glen

You are drawing the wrong conclusion from your poll question.

One question that I believe is appropriate in these cases is to ask "has your partnership ever had this type of auction before". I would qualify it here to say "where the opponents opened a weak two bid, and next hand cuebid that suit". This often produces interesting information, such as: "this is the first time we've played together" "well there was the auction yesterday..." "umm, well, umm, not that I can, umm, remember" If I get the last type of response, I ask how long they've played together.

Our methods would hopefully prevent us from getting to 6, using ace asking bids. We would have a very good chance of getting to 3NT, if not hitting the opponents in 1NTX. For example 1♣-Pass-1♦(0-5)-Double(♦s)-1NT-Double. Now since responder passed over 1NT at the table, perhaps they might pass 1NTX.

In a recent ACBL BBO speedball tourney, I had: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa3hqdkt7653cqj42]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding went 1♣-Pass-1♦-? I passed. At this point opener rebid 1NT, and responder alerted (after I bid) their 1♦ bid as showing 0-5 points (turns out responder is 3-5-3-2 with 2 jacks). I called the TD who came, but just observed, after 1NT was passed around to me. Without further instruction, I wrote to the TD that "I will now continue the best I can". The TD did not reply. I bid 2♦, partner passed that, and I made 6. Partner had: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa3hqdkt7653cqj42]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I asked for an adjustment to AVG (not AVG+), saying I could not show a decent hand since I had passed first. TD ruled no damage, score stands. Questions: 1) Was there damage? 2) Was it our fault we stayed in 2♦? 3) Was a request to adjust to AVG reasonable? 4) Would you have adjusted to AVG, left the score as is, or made some other adjustment Btw the ruling had no change on any masterpoints obtained - I'm just asking to gain insight into when adjustments should and should not be made due to a failure to alert initially.

Jan meant the "two way" club in the "Welland-Fallenius, Welland-Willenken and Garner-Weinstein" styles, as she noted, so you wouldn't have taken this as Carrot. I've termed these clubs-or-balanced systems as the "Modern Club". Btw was Bjorn in NYC before or after the publication of the BruWil Bidding system (April 92 pre-edition, April 93 pub)? If afterward, did anybody look at this?

Jan said that some two-way clubbers play transfers, and that these are not really polish club systems [which is 3-way or 4-way depending on your view]. In particular she says that 1♣, in the two way club, does not include the really strong hands. Josh says that the two-way clubbers are not really polish club systems. In particular he points out that 1♣, in the two-way club, does not include the really strong hands. Since they both agree, I don't understand the "really???" - it should be really!!!

Just to be clear, you led the ♠ J at trick 4, so the rest of the time when you are talking about the J (e.g. "If I play small to the Jack"), you mean the T

Britney and Paris top Santa's naughty list: poll wtf did Beyonce do wrong? Roberts says God forced his resignation Gods 1 Roberts 0 Province to review vanity plate denial to reverend At least she wasn't tazered for "speeding". You would think a reverend would have more success with a ministry.

I sub sometimes, mostly in speedballs. Tonite I subbed for 1 card in one tourney, and for a few hands in another. Both times I got bumped out of the tourney. If I get bumped I know what happened. TDs are too busy with all the adjustments, the disconnects, the left-the-computer folks (hey "phone" or "door" is not okay in a speedball), and the rest. Be happy you get to play for free!

BBO Wars I Boardtrooper: Let me see your reasoning. Obi-Jon: You don't need to see his reasoning. Boardtrooper: We don't need to see his reasoning. Obi-Jon: These aren't the posts you're looking for. Boardtrooper: These aren't the posts we're looking for. Obi-Jon: He can go about his business. Boardtrooper: You can go about your business. Obi-Jon: Move along to another a thread. Boardtrooper: Move along... move along to another thread.

From a link on Stacy's blog (http://stacyjacobs.com/), Jill Levin, Debbie Rosenberg and Gail Greenberg were on the CBS morning show this morning: CBS Morning Show Video As discussed on the show, the NPC of the Venice Cup team, Gail Greenberg, at this time, is not part of the settlement. Hence her name does not appear on the joint statement at this time.

