olegru

Sorry, I believe it would have more sence to put this question in part of the forum about robot bidding: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showforum=48

simplified polish club + Raptor 1NT overcall and some other gadgets

olegru - driver733

It is correct. But does he know about 5 cards diamond? Just change Partners diamond and clubs and 4♦ bid will be a huge winner. It is not a good bid, sure. But it is not even close to be wild and gambling in my opinion. ============================================== I posted problem on the Russian bridge forum, asking to choose the bid after the support double. http://www.gambler.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=492898 The possible answers are: - clear pass; - Both pass and 4 d make sense, will choose pass; - Both pass and 4 d make sense, will choose 4d; - clear 4d; - other Currently I have 19 replies and only 8 people think it is a clear pass. More than 50% of responders are considering 4d bid and some of them actually choosing it. Granted I do not know level of majority of my responders, but I do not know level of actual players either. ;) I believe bid well inside the definition of LA cannot be consider as a wild is it?

Russian

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/ai/article.90617/pics.1.jpg

My partner likes to give explanation like this: "15-17 balanced all deviations you could imagine are possible." Is it a full disclosure? :(

I was under impression that question 3 is a quote of S.J. 'Skid' Simon but he is not in the list. :) here it is, page 7: http://books.google.com/books?id=mNeuZ3Mok...epage&q&f=false

Really?

I believe there are several questions: 1. If partners question about alerted bid and follow up question after incomplete explanation anyhow restrict the possible bids of South? 2. If yes -how? Could he choose a very reasonable bid if it became more attractive if less attractive bids are exist? 3. If not - what is the less attractive LA to 2 spade bid here?

Very nice and informative comments. :) Now let’s see an example. We agreed to play Jacoby and clearly marked it in our cards. Opponent open 1 clubs, I intervened 1 heart, second opponent bid 1 spade and my partner bid 2NT. Now I am asked about meaning of 2NT. Honestly I have no ideas. We did not discuss with my partner meaning of jump to 2NT if opponents bid suit after our intervention or at least I cannot recall this discussion. Now my partner takes CC and shows something there to opponents. I know we have fit showing jump to 2NT in our cards. Now I know it applied to this position too. Thanks partner. Now you are my opponent. Are you going to let me enjoy and use information I just received? It is much easy to make UI apparent for everybody by refusing to look at CC and asking questions. Relevant law:

And doing this you accidently gave UI to your partner what you do have an agreement for this situation and this agreement mentioned in your card <_< I guess opponents did not want you get away with it and decided to force you to voice that UI.

According ACBL convention MID chart allowed: Defence versus transfer preempts (whether 1 or 2 under the suit bid) is on acbl site http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2e.htm too. Questions: 1. Is it allowed to play transfer preempt by agreement to show exactly 5 cards suit? (and have another opening bid to show the "regular" week two hands.) 2. Is it legal for preemptors partner to pass the transfer preempt?

What about ajusting to 1NT dbled? Without UI that 1NT is a strong balanced hand a lot of East would just simply pass after 1NT dbl just waiting for partner to do something smart. I believe anti-rule "If you do not understand partner - pass in a first opportunity" is a often one on that level. Before West said he has a 1NT oppening East had no ideas if 2 spades transfer or no and will definatly afraid to go to the third level. By the way, if East would bid 3 clubs what is it according EW system? Would it be too much to assume that West would take it as invitational and bid 3NT? As a possible resultes to assign I can see: 1NT dbled down 1, 3NT passed down 3, or 4 clubes dbl down 1

Between May, 6 and July 27 is almost 3 months. Wow! I guess the ConCom is overloaded by the suggested defences if 3 months is not enough just to put one for meeting discussion. But somehow none of submissions are presented in minutes. :blink: Seriously it is hard to believe that I the only person who sent suggested defence for approval during the 6 month covered by these 2 meetings. By the way, I did not get any official reply. I got reply from the person who is not the Committee member that convention was rejected because convention is hard to defence upon and the suggested defence should be really good to be approved. Don’t get me wrong. It is completely OK with me if my suggestion was rejected because it is not good enough. I am just curious how the committee members knew it is not good enough if they did not discuss it as I clearly can see from the minutes. Stop… stop… stop! :ph34r: As far as I can see it was rejected based on nature of convention, no suggested defence was mentioned. I was under impression that it is not Conventions that The Committee supposed to approve or disapprove. I imagined that committee supposed to look at defences and approve or reject them. :) Do you see the difference?

