david_c

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure. My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout.

This may be unanimous on BBF but it wasn't at the Junior Camrose! I was watching the Vugraph at the venue where a 2♦ rebid was chosen and went without comment. Then at the break someone approached me with a copy of the hand record and asked what I thought of this 2♥ bid which had just been made ... But I've got to agree with 2♠.

Thanks folks. The actual deal is not exactly what you might be expecting. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj98xxxhxdqjxxcjx&w=skhkjtxdxckqxxxxx&e=satxhaxxxdxxcaxxx&s=sqxxhqxxxdakt9xxc]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Yes, RHO has somewhat underbid her hand! I bid 3♦ which gave her another chance. (LHO passed, and presumably would have passed the cold slam in 3♣.) I need to either pass 3♣, or bid 4♦/5♦ which might keep them out, or find the good save over whatever club contract they bid. Are any of these realistic? It was difficult to say when what happened at the table was not really bridge as we know it. This board was a complete disaster for our team of eight. At our table we scored -640 defending 5♣ on a heart lead. Our other NS pair scored -300: well done, that was a good save against 6♣. One opposing NS pair made 4♠; the other was just one off at the 5-level. Ouch! :(

Does he? So I think Hughes (rightly) stops well short of saying that this principle is the most important thing. It's something to bear in mind, but it's not the whole story. I've got to agree with Justin about needing more than one opening bid for balanced hands. You could say the same thing about just about any 1♣ opening.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sqxxhqxxxdakt9xxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1♦ (4+), and the auction continues - (2♣) - 2♦ - (3♣) back to you. Your call?

As a recent England U25 I can tell you I've never seen it before, and I doubt anyone else has in the last ten years. Also, hardly any of the juniors play Acol these days in their regular partnerships.

Sorry, my comments were obviously not intended as serious discussion. Acol-bashing is good sport, and helps relieve stress from having to play it at the club. If you really want a serious discussion about the problems with Acol then I'll be happy to participate if you start a new thread or something.

That's odd. Have you tried playing it? ( :lol: )

Yes, lovely isn't it - I use it all the time. I find it's perfect for writing up system notes (if you want them to look nice). As well as trivial things like theses of course.

I've heard people saying this too. It's total rubbish of course. Acol is bad, but it's not that bad. I think if you read this in a book or on a website it's likely to be because they're trying to say "when you have a minimum hand, one of the things you can do is bid a new suit", but they mess this up. There are many situations like this where people seem to have difficulty distinguishing a statement from its converse. The EBU's own system file (which may well be what you read) goes wrong in precisely this way.

There's no need to question people's motives. We can judge the ACBL's committee on what they have actually done - and in this respect, the evidence is damning. They have produced convention charts that are poorly written, open to interpretation, and (famously, in the case of the mid-chart) don't actually mean what they say. This is totally inexcusable, regardless of whether the committee's intentions are good. Perhaps worse, these problems have been widely known for ages (certainly for all of the 5+ years I've been reading internet forums) and the committee has never done anything about them. Perhaps they've had some discussion, but to an outside observer it looks like they haven't even tried. By way of contrast, I just came across an old email that I sent to the English L&E three-and-a-half years ago. Now, even back then the English regs were much better than the ACBL's. But of the nine things I wrote about, eight of them have since been resolved by the L&E. I copy it in full below as an example of how some authorities actually do try to fix the problems with their regulations. These are all the more remarkable for the fact that some of these things were really pretty minor. > Apologies if everything I write below has already been considered - I > wouldn't be surprised if you're already fed up of hearing about these > things. I'm not going to be asking for anything new to be added, just that > some things which I feel are ambiguous in the current version of OB ought > to be straightened out when the next one is produced. > > 1. OB 9.1.8: Playing different systems according to position / > vulnerability. > > Maybe this is deliberately vague, but it seems that there is much > disagreement about what constitutes playing a different system. (e.g. > switching from 5-card majors to 4-card majors.) I would like to urge you > to clarify this. In the new OB (10 A 8) they added some examples of things which did not constitute playing two different systems (including the one I mentioned). > I suspect that the intention was to prevent people from switching from a > strong club system to a natural system, or something of similar magnitude. > If so, then in fact there are very few bids which might cause a problem > (strong 1C opening, strong 1D opening, forcing 1NT opening; perhaps > forcing vs. non-forcing 1C/1D), and these can be dealt with individually. > 2. OB 13.4.2(ii): Treatment of a multi-2D. > > "You may not very the above by any sort of treatment." > > I think this is ambiguous in a very serious way - that is, there are two > possible interpretations, of which the second is much more restrictive > than the first: > > a) "You have to abide by the definitions given in 13.4.2(a)-(f), despite > what it says in 9.4.1 and 9.4.2." > > b ) "You are not allowed to 'treat' the multi in *any* way." (So, for > example, agreeing not to open 2D with a side 4-card suit is not allowed.) They changed the wording in 2006, making it clear that the first of these was what was intended (new OB 11 G 6 (iii)) > 3. An 'opening' pass. > > As far as I can tell, forcing pass systems are not explicitly disallowed - > they're just unplayable because other regulations make it impossible to > respond sensibly. I think it would be worthwhile having a regulation to > cover an "opening pass", along similar lines to 12.3.8. For example, there > is one (fairly silly) system in which it is madatory to open at the > 2-level with 0-7HCP, and so a pass shows 8-12HCP. At the moment this > appears to be allowed at level 2, but that doesn't seem appropriate to me. A regulation was added in 2006 (OB 11 B 1) which explicitly banned an opening pass which promised values. > 4. OB 12.2.2(d): Strong club. > > "[1C may be] artificial, forcing, at least 16+ HCPs" > > Many "strong club" players have an agreement that they can open 1C on less > than 16HCP if the hand warrants it. It would be nice to see this being > explicitly allowed, for example, > > "at least 16+ HCPs (or equivalent playing strength)" > > or, if you wanted to be more specific, > > "at least 16+ HCPs or rule of X" > > where X might be either 24 or 25. This was one of the major changes in 2006 (with an extra addition in 2007 after it was decided that the new rule didn't really work as intended). > 5. More about 12.2.2(d): Strong club. > > It's not completely clear whether the definition of a strong club is meant > to allow things like this: > > 1C = 16+ balanced, or 16+ with clubs, or any 20+. > > My interpretation of 9.4.2 is that this is not allowed; but perhaps it > should be. The new wording in 2006 (OB 11 C 3) made it clear that as long as an opening bid promised a strong hand, any agreement would be allowed. > That's all that I really have to say, but I would also like to lend my > support to the following: > > - Announcements. This was the most controversial change in 2006. > - A strong 1C opening which has a minimum strength of 15HCP; or > maybe even less, particularly at level 4. This one didn't get in. > - Third seat opening bids allowed on less than rule of 19 / 18. People had been complaining about this for ages, and it was finally changed in 2006 (OB 11 C 10). > - A 1S negative response to 1C. This became permitted in 2005, and nowadays any response is allowed. (OB 11 D 8). So there you go. Eight out of nine is not bad. And I can think of other examples of things that the EBU fixed because of complaints from members. In the same time period I don't know of anything the ACBL has done to deal with the problems people have complained about. On the evidence I've seen, the ACBL fully deserves its bad reputation.

