glen

If there is no expressed, implied, implicit, or otherwise suggested agreement, then "no partnership agreement" is fine. So, for example, if there was no cc set (i.e. the system did not automatically start with a sayc cc), no discussion, and nothing in the user's profiles, then "no partnership agreement" works. In this particular case, the poster said " my card" - I don't know if this was a cc, or just some notes on the user's profile, though I expect it was just the latter, and the poster expected others to reference it to find an implied agreement.

As to the TD actions, we are told the chat with TD and players was "talking on the table!", but we are not told what was said. So I'm not certain what "no warning" happened here - for example if you were told to describe the bid and continued with "no partnership agreement" then you missed the warning shot.

Stop doing this. When asked for information, please provide the agreement as per your cc, or, if not stated there, any implicit agreement. It will save time, have everybody enjoying the game, and keep you in the game. If you feel the opponents are clicking on a bid to provide unauthorized information to their partner, please let the TD know your view.

This year our regional is going completely online for the daily bulletin, except for the welcome issue. It will also have lots more pictures than a printed version.

In Gatlinburg on most days, the "national and world champions" are in the 2 top brackets of the KOs, so most can't play against them.

On slam bidding, a lot of slams are close to 50-50 (on a finesse, or require a split+other good stuff etc.). So a factor in matches between good teams is slam bidding luck - bidding coin flip slams when they make, staying out of coin flip slams when they don't.

But is it the optimum to open these at the one level? Say one played a modifed EHAA: 1♣: 15+ balanced or 12+ ♣s 1♦: 12+ ♦s 1♥: 4♥s quasi-balanced 9-11 or 12+ 5+♥s 1♠: 4♠s quasi-balanced 9-11 or 12+ 5+♠s 1NT: 12-14 balanced 2X: 5+ suit, 8-11 Isn't it quite possible that the 2X openings would be more successful than the 8-12 1X versions?

Perhaps by "a Nationals feeling" it was meant that everybody-is-here great-to-see-you-again feeling, which would correspond to the "prime factor" of "sense of community belonging" compared to "fierceness of competition", as illustrated by the list of NABC events offered up instead of a discussion of the social aspect.

Comments like these do not worry me. It shows the ACBL understanding they have multiple markets - for example seeded players in the Spingold rarely play club games and club players rarely play Spingolds. Attempts to make NABCs one-size-fits-all are not working, as regional and IN events have high entry fees relative to the same events elsewhere, and are given the worst space available at the NABCs. Given there are multiple markets, one has to consider if the Gatlinburg approach is a far better model, than NABCs, for getting the club players to go to enjoyable tournaments.

Raptor has been quite popular for years around here - the 3 local players in the Bermuda Bowl are all playing Raptor - these two most often: Zaluski - Smith and these two in some cases: Klimowicz - Frukaz Compare to the use of Raptor by only one pair of the Polish Bermuda Bowl team, who use it against natural 1♦ or 1M openings. When I was playing Raptor here, my Polish partner and I felt that the best scheme, if it would have been allowed by the ACBL, would be: 1NT overcall: 1) 15-17 or 2) a healthy overcall in an unbid minor without a 4 card major - the feeling was that 2) will have close to or the same playing value as 1) and would often have a stopper or partial stopper in the suit opened 2m non-jump overcall: 5+ minor and 4 in an unbid major 3m jump overcall: preemptive but not very weak - 9-12 or so.

Based on experience in ACBL BBO tourneys, the general "understanding" is random, having about 0-17 points with 3 or longer M. I prefer the understanding of about 7-11 support points, 5 or longer in M or 4 in M with shortness in the overcall suit.

Now that we have 11 and noon speedballs, I go back to the suggestion that the 11 slowball be moved to 10:30

This is like the "clubs and a higher suit" description (is there a lower suit?). Isn't the "any 3 suited hand without clubs" 2♦ just three suited ♦s+♥s+♠s since that is the only one possible without ♣s?

Fred had a similar problem in July. It went 1♥-Pass-1NT-Pass;-2♥-All Pass. It turned out that 2♥ was about 14-17. The vugraph operator said the table had a discussion about alert rules when the hand was finished, but we were not told what the conclusion was.

If the bidding went 1M-Pass-2M, would you alert 2M if it could be 6-12 points, 6-9 only if shapely? If you would, you would also alert 1m-Pass-1M-Pass;-2M if it could be 11-17 points, 11-14 only if shapely.

