DYates

A potential problem is that if you like the idea of A or K treated as Ax, Kx, (i don’t) then playing Precision, all your 4x1 with stiff honor and 13-15 are now one no-trump openings. Be aware that ACBL alert procedures require an alert for systemically unbalanced NT openings. If you did this only with =44A4 or =44K4, it is not probably a huge problem as your opponents will be happy to see you miss major suit fits. Standard Precision is to open 2D with the hand you describe. Though I played 1D as 0+ diamonds for years and never had a problem. (2D was 6+ D, and 2C always promised 6+C). The standard Precision 2D opener is very effective when it comes up. I found I hated opening two clubs with 4M and 5 only clubs. It is a very weak part of the system. I'd advise to at least shorten 1D to 2+ and make 2C always 6+. You'll handle competitive auctions much better. (Are there any other types nowadays?)

There are some good issues raised by some posters. I agree with some points raised by jonottawa. But not the conclusion. (See why below, regarding adjustment). There is another issue, the problem that an automatic remedy leads to the creation of free two-way shots for all the lawyers out there. (And we all know who they are). Ultimately leading to an even more litigious game. And worse, a non-level playing field for pairs not seeking to take advantage of situations. It is a difficult issue, and perhaps needs a separate thread, but the essence of bridge is risk vs. reward. I cannot even remember the last time I failed to balance after a fit auction to the two level. And a player nicknamed “dynamite” passed??? She passed in match points no less. Who cares about pushing them into game?. The par could well be 4S down one and these newbies were afraid to bid and they needed to be pushed. An issue here is that once any player (does not need to be a newbie) hesitates, tanks, or takes a Rip VanWinkle nap, the opponents can always hedge their position 100% by passing - assuming it is 100% to receive a score adjustment as Jon seems to suggest. (2-ways are not an issue the ACBL ever addresses, [surprise]). In this auction, with the tank, why ever balance? Just wait to see the whole deal, and then call the director if you should have bid. You just created a situation with 100% upside and no downside. That isn’t bridge. That is Tic Tac Toe - a game of certainty and no way to lose. Trust me, the 2-way game is already a part of many players’ repertoire. And they feel entitled to use it. We might improve the ethics of novices with a system which more actively reproaches them, but ultimately it is just another cans of worms. Less ethics for the experienced. As far as an adjustment (in ACBL-land) MFA is not exactly correct about “no requirements of intent”. That is technically true, but incomplete. Law 72-B-1 (adjusted score) requires that “. . .an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side . .” as a prerequisite for granting a score adjustment. While that burden of proof is substantially less than “intent to deceive”, it does require cognition. And that is the issue here with this novice player. Since the director clearly states this particular offender “did not even know why the director was called”, and 72-B-1 requires the offender to be aware that his action might cause a problem for the non-offending side (which is the legal basis for letting newbies off the hook**) it would appear that the director's decision not to award an adjusted score is correct and completely within the laws. And since there is no law which states players cannot hate the director, I guess the TD will just have to live with that. (Dont take this the wrong way, but if your decision was randomly correct, it certainly wont be the first time that happend to a director ;) ) But before we comdemn novices, perhaps we should expect experienced players to know and understand that it is possible to be damaged and yet be without recourse. Jon is correct about L O N G H E S I T A T I O N. And that we really need to do a better job of educating beginners on the point and purpose of rules and the director. However, I definitely do not believe we should be granting score adjustments just to "keep people happy". That defeats the point of rules and ethics. (You may want to re-think that Jon. Do novices deserve to be happier? You make Ms. Dyno happy with her freebie MP adjustment. But now how happy are the other pairs competing against her? Happiness is playing by the rules, not giving away awards.) (**) though I agree with Jon that we should not be so willing to give them a lot of bites at the apple. Perhaps a couple of yellow cards before the red one, but then we need a recording system - such as AWMPP.

