Elianna

I meant I missed the start of the repeat. I missed the first airing entirely.

The only country anyone cares about, judging from the rest of the posts in this subforum. About the topic: Adam and I are really excited about the start of BG! Unfortunately, I had to miss the first 20 minutes because I was directing, and I couldn't get them to skip the last round.

This doesn't solve the problem of also wanting to see what the players say to each other. Anyway, I just use the club liberally. This may not work for people who direct regularly like Jillybean, because then these people are banned from her tournament, and she may not want to do that, or to have to go to the trouble of finding them all again and unclubbing them. I don't have this problem, as once people have annoyed me, I don't see why I need to keep "listening" to them.

Or have a sensible user id.

I have an excel file that adds up people's scores, and am more than willing to share that with the next scorer. It wasn't too hard putting people's answers in that file (they would email or private message me), when they followed the requested formatting. Of course, only 2/3 of people did, but that was ok, too because this only amounted to ten or so people. Adding up how many people gave each answer to each question was a little more annoying, and I would end up doing that by hand (it was easier than writing a program to do that).

It wasn't really private. They made complaints about how I should do something one way, I informed them that I already did, and gave them links, and they said that they were too busy to read those. That was just the final straw. Pigpenz took over the tabulating of scores (not the assigning of points, but the adding them up and recording for everyone). I don't know if he (she?) still wants to, but whoever is in charge may want to ask him (her?) in case he (she?) still would like to be involved, so that he (she?) doesn't feel left out.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way. One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger. You're right, I should have said, any AMERICAN bridge book. :P I had originally typed in "bridge textbook", and I was in the mindset of beginner bridge books that my beginner bridge players show me. I was thinking about the Audrey Grant suit-series, and books of that nature.

Not a specific auction, but I've noticed players (from beginning to advanced levels) have problems with bids changing meanings. What I mean is that they believe that certain bids mean whatever they want them to mean, to describe what's in their hand. The only difference I've seen between beginners and advanced is how complex the auction has to get before they change meanings. I've seen beginners do this on "book" auctions, and advanced players usually do it in the third or fourth rounds of bidding, or in competition. You also see them do it frequently in bidding polls. :P I wouldn't consider someone an expert who does this kind of thing.

Many will disagree with you. Two camps: 1N - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ Forcing with 4 spades. ..... 1N - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ Invitational *without* 4 spades. I prefer the latter and let 2NT be invitational *with* 4 spades. This way opener will always be declarer. Roland A third camp: 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ Is INVITATIONAL with 4 spades (as opposed to forcing). That's what Adam and I play, and what I've seen many experts in the LA area play. As for how conventions that are the same get different names, or how different conventions get the same name, that's not too surprising. This happens all the time in English. I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way.

I haven't played Gazilli in a 2/1 setting, Adam and I play it with SA. I've found that the 2NT rebid by responder (showing a nonfit and the minors) really useful, and has won us boards (we mainly play matchpoints).

I usually think of a "claim coup" as someone claiming a certain amount of tricks when he/she can't get them, and the defense going along without really examining the claim. You see that plenty of times kibbitzing juniors. :(

I'd say that not to call the director does more to drive people away, because it helps establish the attitude that calling the director is a "bad thing" and thus makes director calls into something to be afraid of. I think that the right thing to have done if you wanted to be law-abiding and "nice" is to have called the director, get your options told to you, and then proceed as you did. This way opponents can see even "nice" people call the director, and the next time a director is called on them, they don't proceed to the next table talking about how "mean" their opponent was. As you might be able to tell, I direct club games, and I hate when players make their own rulings because they're too social and afraid of seeming unpleasant. I basically tell those people that I get really bored, and would love to be involved. I really would rather be called when the problem is easy, rather than when it gets more complicated.

I didn't disagree with you until this last bit. I like Standard American, and would prefer to play that with people, rather than 2/1 or other systems. I wouldn't claim that it's the most natural or easiest system, etc. So I don't think that the only reason that it still exists is because there are rules in place to protect it. If you mean that the only reason it still exists as the "standard American" system, then I won't argue with you (nor will I agree with you, I just don't take a stance either way).

I'm still waiting for "...And the Law Won".

