Walddk

All your points are valid, Elianna, not least #1 which I have quoted here. Let's face it, women and men, girls and boys are not regarded as equals from a man's point of view in a mind game where nothing relates to physical endurance. It's like that in USA I understand, and it's not different in Europe I am sorry to say. I am convinced that it's even a worldwide problem. We don't have to go very far in order to see that this is a fact from a bridge politician's point of view too. Why else would there be leagues, series, sections and championships for women? Why can't they compete against everyone when bridge has nothing to do with running faster, throwing longer or lifting more weights? The answer is of course that among the vast majority of men, women are not capable of competing with men, at least not at the highest levels (world championships, Olympics and the like). To be fair, very few women are, but that is not due to the fact that they can't become as good as men, but simply a matter of our social pattern. Women are "supposed to" take care of all the time consuming issues away from the table: house, children, shopping, etc., so that leaves them less time to concentrate on bridge. In the meantime many men have all the time in the world to focus on bridge, to travel to the end of the world and compete against the very best while wives, partners and girlfriends are left behind to deal with all the practical matters concerning the family. My view is that it's bad, almost degrading, that we have separate competitions for women. Dump the leagues, series and championships for women and let them compete among the best men. Because only by doing so will the women get the chance to improve their bridge. Competing against equals and especially lesser players doesn't do you any good, but competing against better players does. This thread could easily develop into a debate about men versus women at the bridge table, but that's not bad. Because only if we talk and write about it, do we get the chance to impress the politicians and make them change "status qvo". I think that most women want that change, but I can't be certain. What is your view? Roland

If the "irregularity" did not cause any damage, then please explain to the bewildered Forum members what you meant when you (in an earlier post) wrote: "The 7D bid stunk to high heaven". Does that not imply than one of the Poles took advantage of Unauthorized Information? If so, you are indeed saying that the "irregularity" caused damaged to the Americans. Roland

I did. His Option 1 applies. There was no irregularity that warranted a call of the director. "But the bottom line is that there was no irregularity, so calling the director is (at best) waste of everyone's time", I wrote. So in the end USA1 won after extra time by taking more tricks than Poland. Many congratulations to them! Roland

All a matter of agreement again. This is not how I play a raise to 2NT after 1♣ - 1new ; 1NT For me 2NT is a natural invite. 2♣ followed by 2NT is also an invite, but with club support (honour concentration in a 3-card suit possible). Then it will be easier for opener to judge the trick potential in 3NT with something like Axxxx, KJxxx or the like. Roland

Endelig en, der vil forstå, hvad jeg siger: Hjerteligt til lykke med fødselsdagen, Helene, og gid dine sokker ikke må krympe i vask, inden du bliver rigtigt voksen om et år! :P Roland

It is not difficult at all. Firstly, there was no irregularity, and secondly, even if there had been, please note the use of the word may. If it had been compulsory the word would have been must. LAW 9 PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity 1. During the Auction Period Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. 2. During the Play Period (a) Declarer or Either Defender Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. But the bottom line is that there was no irregularity, so calling the director is (at best) waste of everyone's time. Roland

I may have to write an Act 2, but before I do, I had better address this particular issue (hat off, I am not a script writer any more): The American players judged and agreed that they had not been damaged, and therefore they didn't call the director. Afterwards, when presented with the facts, the USA1 NPC agreed with the players. End of story. No ruling, and rest assured that the director knew the whole story too. He did not address the team to tell them that they had done something wrong. Now, let's pretend that a director should have been called and Player 1 was asked that question ("Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"?). Do you really mean that his reply should have been "I don't know", when he and his partner are convinced that the answer is "No"? Why would they say something that goes against their conviction? They have used their bridge judgement to determine that there had been no infraction. Accordingly, they did not call the director. A break of tempo is not an irregularity in itself (using UI is), and the players are not obliged to call the director. They have the right to do so, yes, but it's not compulsory. The American players did not think that any of the opponents had taken advantage of possible UI. This sums it up very clearly. You may want to change Law 9(A), but that will have to happen first then. Ultimately (heaven forbids), if the director really should have been called, and that USA as a consequence of not complying with this procedure were liable to a procedural penalty (let's say 3 IMPs), do you then think that they must cancel the extra 8 boards and declare Poland World Champions by 3 IMPs? That the players must exchange their gold and silver medals across the Atlantic Ocean? It gives me goose bumps to even think about it. Let the players decide the result of the bridge match at the table when no irregularity has occurred, and let the directors knock each other over with their law books if they have nothing better to do. Roland

