JanM

I asked my expert about 1♦-2NT and he said it's definitely Midchart legal (and as Adam said, doesn't require a defense, just a pre-alert).

Why do organizers allow this? It gives the slow pair an incredible advantage (they are used to being behind, each and every one of their opponents comes to the table with very little time on the clock and tries to catch up, often giving the slow pair some matchpoints, and the pair(s) who are following the slow pair also start each round with little time on the clock and probably get some worse results because of this). If the directors would simply remove a board eacn and every time the slow pair starts it with less than some amount of time on the clock (5 minutes?), and give the slow pair average minus and the opponents average plus, I'll bet we'd find that the slow pairs would learn to play faster. It isn't as if the directors don't know who the slow pairs are, after all. They're the ones who get behind early and never catch up.

Another alternative, that we've been using for a while and like a lot, is to play transfers after 1♦-1M. So 1NT shows both minors (either can be longer - with 6 diamonds and 4 clubs, 1♦-1M-2♣-2♦-3♣ is stronger than 1♦-1M-1NT-2♣-2♦). 1NT is intended as forcing but doesn't contain any game forcing hands opposite a minimum response, so responder can pass once in a while (haven't yet :P ). 1♦-1♠-2♦ shows 4 hearts, 5 diamonds and not enough to reverse, a very awkward hand otherwise. The transfer to 2M shows 3 card support, a raise shows 4 card support (of course one could use these for good and bad raises, but we've found knowing the trump length is more useful).

Yes, but you've essentially prepaid for the final it seems, so it's twice that if you don't qualify. Although that was true for the Mixed Pairs, and also for the Rosenblum and McConnell (no entry fees after the initial one), it was not true for the Open and Women's Pairs. Those who entered the Qualifying stage of those events paid the same (250 Euros per player) whether they qualified for the semi-finals or not, but then the semi-final qualifiers had to pay an additional 100 Euros per player for the finals. HOWEVER, the really expensive entry fee was for those players who could "drop in" to the finals because they reached the Round of 8 in the Rosenblum or semi-finals in the McConnell. Those players had to pay the entire 350 Euro entry fee for the finals! I suspect that the Women's Pairs entry fee per session was the highest of any anywhere. The Women's Pairs had a 4 session final, so each of the players who dropped into that stage paid 87.5 Euros per session of play! I understand that these were the players who got to play longer in the Rosenblum and McConnell, and thus their per session entry fees for those events were lower than players who lsot earlier, but this still seems like a *very* high entry fee.

I use VPC7 on a Powerbook (G4, not the new Intel one) and don't have any problems. Chip uses my old (2 computers ago I think) Pismo Powerbook with VPC and finds it sufficiently acceptable for BBO that he hasn't bothered to install VPC on his current iBook G4. The old VPC runs Win95, and I know I was told that was probably faster than a newer version, until I got XP. The only thing that I find slightly difficult is if someone posts a URL and I want to open it in Safari on the Mac, instead of in IE on VPC, it's almost impossible to copy it from BBO - whenever I try to select it to copy, I end up clicking instead and then IE opens and I have to copy the URL from it to paste into Safari. But that's certainly not a major difficulty. I don't know of any alternative to VPC as an emulator, btw. I wish BBO would run on the Mac, of course :D. It & Bridgemaster are the onlly things I need VPC for.

Actually both. USBF runs only 3 tournaments a year. We were hoping that ACBL would purchase Bridgemates and do the programming to integrate them into ACBLScore. Then we'd be able to borrow or rent them from ACBL, as we do the screens, bidding boxes, etc etc. I think that ACBL will eventually get and use Bridgemates, but not before August. And although I completely agree with you that it's trivial to use Bridgemates, I'm afraid that there are a fair number of players who disagree (and that includes the significant number who used them in both Tenerife and Estoril). They'll come around eventually but not before this August :P .

If you mean that "if" 1 is satisfied..., you're right. I'm fairly pessimistic about 1, though, at least for this year.

