pbleighton

If you are trying to not differentiate between levels, why would you disallow opening with 5 cards at the two level? I don't understand. For simplicity of what is allowed, why not allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit? This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses. Peter

Why do you want to disallow 5 card weak twos? I believe the ACBL doesn't have the authority to do this, BTW: see the (pretty much forced) repeal of the Bergen Rule. Peter

My suggestion for the GCC is to allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit. This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses. Peter

I don't know about automatic, but I'd bid it. Peter

I agree. I would have bid 4S, as 3S by partner suggests either 6 trumps or extra values. Pass is not as good, but much better than double. However, I wouldn't have bid 3S as South, with a flat 11 count and 5332, in spite of the good trump suit. South's error doesn't excuse North's error. Peter

4NT. Peter

1D is clear for me. I don't double 1m in the direct seat with 3-3 in the majors and 12 hcp, but each to his own... Peter

This is incredible, even by the standards of your posts. It is entirely self-contradictory. At first I was amused by your arrogant, ignorant, intellectually dishonest posts. However, I have become tired of them, and will no longer respond to anything you write. Feel free to have the last word. :) Peter

Yes you did. You wrote: Get it together, dude! :) Peter

Ahem. Sounds like a lecture to me. You are correct that the two bids remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level. You are incorrect that the two bids perform badly. There was a thread a while back where one of the posters (Ben, I think) analyzed F-N's BBO results. The 2M bids performed somewhat better than the average board they opened, and their 2m boards performed worse. The overall *loss* from the 2 bids was small. Additionally, based on my(admittedly anecdotal) evidence, the weaker hands perform better than the stronger hands, as the field is opening the stronger hands 1x. For this reason, I chose the 9-12 range rather than 10-13, and *semi-forcing* 1 bids. One thing I have found is that 5 card weak twos work much better with a limited range, whether it be 6-9 or 9-12. If this makes them *not undisciplined* in your phraseology, OK B) Peter

ROFLSHWMP. I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results. Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny. Peter

Hee hee. Peter

In the ACBL's Alert Definitions, Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure section: "Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are: Suit bids: 3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses. 4+ for an overcall at the one level, 5+ for higher levels. 5+ for a weak two-bid. 6+ for a weak three-bid." Also see Fantoni-Nunes multiple world championships playing supremely undisciplined two bids. Peter

3H for me. Peter

LOL. What have you been smoking? A nice daydream, though. Peter

Apalling, not surprising. You forgot step 2.5, lie multiple times under oath. It also doesn't apply to Scooter Libby. Petre

In response to partner's takeout double, I will jump with 9. It's a lousy 9, but I still bid 2S. It's close, I wouldn't criticize 1S or 1NT. Peter

Keep waiting... Peter

Your assumption is incorrect. Alos, consider the issue of individual gun ownership. Clearly a case of invidual liberty trumping public safety, whatever you think of it. Peter

It wouldn't be *they*, I think. This would require a law, and the debate would be fierce. I think it wouldn't (and shouldn't) pass unless there was clear evidence that some large percentage of children would die unless the epidemic was contained. I don't expect that this will actually happen Not everyone would agree, of course. Democracy can turn into the tyranny of the majority - see our idiotic drug laws. Peter

Suppose that it is determined that it is a risk for the population if some children are not vaccinated against some disease (if you don't believe that this can ever be the case, let's just suppose that it is for the sake of this discussion). Should parents be given the choice not to vaccinate their children or may the government decide that all children have to be vaccinated? ' This depends on the degree of the risk, IMO. If it's bad enough I could support mandatory vaccination, but in general I think it should be voluntary. Public safety can't always trump individual liberties. Peter

Simple Simon Sez 4S. Peter

I agree. However, if you change the 2 bids from 6-12 to 9-12 (similar to Fantunes), it performs a lot better at imps, though it is still better at matchpoints than imps. Peter

I agree, in the context of a natural system. OTOH, in a strong club system, the big hands do pretty well (sometimes very well)at games and slams, but are sometimes at a disadvantage in part score auctions. In my experience, inteference over the strong club hurts more frequently in part score auctions than in game/slam auctions. Peter

My point (and others) was not that Ken was playing Acol. My point was in response to your utterly ridiculous and ignorant statement: The Acol references were an illustration. The main point is that 1M-2x-2M as nonforcing is clearly legal under the GCC. If you want to make statements about legality of bids in the ACBL, fine, but you really should read the Charts first. Peter