JanM

Like Justin, I play negative DBLs after 1NT-(2X) and also play that a cue bid shows a game force with a splinter in the opponent's suit - immediate cue promises 4 cards in the other Major, 2NT ... cue denies 4 cards in the other major; 2NT ... 3NT denies a stopper. In that context, when they raise, DBL shows that I would have rebid 3NT (the hand where we're most likely want to defend) and 3NT shows that I would have cue-bid (splinter in their suit, so less likely to want to defend). With a hand where I was trying to sign off in 3 of a lower suit, I just pass their raise. Incidentally, I also play transfer Lebensohl and it wouldn't have occurred to me to use 1NT-(2♠)-3♥ as 4 hearts. It would either be the cue-bid or show clubs, if the cue-bid is 3♠. I mention that only because it's a good thing to clarify if you agree to play transfer Lebensohl.

How can it possibly be "without pause for thought" if partner's alert/announcement was what made the bidder realize s/he had made a mistake?

Some of us try to ask randomly when we aren't interested so that a question doesn't carry UI. Of course it's impossible to avoid all UI, but having a rule that you may not ask unless you are interested in bidding results, IMO, in vastly more UI than having a rule that you may ask whether or not you have interest in bidding.

That, IMO, is why folks over here ask so often. There is also the fact that asking some of the time when you won't bid whatever the answer avoids the problem of giving your partner UI by asking questions. Surely that is a good thing.

As far as I know, there is nothing published on this system. You can find a more current convention card by looking at Ekeblad-Rubin in the Senior Bowl in Brazil (unfortunately, when I went to the ECATS site to get the URL for this, there was an error), but here's the Ekeblad-Granovetter card from Beijing, which is also more recent than Sukoneck-Ekeblad. For the USBF System Summary Form, see Ekeblad-Weichsel from last year's USBC.

I gave this hand to Chip and he said "you have to figure that if you play enough hands there will be some impossible ones after a preempt." But then he suggested something no one has advocated - 4♣, showing 5-5 in clubs and a Major. Overstates the spades, of course, but at least it gets across that this is a 2-suited hand. Means we won't be able to play 3NT, but it's not going to be easy to get to 3NT, and will be pretty impossible to get there and know it's right.

I also had a hard time finding the convention charts when I first looked for them - I don't know who organized the ACBL website, but I do know that it isn't easy to organize a website so that people are able to find what they're looking for. The USBF is enough smaller than the ACBL that the website organizer (me) is also the one who has to answer questions when people can't find things, and this has taught me that what appears obvious to me isn't obvious to others. "Do you have any information about next year's Trials?" is a very common question. I thought a menu item named "Future Trials" would be sufficiently obvious that people wouldn't have to ask that question, but it isn't. Presumably, whoever set up the ACBL website thought "Charts, Rules & Regulations" was clear, but it isn't. I would have thought that "All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:" was pretty clear. And also that one bid doesn't make a "system" so the restriction on "relay systems" wouldn't apply to this bid. Admittedly, people disagree about whether something is a "relay system" or not, but that's usually in the context of extensive relays, not one bid that has several meanings. But unless they are going to allow unlimited methods, which even the most vehement here don't really propose, there need to be some regulations. And yes, it's hard to write regulations. I tried to improve on the ACBL regulations for the USBF Conditions of Contest and discovered just how hard.

You made a specific claim: The Midchart "has has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't." I don't think that claim is remotely true. As evidence, I noted that two of the most senior members of the ACBL had completely inconsistent interpretations regarding a fairly trivial example. But your example is about the GCC - and if you would READ what I said, you would see that I did not claim the GCC was clear or easy to understand. What I claimed, and continue to claim, is that the methods allowed by the Midchart are now set forth clearly. I assume that you aren't seriously arguing that a 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with hearts and any other suit is either GCC or Midchart legal, so I'm not rising to that bait.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not. Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so. I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say. The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't. The Superchart is pretty simple.

I wouldn't say this is exactly a matter of knowing the rules. It's more a matter of the director believing that you know the rules, which I think is influenced in part by your being involved with USBF and/or your husband's involvement with the committees that make these rules. To explain, the director probably lacks a way to verify your "inside information." You told him that you know this bid is illegal, and he ruled accordingly. If I were to encounter the exact same situation you did and do the exact same thing, the director simply would not believe that I have "inside information." He would look at the charts, which are extremely unclear about this issue, and make a ruling (which would quite possibly be that the bid is allowed). No, I didn't tell the director what the rules are; I just called and explained that they were playing 2♥ as weak with hearts and any other suit. True, I might not have called if I didn't know the rules, but I didn't tell the director that the bid was not allowed, I simply told him they were playing it. And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read, but the Midchart now SPECIFICALLY lists allowed bids, and 2♥ showing hearts and any other suit (as opposed to hearts and a minor) isn't listed, so it's easy to ascertain that it isn't a Midchart method. The rules about submitting a description and defense for Superchart methods are clearly set forth in the Superchart and the Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt. I am confident that if anyone else against whom this method was being used had called the director, they would have received the same ruling. The problem is that other people didn't call. All I can say is you're nuts. In fact, a few years ago, when there was some ambiguity about whether weird methods were allowed against a 1♣ opening that could be 2, I called the director when an opponent played (1♣)-2♥ as weak with either Major. The director ruled against me. And again, these rules aren't ambiguous, whatever you think. I apologize for using the words "inside information" - I put them in quotes to try (apparently unsuccessfully) to make it clear that the information wasn't in fact anything secret. It ISN'T inside information what is allowed, and it is actually easy to tell what is allowed under the Midchart. Whether something is a "relay system" is of course not so clear. But I strongly disagree that decisions about things like that are made based on who is asking for a ruling.