This is raising several interesting things. Why is it that threads seem to expand? :P First, Richard and I have managed to demonstrate an important aspect of designing defenses - it depends on the "normal" systems used by the pair who are going to use the defense. For example, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Richard uses transfer responses after 1M-(DBL). I don't. So 1♠-DBL-2♥ shows hearts for me, spades for Richard. Thus, when we suggest a defense against 1♠-1NT showing hearts and a minor, I suggest that 2♥ is natural and Richard suggests that it shows spades. I suspect we'd both agree that our suggestion makes sense for those who play as we do over DBL, and not for those who don't. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with who's doing the right thing over DBL (I actually think Richard is; that change has been on my "proposals" list for a long time, but it has a lot of corollaries and we've been too lazy to adopt it). The point is that when you're suggesting a defense, you want it to be something with which the players who are going to use it are comfortable, and that usually means you'd like to get back to familiar territory. And then there's the artificial defense to Polish Club. What interests me about this is that I think (not sure) most of the people who are using the defense also use it against my 1♣ opening (which shows clubs or a balanced hand, instead of a strong club or a balanced hand). And that gets us into the current ACBL debate over whether it's allowed - is my club "natural" or not? I think it is. I also think that a Polish Club isn't. But the only way you can tell the difference between these 1♣ bids is by looking at the meaning of 2♣, so it seems "simpler" to treat them the same, both for purposes of designing a defense and for purposes of deciding whether an artificial defense is "legal" because it's a defense to an artificial opening bid.

Sorry, I failed to communicate - I'm not suggesting that after finding out how the opening side defines Pass (and DBL and bid) after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O), the overcalling side can change the meaning of 1♥. (I was there when the issue arose and the rule that you can't do that was instituted). What I'm suggesting is that in order to know what advancer's bids after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O)-P/DBL/bid mean, the overcalling side has to know what responder's bids mean, which makes developing a defense more complicated than it might seem at first glance.

Much more often than that if all you require is 5+ cards and 0-7 hcp. That's a normal development worldwide. 2♦ as garbage Multi (often 5 cards), 2MA as constructive (8-10, 6 cards). Roland I don't know about going down to 0, but Woolsey-Stewart, who play very aggressive multi, and are always telling me I should have opened one on a hand where I passed, still don't have that many in a session. Take a look at a set of hand records, for one side, where the opponents didn't open the bidding first, and see how many hands there are with a 5 card Major and 3-8 HCPs (and even the most aggressive would not open some of the 5332's Vul), and I'm still going to bet on no more than 2-4 per session.

Well, actually it is relevant that advancer can't pass for penalties after 1♦-1♥(T/O)-P, because it changes the possible meanings of Pass by responder (and that's why the auction isn't really the same as 1♥-DBL). In order to have a reasonable defense, you need to know what responder's actions mean and then decide what advancer should do. OTOH, I completely agree with you that multi is much more complex to defend against. The only reason it's midchart and allowed for 2 board rounds, is because so many people play it and it's been around so long. The ACBL defenses are obviously inadequate, but they've also been around for a long time. I suspect there'd be a huge outcry if multi was all at once removed from the "allowed in midchart events" classification. And there is one reason to allow multi (and Namyats 3NT) and not allow transfer 1 bids - that is frequency. Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session. As an opponent, you can reasonably decide not to worry about it in advance, even knowing that the defence probably isn't adequate, because it likely won't come up against you and if it does, the defense may work on the hands that happen to be dealt. Transfer 1 bids, OTOH, come up, probably, about every other round. So as an opponent, you can't afford to ignore them - you need an adequate defense. As a result, their use is likely to slow down the event more than the use of multi or any artificial 3NT opening.

Well, I have a slightly more extensive defense ;) . I agree that it's important to distinguish between whether your opening was in a Major or a minor. After 1m-(1NT) where 1NT shows 5+ in the other minor and a 4 card Major, I have two alternative suggestions. One allows you to stay on familiar ground - that is to play as you do over a 1NT opening by the opponents, except that DBL shows cards even if you normally play DBL as something else. I play Woolsey over 1NT openings, (multi/Landy with DBL showing a 4 card Major, longer minor) so with this approach, I'd play, after 1m-(1NT): DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing) Pass then DBL T/O 2♣ Majors 2♦ One Major 2M 5 card Major and 4 card support for partner’s minor 2NT LR+ of our minor 3m NAT PRE 3om Good shaped raise of our minor 3M NAT, FG Alternatively, and particularly if your favorite defense to 1NT doesn't work well in this context, after 1m-(1NT): DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing) Pass then DBL T/O 2om Majors 2M NAT, competitive 2NT LR+ of our minor 3m NAT PRE 3om Good shaped raise of our minor 3M NAT, FG Looking at this, I wonder how the Raptor players play 1♣-1NT when the 1♣ opening is Polish (so the one thing that opener doesn't have is club length in a minimum hand). To play it as diamonds and a Major seems wrong to me, but not having any anchor suit seems even worse, even if it were allowed. After 1M-(1NT) where 1NT shows 4 of the other Major and an unknown longer minor: DBL Cards (new suit by opener forcing) Pass then DBL T/O 2X NAT, NF (Note: includes 2/OM; they’ve only shown 4 and might not even have that) 2NT Limit raise+ 3m, 3♥/1♠ NAT, Forcing 3M PRE Bids above 3M are same as after 1M-(P)

We'll see what happens - I have asked for either electronic or scanned convention cards. Hopefully we'll get them. Note, I'm not disagreeing with you about how people should react, just not as confident as you that they will. And some of the players are frighteningly computer-phobic :D I think this is in the works, but may not have highest priority. Until it's available, we'll be posting the scorecards during the matches whenever we have a person available to do it.

