Elianna

That's not necessarily accurate. I do not like playing weird systems, but I actually like watching them, provided that the vugraph operator has access to the players' notes (the ones that they write when alerting bids) so that we get an explanation. It's nice if the commentators know the system, but not necessary to me.

As the Hog has said, we've been on this merry-go-round before, but as I like horses, I'll participate. :rolleyes: Most of my experience is with 15-17 NT openings. I haven't played a lot of anything else, so I won't address other ranges (except this is all prolly translatable). I will open all hands that are balanced (5332) with 16 points 1NT, and especially when my five card suit is hearts, and I have three spades. Why? It saves me rebid headaches, especially when pard bids 1s over 1h. With 15/17 points, or not 5332, I use more discretion. For hands that don't fit in the above, I basically ask myself: If I had to describe the most relevant feature of my hand, what is it? Is it that I have a five card major? Is it that I'm balanced? A lot of my perception of this is based on factors like my exact distribution, where my high cards are, and I'm ashamed to admit: how will this affect my opponents and what my mood is. I have seen that there are some hands that I'll open 1NT, and others 1M based on how aggressive I'm feeling at that given moment, and that varies a lot by how we've been doing, how much the opps have pissed me off in the past, how little (or how much) I want partner to play the hand, etc. For opening 2NT with a five-card major, I will do it when my major suit is relatively weaker (so here the consideration is only the suit, not where it fits in the range), one where 3NT is likely to make the same number of tricks as 4M opposite a pard with a fit for my major. I don't like playing puppet stayman because I've already decided that my hand is better suited for NT, so why play puppet? I don't hate it though, so if that's something pard really wants to play over 2NT, I can live with it, but I won't like it. I like Smolen too much to be willing to give it up for puppet stayman.

As with many people's thought process (but not all when judging by some of my pards!), when given more time to think, GIB will do better. Basically, it gets to run more scenarios (that's the short explanation).

I don't understand why you joined a tournament with the above description, as it does not follow the laws of bridge, either. I agree that it is not really fair to change rules as the tournament starts, but you already had SOME warning that the director was changing laws of bridge.

"experts only" = "people who play a game other than bridge" "REAL experts only"="people who play a game other than bridge and like to lecture partner about it" At least, from my experience. :P

lol

Or you (addressing kqr) could just play that 2y promises a rebid, and thus ALL of opener's bids are forcing, as per SAYC.

Is this not a societal issue rather than a "junior program" issue? Attractive young women get this at SCHOOl as well. To be blunt, young men when they see a new attractive young face automatically get sexual thoughts initially. Most act appropriately and keep this to them selves, some make it more evident. However, once you do get to know the person you get to see them as just that, a person, rather than a sexual being. This is how society works. I am friends with several good looking female junior players who I now know and respect, but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away. Justin, the difference is that a high school teacher that looks down his students shirts when he talks to them will be removed, because his school would not tolerate that. It is quite different being hit on by someone in your class in high school or college, then by the professor. I think that it says something about an institution that it believes that smoking pot (a reason I was told that someone was not allowed to be an instructor at camp) disqualifies someone for being around young people, and that hitting on teenage girls does not disqualify you for that position.

some comments: I really don't agree with 1. Look at Sabine Auken and Jill Myers. Both are respected as top bridge players, not top women players. I have nothing but respect for them, and their results. That is what it all comes down to, results. If anyone, male or female, starts winning a bunch of things they will get respect. It may be harder or slower for women (as bridge society is today) but it will come. People cannot judge relative skill (if it isnt obvious) without playing hundreds of boards personally against the other people. This is usually not the case, so all people have to go on is results. Perhaps these male juniors that are more respected than you have just got better results? I am a male junior, and personally I do not know of anything that you have won. I'm not saying you are not a good player, I'm just giving you the perception of an outsider. As for number 2, I doubt you find this exclusive of bridge players. As I'm sure you know, there will be some men in all areas of life like this. As for 3, that's awful and illegal (sexual harassment). Not sure what kinda people say stuff like that. I don't really know how you can disagree with 1) (and I'm not sure that you actually do). I wasn't saying that there aren't women respected as bridge players. I was saying that people involved in the junior bridge program (and this was more the juniors than the "adults", I will admit) talked like this amongst themselves a lot around me when I first started participating in the junior program (a year or so ago, I've been playing bridge for much longer than that). As for the respect for me part: I realize that some of it is based on results, and I completely understand that. See Adam's message. I wasn't talking about the very best juniors (you, Joel, etc), I'm talking about lower levels of juniordom. Yes, but not as instructors, etc. of young women. I didn't know that sexual harassment out of the work place was illegal. Nice to know that. I'm also sorry that my post started a women vs. men debate, because I really don't think that is relavent to what came before me: How to get more young people to play bridge, and what the ACBL is doing about that. My main point is that unless female juniors are treated better than I was (encouraged, told by people in the program that they can get better, and not treated as if they are there for the males, etc) then I don't really think that a junior program will be extremely successful at getting girls to play bridge.

