Echognome

1. Fred 2. Ritong 3. Uday 4. Arigun 5. Reisig

It's somewhat convoluted according to the poll options, because as far as I'm aware, reverse flannery needs only 1-bid and then you have a second bid free to assign to something else. For what it's worth, Phil and I play after 1m: 2m = Lim+ Raise JS in other minor = mixed raise 2♥ = Rev Flannery (5♠, 4♥ 5-9) 2♠ = Good 10 to Bad 12 bal 2N = Good 12 or better bal, GF 3m = Preemptive I also like the treatment of natural invitational for 2M, but we handle those hands in a different manner (through 2-way nmf or NSI).

Have you tried the Suggestions for the Software forum???

Maybe it would be a lot more useful to develop strong meta defenses and post those? Then bids could be allowed if they fall under one of the meta defenses. E.g. Unknown one-suiter, suit is major (e.g. multi) Uknown one-suiter, suit unknown (e.g. DONT) Two-suiter, opening is suit 1, suit 2 unknown (e.g. Muiderberg, DONT) Two-suiter, opening is suit 1, suit 2 known (e.g. Ekrens 2H) Two-suiter, opening is not suit 1 but is known, suit 2 is unknown (e.g. Astro 2D = spades and another) Two-suiter, opening is not suit 1, but both suits known (e.g. 2C = majors) Two-suiter, neither suit known (e.g. wilcosz) Then you could go on to the three-suiters, such as mini-roman. Then decide which of the categories is legal and assign conventions to the categories. The advantage is you only need to get adequate defenses for the meta defenses. There are many potential meta defenses, but it is a much smaller set than having to make defenses for all possibilities. The disadvantage is that you won't have "easy-to-follow" rules such as 2S = X and 3C = Y, but rather you would have to think and figure them out.

I'm guessing this is because with the balanced 19 count with 4♠'s, you are bidding 2NT forcing, which isn't standard.

Kudos on making this thread and for following through on openness and transparency. Your efforts are appreciated.

Let's be somewhat practical. The reason the director's knew that the board had been fouled is because the second board did not match the hand records when they checked. It had, in fact, matched the first board, but rotated. I am not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it was due to human error, not computer error. So taking it as a fact that the board was fouled, how do you rule? Play on because the board is not identical? Doesn't that sound silly?

My condolences. RIP

I wouldn't pass, although I have no confidence that bidding on is the right decision. I quite like gnasher's 4NT with correction to 5♦.

I was the person who noticed this problem. I simply don't understand all the discussion about the possibility or impossibility of the boards being the same. They were the same. I believe the problem was when the deals were made and I'm pretty sure it was human error, rather than computer error. The boards were pre-dealt, so there was no issue of a player making the error. I called when dummy came down, because I remembered my hand from the previous board, which was now dummy's, to the pip. I had less of a recollection of the hand I held from the previous board as it was an opponent's, but it seemed like it was the exact hand. I called the director and went away from the table to tell him to check. He did and confirmed there was an error. Those are the facts. The question is what is the ruling? Should the cancelled boards be scored as is? Should they be given average plus (no players at fault)? Or should they be scored as average or average minus (as no one else noticed)? Those seem to be the salient questions to me.

I play that 2♥ now shows extras. If not, then how do you handle that your range is so wide? I guess it's just a tradeoff for not having to rebid 2♥ as I do with this hand type, saving the "round-the-horn" bidding to show a K extra.

TP = HCP + dist + length So does my x Qxx xxxx xxxxx hand have 2HCP + 1pt dist + 5pts length = 8 worth opening? We will find our best fit, but unfortunately we went doubled down toll free against a part score. Seeing we're in Wichita, at least I can enjoy the barbeque sauce.

Agree with the thread title. Would have started with 2♣. I'm all for supporting hearts, but not showing a fantastic 7 card suit? Not for me.

