bid_em_up

Left-click them to view their profile. One of the buttons there is "Join". You miss the point. Sorry. I realize you can view their profile, then join. That is not the same as right-clicking in the chat window and selecting join that person as is currently available. It requires moving the mouse to a different area of the screen. This may seem trivial to you, (and indeed it probably is), but personally, I dislike having to move the mouse when I don't have to. This becomes even more significant when you decrease the size of the Profile area, to increase the Friends/Kibbers area, which makes the find/join buttons completely disappear. Now you must left click, get their profile, change the size of the profile window (or scroll the window), click join, then resize the profile area. I'd rather just be able to right click and select join. The option to right-click and join is available from your friends list, stars list, etc. so the option can function this way, I inferred that it is/was simply an oversight that it did not function this way in the chat area, or it simply has not been implemented yet.

Not as odd as not making 3N was. He must have known declarer would misplay and go down. :angry:

Possibly already mentioned. You cannot currently right click and join a player at a table from the chat window. One nice additional feature that I am just now noticing. If I Left-click, then right-click on a persons name in the chat area, I am given the options to Increase or Decrease font size. By doing so, the chat is much easier for me to read.

Is 3♥ preemptive?

Quite honestly, I think that the description of your bid to "Rulings@ACBL.org" is piss poor. Simply put, if you ask a leading question, you'll get the answer that you want to hear. I'd be much more interested if you asked them about a 2NT rebid that 1. Is absolutely forcing (What were your earlier comments? ) Richard, if anything, my earlier comments were piss-poor in this thread, and I have done my best to both acknowledge that and explain it elsewhere in this thread. "Forcing" was a poor choice of wording on my part. Thats all I can say. The description sent to the ACBL is an accurate description of how we play the 2N rebid. It is 18-19 balanced. It may contain 4 card support for responders major. That the bid while not 100% forcing, is rarely passed. It can be passed, it just doesn't happen very often. That is exactly what we play it as. I, at least, somewhat understood (but didn't agree with) how some people could claim that the bid might contain 4 card support for the major suit (in a balanced definition) could possibly make the bid alertable. This is what prompted me to inquire of the ACBL whether or not that fact made the bid alertable, in order to have a proper ruling on whether it needs one or not. Evidently, it does not. It is not "or a spade raise". I never would have expected this particular hand and am clueless why my partner chose the 2N rebid with this hand. His correct call in our system is 4C, showing good 4 card support and 5+ good clubs. You'd have to ask him why he chose to rebid 2N instead because I do not know. Note I have said he is supposed to be 4432, 4333 or 5332. I have never said he could be 5-2-2-4 and I had no reason to expect this. This is why I did not include this particular hand in my question to the ACBL, he simply isn't supposed to have this. Since there was no agreement that the hand could contain this particular hand type, there is still no reason to alert it. It was as unexpected to me as it would be the opponents.

