WellSpyder

... and 3NT

I don't know who told you this, but I think they have it the wrong way round. You have to be a member to play in a congress (or a member of an overseas NBO), but entering a congress does not make you a member of the EBU. Being a member of an affiliated club makes you a member of the EBU, but if you want to play in congresses without being a member of an affiliated club then you need to join the EBU directly. (I have had to do this since the EBU has not allowed my club to affiliate.) I wonder whether your informant was confusing the position with how you qualify to receive membership benefits such as the magazine, etc? To do this you have to play at least twelve times a year (unless you pay the direct memership fee), and for these purposes playing at either an affiliated club or a congress counts.

I think this is a serious issue. I voted in the other thread to pass. I have a partner with whom this 1N is very clearly documented as 16-18, but it hasn't come up for a while and I would still pass. But if every time 4♠ makes the score is going to be adjusted to 4♠x making on the grounds that I have fielded a misbid, then maybe I should double anyway so at least I can gain when 4♠ goes off.

I seem to recall a thread discussing a hand from the Vanderbilt in which declarer, faced with a guess between finessing and playing for the drop, apparently shuffled his cards face down before picking one - is that also an "aid to technique"?? (Probably not a very effective aid to randomising the choice between QJ in the current example, though! I don't suppose many declarer's will follow the Principle of Restricted Choice after seeing a defender randomise his carding in this way :lol: )

I wonder whether at the end of the day this is a question about whether the end justifies the means. The ultimate objective of the EBU is, I believe, to encourage the development of duplicate bridge in England. Unfortunately, it found itself in a position which did not appear to be viable in the long run and therefore devised an alternative model to try to ensure the future of the organisation. To try to safeguard this new model, though, the EBU appears to be finding itself doing a number of things that are actually a positive obstacle to the development of duplicate bridge in England. Not surprisingly, many of those involved in duplicate bridge in England regret these obstacles and argue that the EBU should be more mindful of its fundamental purpose. Others, perhaps more directly involved in trying to ensure the future of the EBU, put more emphasis on safeguarding that future before worrying about whether it is moving in the right direction regarding its original purpose. I think both points of view are understandable, but my personal view is that some of the unfortunate things being done with a view to safeguarding the new model for the EBU aren't actually necessary from that perspective and therefore in these cases it would be better to remember what the organisation's underlying purpose is - and making the Orange and White Books generally available may well fall into this category. As perhaps a bit of an aside, there is also work underway to secure charitable status for the EBU. Although I am not an expert in this field, I would have thought this would at the least require the EBU to have wider interests at heart than simply those of its members.

Good point. I propose we immediately double the financial compensation paid to all those involved in producing these. Fortunately, this shouldn't cost a penny, though... :lol:

Actually, Helene, I don't think this is a change in policy at all. I believe EBU congresses have always only been open to EBU members, and your Dutch partner can participate by paying an EBU membership fee alongside the congress entry fee.

Same here. Actually I think my biggest problem is with hands where I want to know whether partner wants to co-operate with a slam try or not. I'd often rather know whether he thinks he has a good hand for his bidding so far rather than how many keycards or even where his controls are.

Were you brought up on Minibridge, Ken? Sounds like by the time you have had a full round of bidding you ought to be able to work out if someone has miscounted their points....

I can't believe it - is this a claim ruling that we all actually agree on?

I saw a short story on this in my paper this morning and my first comment to the person I was with is that this has to be an April Fool that accidently got carried over when they ran out of space. Fortunately I'm only a once-a-year social player not a tournament player, so it doesn't really matter to me.

I believe they do, and have always alerted something similar when I have played it (based on separating 2N bids with and without 5M rather than 5 of any suit). But it is clear that the belief one way or another of an individual player will not determine the issue one way or the other - and neither would a majority vote in a poll.

Double and lead ♦A seems entirely normal.

4♠, would you believe? The hand is not exactly improved by ♥ shortage opposite, and neither is it that much stronger than a minimum to suggest a serious risk of missing something opposite a hand on which partner cannot find another bid. Neither opponent has managed to double to show ♥s yet, so I don't think I should worry about that now. Or am I suppose to assume that partner must really have hearts after all, and field his misbid by passing?

That's a blow! I prefer pass to show an unspecified suit of 4 or more cards. :rolleyes:

Many thanks, Frances. I shall follow this procedure and hope TDs see it the same way if it ever becomes an issue (which seems extremely unlikely). Your recommendations also fit my own instincts of what could genuinely help the oppo as opposed to mere legal pedantry.

For those who pass, how important is it that this is an SAYC or 2/1 question? If opponents were playing Acol with 4-card majors and a weak NT, in which 1♦ always shows at least 4 and quite often 5 if hands with 4M + 4♦ are opened 1M or 1N, would this make any difference to your vote?

Well IMO, 3♣=10, 1N=9, Pass=6, 2♣=3. Others clearly disagree strongly, though.

Thanks, everyone. a.) is what we did, but then I found myself wondering whether I had seen something implying that b.) was correct.

The most important response is not to pass! :P Teammates did this yesterday, and since responder only had a singleton, the resulting 1-0 trump fit did not play too well. I think Burn's law of total trumps* is a useful guide in these situations.... * In its simplest version as far as I can recall this states that the total number of trumps held by the declaring side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by the defending side.

Thanks, Agua. I think they know this really, they just haven't yet been convinced that there is a better alternative. People have also argued that strong-clubbers should be grateful for the rule of 25 since before it was introduced there were no exceptions to a minimum of 16 points at all! "Yes, we know it is awful but it used to be even worse" doesn't seem to me a particularly good reason for keeping the status quo. I will hope for the best - at least there seems to be more willingness to consider changes in England than there is in the US, from what I can gather from these forums.....

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Any 16+ is OK for a strong 1♣. But with less than 16 it must satisfy the rule of 25 (or have 8 clear-cut tricks). I happen to agree with you that this stinks, and I have fulminated against it in other threads, since I believe it is fundamental to the game that players should be allowed to use judgment, and some 15 or even 14 counts are clearly stronger hands than some 16 counts. More practically, I have applied to the Laws and Ethics committee for approval of a method allowing 1♣ on a 15-count or alternatively an agreement allowing more judgment for intermediates and/or shape beyond the length of the two longest suits. This should be considered by the committee at their next meeting....

Not allowed in England, though - with only 14 points you need 11 cards in your two longest suits to satisfy the rule of 25, which is required for a strong 1♣

Apologies for raising a question that I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find clear guidance in the White Book. A ruling in a recent teams match resulted in an assigned score of 50% of +680 and 50% of +1430. I am clear that you cannot simply average these scores before imping. But the final result of the match is expressed in Victory Points. So should you: a.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the imp score for +1430, then average these and see what VP score is implied; or b.) calculate the imp score for +680 and the implied VP score, calculate the imp score for +1430 and the implied VP score, and then average the VP scores?

A remarkably similar thing happened at our county match yesterday: West North East South ............................. 1♦ Pass Pass 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass 1NT was by agreement 11-15 or something similar. 2N was alerted as a transfer to a minor (presumably clubs in this case). East chose to bid 3NT rather than 3♣ since he actually had an 18 count. As far as I know, East had no UI affecting his choice. But it turned out that West had actually forgotten the system and intended 2NT as invitational. Does this mean the 3NT bid has "fielded" the misbid, or does the fact that he has more points than advertised absolve him from making the normal response to 2N?