I missed the threads that were deleted (I think), but want to say that I've always appreciated Ben's and Uday's transparency about the decisions they make in moderating threads. I wish more would follow their lead. I have no idea how many other moderators there are, but I cannot recall any other moderator explaining their actions within the forums or laying it out there. It just seems to me that a style of "this is what I did and this is why I did it" commands a lot more respect than just doing it and offering no explanation.

Forget ratings! A couple of alternative ideas instead: A Ladder System I think what might be fun would be to have a team ladder. It works simple enough. You start at a certain point (let's say for argument's sake, about 1/3 the way from the bottom). Whenever your team plays another team, the winner moves up the ladder and the loser moves down the ladder. I'm sure there are some obvious issues to solve with people moving up the ladder and then not playing, but someone should be able to come up with some solution. Maybe you have a minimum number of ladder matches you need to play to stay on the ladder. It shouldn't matter if there are ties on the ladder for those who have not played each other. A Perpetual League Play Have different divisions and you start off in the bottom division. You play other teams in that division over a set period of time, say a month. You must play X matches a month to stay in the league or you drop a divison (or drop to the bottom). If you have played your X matches and have Y percentage of wins (say 80%), then you move up a division. If you have played X matches and have Z percentage of wins (say 20%), then you move down a division. Teams can be comprised of more than 4 players (say 6 or 8) to ease the burden on being available for play. In both cases, maybe you have a sign-up for matches in the system, akin to what you currently have for tournaments. That eases the scheduling burden as you just sign up to the allotted times. BBO can then take a small cut for these team matches (maybe $1/team) and everyone can enjoy it.

Has anyone made any? I'll make the case. Suppose partner has a few hearts and his spades aren't as great as we all think. Say he has KQT9xxx Txx Kx x. Partner with great spades and a singleton/void heart is welcome to bring it back to 4♠ (which happened at the table). If his suit is self supporting, he knows where to play. So why not give him the option? Seriously? Hard for me to now say "Ha ha ha. Just kidding!" isn't it? I was just figuring that partner may be able to judge whether his suit is playable or not? Maybe he has AJ9xxxx xxx xxx A or something? Maybe I'm kidding myself and I should have just bid 4♠.

Has anyone made any? I'll make the case. Suppose partner has a few hearts and his spades aren't as great as we all think. Say he has KQT9xxx Txx Kx x. Partner with great spades and a singleton/void heart is welcome to bring it back to 4♠ (which happened at the table). If his suit is self supporting, he knows where to play. So why not give him the option?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj5ha853dk52ckq83&s=skqt974ht4dj86cj4]133|200|Scoring: IMP 2♠ - 2NT(1); 3♠(2) - All Pass[/hv] (1) Ask (2) No "feature" Nevermind the bidding. You are in 3♠ and have to make the best play to make. Opening Lead: ♥K Plan the play. Adv/Exp - Please wait for BIL to answer first or hide your answers. Thanks.

Just to clarify what may be obvious, but you prefer the game in hearts to spades?

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sathj9xxdaxca8xxx]133|100|1♣ - 1♥; 1NT - ?[/hv] You play 2-way nmf over partner's 1NT rebid. 1. What is your call at MP's? 2. What is your call at IMP's? 3. What is your call at Swiss teams (8 board rounds)?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s9xxxhqj8xdqcaqjt]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠*; ?[/hv] *Natural game try, can be 4-4 in majors as your 2♥ call only promised 3 1. Do you open the hand playing 2/1? 2. Despite your viewpoint on question 1, here you are. What's your call now? 3. What do you think 2NT, 3♣, and 3♦ should show?

The flip side of this is that maybe it's more difficult for the opponents to compete if they have to commit to the 3-level.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdqxxcakt9xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - 1♠; ?[/hv] 2♣ or 2♠?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=shakqjxxdatctxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1NT)* - 3♠ - (P) - ?[/hv] *15-17 Stick or twist?

I was asked earlier and passed.