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣ (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs." Richard - I'm guessing there wasn't a TD available (except via a phone call). It's very common in England to play teams matches privately and try to sort out simple rulings as best as you can.

If you're not satisfied by Wayne's references I doubt I can do any better. What I say is based on the fact that I'm a regular club and tournament player, and I talk with and play against people playing standard Acol all the time - and this is what these people play. It's not the sort of thing that gets written down very often. If you're not prepared to believe me then there's nothing I can do.

I dunno what they do in Australia, but let's get this straight - if you're playing Acol here in England, then: 1. After a 2/1, opener's rebid of his suit is non-forcing. 2. With 4441 (singleton club) you open 1♥ and rebid 2♦. (It's actually very playable to agree that you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ on four, but it's not Acol.) Orginally people used to open 1♠ on this hand, but it has long been realised that this just doesn't work. For 1444 hands, there is indeed a split between 1♦ and 1♥.

It's nothing to do with me, but I've got to disagree with Richard - the format seems ideal. With a straight KO a relatively weak team could get drawn against a very strong team and their only experience of the event will be getting hammered. Having a round-robin ensures that everyone gets to play at least one day in the main event, and gets to meet everyone else. I don't even think it makes much difference to the "accuracy" of the event - the semi-final and final are only reduced by 25% in length. But who cares about accuracy anyway? It's for the trials that accuracy would be more important.

The EBU White Book is a good reference for many things, but not for rules about BSC: the EBU doesn't use the idea of BSC in its regulations at all. The one thing you found is there for historical reasons really. (There's a particular competition which was supposed to attract overseas players, and in order to accommodate them the EBU added things allowed by the WBF. None of it applies to any other EBU event.)

I'm surprised that you feel the need to change your system so dramatically for minor-suit openings which are really not that unusual. I'd be playing standard methods against 1♣ / 1♦, and my normal weak NT defence against the mini. The fact that 1♣ and 1♦ are marginally less descriptive than standard openings is exploited well enough by normal overcalls; you can overcall slightly more aggressively (particularly at the 2-level) if you want.

Oh, I was looking at that wrong too. Can I recommend that when writing an auction, you put your own bids on the right, the way they appear on BBO: - - 1♦ P 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 4♥ AP Now RHO's bids appear to the right of LHO's bids! I find this much easier to read.

Well, you can't. Pissing off opponents is illegal under Law 74A2. If you do it deliberately you should expect a disciplinary penalty.

Your reaction is reasonable in a legal sense, but completely tactless. Why on earth do you needlessly antagonise the opponents like this? You know that what you say here is going to annoy them. It's a shame that opps feel this way but they're not likely to change their minds. Much more worrying, I think, is that the TD has got it so badly wrong. It's a shame that you can't "appeal" a lecture like this. But you probably could say that you were unhappy and wanted a second opinion. If there was a more senior TD available I would probably speak to them about it. (But it helps that where I come from, I would be 100% confident that our senior TDs would know what they are talking about.)

4♥. But you've got to do something about those methods. If you're wedded to this silly 1♣ opening, then so be it, but with all the space you have over a 1♦ overcall there's no excuse for not having a way to show a long suit in a GF hand when you have one. Then you would automatically find when you belong in spades here, and most of the time that you belong in clubs as well.

Five is just a really bad number - I don't like anything they've tried. In fact from a spectator's point of view I much preferred it with just the five teams. It seems the reason we have six is so that the players don't have to sit out too much.

Quick question for those who play attitude leads against NT: Do you play this as essentially a two-way signal (leading either the bottom card to show a good suit or first/second to show a bad suit), or do you frequently lead middling cards to show varying degrees of attitude?

I can guess.

I thought this was obvious but the amount of discussion suggests otherwise. To me, 4♦ confirms spades as trumps, whereas 3♣ suggests clubs as an alternative. So 4♦ is most likely to be 6412. I can see why it might be useful to have it showing specifically a void, but unless this has been explicitly discussed a singleton is normal.