From my understanding of the ACBL rules, not unless you would bid it with a longer club suit (ie., with 4 clubs and 3 diamonds he would bid 2♦). I just want to clear one thing up: In a face-to-face ACBL game, this should be alerted with an alert, if anything. Only 1♣ or 1♦ openings that could be less than three are announced "could be short". Of course, online alert and announce are the same thing, so this doesn't really help Jillybean. I just get very tired of people announcing things that are either alertable or even not alertable, and wanted to make sure that someone reading this thread didn't come away with the idea that you're supposed to announce something in a f2f game about this.

"NMF" (or "New Minor Forcing") is not an adequate alert, anyway. Even something as pithy as as "F, asking for more desc" is better.

What about Universities? And I don't mean just well-known universities like Harvard and Yale, etc. I mean the universities and colleges that aren't known ouutside of their specialty or area. From highly rated ones like (Harvey Mudd College), to ones that get made fun of as party schools (like San Diego State), they all do a good job of catching these teenagers up to the level they should be in the first year, and giving them a good, very well-rounded post-high school education the next three (or more) years. I stress well-rounded, because I believe that this is another way that most american colleges differ from European ones (that I've heard of from other people, at least): Students are expected to take many classes outside of their major. This gets people out of a "blinders" mindset: they're expected to learn subjects that they may not be as interested in learning (that's why they're not majoring in them), and I think that this helps executives, etc. in training to look at problems in different ways. Or at least listen to different people who think in different ways. You may say that this applies only to college graduates, and point out that not everyone in the US is a college graduate. True. But at least 80% of the people in my high school graduating class (a public school in Los Angeles) went on to four year college (so they probably completed at least one year) and the ones I knew of the rest at least spoke about going to community college. I'm not actually saying that education is the reason that America is successful in business, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a reason for it NOT to be successful. If you asked me what a reason could be, I'd say that the amount of time people are expected to work is a big factor. It is pretty common for people to have 60 hour work weeks. I would be surprised if this were as common in many western european countries.

You hold: ♠ Axx ♥ QJTx ♦ KQTxxx ♣ -- You are playing SA. The opponents mainly stay out of the auction except the bids in parentheses. You Partner 1♦ (2♣) 3♣ <-- This is NOT a limit raise in diamonds. 3♥ (4♣) 5♣ ?? Your partner has emphatically stated that he "doesn't believe in limit raises for the minor suits", so you believe (and hint: you're right) that 3♣ is not a limit raise + for diamonds, but instead a general force asking for more description. What do you bid now, and how do you feel about your previous bids? BTW, before there are any comments about your partner or his choice of methods, you are playing with him because he is your bestfriend's boyfriend, so suck it up. :P (I'm posting this for my mother, who wanted to get other people's interpretations on what the 5♣ bid means, and what people would do after it.)

If more than one table is being shown on vugraph, there are two main factors that affect how I choose which table to watch: 1) I like going to the slower table (the table that has results from "the other table"). 2) Who's playing at which table. The first one affects my decision much more than the second, on average. So for me, I probably would prefer if you show both tables from the same match, so that way there will likely be a table that shows results from another table before the board is over.

I love the VM theme song! Adam hates it. :( It wasn't written for VM, though.

I don't think that you look that bad. At least you looked like yourself. Jeff Goldsmith and Eddie Kantar (among others) sure don't look like themselves in those pictures. :wacko:

Usually, the person that bids the suit first is declarer (especially in online bridge). So in this case, North (the 4d bidder) is declarer, and south (the 2NTer) is dummy.

Not that I know of (unless Adam and I weren't invited.) I did get to meet Cardsharp. And other posters that I knew before. The people I really wanted to meet were those I haven't met before, though, so I was glad to meet Cardsharp, and sad to miss the others.

To both of you who say that the "natural" reason of marriage is to have children: If someone is medically infertile, do you think that should take away their right to get married? They're not fullfilling the "primary" reason of marriage. And why should laws be based on what SOME people think is "natural"? What's natural to you may not be natural to me.

Because of circumstances that I don't wish to go into now, Adam and I are missing the first day of the LM pairs, and so are looking for teammates for Saturday for the KO that starts that day. If you're interested, send either of us a private message.