I'd like to suggest a different view of this statement. Someone who never calls the director unless s/he knows what the law is and that s/he is entitled to a favorable ruling will get more favorable rulings than the average person, who often calls the director whenever s/he is unhappy. That has nothing to do with the fame or bridge expertise or bridge service of the person who knows the law. Chip virtually never calls the director, and virtually never appeals from an unfavorable ruling (usually involving a teammate). When he does call or appeal, he usually prevails. Does that mean that directors and committees are prejudiced in his favor? Or is it a reflection of the fact that he only calls or appeals when he believes strongly that he's right? Just to be clear, I don't know what actually happened at the table in the Nickell-Ng match. I chose to show the match on Vugraph, and I set it up, but I wasn't the operator at either table. I am pretty sure I'd never complain if my opponents were playing multi without the ACBL defenses available. I don't use those defenses anyway. But I can sympathize with someone who feels that many of the Systems Regulations are ignored & believes they shouldn't be. On the first day of the Vanderbilt, one of my opponents was playing Polish 2♥ (a 2♥ opening bid is weak with 5+ hearts and 5+ in any other suit). I happen to have the "inside information" that this method is not Midchart legal and that Superchart methods require advance submission of a recommended defense. I asked my opponents for a defense to the bid. My opponent said "takeout doubles." I have some more "inside information:" it's not at all obvious what to do after 2♥-P-2♠(pass or correct), in fact I don't know what is right. So I suggested that I needed a more complete defense than "takeout doubles." My opponent said that there were lots of pairs playing this method and he thought "takeout doubles" was an adequate defense. I called the director. The director told them they couldn't play the bid, since they hadn't submitted a description and defense in advance. Did I get a more favorable ruling than my opponents because all the directors know me (of course they do, I'm always there doing Vugraph)? Because I'm famous? Because I'm married to someone famous? Or was it because I know the rules and wasn't willing to let my opponents completely ignore them?

Chip tells me that leaving the bidding cards out would be a matter of ACBL regulation, not ACBL laws, and therefore the right committee to contact is C&C. You can see a list of C&C members here. You can email C&C at candc@acbl.org.

I think this would be a matter for the ACBL Laws Commission. The last time I responded to a post on here by asking the Laws Commission about it & they actually did something about the problem, they were roundly criticized by forum members, http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37766&st=90, but sucker that I am, I'll ask about this. You can find a list of Laws Commission members at http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMembers.html if you want to contact any of them directly.

In D6 this has been allowed since 2003 at least (the first time I played in this district), perhaps for even longer. No coincidence, since Woolsey lives in SoCal and Robinson lives in D6. We Northern Californians take exception to that!! Woolsey lives in Northern California. Oh, I see Phil beat me to it :blink:.

No one likes byes, but every alternative that has been tried has been worse. Something like the Rosenblum approach might be better but is inconsistent with the concept held by many that a KO is a KO is a KO.

I agree that without more information, no one can really know what was going on, but we can all know: 1. the explanation for 4♠ doesn't make sense 2. the opening bidder thought the actual hand was enough better than a minimum to merit a 3 minute consideration before bidding 5♦, so there must be SOME weaker hands that would have qualified for 3♣ 3. In U! auctions, the benefit of the doubt is supposed to be given to the NOS 4. In general, opening bids have become lighter and lighter. For example, in the Vanderbilt final, Helness opened 1♦ in first seat favorable on Tx, AKTx, KJ9xx, xx and 1♠ in first seat both vul on KJTxx, Qx, J9xx, Ax. In the semi-final, everyone opened 1♦ or 1♥ on x, Txxxx, AKQJxx, x; Brogeland opened 1♥ on --, KQT9x, KQ9xx, xxx; Helness opened 1♦ on --, Jxx, AKQTx, J9xxx. I remember seeing several lighter openings, but I don't have time to look for them. Even if your consultant is correct and cue bidding started with 4♣, I would be surprised if the opening bidder with x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx or x, K, KJTxxx, AJTxx would bid 3NT over 3♥. If these are possible hands for the auction so far - remember, opener didn't cooperate after showing a "non-minimum" with 3♣, then P is a Logical Alternative to 6♦. Finally, if the grand is possible and if Pass of 5♦ is not a Logical Alternative to 6♦, why did the responder not bid 4NT over 4♣ to find out whether opener had 4 keycards, which was what he needed for the grand? By bidding 4♠ to get more information, I think he put himself in a position where he could not take advantage of the information that his partner actually gave - that he wasn't sure whether to bid more than 5♦ or not.