Without attempting to relight the fire under this issue, because enough people chose to insist that the 2N rebid is alertable due to the fact that it could contain a four card support, I did in fact email "rulings at acbl.org" asking the question if it is alertable or not. I also stated that the bid is rarely passed (it can be, it just isn't going to happen very often) and explained under what conditions it could be passed. The fact that it is rarely passed, does not change the limiting nature of the 2N rebid. It limits the hand specifically to 18-19 hcp, and balanced. I also asked if the fact that the bid is rarely passed makes it alertable. The answer from Rick Beye (or one of his subordinates) is that NO ALERT is required in either case. I will be happy to forward the email to anyone who wishes to see it. Text of email and the repsonses imbedded follows: Hi, Due to a discussion on a BridgeBase Online forum thread, I am writing to find out if a couple of "treatments" that one of my partnerships uses are alertable or not. The first one is a jump to 2N by opener in the sequence 1m-(p)-1M-(p)-2N (1 minor-pass-1major-pass-2N). We play the 2N rebid as 18-19 balanced (normally 4333, 4432, or 2335), and it may contain 4 card support for responders major suit (it also may not, could be 2 card, or 3 cards or it could also contain two four card majors). There are those on the forum boards who are claiming that because the 2N rebidder might have 4 card support, this makes the bid "non-standard" and alertable, because they think 4 card support for the major is unexpected. No alert. A second issue they have with the bid is that although the 2N rebid is not "forcing" in the pure sense of the word as NMF or 4SF would be (the bid specifically limits openers hand to a balanced 18-19 hcp hand), but due to other definitions and agreements (a flat balanced 6 count will pass the 2N rebid, we don't respond to 1m on balanced hands containing less than 6 hcp, if we respond on less than 6 hcp it will be a hand with a 6+ card suit that can escape into 3 of a major), the fact of the matter is that the 2N rebid is rarely passed. It is passable, but in reality, it rarely occurs. The fact that it is rarely passed has no bearing on the limiting aspect of the 2N rebid. While bidding lessons are beyond the scope of this mailbox, we don't see a question in the above paragraph. (Edit: there was no question, that paragraph was for background purposes only.) There are several people claiming because the bid is rarely passed, it is considered forcing and that it should be alerted because of this as well. If this is the question, several people are wrong. This is standard bidding, no alert would be due. My position is that: 1) The bid is natural, 2) It shows the approximate shape expected (the hand is STILL balanced, it just might have 4 card support for responders major), 3) The bid, by its very nature, is a limiting bid (18-19 hcp) therefore it is not "forcing" in the purest sense of the word. The fact it is rarely passed (due to agreements on when we do or do not bid over an opening 1 of a minor call) does not change the limiting aspect of the bid. so the 2N rebid is not alertable. You are correct on all counts. Their position is that: 1) Most players would not have 4 card major suit support, therefore it is an unexpected treatment (they choose to rebid 4M when holding a balanced 18-19 hcp hand with 4 card support for the major), 2) A lot of players are much less disciplined in their responses to one of minor openings than our partnership is, therefore they will pass the 2N rebid more frequently than we do, so the bid is not as "limiting" as they think it should be or we are not passing it frequently enough and so it should be considered forcing. Please give an appropriate ruling on whether or not this 2N rebid is alertable or not. They are incorrect on each count. ----------------------------------------------------------------- End of email text. Hopefully, that puts the issue to rest on whether or not an alert is required. To be fair to the posters here, I will admit I did (erroneously) state the bid was "forcing" in my earliest posts. It is NOT forcing in terms of an absolute (like NMF/4SF would be), it is limiting to 18-19 hcp. Responder is not required to take another call, but in fact will the majority of the time. The fact of the matter is that it is rarely passed, not because 2N is forcing, but because there are very few hand types we could actually hold that WOULD pass a 2N rebid. I was mistaken in my wording. It is my sentiment that the bid is "forcing" in the sense that it will rarely be passed (at least in our partnership), but by its very nature, it is a limiting bid. I do not like or agree with my partners 2N rebid on this particular hand. I also think it is a bad call. I think if it got passed, he would deserve the bad result we would have gotten. But, according to "rulings at acbl" it still isn't alertable, no matter how much the rest of the forum posters attempt to insist that it is. And Hannie, next time, try citing a source or rule book that makes the bid alertable, the ACBL Alert chart makes it fairly clear that the bid is not alertable: http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html It wasn't just what I thought. It was my (evidently correct) reading/interpretation of the alert chart itself. Trying to mock me for my interpretation of this is completely immature. The whole point of the Columbus example elsewhere was that just because everyone thinks so & so, doesn't necessarily make something true. I hope you can understand the correlation now.

I won't disagree that it is close between pass and 3♦. There are valid arguments for both sides. On the minus side of 3D, the hand doesn't have very much in the way of controls. The minus side of pass is that you are expecting partner is going to get an opportunity to bid 3D (when he has 4 diamonds even). If partner has 5+ clubs, and 4+ diamonds, he has no more than 4 major suit cards, therefore the opponents are on a likely 9+ card heart fit. If this is the case (as is likely), it is about to go 3H on your left and now partner will not have the opportunity to show 3 or 4 card diamond support. Even worse is if it goes 4H on your left. The plus side of 3D is it confirms you have extra length in the suit while you still have the chance to do so making it easier to judge whether or not to compete over 3H/4H. I do not believe the 3D call should confirm any extra values, only additional length in your minor suit. It is not forcing. The plus side of pass is that it allows partner to rebid clubs, or raise diamonds, and confirms you have no extra values. Unfortunately, partner will likely be unable to do either of these options by the time it is his turn to bid. For me, the deciding factor is I am looking at 1 heart, and partner did not make a negative double of any sort. He also did not bid hearts himself. So unless he is 5-6+ in the rounded suits, the opponents assuredly have a minimum of 8 hearts and likely more. 3D will allow partner to judge his hand more accurately in terms of fit (imo) if it goes 3H/4H on our left and makes me choose 3D in the end. But I certainly would not argue with pass either. :)

Ummm, 2N? 3N? 3H? Not 3D.

