Vilgan

Do you happen to remember what was too hard about it? The logistics of implementing for the future seem trivial. It seems like parsing old tournament results to implement this retroactively is a bit harder, but also fairly trivial. I realize the ACBL has a lack of programmers who know wtf they are doing (Windows based ACBLScore anyone?) but this is stuff that any programmer straight out of college with basic database experience ought to be able to handle. There is a bit of difficulty if the ACBL wanted to include the new ranks in things like the Mini Mckenney, In and Out reports, etc. But that does not seem necessary. If implemented as a stand alone "achievement" type setup that players get cards/recognition for but don't blend into the other existing aspects of the ACBL, this seems like an easy change to make.

So you had actual success at a national event, and earned some platinum. This seems okay to me. If you had to get 5 platinum for the "Expert Bronze Life Master" as described a few posts ago, would you feel motivated to keep entering national events? I think so. It would provide something to shoot for and be motivated to acquire. Acquiring the 150 platinum for "Expert Diamond Life Master" as described, would NOT be easy. Could it be done by nickel and diming section scratches? Absolutely. However, it is still something that is commendable and it is a goal to work for that is HARD but MUCH MORE attainable than a national title. If someone told me they were an Expert Diamond Life Master, that would be impressive to me. Not as impressive as Grand Life Master, but a hell of a lot more impressive than accumulating 10000 masterpoints with no other requirements. The Japanese system of seeding sounds like a nice improvement. Would be awesome to see their seeding along with the expert ranks described previously added to the system. Would it take more effort to implement and track? Absolutely. However, the added retention and attendance at tournaments would be worth the extra effort imo.

I feel like I have to bid 2 NT, although I secretly hope that partner will bid 3♦ which I will happily pass. Passing for a hopeful +130 in diamonds could easily be correct though, and I would not fault anyone for making that decision at the table.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events. I played 4 sessions of blue ribbon pairs in Hawaii and got 0 platinum for it because I never did anything special the whole time. Even at a small regional, getting ~40 points is fairly trivial playing 1-2 sessions a day. It would probably also be good for the ACBL from a marketing perspective, as it would increase the draw of a national and thus the revenue involved. The top players might not like the influx it would cause in the national events. However, it would be a good experience for all the regular people to get out and play in the open events and actually see the people whose books they read.

There is an issue with there being a major discrepancy between different players with 2200 points. Some are solid A players, some could not defend/declare their way through a hand even if all 4 hands were visible to them. This was already mentioned though, so going to hit on the part that I really want to see improved. Do you remember back when you were a brand new ACBL member and "Lifemaster" was a rank still to be achieved? For me at least, there was a lot of excitement as I rushed towards the goal. 25 gold? check. 25 red? check. 50 silver? check. 50 black? wee, now just need x number of points to hit the 300. However, after hitting the lifemaster rank.. there is nothing. There is this empty chasm of meaningless attendance based ranks, before the final rank of "Grand Life Master". A rank many will never be able to win the prerequisite title for. I think it'd be really cool to see some more of the ranks actually have some milestones other than just an attendance check. Or add new ranks which are totally independent, but have harder to acquire requirements. For example: Silver Life Master: Requires 50 gold, 100 silver, 2 platinum, 5 blue ribbon qualifications. Gold Life Master: Requires 200 gold, 10 platinum, 1 regional pairs event win or bracket 1 win (2 session event only for pairs, side game doesn't count), 20 blue ribbon qualifications. Diamond: 400 gold, 25 platinum, 3 regional pairs event wins (bracket 1 wins also count), 40 blue ribbon qualifications. Emerald: whatever Platinum: 100 platinum points, 80 blue ribbon qualifications, 8 regional pair event or bracket 1 wins. The above is one example, below is what I consider a cooler idea. Basically additional achievements, that exist in parallel alongside the existing ranks: ACBL Pairs Adept: 1 pairs event win in a sectional 1 session or regional 2 session event. Also: an overall finish in any open national pairs event also grants this rank. ACBL Pairs Master: 3 wins in a regional 2 session pairs event. 3 wins in a 1 session or 2 session pairs event (aka regional or sectional, no side game). 1 overall placing in a national pairs event. ACBL Pairs Champion: 10 wins in a regional 2 session pairs event. 10 wins in a 1 or 2 session pairs event (aka 1 session sectional is okay, side game at a regional is not). Top 15 (or 20?) overall placing in a national pairs event. ACBL Teams Adept: 1 bracket 1 win, or lower bracket win if average team points is 10000+ (hi Gatlinburg), OR 1 Swiss teams win (A only, no BCD), OR 1 overall finish in any open national teams event. Maybe make this 1st/2nd for KO's Swiss? ACBL Teams Master: 6 wins in bracket 1 (or 10000+ lower bracket) KO and/or Strat A Swiss teams. Also: 1 overall placing in any open national teams event. ACBL Teams Champion: 20 wins in appropriate KO's/Swiss events. 1 top 10 finish in any open teams event (or round of 16 for Spingold/Vanderbilt). Anyways, would love to see more depth added after Life Master at the very least. Atm it just seems silly, yay you attended enough tournaments, here is your attendance award. Lifemaster means something. Grand Life Master means something. It seems to the benefit of the ACBL (and to the excitement of people who are already life masters) to have more milestones in between so people have something to shoot for.

