jikl

This is where many organisations get it wrong. Although I would not play this system it is very commonly played. The only circumstance where this is a 2 card suit is in a specific 4432 (SHDC) distribution with probably about 12-14 points. Now I don't have a hand generator to analyse this but I am guessing this is a VERY low percentage, and you have now decided to ban this. Realistically there is no difference between a 5533 opening system and a 5542 system but we have pedantic officials and directors that rule against it because they either don't understand it or couldn't be bothered trying. Sean

You neglected to answer my question about a 2455 system :P Sean

The interesting thing is, that whilst I respect Jillybean highly, and you may in fact be a good TD. I would probably not play in one of your Tournies. Isn't one of the things you mentioned changing the rules of Bridge? Yet you are disallowing Psyches, and more strangely artifical club systems. This is where it gets interesting, is a pair that plays a 2455 ♣♦♥♠ SAYC variant system artificial? (A lot of people play this) They could be bidding it with only a 2 card suit. It seems you are taking bits and pieces from both sides here while criticising nearly everyone else. Sean

Not for me, but swap the ♦J into ♥s for the same distribution and same points etc and I don't think I could stop myself. Even though it is still very quacky. Sean

Nick, you never answered? Sean

Well, I have 14 cards, assuming the 14th card is not a ♠ I will bid 2♠ Sean

I have what may be a very silly suggestion, but it is one that has not been offered before. Is there any reason a VuGraph signal can't be mirrored or sent twice? Let's pretend we have lots of commentators before that argument is proffered. The final is USA v China. Why can't the Vugraph feed from both the open and closed room be mirrored from the send, creating 4 rooms in the VuGraph theatre, Open: English and Chinese (well one of the Chinese languages), and Closed with the same options? In a match between Italy and Poland, (with the commentators available), why not 6 rooms (Italian, Polish and English)? This would be a way to do it before we have multi-channel functionality. It all comes down to whether there is an easy way for one vugraph entry to be able to be sent to 2+ tables at once which, in my mind, should be doable. The questions are basically, is it doable? Is it easy to do as a quick fix before true multi-channel functionality? And will we ever have enough commentators for something such as this? Sean

Sleep well Roland. Sean

An interesting article appeared in the Melbourne (Australia) newspaper that discusses race and religion biases: Race and religion argument Then another one by a former Prime Minister of Australia: Another view Just sharing something from another part of the world, not making an opinion here (although I do know who I would vote for). Sean

Doesn't what RHO pitched matter here? Since it is also possible that you could keep attacking ♣s to put pressure on RHO. Sean

The TD is very much at fault here. The fact that the team captain was sent for is disconcerting. In this case it would seem to be irrelevant but let's consider precedent with the following 3 scenarios: 1) Pair 1 want to concede and the director accepts concession This is obviously worst scenario as noone is consulted. (However this might later prove to be best scenario) 2) Pair 1 want to concede and the director summons team captain This becomes more complicated, does the captain have knowledge of boards played in the other room via onsite or online vugraph, was the team captain kibitzing the other room? Now, whenever it is known the team captain was summoned whenever the answer was known there is HUGE UI. Therefore this is not an acceptable course of action. With precedent this could be used to see how "the swinging" is going on the first 1/2 of the boards and what action needed to be taken for the latter ones by an unscrupulous team. 3) Pair 1 wants to concede and the director talks to the other pair This one is worse than talking to the team captain for UI. This option would never happen as it means the match can no longer be finished. This doesn't leave us with many options, only the 1st option that when one pair concedes, the whole team does so. The fact that there is a match on the next day for a bronze medal makes it even more problematic. Once there is no chance of playing for the gold or silver, is it not their duty to be best prepared to play for the bronze? Should there be 2 bronze medals as there are in some sports to avoid this problem? (Not at Olympic level that I can think of) Who knows? Personally I am guessing there might be new a CoC clause after this, if there isn't then so be it. The German team have given themselves the best chance of being ready for the bronze medal playoff by resting themselves before the match. In some ways isn't this what they should be doing? Sean

I am glad that wasn't your 10,000th post. Needs to much more momentous than that :P Sean

So who does McCain on SNL? And how many times will "my friend/s" come up? And will "maverick" be mentioned? :D Sean

I have registered, just hope I am awake for it :) Sean

Partner didn't bid 4♥. Also, any finesse you need to make slam is likely to be badly placed, you have no tenaces. The overcaller is sitting over partner where there might be tenaces. Easy pass. Sean

Very belated birthday wishes also Sean

I think you will find that in nearly every country, the richer you are the less you pay in taxes on a percentage basis. You have the best accountants, the best financial advisors etc Sean

If I answered this I would offend far too many people. Sean (by this I mean thread, not the previous post or a particular post)

There is always of course the option that declarer is 7051 and the ♣3 is a sort of McKenney asking you to return ♦s. :) Sean

There is quite often a honeymoon period when a change at the top happens. Let's wait and see. Sean

We used to play the round of one so that everyone was dealer for this round once, so for 5 players that would b 5 rounds of one in a row before going back up. Sean

Sorry, in a 4 card system it does, so I will use this instead: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♣ 4♣ - 5♣ Obvious enough now? Sean

A good example is when the bidding goes something like this: 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♠ 4♠ They are going to crossruff this unless they have the power to make it otherwise. Sean

I am sure blackshoe will correct me on this, however... If the stated line included the statement of "ruffing a club", the only possible question is whether there is one more trump out. Remember that a claim can be sloppy but not stupid. Therefore it comes down to definition; is drawing the trump sloppy? Or is it just completely contradicting the claim itself? Sean

This reminds me of a discussion on Ben's weird system (ZAR). I can give you a concrete number ofr my NT openings, (this is a made up thing but showing how ridiculous it can be). I am opening 12-14 NT opening with a 96% confidence interval, however the shape can change that by 1 differential. Is this what we want to see on a card? Sean