Q1: 3♣ seems fine. But as an underbid, I suspect it did not work on the actual deal. 3NT is the slight overbid. Comments about oppts not in the bidding are misplaced. RHO could easily been shut out by a light 1H response. Or just not have a bid. Why can’t hands be: LHO: Axx,xxx,Qxxxx, Kx (1D is hopeless) Pard: Q10xx, Q10xxx, Jxx, x (“Technically” light, but even all the non-experts respond 1H. Perhaps even without that powerful J♦) RHO: KJxx, KJxx, K10x, xx Partners floats 3C and that is the last making spot. 3NT has no play on the routine diamond lead. I dislike a 3NT rebid because (1) no spade stop. Likely not a problem for 3NT as partner probably has some length/strength there and the oppts have not bid them. However, if partner holding the Q-S drives to slam expecting a spade card you can be down off the top in a silly slam (2) the suit texture is not good enough. I like solid or at least AKJ10xxx. You may need to play the suit for no losers, and AQJ(8) opposite one is not good % for running tricks. Again, partner may put you in the wrong slam thinking your KC response shows: A, AKQ.... (6NT thinking clubs are running, instead of 6C where you can ditch the losing spade or diamond on K-H before losing the trump king). There is some risk of missing game with 3♣. (Say Pard = Q10xx, Jxxxx, Kxx, x). If my partner did choose 3NT, it won’t be a “bad” action because of his two outside aces. (3NT with Jx, A, KQ, AQJ10xxxx is a really bad bid). On any given day - without methods - either bid could work. In the end, the choice of 3C or 3NT may well depend on the type of partner you are playing with. 3N with conservative, 3C with aggressive. Speaking of methods. . . Q2: 2♦. I like the opening 2♦ as intermediate (any hand which would rebid 2♦ after 1♦-1x / similar to a Fantoni-Nunes 2D but a bit heavier. Plus my 2D is <4S). This means 2♦ after 1m-1x; is Gazzilli-ish and F1. Opener can now describe good 3-card major raises, strong 1-suiters, 5/4m reverses, 6C/5x and a good hand etc. Even huge raises with 4-M support and void. Best is you don’t lose 3-card M support with SJR/SJS hands. Playing this way a direct 3♣rebid is lighter. Maybe: Axx, Ax, xx, AQJ10xx. (and 1D-1x; 3C is also shape & texture 13-16 NF) I played that way for years and wonder no one else ever thought of it. (Esp since Wk 2D is as useless as Flannery). You need to work out good responses to 2D opening and follow-ups after 2D rebid, also after 1D-1NT, but it works great and is legal under ACBL GCC. (If you are worried the folks at Asinine Convention and Bidding Limitations might be a problem where you play). Obviously one needs an established, motivated partnership. I don’t know if that meets your definition of “natural”. My method works with either “natural openings” or within a strong club system.

(Its late. Make that 'principles'.) I sometimes play hands this way :P

International competitions are supposed to be about people of the world coming together. To use the victory podium as a pulpit to voice any message with a commercial, political, or religious basis is antithetical to the higher principals underlying the contest. Roland & Fred are dead right on this issue. There are proper forums, venues and outlets to express one’s view. International competitions are not one of them. While the ladies may not be happy with our political leader - I know I disagree with many of his policies - it hardly helps that other representatives of my country decided to show the world just how impolitic, crass and clueless we Americans can be. (To The_Hog: That is the reason why some are mortified. Who cares what the ladies think. Or who they criticize. That is irrelevant. But how they conduct themselves as representatives of our country is important. Because the ultimate goal of international competition is to allow national pride to co-exist with international brotherhood. For that to ever happen, the event must transcend all politics. The ladies did not insult our President, they insulted the integrity of the event.) When Hitler tried to use the Olympics as a political and propaganda tool, Jesse Owens stood on the victor's podium simply and quietly. When they tried to draw Owens into controversy - regarding stories of Hitler refusing to congratulate him, Jesse replied: “When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him.” I’m sure Owens had other thoughts. But he had the good sense to know that what we should remember is what was accomplished on the field of play. Just before his death in 1980, Owens tried to convince President Carter not to boycott the Olympics. Jesse Owens believed deeply that the games should be above politics. There are people who win. And there are champions. I hope that some day our ladies understand the difference. David Yates