So like.. I keep reading comments in the bridge bulletin about how a new system is being considered or they are trying to rework the masterpoint system. When I was in France, earning points was fairly similar (I remember earning a lot more though for winning). However, 10% of the points went away every year. They also had a huge rank system (like 20 ranks I think) going from 1♣ to 4NT (or maybe from 4 NT to 1♣). I don't remember if their ranking was 100% point based... but I thought there was more to it. For those with experience with other ranking systems, what do other countries do? Really would love to see a system that was not purely attendance based in the ACBL someday.

Auction goes: Scoring: Matchpoints Vuln: We are, they aren't 1♦ p 2♣ 2♠ 3♣ p 5♣ 5♥ p p ? 1♦ could be short, 11-15 (precision). 2♣ is a GF. What should partners hand look like after he/she passed 5♥?

Nm, read something the wrong way. But ya, 1♠ x xx 2♣ p, is absolutely forcing unless there is a special (strange?) agreement of some sort. Agree with Josh on hearing an alert for something that is so obviously standard.

A procedural penalty is like... one of those things that I hear rumors of, but never actually see in real life. Like Santa Claus, I continue to believe that procedural penalties exist while a preponderance of evidence suggests that it must be a myth as directors refuse to assess them over and over and over. No real opinion on the actual ruling.. that is a bit beyond my experience.

More to confirm that I'm not crazy than to argue good/bad: Page 174 of precision today (section on transfer responses): "When you have a fit for partner's long suit, we recommend that your transfer acceptance bids carry the message that you have a fit - AND you want to know about the aces and kings in his hand. (Beta)" So I guess its actually called Beta rather than TAB or CAB. They recommend 0-2 in the first step which I hate though, as there are some hands where 2 makes slam worth exploring and 0 makes the 5 level dangerous.

I am a huge fan of kokish, but can play without it if need be. It doesn't matter often, but every once in a while it can be huge (partner played 1 NT with 21 hcp making 1, for a very good board this past weekend). The 2 things that really jumped out at me were NT ranges and TAB on suit acceptance. I think the precision today book suggests an initial CAB on suit acceptance, and that seems a lot better. You instantly get a feel for whether slam is worth exploring or if game is the max. Also, the 13-15 NT range (that it sounds like you are playing) seems a bit old fashioned. Its low enough most people have a penalty X available, strong enough that the preemptive value isn't as huge as a 10-13, but you still give up finding the 4-4 major fits on a lot more hands. Your system notes (so far anyways) are way easier to read than mine. Good luck on finishing them up :P Eric

Topic is a bit misleading as the answer is very very easy: Open 1 NT. Sort of like holding a 12 hcp hand that is 5-5 in the majors and opening a heart, and then being surprised when you have rebid issues.

7 could be cold, be on a finesse (as here), or have no real play. I like pushing for 7 when it feels like a good spot, but after a strong 1 NT opener I don't have the tools to find out if partner has a 5 card suit of some sort unless it is a major (usually play 3♣ puppet). Lacking that, I will take either the 6 spades or 6 NT.. whichever feels safer. 6 NT probably will be as giving up a spade trick to JTxx and a finesse that didn't work kind of sucks but I have no clue if that is the correct percentage call.. mostly just my gut feeling from experience.

random bump because this is a good thread (and it took me a bit to find).

Picked up this hand in a KO earlier this week: AKTx AQJT9874 x - So, LHO open 1♣ and partner overcalls a diamond. I make a forcing jump in hearts, LHO rebids his clubs, and partner supports hearts. I then confirm that partner has the K of hearts and A of diamonds. By her overcall style, she typically either wants a diamond lead or has more than the bare minimum of hcp. This is the first time that I have ever considered bidding grand after opps opened at the 1 level legitimately. Didn't do it, as I figured 6 hearts might not be found at the other table and I can only count 12 tricks for sure. 7 hearts is a bad bid I think (at least in bracket 2), but this hand was the first time I ever even thought about bidding grand after the opponents opened at the 1 level. Against stronger opps who I felt would be in 6 for sure I might have (unless we were ahead). Sooo many ways 7 could be cold, or have play. Anyone ever bid and make grand after opps open (non psyche) at the 1 level? Oh ya, 7 hearts is ice cold btw. Partner hits without the doubleton spade or Q of spades I had some hope for, but she does have: Jxx K32 AQJxx xx and the Kxx of diamonds is in the pocket for the 2 spade pitches. Anyways, 7 hearts is probably a bad bid even though it does make. It was (however) the first time the thought of a grand after 1x opener even popped into my head. It would have been a very unnecessary bid though, as they played 4 hearts at the other table as I expected.

It was last year, so I imagine it would be again this year.