For ACBL tourneys: Before feature: - if you didn't post a cc you got sayc cc - you posted a cc to get correct one After feature: - if you don't post a cc you get last-used cc - you post a cc to get correct one if last-used not correct So before this feature, if you didn't post a cc, you, or your opponents, would "suddenly discover" that you have a misleading sayc cc posted. Are you suggesting that the misleading sayc cc would be better for the opponents than the misleading multi 2D one?

Sadly at this ceremony, team members had a small sign that said "we didn't vote for this charter", thus are off the hook This reminds me of the nightmare I had the other night. I was stuck in the basement of dreams lamenting my chances of a bridge world championship, when my fairy godmum appeared, turned the pumpkin into Kokish, five mice into teammates, and gave me bifocal glasses. Days later, I was in the finals playing a slam when I noticed the clock go to noon – this was midnight back home. The glasses slipped off my face and broke, causing my partner to squeak. I should have read the small print.

even better he should blog it

I love this new feature

I suggested moving the 11 slowball for 10:30 for this reason - imo it is mistake to start a slowball and speedball at the same time

Please explain or provide details - do you mean tourneys are being cancelled? In the last slowball we played in, opps at each table complained how slow the event was - what was happening was that the 4 at each table was playing at speedball pace (for better or worse) - so we finish each round with 7 to 11 minutes to spare - with the writers strike, there was no material to fill in the gaps.

In the 90s, some friends played 1M-1NT(Forcing)--2X-2NT as forcing. For this structure, you could adjust as follows: 1) Bid 1M-2♣ with flat game invite and 3+♣s (can have longer other suit) 2) Continue to bid 1♠-1NT with flat game invite and 4-4/4-5/5-4 in reds 3) After 1M-1NT, if opener does not rebid 2♣, 2NT rebid by responder is a game force re-ask (2♦ is the re-ask if opener rebids 2♣) 4) After 1M-1MT--2X, 3♣ shows long ♣s [and] less than invite values

What are a few of the sequences where one has a long ♣ suit, less than invite values? Does this hand bid 1M-3♣?

We start with "why is drury hated by many" and end with drury (for 1st and 2nd seat opeings) as a "Dominant" method - nice roundabout

Would it be possible to answer the questions I asked? From this last post I gather you are saying that Drury opposite 1st and 2nd seat openings would be effective (provide an advantage), but I don't see any further reasoning why better methods should be banned, in your view, besides just restating it is an "unfair" advantage. Meckwell, as with other big club partnerships, use the 1M-4M sequence on a wide range of responding hands. This gives the 4th hand a lot of problems, who often will be unable to "decipher fast enough to safely judge the relative of worth of Our hands". This 1M-4M approach is considered having a good method, not an "unfair" advantage.

I didn't understand this the first time and nor the second time either. So conventions where the partnership's assets are unlimited are banned or should be banned? Take 1M-1NT-?, where 1NT is forcing and, in the partnership style, unlimited - is this version of 1NT forcing banned in your opinion? How about 2C(strong)-2D(waiting) - two conventions, partnership assets unlimited - therefore banned in your view? What is this "speak in code" and "not privy to" that you talk about? The opponents do not hear 1O-2R, and then later are told what O and R are. They hear 1H-2C or 1S-2C, 2C is alerted, and both the opening and the alert are explained when asked. So the sequences are not "in code", and the opponents are "privy to" the method of communicating.

The nice thing about this tangent is that it should be good for another 400+ off-the-main-topic posts. Sadly, though, free speech has seen a Post self-edited here.

Thanks for posting the link - the video gives a better picture of what is happening

Following your logic, if there are 1 or more hands where responder will bid 1M-4M, then drury is not a psychic control? In other terms, using your phrasing and italics, for drury to be a psychic control there must exist no hands where responder will bid 1M-4M. Is there anybody who has zero hands possible for 1M-4M?