Depends on your agreement. If playing 2-way check back Stayman, 3♣ is to play (sign off). You can't play in 2♣. If you don't have that gadget on your cc, 3♣ is invitational I suppose, but I am not sure. I haven't played that treatment in ages. If invitational, you must pass. If forcing, you must bid 3NT. No agreement = guesswork. Roland

Sure Justin. Do you volunteer as an actor? Player 2 or 4? #4 has the easier lines as you see :P Roland

Absurd Theatre (Act 1) Player 1: "Director please". (Enter director). Director:: "Hello, how can I help"? Player 2:: "Witam dyrektorze. Co u ciebie slychac"? (for those of you who may not be fluent in Polish, this means: "Hello director. How are you today"?). Player 1: "There has been a clear break of tempo, and we all agree". Director: "Thanks for stating the facts, call me again after the hand if you think you have been damaged". Player 1: "No need to". Director: "What do you mean"? Player 1: "The hand is over. It took declarer a split second to claim his 17 top tricks in 7NT, and we accepted". Director: ???? Player 1: "Good question". Director: "Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"? Player 1: "No". Director: "So why am I here"? Player 1: "Not sure, but we are under pressure. It's the World Championship final". Director: "I think I know that. What about concentrating on playing bridge then"? Player 1: "Another good question". Director: "I started by asking how I could help". Player 1: "You can't. We just wanted you to know that our opponents hesitated". Director: ????? Player 3: "You keep asking good questions. I wish our answers were as clear as your questions. Have a nice day, director". Player 2: "Dziekuje, to jest wspanialy dzien". ("Yes, have a wonderful day"). Player 4:: zzzzzzzzz Exit director (shaking his head). .... Any resemblance to a recent event somewhere down under is of course purely coincidental, since this did not happen in real life. Thank goodness. Roland

Do you mean foresee as in predict? Spullung iz az dificolt az commas and periods. Roland

Roland, you are going to have to be quicker: you will really take 5 hours to find pass? :D ..... oh, that comma was supposed to be a period.... sorry :D Sure, I thought I had a problem, so 5 hours can't be too long, can it? In the meantime everybody would have gone home and I can get no more bottoms ;) Roland

I know it's boring, but I have no imagination: PASS It would take me about 1,8758 seconds at the table. Roland

2 questions: 1) pragmatically, how is this structure significantly different from Benjamin 2-bids (or reverse Benjy) outside of risk of wrong-siding a heart hand playing Benjy 2D? 2) what happened to opening 2M to show minimum opening hand with M+Cs? 1) You are absolutely right about the Benjamin part of Acol, although the strong 2 in spades is included in 2♦ in *my* concept. Since 2♦ is ambiguous (5-way), responder will assume the weak 2 in hearts (most common obviously). 2) I am happy to dump that part. I get 2♣ as a game force and a weak 2 in diamonds on top of it all. Roland

If that is your only concern, you can let a weak 2 in diamonds be part of your 2♣ opening (responder must bid 2♦). This is also used by many European pairs, and again perfectly legitimate, since the opponents will get another chance when opener passes 2♦. Roland

If you want to try a whole new concept of 2-openings, you may want to know about this: 2♣ = Game forcing with any suit or 25+ balanced. 2♦ = Weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 in spades, clubs or diamonds (forcing for 1 round) or 22-24 balanced. 2♥ = Strong 2 in hearts (forcing for 1 round). 2♠ = Weak 2 in spades. 2N = 20-21 balanced. Whether you are allowed to play the 2♦ opening everywhere is another matter (ACBL-land), but it's perfectly legitimate in most parts of Europe. I have tried the complete concept with my Scottish partner for 4 years, and I haven't had any significant problems. One of the advantages is of course that 2♣ is now game forcing no matter what responder has. That will solve a few problems that occur when you need a bid at the 2-level to be the strong hand (as opposed to the big club systems). Roland P.S. No, I did not invent this; someone in Britain did I believe.