While I probably wouldn't, and criticism of my overcall style IS fair game, my point was more that: if I WOULD overcall with: AJxxx Kx xxx xxx I certainly would not want partner raising to 2 with: xxxx Qxxxx K Jxx (I'd much prefer partner bid 3S...) ... IF you're comfortable with LHO having overcalled as light as 8 points vulnerable, then definitely play the diamond finesse. Overcalling on 8 hcp vulnerable is fairly standard I think. I'll do it with less, but need a better suit for that. If you do not overcall 8 hcp hands vulnerable with some sort of suit you will lose lots of imps/matchpoints on partscore battles. Or if they win the contract, partner will not get off to the best lead. As for 3♠, if one has 4 spades but not tons of shape.. there is no need to jump to 3 right away. Now it can go p p p down 2 for lose 3 really easy. Or maybe the opps will X it. At imps the pain of bringing back -500 against air is a lot higher than the pain at matchpoints. For example, a hand such as xxxx Qxxx Kx xxx is a pretty easy 2 spades bid, but I might think twice about it before bidding 3. Lots of other hands For example xxxx Qxx Kxx xxx xxxx Qxxx Kxx Jx etc.

I am extremely thankful that I am a passed hand, as splinter is now a lot more clear. If I was not, I would still splinter. However, I would be pretty nervous about getting too high as I did it. I am not seeing a way to get to 7 hearts playing any sort of normal system. However, getting to 6 is still a very good thing so I'm never going to sweat missing 7 on this magic hand.

I am not sure this is even technically correct. I bet if you had something like "14-16 normal" "11-13 if they play DONT against a weak NT range" I bet it would fly. On the flipside, I don't think you would find many (any?) people who play DONT against a weak NT at the higher levels. The infinite loop really isn't really a problem as there is no I declare this, then I decide this. Dual defenses mean exactly that, we have 2 agreed defenses based on what your NT range is... now pick one and go with it. Not really a case of switching or anything like that.

Be interesting to see just how far this extends (is it defined in a law somewhere, or just a gut check?). I know when I run up against opps that play stolen bid, my overcalls get a lot more aggressive. Likewise I think most people will preempt more aggressively against a 1♣ opener in a strong club system. It does seem a bit interesting where the line is exactly and how precisely that line is defined. I think there might be an issue if a director told a pair sorry, you cannot change from using feature to using OGUST just because you both made a change to your card between hands. But changing 2? or 3? Interesting possibilities anyways :P

Easy 1NT for us. we play a balancing 1 NT as 11-14 over a minor or 11-16 over a major. This is a good 16.. but so many values in their suit, there is no rush to upgrade this or do anything special imo.

So when you are 3 3 1 6 or 3 3 2 5 (or flip the minors) and have 5 points opposite a 2 NT opener you don't check for a 5 card major? Edit: Nm, I see the point of 3♥ ask now. Can use that to stop in 3 NT whether or not opener has 4 spades. Duh :P

Even the precision boys would find this tough because there is bound to be interference.One example : 1♣-1♠=♠ and ♣. Can N bid 1NT?or would he double? and if he doubles and advancer bids 3♣ then how would N/S procede? Pretty easy with the interference suggested. Auction in the system I played would go: 1♣(1) 1♠(2) 2♠(3) 3♣ 3♦(4) p 4♦(5) p 4♥(6) p 5♣(7) p 6♦ all check 1: 16+ 2: spades/clubs 3: good 8 hcp or better (max 13), flat hand, spade stopper 4: natural, either nervous about NT or has some slam interest 5: diamond support, slam interest 6: kickback 7: 2 w/o Q I dunno. Interference sucks sometimes, but since their suit is clubs and ours is diamonds it is fairly manageable on this hand. Playing through sequences in my head.. most roads lead to 6♦ unless they bid 5♣ before we get much communication done.

I'm on my unit board, at age 26. There's also a friendly mother of 2(?) who is like 34 who is on the board. Our unit board is uncommonly young/friendly/motivated I think, but a major part of that is because the last board was SO horrendous that they were all ousted and a bazillion people ran because they were so upset with the previous board. One problem in our district at least, is that the district director is 100% entrenched and pretty much impossible to out. Not going to write a long diatribe about her, but she is hardly ideal. However, she has also spent decades building up rapport with all the old ladies in other unit boards and is not going to leave until she decides to. Heck, even then it won't really be an election as she has determined her successor and started grooming them politically so that they will be voted in when she steps down. I strongly doubt we are alone. However, it is a bit frustrating when the position will not be determined by merit for the foreseeable future (decades).

Wasn't sure if you played weak NT or not. If so: good pass, as you clearly have no source of tricks. Also no need to prevent opps from finding out about a 4-4 major suit fit. If not: Brilliant pass Again, no source of any tricks And you definitely don't want a club lead if you are defending Also seems unlikely that if partner has a good hand.. that you will ever convince him after passing that you have a pretty decent 14 points. Personally... I would rather just open the hand rather than explain to my partner why we missed our 6 club or 6 diamonds or whatever or why everyone else found the "killing" club lead on defense.