Weird thing – in minutes posted I failed to find any suggested defence to MC convention rejected or approved. None of them were submitted from ACBL members? I found it hard to believe, especially hard because I personally send my submission last time May, 6, 2009.

sorry, bad language included. http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/12/a-not-so-...son-of-att.html

Hi all, Never noticed this thread'before. My name is Oleg Rubinchik. I am almost 40. Currently I live in Brooklyn, NY, originally from Russia.

Very nice system. I do not think there are any reasons to worry due to lack of reviewing and questioning of suggested defences. It should not be a goal to create the very best defence against all possible convention. What you need is to give people possibility to see the description of convention and some working (but not necessary the best) tool to use if that convention actually happening. The world class players who play in USBF tournament definitely have (or at least may create) they own defences. I guess they just do not want to share them with the rest discussing it on USBF website. Sorry, majority of them are professional bridge players and they got used to receive money for their bridge related knowledge not share it by free with competitors. You have a completely working system and no reasons to be been disillusioned about that. Also notice one important deference. Your system is for the super chart conventions. Very wide range, complicated. Some of them are really difficult to defence on and there is nothing strange that people could be tempted to hide their “now-how” about defences. We are currently talking about mid chart conventions. Convention with anchor suit, convention usually practiced in other parts of the bridge world. People will have less reservation to share their thoughts about suggested defences. Also there much more people who play in ACBL mid chart tournaments compare with USBF super chart games. Majority of ACBL mid chart tournament players just like to discus different bridge aspects and share their ideas and opinions. There is no guaranties the final suggestion will be the best possible, but it will be more or less playable. You want to use better defence than currently suggested on the web page? Improve it for yourself. We do not have to give people cake if they ate too lazy to work by themselves, but we are going to give them bread and tools to make cakes for themselves. The current ACBL method is to stop development because some people are happy with current state. It is make sense for a couple of decades but it is death for the game for a long run. If I officially sent some convention with suggested defence and committee actually look at my suggestion and rejected it and should not be too hard to indentify me and send me official reply with reasons why my suggestion was not approved. They do not have to send E-mail to all interested, only to actual submitter. One official reply. Without any additional request from submitter. With reasons what wrong with suggested defence. Is it too much to ask? (By the way reply “You convention is too hard to defence. ” should not be acceptable unless committee actually show why submitted defence is not playable.) Proposal is good. But I did not see answers on some important questions. 1. Who will responsible for posting of new methods? Submitter or somebody else? 2. Is some timeline will be defined for committee to make a decision? Month after submission? 3 months? Week after the next NABC after submission if suggested defence was submitted at least month before NABC? Anything work but deadline should be defined to prevent the silent veto. 3. Reasons for non-approval should be posted and they should make sense. I mean if we are talking about conventional 2 diamonds bid, committee cannot ask submitter to give defence which allow opponents to show their hands better than they can show after the natural 2 diamonds pre-emptive or avoid accidents which are not avoidable in case of natural 2 diamonds pre-emptive.

I believe it is a root cause of system limitations and disagreements with it in ACBL land. Note: I am not talking here about Brown Sticker Conventions and HUM Systems they are completely different questions. Being pre-alert about unknown but pretty kosher stuff with anchor suit normal players usually have no problem to agree the reasonable defence. It can be difficult for novices but nobody argument about convention limitation in novices tournaments. Of course any player would prefer do not allow his opponents to use their weapons, but it does not mean that possible advantage they got by homework is unfair. It just means that any of us would like to win and would prefer to fight on the familiar ground. Those who play for fun usually accept it and have no reservations about use of not-standard conventions, if they will receive the full disclosure and possibility to use more or less working defence. There is only one part of the bridge society who actually does have troubles to play against the new stuff. It is Pros playing with clients. They are forced to play in higher level of tournaments than client actually ready to play and pros are actually interested to limit use of conventions in those tournaments for their clients’ convenience. By obvious reasons Convention charts created by representatives of that interested part of the bridge society and it is a reason why in ACBL land using of new convention very limited.

It is a first step. After you will submit your proposal with all requested details you will receive the reply that submitions with size more than 1 page will not be approved. Back to step 1. Been there.

It is already there :) I am wondering if any new once (having any sence to use them) are possible.

Nice wording. :) Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts? For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense? I guess you were talking about years they "been refusing to look at any new submissions for practical purposes" before they officially killed development of new convencions in ACBL land by closing the list of mid chart.

And at least 3 more years unofficially. By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition. Just the silent veto to prohibet the use of the legal conventions.