The key is to get teenage girls to play.....where teenage girls gather teenage boys are not far behind....right Justin? Winston ACBL, as they are running their program now, will have a very hard time to get teenage/college age girls/women to want to play competitively or join their junior program. The reason I say this: Experience of how I was treated by many juniors (not all, and not all people involved in the junior program). Some of my experience: 1) Many comments about how junior girls are no good at bridge. They were not necessarily made AT me to discourage, but when people talk amongst each other freely and openly to each other when I'm right there, made me realize that no matter how good I am (and it's not like I'm top class, but who doesn't hope that they can be) I would never be able to get them to realize that I'm good. And that seemed to be based solely on the fact that I was a girl. I saw a lot of male juniors that I was better than, that were MUCH more respected as bridge players than I was, solely because they fit in better with others. 2) Conversations with adults (40+ years) involved in the junior program that involved said adult (male) conversing with my chest. Or so it seemed from where his line of sight was aimed. 3) "Lessons" (no, not structured ones conducted at camp, but ad hoc ones) about what kind of games (imps vs. mps) the junior boys need to have sex before, and how we (junior girls) need to know about this and accomodate it. I'm not saying that every junior girl has experienced this, I'm writing from my own experience, what has happened around me in the junior program. I've had some good experience with people. Charlotte Blaiss has been particularly helpful. There have also been a lot junior boys who have behaved more like people than hormones on parade, and they know who they are (I hope!). I didn't write this post to say how bad the male sex was, but I just believe that the US junior program was not helpful in my bridge career, and I get annoyed when I get comments at tournaments from little old ladies about how they're so greatful that the junior program has kept bridge alive among my generation. I hope that with this website and other measures, the junior program steps up it's game, lives up to it's potential, and aids more juniors than they have in the past.

1/. Make my ace of clubs the ace of diamonds, and I don't mind 2d at all. Of course, since I play 2d as a weak two, I would have opened that in the first place if those aces are switched. I know that it's not everybody's taste to open the hand (as it is) a weak two, but I'm much more sympathetic to a weak two bid than a 2d overcall. 2/. Adam and I play penalty doubles. I understand people preferring it to be negative. I don't have strong feelings which is better (I just know which I'm more likely to remember when I'm super tired). I do know that I love when people play doubles as "stolen bids" against me. I think that ranks way up there in the list of conventions I will refuse to play. 3/. Eh. Doesn't drive me crazy with liking, nor with hatred. I probably would have led a heart, but I don't think that it's particularly brilliant, either. 4/. I like it. I like doubling auctions when it sounds like they reached a stupid place, and since it looks like we have the majority of points (if partner was in third chair, I wouldn't be as confident about this), and as I'm more than happy to double whatever they run to, this double seems quite good.

In SAYC, not only is the auction 1♠-2♦-3♦ forcing, it's forcing to game. Of course, people can play different versions of SA, and if they say it's not forcing for them, then ok. As Mikeh said, (paraphrasing) in SAYC, a 2/1 call should promise a rebid, so 2♠, 3♦, etc all should be forcing, in that partner already promised to bid again.

Why do you say that? I know several precision pairs (ok, some of them are Recursive Diamond pairs) that love precision BECAUSE they can open weak. In fact, it has been the case that most of the time I've faced weak openings they were by a precision pair.

Funny. Adam and I used to play 2/1. Then we played half-2/1, half SA (don't ask). Now we play SA (with gadgets). We find it playable. ;)

Sorry, have to disagree. To tell the true this statement doesn't have much sence for me. How partnership could have an explicit agreement for meaning pass after opponents double on Michael's cue-bid if in fact they have agreed do not play Michael's cue-bid? They may have agreed to play Michael's cue bid in other situations. For example, when only one suit has been bid, instead of two (as in this situation). Also, they may have discussed what passing doubles of cuebids mean in other situations, for example, if they play suction over strong club. There are many similar circumstances where they may have discussed situations such as this. I for one would have asked a few questions to find out rather than deciding what they play. ;)

In an actual BIT situation, if there is disagreement over whether it actually occurred, the director will usually take a look at your hand, then make a judgment call as to whether a BIT was likely given your holding. Follow skip bid procedure and avoid problems in the future ... opps sometimes still complain because 10 seconds feels like a very long time, but directors are aware of how long this actually is. If it's actually 20 seconds it will feel like an eternity & usually there is no disagreement about whether there is BIT. Another thing to do (if possible) is try to get one of the disputers to demonstrate how long the break in tempo was. This will only work if none of the disputers are yellers. :) But when all are sane, this actually works surprisingly well!

We have it on our card, but haven't played it. Mainly because when I had a hand that fit the description, I forgot to bid it! :)

What weak 2 bid? Easy one spade opener! Take away the K of clubs, now you have a maximum weak 2 spade bid. Completely agree. This would never be my idea of a weak two openner.

