shaztaz

It's funny how it doesn't feel like a minority to us. :) I've heard stories along this line so many times and it's happened to, as well. Minority or not, that does not justify taking no action to fix this problem.

While we're requesting custom skill levels, can I have one that says wookie?

Well I hadn't seen this thread until now, but the same question occurred to me while playing last night. I held 76 76542 J T8532 and my RHO opened a strong NT. Partner doubled in fourth seat showing 5+ cards in a minor and a 4-card major. What's my best bet? I figure he's got 5 diamonds and 4 spades, after all...

At one point, a partner and I decided to use the jump reverse to show that kind of hand. It works in the following cases. 1C 1H 3D 1C 1S 3D/3H (though we never really figured out what the two different calls should mean) 1D 1S 3H We couldn't really think of any other use for the jump reverses so we decided that would show 18-20 hands with 4-card support and nothing to splinter into. The system fails after 1D 1H of course.

Where's the "I like football but want to eat the octopus!" option?! Or would that be considered rude...

Yup, quite glad it isn't total time spent connected! I personally quite like the feature, but seeing as I also believe the masterpoint-meter on the profiles should be optional (and I don't see anyone complain about THAT one!), then this should be as well. I don't think any of this information is a breach in privacy, really. It's just a matter of preference. If an indictaive meter such as the ones people have suggested here is in fact created and put into use, we'll definitely see similar complaints from users complaining that they would rather not have to display it. And of course, the whole point of that kind of meter would be to give others and indication of how responsible the user is. This means it should not be private or it would not mean anything at all. It also means that a lot more people will want it to be private.

I really dislike control steps as a first response. Colours first! I want to be able to show suits and hear about partner's, especially when they're interfereing. It makes me rather nervous not having shown any suits at all with the bidding being suddenly uncomfortably high at the three level... Not that it's directly related, but I also disapprove of ctron/HCP steps in response to a strong 2C.

You could try out or at least look at an existing multi-way club system (say WJ2005) to start out. If you are proposing that the 11-13 balanced hands in 1C also include hands with a 5-card major, then you are going to run into trouble, I think. The 1C would be too overloaded. If you can stand having your 1M openings include 11-13 5332 hands, it should work out.

The second option is finessing against the queen or finessing the jack. The first is finessing the queen or finessing against the king.

I'd pass, but I can see how this may work out poorly sometimes.

That is an excellent grand slam story. In the February 2009 issue of The Bridge World, there was a fascinating article by Danny Kleinman about powerhouse openings and the omnibus 2C. A similar article, albeit with much less detail and discussion of alternatives and continuations can be found here. The author suggests that really any response other than 2D preempts opener and should likely be either avoided or reserved to very rare hand types. The only exception to this is a natural positive 2H response which hardly hinders opener at all while saving space whenever opener has primary spades (where the auction would normally go 2C 2D 2S 3H, wasting a lot of space). The author suggests that partnerships could in fact restrict their agreements in response to a strong 2C opening to a neutral 2D (denying only a heart suit) and a natural 2H. This has the advantage of being simple and effective; higher responses could be defined to show very rare and specific hand types if the partnership so desires. I haven't had a chance to try his structure, but it seems theoretically sound. If anyone has used it, I would like to hear about how it works out.

I'm not sure how many of you guys are aware of this, but apparently the WBF is holding a Youth Teams tourney on BBO this weekend. (info)

Actually, most of the JuniorsBBO events are scheduled in the middle of the work/school day in North America so it's pretty hard for those of us who have classes and such during the day to play bridge in a tourney at 2 in the afternoon. So in that way they're not specifically targeted to accommodate North American juniors. This means that very few North American juniors actually *play* in the events anyhow, and as a result the restriction on Multi seems even less understandable. (I'm not complaining about the scheduling, I know how hard it is! =) Just, since the schedule favours the European countries, that's the majority of the players who attend the events, that's all...)

I like multi. It lets me us 2H and 2S as either two suiter weak openings or as intermediate two bids, both of which are nice. I actually like the idea of 2D garbage multi to make the 2H and 2S bids more reliable and this means that even hands that don't usually get to be pre-empted on because of bad suit quality or general lack of hand strength can also be bid on. Any opportunity to get to open more hands is a good one as far as I'm concerned! Multi just gives you more options... It's true that the pre-emptive value of a good old weak two 2S call can't be beaten by multi.

Multi isn't even hard to defend against. Please don't insult the intelligence of average juniiors by assuming we can't deal with it. =) Plus, have mercy on us poor ACBL members who can't ever get to play or practice defending against multi in most of our tournaments! Don't disallow it in even MORE places! I never get to defend against it since hardly anyone plays it, even in the events where it is permitted. This is not surprising since most people don't enjoy having to practice two different methods to play in different events and so they just go with the one that is permitted everywhere. Or alternatively, so few people in the regular events ever get exposed to multi that they often haven't got an informed opinion on the issue. I figure maybe more ACBL members would be playing multi if it was allowed and if they were more exposed to it and knew of it as an alternative. But that's beside the point of this thread and I apologise for the digression. However, the same is true for aspiring juniors. Maybe by getting exposed to this convention they will become interested in learning and playing it themselves. Shielding people from a method is no way to go about stuff. Playing a convention yourself gives you valuable insight into defending against it so even if afterwards you decide against continuing to play it, you'll be better prepared to deal with it if it is used against you. I really don't think we juniors need to be shielded from a commonly used convention in most of the world by the authorities. The restrictions detract from the amount of fun everyone could be having! A question for those who live in countries where multi is commonly played. I'm actually curious what the usual way to deal with multi is. Is there a common defensc or some generally known method that a, say reasonably experienced European player, can expect a pick-up partner of similar skill to know and play with little to no discussion? It seems reasonably likely that this would be the case. A pick-up partnership in north america who will be playing a duplicate with minimal prior discussion can agree to say Lebensohl as a defence to interferences over their notrump auctions and little else usually needs to be say about this. There is a basic common denominator that will be assumed and both players can easily work from there. So I'm guessing a similar treatment must exist for dealing with multi in any area where the method is commonly used and I truly fail to see why this is eemed too complicated for juniors. Is Lebensohl something you'll want to shield us from as well? =)