It's the 2nd paragraph thats confusing. :P The first paragraph, appears to say its ok for dummy to have called the director. The second one, says dummy wasnt allowed to. Or at least thats the way I interpreted it. I could be mistaken.

* Pass. Not unreasonable. Also does not help partner know anything else about our hand. * Double. Out of the question. Double would be penalty oriented here and this hand has little defensive prospects. It also doesnt have any trump tricks. * 2♠ Not listed as an option but should be (instead of 3♠). Not a good choice, imo, though, as you do not know if you have enough quick tricks to play 3N or not. You may well have to lose the lead too many times in order to establish your suit(s). I would take 3♠ as a splinter agreeing clubs in this sequence. * 2N not listed as an option. Rightfully so. * 3♣. Should require another trump. * 3♦ The most descriptive bid, imo. The hand does have 6 "decent" (not great though) diamonds. It does have a semi-club fit. Partners failure to make a negative double of 1S makes it likely he does not have at least four hearts. He could, its just less likely. As such, the opponents are now on a probable eight or nine card heart fit. Given that partner is likely short(ish) in the majors now, it also increases the chances he also has at least some tolerance for diamonds. Even as little as 9x in partners hand helps. If we do not tell partner that we have 6 diamonds now (when we could only have 3 or 4 from the opening bid), he is never going to figure it out on his own and be able to sacrifice in 5D when it is correct. * 3♥ Same as 2S. You have no plausible assurance of tricks in 3N. Unlike Richard, I am fairly certain the opponents have just found a heart fit. Partners failure to make a negative double makes this all the more likely. It is in our best interest to tell partner at this point that we REALLY have a diamond suit and not just 3 or 4 of them. Otherwise, we are not going to get the chance. This makes 3♦ the choice for me.

Mink, I have given one example why dummy should be allowed to dispute a claim using this same hand earlier in this thread. Add the heart K to dummy. Have declarer "misclaim" 12 tricks when no possible rational line of play can prevent declarer from making all 13 tricks. The opponents are quite likely to accept this claim, either from self-interest or simply not seeing that declarer actually has all 13. Should dummy be required to sit idly by and take a bad result because of a simple misclaim? Another example would be in f2f play where a card happens to be turned wrong. Assume declarer had turned a trick the wrong way thinking he lost a trick in the play (maybe one that he should rightfully lose, but didn't, but turned it as if he did). He then subsequently never lost that trick. If he claims according to the # of tricks he thinks he has won (or lost), does dummy have to sit by and accept the fact partner turned a card wrong and so has misclaimed? And again, the opponents are likely to accept the claim, even though it is incorrect. No. Dummy is allowed to dispute it.