We are just disagreeing on hand evaluation; you have selected two hands which, in my opinion, are minimum, and you are continuing to argue that the player could have them. We are told that 3C was not a minimum. I do not agree that the hands you quote are consistent with a 3C bid in the methods of the players. Your selected hands are chosen specifically in order to make 6D no better than a 50% chance. Self-serving is obviously metaphorical in the context of posting on a forum; I was fully aware you did not play in the Norwegian Premier League. What is a minimum depends on what sorts of hands this particular pair opens. I am convinced by the fact that West needed 3 minutes (which is a VERY long time) to choose 5♦ over a forward-going action with the actual hand, that for this pair both ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx and ♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx would be "non-minimum" - good enough for 3♣ but not for the slow 5♦. If opener had either of these hands, 6♦ would be off 2 aces, one of them the Ace of trumps and the other one an ace that wasn't going away anywhere, so it would be substantially worse than 50%. As I read the OP, the TD actually concluded that the slow 5♦ bid suggested 3 Keycards, not 2. That seems to be a good reading of what the slow bidder had. So, I agree with JAllerton that Pass is an LA, at least if the description of 3♥ given by East is correct (IOW that it didn't suggest opener bid 3NT with a heart control, but asked him to start cue-bidding). East's entire auction was pretty strange, actually - first, he didn't try to get to spades (what would his partner open with 4243 or 4441 or even 4432?), then he bid 3♥ asking partner to cue-bid (strange method, doesn't fit his hand - couldn't NT have been right from his hand?). Then he bid 4♠ in order to allow partner to bid Keycard to look for 7, when his partner had already denied the A of spades and if he was sure he could make 6, he could have bid KCB to find out about 7. Then his partner made a minimum bid and he woke up and realized he should bid a slam. Sorry, European Champion or not, on this hand, he didn't bid like one and he did bid like someone taking advantage of UI.

This is what I play all the time. What do you feel is wrong with it? Ditto :). But I do know that some people strongly disagree - Joey Silver & I debate the merits of transfers in response to weak NTs all the time. In support of Stefanie & me, note that a pair playing transfers in response to a weak NT just finished second in the Vanderbilt :) - I don't think playing other methods over their weak NT would have helped them win.

Probably a good idea to spell his name correctly, though - Just Eric

Web-cams use up a lot of bandwidth, which is a problem when you have several tables covered and all of them are using one router (at least so the computer experts tell me - I mean that using one router for multiple tables might be slowing things down). The web-cams are also a pain to set up. Having said that, I wonder whether there are enough people who'd like to have web-cam photo's available - remember, because of the bandwidth problem, you're probably not going to get "moving" pictures, just still snaps every 15 or 30 seconds - to make it worth doing. Would it be worth a lot to you?

My conclusion from the ACBL alert chart Peach references is that canape openings are alertable. The Alert chart says: Natural Calls Not Specifically Noted -> Alert -> Highly unusual strength, shape, etc I think an opening one bid where it is normal for the suit opened to be shorter than another suit (except for 1 of a minor, which is specifically announceable if it can be 2) is a highly unusual shape. Certainly most pairs I know who play canape openings alert them.

I think it is indicative of the fact that the field in the Vanderbilt (and Spingold) is incredibly strong - notice that there were a lot of close matches from the very first day on. Of course I disagree about the favorite :), but I might be a tad prejudiced.

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

Then they all need their heads examined. :( :blink: Hm. The minutes of the meeting are not yet up on the web site (not saying they should be up this quick, just that they aren't). Are we club level directors (not to mention ACBL Tournament Directors) supposed to know this already? Well, since it seemed obvious to many of us that if a player actually made a bid it was a logical alternative, I wouldn't think that this clarification was of much relevance except to those who thought that if a player made an egregiously bad bid based on UI, the player could argue that Law 16 didn't apply because the bid s/he made was not a logical alternative and thus s/he didn't choose from among logical alternatives one that was suggested by the UI. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would actually make such an argument with a straight face, but some of the posters here disagreed, so I asked the Laws Committee. I do not understand why you think it is foolish to consider a bid actually made at the table a logical alternative. Any club director who would have allowed a player to make a bid that was so bad the director did not believe anyone would consider it seriously on the basis that Law 16 didn't apply is the one who IMHO might need his or her head examined.