Dream on :P . Having played in the event, I can promise you that there are in fact players who complete their ACBL convention card by hand (and often in pencil). We require the completion and submission of the System Summary Form and get very spotty compliance and lots of complaints. I've asked for electronic ACBL cards if they are available and hopefully will get a significant number. As for WBF cards, we'll link to them for those players who've submitted one recently for a WBF event, but the decision was made (after considerable discussion) not to require them. This is a team event, there aren't any travellers or score tickets - each team keeps a private score, they compare and report the result after the segment. I wish we could use Bridgemates to get contract and result for each board, but I'm afraid that isn't going to happen this year.

And in case anyone wants to see one way we're going to improve Vugraph for the USBC, take a look at http://www.openskywebdesign.com/vugraph/ht...sf8_scores.html Click on a contract to see the hand, bidding & play. We'll be posting scorecards like this for each quarter of the matches from the Round of 16 on. Hopefully we'll post a couple of times during the session. We're also going to have website pages with information on the players - pictures, convention cards, System Summaries, possibly some biographical information. Anyone who happens to have any good electronic pictures of people who are likely to be playing, please send me the URL :P . Or anything else you'd like to see on a "team" web page.

And I'm afraid I find your position on this equally frustrating. Of course it's impossible adequately to cope with preempts (and yes, Josh, I agree that it's harder to cope with 4m natural than with 3NT showing a 4m preempt). But it is far far easier to write an acceptable defense to any 3NT opening bid than to any 1 level opening bid, because since there is so little space, and so many fewer continuations, you don't have to cover nearly as much. The defense won't deal with all the things you'd like to deal with, but that's because of the level of the opening bid, not because it isn't an adequate defense.

As a side note, I have to say I am impressed by the good ethics shown by Martel-Stansby in that case. Good ethics, but foolishness :P As I said above, I think that Lew was wrong to believe their clear agreement over gambling 3NT did not apply to 3NT showing a 4m preempt. Of course, his foolishness pales in comparison to the opponents' chutzpah. At any rate, if you're right, it would argue for removing 3NT = 4m from the GCC, not for adding 3NT = 4M.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT. Anyway, that's not what you said earlier. Is the criterion it is familiar to mom and pop club players, or that there is a simple defense? This whole discussion about 3NT showing a major went something like this me: It should be allowed because it's simple to defend against you: But it's unfamiliar to inexperienced players me: Perhaps, but many such bids including very similar ones are already allowed you: But it would be tough to defend against I feel like I'm travelling in circles. And I feel that on both criterion it should be allowed anyway. It is simple to defend against, and they already allow similar bids that are nearly as unfamiliar to inexperienced players. I did not say that 3NT = 4M is more difficult to defend against than either gambling 3NT or 3NT = 4m. What I said is that gambling 3NT is "mainstream" and that 3NT = 4m is the same as gambling 3NT (as far as the opponents are concerned), so there is no reason to treat it differently. To restate my position: 1. Many Mom & Pop pairs play gambling 3NT. They would be unhappy if it were not on the GCC, so it is. 2. It is obvious to me (even if not to my former husband) that the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is the same as the defense to gambling 3NT. 3. Therefore, since gambling 3NT is allowed there is no reason not to allow 3NT = 4m preempt. It shouldn't cause a problem to relatively inexperienced, unsophisticated players because they are (or think they are) comfortable having their opponents open a gambling 3NT, so they will be equally comfortable if their opponents open 3NT showing a 4m preempt. OTOH, the defense that I think most people use against a gambling 3NT (one or both 4m bids showing both majors) would be extremely inappropriate against 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid. Therefore, the fact that people are comfortable with gambling 3NT would not make them comfortable with 3NT = 4M, and for that reason it is different, in a relevant way, from gambling 3NT. To put it another way: I'm not suggesting that gambling 3NT is either a good method or one that should be easier to defend against than 3NT showing a 4M bid. But it is a method that a large number of less than expert players use (I don't know why), so it was put on the GCC. And since 3NT showing a 4m preempt is essentially the same as gambling 3NT for the opponents, it makes sense that it is also on the GCC even if not so many people play it. 3NT showing a 4M bid is not the same. It is obviously included in the Midchart definitions, so long as there is an approved defense. You're right that a reasonable defense isn't complicated, but what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to everyone, which is the whole reason for having approved defenses. So submit a defense, get it on the defense database and you won't have a problem. There aren't a lot of GCC events anyway :)