This is the system Nic will be playing in the Bermuda Bowl: Kamel Fergani - Nicolas L'Écuyer 2007 Convention Card When Nic and Robert Lebi, a new partnership at that time, won the National (NABC) Fast Open Pairs in Chicago in 2006 (see: 2006 Bulletin), it was said "The two played a 2/1 game forcing system with 12-14 1NT openers". That last quote is in: 2/1 or big club poll thread

Yes. 1♥-? -- 2♣: GF relay -- 2♦: game interest+ raise -- 2♥: 2+♥s, no game interest 1♠-? -- 2♣: GF relay -- 2♦: transfer to ♥s -- 2♥: game interest+ raise -- 2♠: 2+♠s, no game interest

Here is their 2007 cc: 2007 bocchi-duboin.pdf Here was their 2006 cc: 2006 bocchi-duboin.pdf In 2006 they had: For 2007 on first page we have: and on second page: So it appears they are not playing variable NT, but they still specify when 15-17 is used on second page - just did not remove this yet?

So five letters would get MANDY

Does this D to 1NT have a four letter word (like DONT or CAPP) yet? - five letters (like LANDY, HELLO, ASTRO) also ok: Double=values 2C=Majors 2D=One Major 2M: M+minor 2NT: Minors

Aug 22 article: Card smarts key for Bear Stearns chairman's career Young gambler: '"I played against him in money games when I was 13, believe it or not," Robert "Bobby" Levin recalled recently' Pay: 'Nickell, chairman of closely held private equity firm Kelso & Co, and a Bear Stearns board member for nearly 15 years, also sets Cayne's pay as a member of the compensation committee.' BBO: '"He plays on the computer almost every single night," Seamon said. "He takes it very seriously."'

One VC is.

I was wondering what hands are best excluded from opening, if one is not going to open some hands that are opened in most approaches. My theory was perhaps these would be hands short in the majors, but not too distributional. For example take this opening framework: 1♣: 16+ Unbal, 17+ Bal 1♦: 3 or 4♠s, 11-15, if balanced 11-13 1♥: 4+♥s, 11-15 1♠: 5+♠s, 11-15 1NT: 13/14-16 2♣/♦: 6 or longer minor, 11-15, not 4♠s 2NT: 12-15, 5-5+ in minors, not 3♠s, 13-15 So these hands have to pass: 11-13 balanced with 2♠s and 3♥s (13 with a good 5 card minor, 2-3-5-3/2-3-3-5, could upgrade to 1NT) 1-3-4-5/1-3-5-4 11-15 2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4 11-13 (though 13 could upgrade to 1NT) 2-2-4-5/2-2-5-4 14-15 with poor majors (so hand does not want to open 1NT) Now not opening these hands can hurt, since one might lose a nice minor fit. However not opening might make it harder for the opponents to get a major in, since some hands that would overcall would not be worth opening. In 3rd and 4th seat downgraded Pearson Points tell us when to open or not. If our points+number of spades is not equal to 13, we do not open. This means we would be passing with up to 28 points, in the very worse case, but the opponents would have an 11 or 12 card ♠ fit.

Yes I did short summaries, for the Canuck team. Then, over time I add details and style notes to them. Am doing same thing for Venice Cup. If the 1♦ opening still handled balanced, but with 4+♦s then it was natural with 2+ clubs (usually 4-4-3-2 exactly opening 1♣). If 1♣ handled a complete or almost complete balanced range, then it was "♣s or balanced" (these did not include Polish Club openings which is a different class). The small upgrades/downgrades were not counted - so Meckwell 14-16/15-17 is not variable. Richard did a count, posted above (the breakdown of the 2♦ openings) - I did my own counts too. Did not do this. --- --- Venice Cup Metrics: 38 Five Card Majors 9 Five Card Majors + 1♣ can be 2 2 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+ 5 Four card majors (not big club) 8 Big Club with five card majors 2 Big Club with four card majors 1 Big Club with transfer openings (Moscito) 18 playing a weak or mini NT at least part of the time 11 With variable NTs 13 Multi with strong option 19 Multi just weak 2 2♦ as 11-15 short ♦ 17 2♦ as natural, weak or intermediate 9 2♦ as big hand 2 2♦ as ♥ or big 1 2♦ as ♦+♣ 1 2♦ as Flannery 1 2♦ as 4-4-4-1 15-18 33 2♥ as natural, weak or constructive 24 2♥ as H+minor or H+any 3 2♥ as Majors 1 2♥ as short ♦s 9 2NT as minors

Some additional BB numbers: Pairs playing Multi with a strong option: 16 Pairs playing Multi without a strong option: 19 Pairs playing variable NT ranges: 14 Pairs playing Natural with 3+♣s for 1♣: 29 Pairs playing Natural with 2+♣s for 1♣: 10 Pairs playing 1♣ as natural or balanced: 7 Pairs playing 2♥ as natural (weak, constructive, intermediate): 33 Pairs playing 2♥ as ♥+other or ♥+minor: 15 Pairs playing 2♥ as weak majors: 8 (not including pair playing 2♥ as Flannery 11-15 or 5-5 majors weak) Pairs playing 2♥ as short ♦s: 6