david_c

Sorry Fred, but it is not enough to have good intentions. The committee has a job to do, and they failed to do it adequately. To be specific, the worst failings in my opinion are: 1. The fact that the convention charts are riddled with ambiguities, and yet the committee has made no attempt to correct them in at least five years. 2. The fact that from 2002 (maybe earlier?) to 2007 the committee received several proposed defences for transfer openings, without doing one of the following: - approve a defence (doing some of the work itself if necessary); or - amend the midchart to say that such openings were not allowed. I can just about understand turning away one such application without further investigation. But once several had been received it becomes incumbent on the committee to do something about it. These two things are absolutely not acceptable. Yes, doing this properly would have required the committee to do some work for itself, rather than just approving things. But that's their job! These people are selected, out of the entire ACBL membership, to do exactly that. Complaining that it's difficult, or that it takes time, just doesn't wash. I can name half a dozen people just from this forum who have proved themselves capable of doing it. If the committee is incapable of doing their job then they should be replaced.

Richard's response was perfectly proportionate. The way the ACBL has dealt with this over the years is absolutely shameful.

The fact that we're talking about "top-flight events" makes it easy enough to vote for the first option. But actually this convention is a bit of a sore point for me: the EBU now allows it in general tournament play (i.e. including local pairs events), which I don't think is appropriate.

It is explicit enough for me. Maybe not for you, but I think you should be able to work it out anyway. What else could it mean? If the rule-of-18/19 restrictions still applied then there would be no difference between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th seats; the fact that the regulation is split into two parts (11C9 and 11C10) clearly implies that there is a difference.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction. There may be many people who say they don't care, but in my view this is testament to the fact that there is nothing in the regulations which annoys them. If there were serious problems with the regulations then these people might not be so apathetic. So I think it is fair to count them as "satisfied customers".

That is incorrect. I suppose it proves your point about the regulations being little understood. :rolleyes: I would agree that this is poor - IMO it should be allowed at L4; but there isn't a mass of people asking for this to be changed, in the way that there was for various things three or four years ago. Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

I don't think this is true. Maybe I have not been talking to the right people, but it seems to me that the English system regulations have progressed to a point where people are largely satisfied. Looking back a few years, there used to be widespread dissatisfaction with a number of issues, for example: - not being allowed to play a non-penalty double of 1NT; - not being allowed to open light systemically in third seat; - not being allowed to make a strong opening on less than 16 HCP, regardless of how good the playing strength was. These have now been dealt with, and I don't see anything else taking their place as major issues.

Wouldn't there?

You are wrong - actually just a few months out of date. Law 12C1(d) in the new lawbook allows a TD to award an artificial score when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious". Since this condition is a matter of [the TD's] opinion, we can no longer say the ruling is illegal, only that it shows extremely bad judgement. As others have said, it is lazy directing.

Is there a basis to assume both are common? What is it? If you play lots of bridge you will find out what people play. Some of my opponents/partners play it one way round, others play it the other way round. (I'm not sure what else you think I could have meant :blink: )

Standard is to make sure you've discussed it with partner ... Seriously, if partner suggests Ogust I always make sure to check which way round he plays it. Both methods are common.

The first paragraphs seemed reasonable but were so boring I gave up on the rest. Was there anything of interest in it? Vote Pie!

It appears that the break in tempo was not disputed (though possibly because the German team was not given the chance to dispute it). If it had been disputed then I think there's a good chance that the case would have been thrown out.

Does it help to pick up Ax? Where are your twelve tricks?

-3.75, -1.28 Seems strangely calibrated to me - I've usually managed to get a plus score on the social issues in these things.

I would have thought it meant by comparison with other developed countries. In which case the only questionable point is whether the US is centre-right or far-right.

I find this really offensive (and I'm not easily offended). I happen to regard the foetus as a living human being, as gwnn put it. Apart from that, you have no idea what I think. You're labelling me with some extremely nasty views here. Maybe you did not intend your comments to refer to everyone who is anti-choice. But if so you need to be a hell of a lot more careful with what you write.

I'll run the opening lead round to my hand and hope for five heart tricks. That would make the diamond position irrelevant. To give myself an extra chance I'll lead a diamond to the jack at trick two, then back to the ♦K. Did they really manage to duck this? I suspect not. Anyway, whether they duck or not, if the ♥Q is onside but not dropping then I will hope for three diamond tricks and a black-suit squeeze against RHO.

The EBU's view is that the debate is now over and P2P is definitely going ahead. There are now various committees (I can count at least four) involved in working out all the detail. They haven't yet told us much about what they've come up with, but I suppose most of it would be pretty boring anyway. Contracts, computer software, that sort of thing ... One important step is the calculation of how much the P2P fee will be. I believe that this is due to be announced in the summer of 2009.

This is (or maybe was) part of the Welland-Fallenius system: 1♠ = like a forcing NT but may have 4-5 spades. Opener's rebids are transfers. 1NT = GF relay 2♣ = 5+ spades 9-12 2♦ = good heart raise 2♥ = nat 2♠ = weak

Clear 3♥.

I would nearly agree with this. If playing 5-card majors and a strong NT I would rebid the 5-card suit with a minimum 5332, rather than bidding 2NT. So you can play in 2M, and this is a perfectly reasonable resting place provided that responder has a doubleton there. So my requirements for an Acol-style 2/1 depend on the holding in partner's suit: if you have shortage there then you need invitational values, but with a doubleton (or more) you can get away with slightly less - maybe a decent 9 HCP. On the other hand, if you play four-card majors with a strong NT, then you do have to rebid 2NT on some balanced hands (unless you play the ancient Acol style of bidding two suits with a 4-4-3-2), so 2/1 responses have to be at least invitational. And in fact I find it's too difficult to judge invitational hands after the 2NT rebid, so in a strong+4 system I would always play 2/1s as GF or GF-except-rebid.

You mean playing 2NT as natural and invitational, right? I don't think that really helps. I can understand that you would like to take the invitational hands out of the forcing NT, but I don't think it's playable to bid 2NT with all of them. The range of possible shapes is just too wide - some balanced and some unbalanced, some having weakness in one of the unbid suits, and some having a good suit which you need to investigate (for example with five hearts). And if you only bid 2NT with some of the invitational hands, you're back to the original problem. Personally I would never agree to play a forcing NT in a regular partnership. "Semi-forcing" is much better, no matter what the rest of your structure is. I have also played Acol-like responses in a 5-card major system (albeit with a few artificial tweaks) and have been perfectly happy with that.

They haven't quite reached that stage yet. I would like the EBU to get rid of the remaining instances of the word "natural" in its system regulations, but there are plenty still there at the moment. For example, a 1M opening has to be "natural" - which means that RobF's system is technically not allowed in the EBU.

We keeping get calls telling us we've won a cruise. If you listen right to the end they say "press 9 to claim your prize", or something like that. From what I understand, if you were so stupid as to press 9, you'd be in for a nasty surprise when you got your phone bill. I'm not sure exactly how it works, maybe it just has the effect of making a premium-rate call back to the people who've phoned you. Though I believe I heard a report that it allows the caller to make unlimited phone calls at your expense.