I think you're very wrong about the power of the ACBL president, and although you're right that the president serves for only one year, s/he usually remains on the Board after that year, so still has considerable influence. And the ACBL Board is in fact the entity that has control over spending and hire/fire decisions. Having said that, I do agree with you that the way to get things changed is not by trying to influence the ACBL president or Board, but rather by talking to the C&C committee, whose purview this is. That is probably particularly true this year, when we have an excellent President who is strongly in favor of appointing good people to expert committees and then listening to those committees. That sounds like what we now have, with the exception of number 3, where you suggest putting the burden of developing defenses on the Conventions Committee instead of the proponents of a method. Not only is that completely unrealistic (the members of the Conventions Committee are unpaid volunteers who normally get paid for things like developing defenses - they're not going to accept the burden of developing defenses to proposed conventions) but also the people best able to develop a defense are in fact the proponents of the method, since they are (or should be) the most knowledgeable about what sort of hands they'll have, what they'll do over different interference, what problems will be caused by the bid, etc. So the proponents have both the incentive and the ability to produce an adequate defense.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

GCC bids are supposed to be things that Mom & Pop club game players are familiar with. The issue isn't whether it's difficult to defend against, but whether people are used to it. People are used to gambling 3NT; they aren't used to 3NT showing a sound 4M bid. Maybe you think that reflects foolish decisions by the people who choose how to play 3NT, and probably you're right, but it's mainstream. As for the Midchart. If you want to play something, you have to submit a recommended defense and that defense has to be approved. It's easier for the proponent of a method to know what defense is sensible than it is for opponents to figure out a defense on the fly. Particularly in events with short rounds, people shouldn't have to waste time figuring out what they want to do against a bid that is extremely unlikely to arise, so the proponents submit a defense, it's approved, and then your opponents can just use it if the bid comes up. If you don't want to bother to submit a defense, then play in Super Chart events, where you don't have to.

I wondered why 3NT showing a minor preempt would be GCC legal and 3NT showing a sound 4 of a Major wouldn't be. My expert told me it's because the former is more common and people are used to defending against it. As for Midchart, it would be trivial to get 3NT showing a sound 4M approved, just submit a reasonable defense. This isn't the sort of method where there are going to be a lot of follow ups to the initial action - you're way too high for that. So all you need is the initial bids and P, then bid. I suspect that my defense for 3NT = solid major (that happens to be all that's come up in events where I've been doing defenses) would be acceptable (although I didn't ask the expert ;) ). It is: Directly over 3NT DBL T/O of their suit P then DBL 15+ BAL 4m, 5m NAT 4M NAT 4NT Minors (3NT) DBL (4♥) ? DBL RESP (i.e. it is our hand) (3NT) Pass (4♥) ? DBL T/O of hearts 4NT Minors or very strong Spades + minor Others NAT, ambiguous as to strength 5♥ Slam drive, 2-suiter, usually with 5+ Spades I guess you might want to add specific definitions for (3NT)-DBL-(4M)-bid, but it really wouldn't be difficult. Maybe not, but I don't think KQJxxxxx or AQJTxxx is "solid" :D

Actually, screens don't help with this particular problem; how many times have you seen someone put their first bid on the bidding tray someplace other than the far left? I've actually suggested to some that they should put their bids on the far left only to be told that "I always start in the middle because otherwise partner might not see my bid when the tray is moved to the other side of the screen." With most bidding trays, it's not particularly easy to place each bid an identical distance over from the last one (there are some with notches which solve this problem, but I only recall seeing them once) even if you want to - I don't think it would be at all hard to deliberately vary the spacing in order to impart extra information.

I can add a significant number of world champions to the list of "club players" who play "system on" (perhaps with minor tweaks). ;) Just to make sure I wasn't being old fashioned, or US-centric, I took a quick look at some of the convention cards from Estoril. 2 of the 3 Italian pairs play "system on" as do all three Swedish pairs and all three Chinese pairs. I figured that was enough of a sample to make more investigation unnecessary :D