TimG

Sounds good.

I think south should have opened the bidding. 2 1/2 QT plus all those tens.

What do people think of a 1N response. Opener will pass this whenever he's opened a 4-card spade suit. If he rebids two of a red suit we can wake up; if he rebids 2C we can take a preference to 2S.

I direct all the mental energy that I'd expend on worrying about the order of dummy's suits to remembering what the contract is. Of course, even that has failed a few times. :-)

Indeed, I think the rest of it is over thinking.

Have you been reading this?

I would imagine the double as encouraging competition and being more offense oriented, maybe with Jxx x AKTxx AQJx or Jx x AKTxxx AQJx. Something where partner can expect my defensive tricks might not so easily cash because they are in my long suits rather than being the Ace(-Jack) in one of their suits. But, I probably shouldn't have said "suggest a sacrifice" as much as "encourage competition" because competing over 4M might be a make as well as a sac.

Ron has been around long enough to know [how] he sounds. I think it is intentional, sort of trolling. But, maybe he just doesn't understand (or care). Your advice is, of course, good in general, but there are also times when it's not wrong to put someone in the kill file.

1) 4.5, it's hard to come up with a hand that will pass as dealer and make this overcall (if a weak 2D was available); 2) 4, I don't really see the point, the opponents haven't found a fit (partner's failure to make a negative double does not deny 4 hearts -- it could also just show a lack of strength) and I don't need to suggest a sacrifice with the potential I have on defense; 3) 5, just because it takes up space for no apparent reason, it's anti-partnership; 4) 4, at first I thought this was just over-valuing the hand (advancer would stretch to bid game when there is no invite possible over 3C) and gave it a 5, but given that partner is a passed hand, I guess you were sacrificing against their partscore; 5) 5, you're shooting for a very narrow range of hands, even with something like Ace-sixth of diamonds and QJx of clubs, we might not make 3N and responder probably would have shot out 3N with that hand rather than signoff.

The point is that there would be LOTS of unnecessary passing back and forth of CCs if you do it so that you can be warned your opponents are playing Romex. Much more efficient would be to have those players who play Romex announce such at the start of each round. I played Polish Club for a while. We announced as much to the opponents at the start of each round -- a forcing club that might be natural or might be a weak NT is something that, while GCC legal, the opponents are unlikely to plan for.

Yes, they want bland. The ACBL will not allow real innovation at the GCC level, it will only happen at mid-chart and higher, and they are doing their best to slow the innovation at the mid-chart level as well. I can't remember the last time I thought I needed to see a opponent's CC. When was the last time you encountered anyone playing Romex? Perhaps it enjoys some isolated pockets of popularity, but I rather doubt it. I have never encountered anyone playing it (though I know someone who used to pay it).

If only because that would mean MOSCITO is in widespread use, right?

barmar is, I believe, a graduate of an institute of higher learning just down the Charles from Harvard.

I dislike it too. Merriam-Webster gives as the 3rd definition of unique: : unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>

I'm late to the party and not always able to reserve Saturday afternoon BBO time well in advance. But, I am going to try. And, I am surprised that there isn't a line of people waiting to play. The opportunity to play a match against good (great) players should be something that we're all looking for.

There are any number of things that have worked their way into accepted usage. I believe "good" in response to "how are you?" is one of those. So is "very unique". Doesn't mean we have to like them. . . Before long, "alot" will be a word and "could of" will be an acceptable variation of "could have".

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

Unfortunately, my partner is not available. Maybe on the 22nd?

Let me double check with my partner, but I think we should be able to make it (and I think it will be fun to play in a JEC match).

What does it matter? If West enters with 3♠, surely East will raise to 4♠. 4♠ should be down on the obvious trump lead. Par on the deal is 4HX -1, so if North makes the undisciplined push to 4♥ and East fails to raise, NS will be fine (by taking the sac against 3♠) even if doubled (you're not going to claim that East would pass 4♥, West would double, and East would sit, are you?).

Unfortunately, those of us who don't like this use of "hopefully" are likely on the losing side.

They did thank me for letting them know when I informed them it was still there in error. . . Yes, this 1m opening would be "single purpose" or some such rather than "all purpose". Even if technically a 1m opening could be used to show exactly four spades, it would be counter to the spirit or intention of the GCC. And, although I am not above breaking rules to make a point, it didn't seem worthwhile in this case.

Opposite a possible four-card suit, this north hand is worth a raise to just 3♥. The idea, I believe, is to get in quick and out quick, jam the auction as high as appears safe and then let the opponents guess. In a very basic way of looking at it: we know we have nine trumps, so we bid to the 9 trick level. (I think it is also often safe to bid to the 9 trick level when responder has just four trumps because of two things: 1) opener might have a 5th trump, and 2) the opponents come under great pressure. But, that does not mean it is also OK to automatically bid to the 10 trick level when responder has five trumps.)

One that has been bothering me recently is: "You do that better than me".

And, I feel like the Committee members would put up a small cheer if they heard this.