Actually, the question seems to be: what do you do if pard gives correct information, but you forgot the actual agreement. Answer: you are under no obligation to inform opponents of this during bidding/play. They likely will find out before the end of the hand is over, though. I agree with calling the director at the end of the hand.

I agree that I would ask more questions (specifically: Are opps claiming a hesitation noticeably longer than 10 sec, or are the just saying a 5sec hesitation). Secondly, even if there was a hesitation, that doesn't bar partner. He's just required to not base his choices on that. This means (in a short way of saying it) that if there was an action specifically related to the hesitation, he should discard that action as an option in deciding what to bid. What would a hesitation over 4♥ show (if we agreed that there was one)? If he passed, it clearly shows that he was thinking of bidding, and I would agree that if partner of the hesitator bid needs to be wary. If he doubled, it is usually because the doubler has uncertaintanty, and is not too sure this is a good decision, and again, partner needs to be careful to be ethical. But if he bids 5♣? I don't believe that a hesitation suggests bidding 6♣ to partner. I think that the fact that he BID rather than doubled suggested to partner to bid 6♣, and that information is clearly AI to partner. :) I just don't really know if I could be convinced to overturn this table result, but I guess that if opponents put a well-thought-through case that I haven't thought of, I could be convinced.

While it is true that you do no thave to tell them you misbid, the facts here are more or less iirrelevant. If I was directing, I would ask what your thought your initial 2H bid was (michaels it looks like). They doubled your michaels and your partner passed. You ahve a great hand for this pass. Partner is suggesting the chance to play 2♥X. You ahve three hearts, a diamond void. Heck you could make overtricks. That is, assuming your parnter chose to pass your michaels cuebid. But here is the problem. Your partner alerted. Now you say, and I believe you, that you remembered on your own that your agreement is that 2H iis hearts. Your partners alert had nothing to do with remembering, but I would still rule against you. It is not rather a person actually took advantage of UI from a hesitation in the bidding, or play, it is if it possible that such a hesistation would give UI then what most people would have done. Once your partner alerts 2♥ as hearts the question becomes is would people with your hand who bid micheals run if partner was willing to play 2♥. I think the answer here is most would choose to stick. So I would rule the resulat as 2♥x and whatever happens to that. Ben What if they have the agreement that passing a double of an artificial bid is NOT an invitation to play there. For example, if they have had the auction (1♦)-2♦-(x) - pass in the past, and have discussed it and decided that the pass means "pick your best suit" and a redouble would be penalty. Wouldn't you rule that the guy had the perfect right to correct 2Hx to 2S? Not that I'm saying that this is the case here, but I would have asked more questions to varify what was actually going on, and that's why I think that they director's ruling was wrong. (The end result may have been right, but I don't like the process)

(I added the numbers to make replying easier) 1) It depends on what your agreements are after you make an artificial bid that gets doubled for penalty, and partner passes. Are your agreements that the pass just asks you to bid (and if so, you are free to bid)? Or are they that the pass is a suggestion of playing there (if so, you are not allowed to pull)? 2) If your partner has reasons to suspect that you may have forgotten your agreement (he's seen you forget before, it's a fairly new addition, etc.) he should alert opponents to that, saying, for example: "it's supposed to mean x, but he's forgotten before, and in that case it's y". If he has no reason to think that you've forgotten (and it doesn't appear to be so by his hand-maybe he'd prefer to play at the 2-level than the 3-level) then I think that your partner did fine. 3) You ARE supposed to correct an incorrect explanation, but that does not seem to be the case here. You ARE NOT obliged to tell the opponents that you forgot the meaning of a bid that you made. 4) I do not believe it to be ethical to call the director in the middle of the play to point out that you don't have hearts. Law 9B1a says that a director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, but I do not believe it applies in this case (I think that it applies to things like bids out of turn, revokes, etc) maybe a more experienced director can explain whether or not it applies. This answer I'm less sure of than the others. :D 5) First off, I believe that before changing a score (or making any other non-minor ruling) a director should explain it to the pairs involved, so that they at least know what the director is basing his ruling on. I would just it incorrect solely because you weren't told what you did wrong. I have no idea why the director ruled that way, I probably would have asked a few more questions before making a ruling, but from what you say, it seems that there was no misinformation, so it seems to be that the ruling was not correct on the face of it, but I am not sure about that, either.

It would never have occurred to me not to bid 4♥ (then again, I'm a junior, it almost never occurs to me not to preempt!)

I agree that it's gotten better. I just don't agree that K and R is the tool that should be used to claim that it has. :)

The bad part about color coding is that many people can't tell colors apart. Also, computer moniters vary, and having colors that are close to each other can be interpreted differently on different screens. May I suggest a numerical or alphatical system (either instead of or in addition to colors).