Turn it around and answer some questions of yourself: 1) Did you know you are supposed to immediately call the director" when an infraction occurs?" 2) Did you know that by failing to call the director immediately, you may lose some or all of your rights to a remedy or resolution? If you can state that you were unaware of the obligation to call the director immediately, then no, its not fair and probably not correct either. If you can state that you were unaware that by failing to call the director immediately, you may lose some of all of your rights, then no, its not fair and probably not correct either. The director should take this into consideration when making a decision on whether to rule or not, along with the fact that it was the opponents who requested the delay in calling the director. If you were aware of 1 & 2 above, then the ruling is correct, even though you delayed calling the director at the opponents request to do so. If I am not mistaken, you are a Flight C player, and were playing in an A/x flight. Given that, and had you informed the director that you were unaware of any such ruling or law, they should take that into consideration when deciding whether to rule or not. It is entirely possible the director just assumed since you were playing A/x, that you would be aware of this. So, in a sense, no the ruling is not correct when taken in context (assuming you did not know 1 & 2 above), but it is the correct ruling according to the laws. And no, its not fair; all you can do is chalk it up as a learning experience. If you were aware of either 1) or 2) above, then you should have done as the laws require and called the director immediately, regardless of what the opponents wanted. Never let an opponent try to get you to do something that is not in YOUR best interests at the table. No matter what their reason is. Just tell them, "I'm sorry, but I am protecting my rights" and call the TD. It's unfortunate that there are many players who will attempt to pull this sort of stunt, knowing that if they can convince someone not to call the director then and there, that the person will lose their rights to redress later and they will attempt thru any means possible to get you not to call the director. Do not let them intimidate you. Treat them exactly as you do me at the table. B) If I had to bet, the misexplanation of the alert was probably also deliberate, in the hopes of getting your side to do exactly what happened at the table. I've seen this tactic pulled before also by players who should know better vs. people who are less likely to be aware of the rules. "Oh, did I say it was Drury?, I'm sorry, I meant negative double." You know that they knew damn good and well what the proper explanation was supposed to be, but you can never prove it.

Depends where you live. It has an 'e' in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Island and Eire, among other places. Spelling psych psyche is just psyck. B)

Ralph: 1) Law 68.D clearly states dummy is allowed to contest a claim/concession. 2) You seem to be insisting that dummy cannot say anything until play has concuded. Play concluded (ceased) when the claim was made. So dummy is fully entitled to speak up at this point in time. 3) You seem to be insisting that an "irregularity" must have occured for dummy to actually say anything. The "irregularity" is that the claim is not valid. I do not consider it to be careless/thoughtless play for a player of this "supposed" caliber to only make 12 tricks. It would be totally irrational for any player at this level to not discard a heart at the point where he cashes the last club. The position would look like this: [hv=n=sxhxxdxc&s=sxhaxdcx]133|200|[/hv] And it should be totally impossible/irrational for declarer not to recognize that he can ruff a heart in dummy at this point if he discards a heart from dummy. Therefore, I choose 13 tricks for declarer, but can understand a ruling for 12 also. Put the heart K in dummy originally. Have declarer claim only 12 tricks for whatever reason. Have the opps accept. You appear to be saying that dummy isn't allowed to speak up, and say, "You have all 13 tricks" when there is no plausible line of play for declarer to only make 12, short of doing something stupid like pitching the heart K from dummy or playing a small heart from both hands. This is a case of clear cut irrational play being required for declarer only to make 12 tricks. According to your argument, dummy isn't allowed to say anything.

Rumor has it they are using this prediction thread to assist in calculating their odds. :P (Not really, I just couldn't resist.)

Ralph, You are claiming that dummy cannot say "Wait, you have all 13 tricks" because it is in violation of the laws. Play has ceased (concluded) at the point the claim is made, so dummy cannot be participating in the play (nobody is). He also did not participate in or direct declarer in any such manner. He simply stated, you have all 13 tricks. Granted, declarer may not have seen it at this point, but dummy is fully within their rights at this point to say "Wait, you have all 13 tricks" and call the director. When a claim is made, 68.D Play Ceases "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival." This specifically gives dummy the right to not accept a claim or concession by either side. There is no arguing that. It is right there in black and white. He should not tell declarer how they are available though. He didn't. All dummy said was "Wait, you have all the tricks." He should not say "If you cash all the clubs, pitching hearts from dummy, and then ruff the last heart you make 13 tricks". (He can tell that to the director who is about to arrive though :) ). Call the director and let them sort it out. The question converts to: Would a player of this caliber actually have only made 12 tricks if the hand had been played out? I don't think so. My gut instinct is that since it would be irrational for declarer to do anything other than pitch hearts from dummy and take all the tricks, you practically must award them all 13, along with a warning to be a little more careful with their claims. Phil hasn't said this was actually the ruling, but I have to believe this is what happened based on the way the laws are written. Since declarer obviously initially didn't see that they had all 12 tricks and might not have without dummies warning (declarer stated he had 12, opponents agreed), the "right thing" is the result stands as claimed. Sometimes, the "right" thing to do, and the laws simply just don't agree. In this case, it would be practically impossible for declarer at some point in the play to realize that they simply needed to pitch a heart from dummy and then ruff one, thereby making all 13 tricks. The score should be adjusted accordingly.

