gordontd

I don't think the posts above indicate that at all - it's generally been welcomed. Of course you can - you just need to get good results with them. On the contrary, the reaction of most players I know who think they have been under-rated is that they will need to play more bridge. Only by playing more will their rating go up. Oh, really? :)

Yes, better to support now unless the hand is really bad. In any case, since partner might only have four of them, most hands that look to a 5cM-player like a pre-emptive raise are really only worth a simple raise in 4cM.

They could just reply saying so.

What kind of excuse do you have in mind?

He has an 11-count. How much do you think 2NT shows?

Of course, if you realise during the first round and you have 8 or 12 tables, you can play a Double-Weave.

Or you have a revenge round.

I see nothing in the original post to support this assertion. His language and line are entirely consistent with someone who thinks they started with 11 trumps. How hard is it to say "drawing the last trump" or simply to do it before claiming? I think you would have a much better case if he hadn't drawn any trumps at all.

Almost all my bridge is played like that (or at least almost all of it that contributes to the NGS) - partnering whoever turns up, to make up the numbers. And now I discover it's been used over the past couple of years to create my rating, but it doesn't seem to have given me an unreasonable grading - in fact my largest increases have come about after partnering some of the weakest players. So, although there's the possibility of opting out, I don't think I will. Probably my grading will fluctuate more than most, but I think it will add to the interest.

The advantage comes when you are playing a movement with shared boards.

All but one of those who have a rating of 70+ on the EBU's NGS are "evolving" - ie they haven't played the 1000 boards to provide a stable rating, so I imagine your are right. I did know someone on OKbridge who had a Lehman rating of 70 & rising. I used to play with him when my rating was low, but as it improved he stopped asking me, and seemed to play less and less although he was usually online. He did however eventually achieve the maximum rating of 75. I think most people would rather play bridge though.

You better be willing to play there, because that's exactly what you'll do if partner passes (which is one of the aims of the convention).

I confess the difference escapes me.

That's a little more generous than the YC tables that are used for converting for Ladder purposes. They would give a little over 57% for +30 & a bit over 71% for +90.

We have a Cross-IMP pairs at the Young Chelsea every Friday night, and those events all have grading information alongside them. The only event that caused a problem was the Swiss Pairs with IMP scoring, which has already been noted and was apparently the only one of its kind so far submitted (though we are having another on April 1st).

I think it would be correct to say that if they aren't playing weak twos in the majors, they aren't playing Benjamin. That was the whole point of the system.

The way you describe it, it would have looked like a card being dropped to me.

I can't recall an instance when I couldn't tell the difference between a player dropping a card accidentally or playing one deliberately.

Intention does not matter in this case, and it's simply a matter of whether or not the card has been played, so L45C2 applies.

I was correct that the unusual form of scoring wasn't recognised, but they are correcting it and we can expect to see Andy in his rightful place once they have.

I think most players (especially the stronger ones) will have enough different partners that this will not be so.

It was a Swiss Pairs with IMP scoring, so I suspect that's what confused the scoring system. I did check the original XML file, and it does show your 103 VPs, so I've forwarded it to the EBU and deleted the session from the club's record. Hopefully it'll all get corrected soon. Your rating aside, I think it looks like a great system and has already had people here fighting to get control of the mouse in the bar, and calling out names of people to look up.

An interesting question is prompted by some of the replies: would you allow it if declarer's answer to dummy's first question had been the CK or the S10? Or if the answer had been the CJ?

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying to differ?

What is this idea, and how does it work?