pbleighton

OK. you are an aggressive bidder, you don't like to miss game (neither do I :) ) . But you don't want to invite with an 11 count with Jxx in partner's suit: Then: You don't believe in temporizing bids? After hearing 2D, I'd bid 3NT in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you? Peter

No stick, but 2/1 responses in competition are frequently done on 10 hcp, at least where I play bridge, and this is a (bad) 11 count, and diamonds are where we live. I don't *like* 2D, but I dislike treating an invitational hand as a weak hand worse. If I was going to bid NT, it would be 2NT. Peter

I prefer it as 4-4 B) Peter

A couple of things: 1. The way I read it, opener might have 3 clubs if < 17. 2. What do you mean by 2C? For me, it's a weak bid, I will bid 2H with inv+ and club support? 3. Why is 2D *made up*? 1M-2D with 4 cards is common, and here you have a better suit than many times. Peter

Agree. Peter

Nothing criminal about missing game B) Peter

I have invitational values, and must show them. I don't like 2NT with my hearts. I can't support clubs. I can't make a negative double with 3 spades. 2D is what is left. Peter

I would be in 3NT. 30 hcp, 2 flat hands, 5-3 fit, 3NT is fine. Peter

Agree, except that I have more sympathy for 3S, the 5th spade makes 3S an attractive overbid. The orignal 2H isn't everyone's style at unfavorable, but it's fine with me. Peter

I'd hate to pass, but I would (I wouldn't be surprised or offended if a pickup partner (very rare these days) doubled with this hand, I know many players would). I am tighter in my takeout doubles than most people. I also prefer 4 card 1 level overcalls, which takes the pressure off the double a lot of the time, but not here. Add a queen and I would bid. Peter

In the same spirit: It's obvious that your head spends a lot of time burrowing where the sun don't shine :) How is the dark, murky, sticky place known as SAYC-land? Do you feel... well regulated? Peter

What basis do you have for this? Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, a serious felony. His sentence was within normal guidelines. Peter

Agree absolutely. Peter

1. A classic case of moving the goal posts. "Weaker" means the bottom 99.99% of bridge players? ROFL. 2. Even with that narrow definition, you are dead wrong on a percentage basis A few years back I looked at the cc of the final 16 teams in the BB. Something appraoching 30% of players were playing some sort of strong or mixed (Polish,Swedish), and there were a few unusual non-club systems as well. Contrast that to a club game or regional, where less than 10% play something other than 2/1 or SA. Yes, Mike, many of us disagree. I think it's pretty clear. Peter

Here is Mike's quote: There are three issues here: 1. A putative "consensus in the articles I have read over the decades", which Mike has failed to back up. 2. The imputation of what I consider to be an unethical motive as the implied primary motive is something I personally don't take lightly. You may not care, I do. 3. The implication that players who play unusual systems tend to be weaker players. This is a consistent theme among the bidding reactionaries. My personal experience is the opposite - most strong club players I know are good players. I don't make this claim for myself, BTW, I'm just a decent club player. This kind of crap is posted all the time. To put the shoe on the other foot, with nothing other than my own experience: The players who I have encountered who have had strong objections to unusual stuff (by me, all GCC legal) have mostly not been strong players. They tend not to be beginners. They can play the cards reasonably well, but they freak out when they are confronted with light openings, or weak/mini notrump, or strong club, or aggressive preempting, etc. The truth be told, they spend WAY too much time worrying about our bids, and not enough time using common sense and bidding judgement. They don't have an *optimal* defense to our methods? They don't have an *optimal* defense to 2/1, either. There are complex systems out there, which will benefit defenders from study, but these are few and far between. Most of the people who don't like them would like to ban weak notrump, as well. Peter

Everyone likes gifts :) The biggest source of gifts comes from playing a weak/min notrump ina strong NT field, where many play DONT and ovecall light - what a diabolical plot that is! But I don't know anyone whose primary purpose in playing unusual systems is opponent error. Peter

You still haven't backed up your original statement (weak players, intentionally playing unfamiliar methods to get a good score with confusion), at all. Will you try, or have you given up? Peter

Mike, you made a strong statement: This is an accusation of unethical behavior. You bear the burden of proof. The only thing you can cite is: One quote, and it doesn't: 1. Say anything about weak players. 2. Say that any pair is playing an unfamiliar system in order to get an advantage. Hamman is complaining that full disclosure is impossible, a different thing altogether. Your statement runs completely contrary to my experience, and to my reading. Can you do better than this? Peter

I would bid 4H. Partner will either have 4 hearts, or a very strong hand, or we will have a discussion. Peter

1. An accuser of unethical behavior bears the burden of proof. 2. In my personal experience, the large majority of pairs who play non-field methods (in the U.S., anything but 2/1 or SA) are good players, well above the average club player. They also disclose well. Peter

Not so. Peter

Adam, your changes are an improvement over the present GCC, IMO. Two comments: 1. "there is an additional requirement that the opening bid must guarantee an average hand or better if not conforming to (1-5) above". You will need to define "average hand". Since you use 8hcp as the lower limit for 1 bids, use hcp as a consistent metric, and make it 10 (the current limit for artificial 1m bids). 2. Transfers, particualrly responses. They are not difficult to defend. Peter

Two points: 1. You did, in fact spend a lot of time coming up with a GCC replacement which uses different concepts than the current GCC. You will not be able to duplicate what's legal/illegal without a lot of exceptions, which will defeat your purpose. 2. You know system regulation is a very hot topic. Stop whining about criticism. Peter

No, I think you are the one missing the point. You spend a lot of time coming up with a version ofthe GCC which is MORE restrictive than the present GCC (no 5 card weak two bids? - they are NOT allowed to do this), in the name of making GCC event restricted to methods which are easy to defend, and easy to determine their legality. I made a simple suggestion: Standard American or 2/1. If you polled ACBL members who favored further system restrictions, this is exactly what 9 out of 10 of them want. So why not do it? You are missing the point of your own thread. Peter

The why don't you mandate 5 card majors, 3 card minors, 15-17 NT, 11 hcp minimum on 1 bids, 2C= strong and artificial, weak 2s = 6-10 6+ cards, and no canape bids? That would emilinate 4 card majors, strong club systems, weak/mini NT. It would be simple, and easy to defend against. How about it? Peter