If it was a "normal" team match and you have at least one of the 8 players names, you could always go to myhands and pull up the boards for that player.

If there is an option to "Follow this player in tournament", I cannot seem to locate it.

Where would we be if: Columbus has listened to "everybody"? Newton had gone on about his business like everybody else when the apple fell? The Wright Brothers had listened when told they could not fly? Kennedy had paid attention to those smarter than him who said it was impossible to put mankind on the moon? and countless other similar events in history, where somebody has stopped to question the norm. Much knowledge and advancement of mankind has come directly from asking "What if?" or not taking what is said as gospel, just because everyone says its so. Now, I said it was a "crazy" thought that possibly it might make a difference if the suit split 5-4 or 8-1. I did not claim that the current (and what I also believe to be accurate) probabilities were not accurate, I simply had an admittedly crazy "What if" thought. But while you say: I, say, maybe, just maybe when everybody else is telling you something can't be done or isn't possible, or it simply has to be that way, it might be a good time to think harder about how to go about proving them to be incorrect. Mind you, I am not saying they are incorrect. But if you always simply blindly accept statement of the sorts being made here, then advancements cease to be made. "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it." -- Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love (Amusing that Ralph mentions the Flat Earth society, in defense of the other sides opinion. I see it as exactly the opposite. Everybody else would be the Flat Earth Society in Columbus's time, while Bebop would be Columbus.)

Thanks anyway, and I appreciate your reasons for not doing so.

I just love the way you assume things. It is an offer to play in NT. Could be 2N (although, as I have said, it is unlikely), could be 3N, 4N, 6N or 7N. I don't know where you reached the conclusion it is not an offer to play in NT. Because again you assume that partner automatically will just up and blast 6N. We would go thru a form of checkback sequence before bidding 6N. So its simply not going to happen that it goes 1x-1y-2N-6N. Doesn't mean we won't or can't end in 6N though, just not via your described method. I suppose we could go back to simply blasting 6N, but since we have other inquiries that follow 2N, there is absolutely no reason to do so.

If you choose to claim this is "unusual", be my guest. My understanding of "unusual" would be something like 4-1-2-6 which is NOT something the opponents would be expecting (not that I would ever expect to see this treatment, but purposes of example). That would require an alert. A 18-19 balanced hand with 4-3-3-3 or 4432 is still natural, still balanced, and by its own very definition, not unusual. Just because you wouldn't expect it, you still have a reasonable enough idea of what the 2N rebidders hand is going to look like. In this case, I refer you to Part I also, where it specifically says: If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Just because the hand may contain 4 card support does not change the fact the bid is natural and balanced. But then again, maybe my reading comprehesion skills are as bad as my bridge.

Gah. http://web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right? That you can do real, honest-to-God actual harm by telling beginners that something is legal when it isn't, right? And that the reverse isn't true, that telling them that something is alertable when it isn't won't hurt anybody? Just making sure. Neil- I also direct FTF events where that isn't an option. Online, it's not a big deal. What part of this: PART I: NATURAL CALLS Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted. do you not understand? Or this, for that matter: 1) STAYMAN No Alert is required for any bid of 2 over partner's 1NT opening or 3 over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. Likewise, a 2 response to Stayman (or a 3 response after 2NT-P-3 ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major. It does not show unusual strength, nor does it show unusual shape. It is a perfectly natural balanced 18-19 and is EXACTLY what any player would expect it to be. You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right? Just making sure. Next time, try to find a document that actually supports your position, please. Instead, all I see is information that says exactly the same things i have been maintaining.

