TMorris

That's the one, thanks.

Well we seem to have a fundemental disagreement here :) . As far as I am concerned my agreement is that when I open 1NT I have 12-14 balanced. It is not, when I have 12-14 balanced I open 1NT. If I routinely don't open balanced 12 counts I would agree that 12-14 is misleading, but that is not the case. I have no idea what proportion of balanced 12 counts that I don't open 1NT but it won't be that high; low single figure percent I would guess. It will of course vary by position and vulnerability and shape. To widen the discussion. With a weak 2 bid my agreement is 5-9. There are significantly more hands in the range 5-9 with a 6 card suit that I don't open a weak 2 than there are bad 12 counts that I don't open 1NT. Usually this is due to suit quality eg I don't open with 987654 as my 6-card suit & probably not with slightly stronger suits than that. Perhaps I should state that I have a minimum suit quality requirement. I have never seen anyone do this, or even suggest it for that matter, but I am quite prepared to be convinced that it is something I should do. I would of course happily explain, if asked, that this is the case but perhaps that is insufficient. There is a well known quote that is consistent with my view - I just wish I could remember it, from some very well known UK player - something like, " an agreement with partner not a promise to my opponents" but it is phrased much better than that.

Well they might have read the part on my cc which says " we may not open poor 12 counts". But anyway it is not the same. If I open a weak NT my agreement is 12-14. If I have 12-14 I do not have an agreement to always open.

It is of course better. There are balanced 12 counts that I don't open with a weak NT. I still say my 1NT opening is 12-14. There are 9 counts that I open at the one level I still say my weak 2s are 5-9.

It is only understood in practice once you have been playing at the level where this occurs for a while. It is not understood in practice when you initially step up in level thus significantly disadvantaging such people. A good player recently opened a weak two in third position with an 11 count and a good 6-card suit (playing I think 5-9). I was told afterwards by a more experienced teammate that this is "standard". Well until then it wasn't standard to me. I know about "may be weaker in third" but hadn't heard of "may be stronger in third". I just played a match where one of the opponents had 5-13 in third for their weak twos. It's the first time I have ever seen this. That is what I call full disclosure. Otherwise I am at a clear disadvantage.

I agree 2 ♠ in Acol is non-forcing but it would be rare to play in the 5-1 fit as with 0/1 ♠ one would very often have enough to bid 2NT after an initial 2 level response.

You might not be that surprised to hear that they actually thought this thing through and the option is available for ONE pair per session.

There is an allowance in the system for a volunteer not to have that session included in the rating calculations. You have to tell the organiser in advance and they have to agree to it but the issue you mention should not be a problem.

I'm rather more interested in quality than quantity. It makes for a more challenging game IMO.

I doubt that many will be more interested in how playing impacts their rating than actually wanting to play a game of bridge. There are a couple of large clubs not affiliated to the EBU and hence not getting masterpoints who are doing very well in my area & no doubt plenty others throughout the country. This shows that there is a demand for people to play bridge, have an evening out and enjoy themselves. Masterpoints & this grading scheme might influence a small number of people but only at the margins I would think.

Interesting. As far as I know in the UK Ogust in the most common method so probably the one taught to beginners. This thread seems to suggest that some form of feature or shortage ask is best. What do you think is best?

Many thanks for all the replies. Lots of food for thought.

It may be that "normal" where you are and where I am are different. To put things in context what do you call "normal"? Could you give an idea also as to why you use the different options for the different ranges? Many thanks

In response to a weak 2 I currently play Ogust. I see people playing 2NT as - asks for a feature if you are not a minimum. I am trying to find out if there is a clear consensus as to which is better and why. I can see the advantages of both but am not convinced as yet that I should change. Does anyone have any views? If it makes a difference I play a weak NT and a weak 2 range of 5-9.

Thanks for the comments. I'd agree that the hand given is a 2 ♣ bid for me. I think 8-10 is right unless your t/o doubles are very classical.

I am trying to find a source that gives ranges for responding in NT if partner makes a t/o double over an opponents opening bid. I don't seem to have a text book that talks about it so wondered if anyone could point me to something on line? Thanks for any help.

At our club, after some cajoling, we have a NS sit out when there are an even number of whole tables ~(eg 8.5, 10.5 etc...) and an EW sit out with an odd number (eg 7.5,9.5, 11.5) but we aim for a minimum of 24 boards played for every pair.

Well if 4S denies Ace or King in clubs diamonds and hearts you might well stop in 4S.

Well that is traditional Acol. There are quite a number who have increased the requirement for 2/1 to 10 from the traditional 8.

In Acol you'd never bid 1NT with the S hand as it is much too good, 2 ♦ would be normal. Can't say I've had particular problems bidding slams playing Acol or indeed staying out of bad ones. 1♠ 2 ♦ 3♣ 4♠ is possible as 4 ♠ shows a minimum for the 2 ♦ bid with 3 card support as is 1 ♠ 2♦ 3 ♣ 3♠ 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ since over 4♥ South has no first or 2nd round control to show & is a minimum

All today it is almost impossible to get onto the World bridge site to get up to date scores due to the level of traffic. Not impressive.

Possibly the goal is not putting people off whilst they are still learning.

Whilst I agree with you about playing in a novice game there are plenty who do not. There are plenty who like beating up novices to get master points & psyching to show how clever they are is all part of the fun. At least there are in the UK maybe the US is different. Regarding allowing non-novices in a novice game all you have to do is decide who is not a novice. When you are an amateur non-paid playing director and someone turns up who you think might be too good for the game or might not, many opt for a quiet life. Something like not psyching is more easily recognisable.

The ban on psyching is presumably to stop the more experienced players who enter the novice game from putting off the novices. This seems very sensible to me and will be simpler than banning players from the game altogether. After all a few more experienced players in a novice game will help them to learn. Surely the EBU won't be concerned about such a situation.

In a similar vein I once was defending & when dummy went down the Ace of diamonds was shown as part of the heart suit. No-one seemed to notice and play continued (well for a while anyhow). All the cards in dummy were shown clearly. Is there an obligation to tell declarer about this? Declarer did not have bad eyesight (in which case I would feel obliged to do so).