected domestic terrorist, I'd say, "Yes," to that question. LOL Your wife?

Doesn't this mean that as the event gets bigger and bigger and more PP are available, winning the event (a fixed award) is worth less and less. At least assuming that (Total places paid / Total entrants) is constant or nearly constant.

With only 4-cover cards and facing an 8-9 loser hand, pass is most likely best. Just four?

Isn't 2nd 75% of 1st, 3rd 75% of 2nd? After that the % goes up, but it follows a set progression regardless of field size (I think). Your event A would be 100, 75, 56.25, 44.44. Your event B would be 70, 52.5, 39.37, 31.11. Not so sure about this, but isn't "total places paid" simply a percentage of "total entrants" so that (total places paid)/(total entrants) is a constant? Anyway, if you use my method of (masterpoints won)/(masterpoints available to individual), the first four places (in both events would be): 1.00, 0.75, 0.56, 0.44. A quick look at a couple of events from Boston shows that the last place overall would be worth in the neighborhood of 0.07-0.10.

Shouldn't you just make it total points available to a single pair? Every pair in the event has the potential to win whatever 1st place is worth. 1st place award does not vary with number of participants.

I don't need to know the vulnerability, the bidding to date says that responder, taking vulnerability, position, partner tendencies, etc. into consideration, chose to invite. Opener showed a minimum. I pass. I'm not going assume responder made an earlier mistake. Now if the problem had been given a round earlier, then all those things would have been important.

I'm pretty sure that all the NABC events have a fixed masterpoint schedule for the overalls, independent of size of field (though the number of places paid may vary by size of field). Of course, you are right that how many total points are given out varies with size of field and the resulting number of sections and section awards. But, should it matter that your section top was one section top out of 5 available or 6 available?

I think the objective in the Platinum Pairs to get an elite field rather than a solid field. Any system based upon Platinum points is going to be flawed because even non-elite players can accumulate Platinum points through attendance.

Ummmm - something like: "All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for: a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values, b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.) 4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls. 5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. " That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense. No, the portion of the mid-chart that you cite is for responses and rebid, not for openings (and overcalls) as helene suggested.

Fred, I seem to recall that early in your bridge life you spent a year playing virtually no conventions with Joey Silver and that this was a significant step in your development as a bridge player. (I hope my recollection is not that far off.) I wonder if you might briefly share with us how that experience influenced both your bridge learning and your thinking about unusual methods. Tim

This forum is not representative of ACBL membership. From ACBL's point of view, those posting here about less restrictive system regulations are a handful of fringe thinkers in a membership of 150,000.

As long as the WBF has Women's team events, it seems to make some sense for the ACBL to hold Women's events at the NABC level. Especially since the USBF uses results from those events in setting up their trials. The Mixed events make little or no sense to me beyond their novelty factor. I wonder whether an all female partnership couldn't make a similar case to that of the Blanchards and force ACBL's hand on at least offering an Open event concurrent with the Mixed.

I think it more akin to saying that if you want to be a NBA player you shouldn't spend time perfecting your slam dunk contest skills or playground moves. You may need detailed system agreements to become World Class, but you don't need exotic systems to become World Class, and it's not even clear that exotic systems would help the World Class player achieve better results. Of course, most of us will never be World Class let alone a true expert.

There is often a difference between a commercial success and a technical success, especially in show business.

Aren't these international crimes for which a US Presidential pardon would have no consequence?

What is common is a function of the regulation. Maybe the regulations are a function of what was common at the time of their establishment. Still, I doubt FP would suddenly (or ever) be the rage if it was permitted at all levels.

This is exactly the same for ever system. The fact that others playing different systems choose to pass on certain hands that another system opens should be irrelevant. The quote of mine which you cite in your post was in reference to Codo's question (and followup conversation) regarding why FP systems (disallowed, at least in ACBL events) are viewed differently than the possibly more complex RM Precision (mostly allowed in ACBL events -- at least in the mid-chart+ events that Meckwell play in). My response was (and is) that those charged with determining which events "unusual" methods should be allowed in do not look primarily at the complexity of the method but rather the ease with which the average opponent will be able to adequately cope with it. While the RM methods may be more complex than FP methods, the "exotic" RM methods will occur far less frequently and they will occur in later rounds of the auction. The "exotic" FP methods occur on almost every hand, surely every time the practitioners are in first seat. And, those methods will occur in early round of the auction when it is more likely to matter to the opponents. That's my opinion about why RM Precision is differently than FP methods. It is not "exactly the same" for every system because each system has a different degree of familiarity to bridge players in general. If systems had evolved such that FP systems were the norm, it would be weak pass system that were considered "exotic" and be met with strong resistance. I'm not expressing the opinion that all is right with system regulation. But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation. How relevant at which levels is what should be up for discussion, not that it should be irrelevant.

Maybe you missed the part about where the ACBL is a non-profit organization? That doesn't mean one of their activities can't turn a profit. They've turned two profitable years in a row, if the Bulletin is losing money, something must be making money. It seem more attractive to hope that the Bulletin (with some of it's non-ACBL advertisers) makes a profit than some of it's tournaments (which are virtually 100% member supported).