Well, lets see: I have stated that it is considered forcing until the 2N responder found out otherwise, he normally expects to hear another call. I have stated that since we tend not to respond on less than 6 counts (it is possible to do so, but it is a hand that will normally be able to get out in 3M after a 2N response). We don't usually bid, just because we think we can improve the contract (i.e. Jxxxx xxx Qxxx x will pass, QJxxxxx xxx xx x will bid but can get out in 3M if need be). If anyone accused you of being unethical, would you necessarily be calm about it? Then don't expect me to either. By posting on an internet forum, you are free to discuss. So far, I have read a bunch of attacks towards both me and the method, but very little real discussion. I make claims of "hey you're the star", because whether you realize it or not, many of your posts towards me come across as condescending and I am simply returning the favor. Yes, mine are the same way sometimes, but at least I am aware of this fact and work hard on not being so. If a mod could read what I originally write 1/2 the time, I would be banned altogether. :) I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable (it may even be so now, but it didn't used to be and as far as I know, it still isn't). I'm claiming this is simply a similar case. The 2N bidder does not know whether or not the bid is going to be passed. I think I have clearly stated that it IS passable, but the odds of it actually occuring are highly unlikely to happen since we have already made a 1/1 response. As far as I am concerned, that is effectively considered to be forcing at the time the call is made. Call this "changing my position" all you wish. I call it clarification of the original statement. You are certainly entitled to feel that it is alertable. Let me ask you, since when is a natural call (which the 2N rebid is), which is exactly the same as anyone would expect it to be (18-19 balanced), ever alertable? I do not for one minute believe that just because we treat it as mainly forcing, makes it alertable. You are free to disagree, but then the burden is on you to offer proof. Not me. I didn't start the argument. As far as I am concerned it does not require an alert and its up to you to prove otherwise. Gnome, you and the others all claim it MUST require an alert simply because it is a treatement different than you are used to. I say I don't believe you. Prove me wrong. So far, you have failed to do so. You have simply proffered your opinion. It has no meaning other than the standard meaning of 18-19 balanced. That in and of itself makes the bid not alertable. The bid is completely natural. I have also stated that IF ASKED, I would say, it could be passed but highly improbable that it will be. Isn't that full disclosure? Full disclosure does NOT require you to automatically alert every partnership nuance or tendency, the last time I checked. It does to require you to provide that information if asked. The bid is natural, with a "normal" expectation of what the call should represent. It does not have an unusual or strange meaning. Strange meaning as in it shows a running 8 card club suit or it always shows a good spade raise. Then it would be alertable. Just because we treat it as forcing and you don't, doesn't make it require an alert, imo. The hand equals exactly what the opponents are expecting. I never said I agreed with my partners 2N bid. I happen to not like it as well. But it was the call he chose to make. I told gnome he was *****ing nuts (which was edited out shortly thereafter) because I was pretty irritated regarding being told that I was being unethical (my interpretation of what gnome said, not his actual wording). Feel free to say you think the bid should be alerted, but dont make deragotory statements such as the one that was made. Especially when I was not the person failing to alert either bid. I have subsequently acknowledged that partner should be alerting the 1C bid all the time, and that I cannot control his actions. I have asked (told) him again to always alert it, and I announce it 100% of the time we start to play. I think passing AJ9xx xxx xxx xx after a 2N rebid is nuts also. :) I have asked mike via email to run a simulation on this. The only constraints I asked him to apply is that the 2N rebid contain 18-19 hcp and 2-4 spades. I will be happy to admit I am wrong should the simulation prove pass to be correct. I suspect most of you would pass the 2N rebid, because you would not expect the 2N hand to possibly contain 4 trumps in support. Is he supposed to alert the 2N rebid as "may contain 4 card support" as well? As long as we're discussing it, we also happen to play major suit limit raises through a 1N forcing structure, including one that may possibly raise 2x to 4M (1M- 1N-2x-4M). This could be considered a "non-standard" treatment as well, with so many people playing Bergen and such. Are we also required to disclose that a 1N forcing bid may contain this particular hand type, each and every time we bid 1N forcing? If you say yes, again, I ask why? It is responders next call that clarifies what hand type he has, at which point it would be alerted and explained.

Beats me, I sure don't enjoy this type of abuse. Feel free to keep it up though. You can believe your position all you want to. So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable, and nobody has managed to provide any. Instead, they simply give me their authoritative opinions which are nothing more than bullshit. But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority. I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses. I have simply stated this is what we play. I think somewhere in all of this that I have stated that I did not necessarily agree with it, but for the time being, it is what we play. So why are you coming down on me? You don't like it? Fine. You want to state you dont like it? Fine, nobody is asking you to agree with me (and I certainly wouldnt expect you too). But that certainly gives you no right to attempt to mock me, ridicule me or the rest of the ***** that has gone on here.