peachy

Pass. Assuming normalish methods like 5-card majors and strong NT (normalish where I play). I expect a World Class opener to have 18-19 with spade stopper or two.

No blame. I play Puppet Stayman so 2NT-3C-3NT[no 4 or 5-card major] - now 4D if I think I need a top or an IMP swing, but normally Pass. Even after 4D, we can still stop at 4NT if partner bids it over 4D. And ten tricks should not pose a problem so the mild adventure will usually not cost.

I call it Leaping Michaels over a weak two in major, not a Roman Jump. Maybe that is some regional custom. I suppose (2H) 4H would be singleton or void H + GF, with a hand that does not want to defend no matter what partner has. Surprisingly, I haven't discussed what it means, but that is how I would guess it at the table. In my usual methods, 3H is asking for stopper for NT, and 4NT would show minors.

2S stands out as the normal action. Dbl is a lesser LA. Pass is not a LA, IMO.

Where in the law does it say it's not legal to ask them if you don't need to know? And what does "need to know" mean, anyway? Other reasons than *need to know* seem like harassment or slowing down the game. But then again *need to know* could be driven by idle curiosity, so there we are. If there is no law saying we should have a reason then we don't have to have a reason. What I meant by *need to know* is to count the hand, place honors, plan the play or some rational *need* in those lines.

If I were asked any of these questions that pertain to my partnership style and methods, I am obligated by law to answer. If I were playing with a pickup partner with whom I have no history then I will answer questions about methods we agreed, and explain that this is a pickup partnership with no history so style is unknown. It is perfectly legal to ask these questions if you need to know.

If you always ask, there is nothing "unusual" about your interest. If you usually don't ask but sometimes do, your interest is "unusual". That's not a question of interpretation or regulation - it's just common sense and English. I believe you know how this regulation is interpreted in England. I did not know. I will try to adjust my understanding to get it through my head that "unusual" in EBU means "unusual" for the player in question instead of "unusual" in general. Without your clarifying what it means, I understood from just reading the sentence that *unusual interest" would be something like many questions, surprised or quizzical looks, tones of voice or other such extras that would make the level of interest *not usual*. Asking in itself IMO cannot be unusual, but as said, my opinion does not count. Never thought my common sense would be in question...but perhaps I need to revisit that one :P

I agree with what you are saying about foisting. However, I don't know if I understand the usefulness of asking peers - peers being people who do not have an agreement. Finding them in the first place.

gnasher quoted a paragraph from the Orange book. It starts by saying: (copied from that paragraph) If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction [emphasis is mine] My problem is: When an opening bid is alerted, and the player next in turn asks what the bid means, is this considered *unusual interest* in EBU? I would consider it usual interest to inquire about an alerted call. Had the call been not alerted, then it would be "unusual" in most cases.

Good luck with that... I expect this pair inexperienced and don't remember what 4H is, regardless of what their system card may or may not say. The failure to alert was UI to South, he used it to get back to the spade suit, instead of going on to slam in spades when he has the needed aces and kings to continue opposite an encouraging 4H bid (whatever 4H is, a cuebid, a superaccept, a second suit, slam try, doesn't matter). I think education is appropriate for this pair and the best education comes from the law that IMO requires score adjustment to 6SX-3.

Fundraising obligations - OBLIGATIONS! I am pretty ignorant about politics but is fundraising for a candidate an obligation of The President? I share awm's view.

sure sounds strict to me... Of course it's easy to overuse. That is why I carefully constructed a specific example when using GIB would be useful and constructive, as opposed to saying "oh no that rule is bad, get rid of it". I think it is probably overused but asking commentators not to mention GIB at all is excessive. Perhaps spectator preferences could be considered. I am certain that majority would like an untainted-by-GIB analysis and explanation of declarer's and/or defenders' choices, based on that person's experience and expertise - instead of at opening lead, blurt out "Down 1" [because the person has GIB on and GIB says it is down 1... duh. ] Spectators can put GIB on and see what it says, without a commentator telling them what GIB says. Not having GIB at all would surely separate the wheat from the chaff among commentators/analysts, but that would be overkill. Also, not every commentator is even close to the skill level of the players, and they don't have to be - nor pretend to be. There is a lot of other stuff that spectators like to hear. I know it because I am also a spectator although on occasion I have had the privilege of being a volunteer commentator. And yes, they are guidelines, not strict rules. Perhaps some of it could be spelled out as a definite No-No but why - commentators are expected to be tactful, thoughtful, fair, and impartial, and keeping the focus on bridge and the players and the spectators, instead of on themselves.

I'm with blackshoe. However, perhaps gerry meant frequent upgrades which have transformed themselves through a pattern of occurrence into the implicit agreement and undisclosed method territory, in violation of laws and/or regulations on disclosure. It is a much bigger problem than many folks would like to believe. I support curbing that sort of illegal action at the table. And in all reality, it would indeed be lying or at least deluding oneself into believing one has been truthful in disclosure.

Agree on that, don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree. However, the green book, published in 2000, "Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century" is a complete description of the 2/1, a great textbook and reference for an advanced or intermediate player who is just switching to 2/1 or for someone who wants complete system notes.

Peachy, That would be the "Standard Bidding for the 21st Century" and the "Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century" which were very possibly rewritten by someone other than Max Hardy. I have these somewhere in cartons stashed away. I will have to give them another read. If I can find them. You post another incorrect statement (the first one was in the original post: "20 years ago"). There is no foreword to that effect, no co-author mentioned, nor any other indication that it was not Max Hardy who wrote Max Hardy books. This is how rumors get started :lol:

What irregularity or what UI was there when a player at his turn asks the meaning of an alerted call? Why West was even asked why she asked about the call, is beyond me. I'm afraid the AC went bonkers.

Pairs are expected to adjust their methods within a single event/session, in Australia. See "Protected Pairs" http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFSystemRegs09.pdf . I just happened to read this regulation and found it interesting.

North has a 1S opening. After 2S is opened, the train is off the track already. Ogust answers will not help South, even if he did decide to use it, there could easily be two heart losers off the top even if opener shows good hand and good suit.

I am surprised that Fantoni-Nunes are not in the team. Any comments from Italian forum members about this?

There is a potential for not being successful no matter what I bid here. Splinter with a Q makes partner devalue his hand with something like KQxx-x-KJ10xx-xxx or upgrade hands like KJ10xx-xx-xxx-KQx. 4S denies a singleton (definitely denies two singletons even if a singleton A is held) and promises about 19 balanced; this makes partner pass with many hands that would produce slam like KQxx-Kx-xxx-xxxx. I still bid 4D and hope for the best.

The latest book was published in 2000 (The green book) and some additional options for bidding in 2002 (The purple book). Much better and not outdated like the Yellow book is. There seem to be people who judge and/or dislike the "Hardy Style of 2/1" system without having even read the book, published just before he passed away. The differences betwen Lawrence and Hardy styles are minor.

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? ) would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand. I am sure you are mistaken. Oops, didn't see this was essentially already said, at least twice.

I haven't read the whole article. What I see here is a tone of voice that I don't agree with.

You are right, the evidence (if we trust the 4C bidder) seems to indicate their overcalling style is not sound. I still double.

Then, if opener had the spade suit, we have denied ourselves the chance to double them. I am not sure Leaping Michaels is even on - should not be - in this sequence and if it is, how to play it without depriving our side some opportunities.