Fine with me. So you are in game with 12 opposite 10 (both could be balanced) as long as you have a 5-3 fit. [hv=n=saj7h64daj754cq86&s=skq1096hq72d82ck43]133|200|[/hv] Well, if you insist on going down in 4♠ when the opponents can't make anything, I am not going to stop you. If vulnerable at MP you will probably even face the dreaded "Kiss of Death". Roland

I would like to know how 3♠ by North can be right when it's non-forcing. 2♠ didn't promise more than 10+, did it? There was an overcall, so even if you play 2/1, a 2-over-1 response is no longer game forcing Roland

West gets it all. 3♠ is forcing, just showing a 6-card suit "en route" in case partner is interested. If opener had been weak, he would have passed 3♦. Roland

I honestly can't see how this has anything to do with which system you play. Blame the disasters on 2/1? I don't buy that. In both cases the approach is a matter of agreements within the system, not the system itself. Why a new suit by responder in "case 2" is non-forcing after a weak two I don't understand. Then there is something wrong with your agreements, not the 2/1 system. Roland

1) I don't think so. Stick to your favourite system regardless of the scoring format. Be faithful to your agreements, improvise a little when necessary, but most importantly: play and defend better than your competitors! Roland

I don't ignore anything Fred is saying, because I (also) respect him as a world class bridge player. I think it's fair to say that you are a systems freak, Ben, and I have no problems with whatever gadget you prefer to play in your favourite system (with Misho if my memory serves me correctly). One thing is that you don't care about what my views are (I can live with that), but what I did hope, however, was that Fred's posts make an impression. Let me give you this quote from a post of his on May 29, 2005: I have absolutely no idea if the basic system (5-card majors, 2/1 GF, strong notrumps) is "better" or "worse" than any other basic system. Furthermore I have no idea how one would even try to go about demonstrating something like this. I choose play this system, not because I think it gives me a competitive advantage in and of itself, but because I am comfortable with it (and I believe that this is far more important than what methods we actually use). <snip> Some time during the past year I played a team of young players during the first round of a Spingold or Vanderbilt. One of the pairs on this team showed up at the table with a thick binder filled with hundreds of pages of system notes that described their highly artificial and complex system. They had plenty of "pre-alerts" and used several conventions that I had never heard of. Although I had never met these 2 before, they were obviously very bright and had put a great deal of time and effort into developing their bidding system. I played 48 of the 64 boards of this match against this pair. The approximate number of IMPs they won through "system truimphs": 0 The approximate number of boards in which they forgot their system, had misunderstandings in auctions in which their system was not in play, or learned the hard way that their were massive holes in their system: 10 The approximate number of IMPs they lost as a result: 100 The approximate number of IMPs they lost through stupid mistakes and poor judgment: 150 I have seen this sort of thing happen time and time again. Talented young players who devote their time and energy to developing systems and do not know how to win a trick lose and lose and lose. Most of these people are so emotionally attached to their systems that they never see why they are losing. They are almost always Flight-B players for life. And just to make it clear so that no misunderstanding should be possible. No offence intended! Roland

I suggest that you bid 2♦, part of 2-way Check Back Stayman and game forcing, asking for more information. Then you can get opener's exact shape and set a trump suit later. When we have the points and opps don't interfere, there is no need to guess. I don't recommend a strong jump shift, even if it is your agreement, on hands with no clear direction. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sah1095d975432ca72]133|100|Scoring: IMP E: 4S doubled. Lead: ?[/hv] Occasionally the opponents give too much info away, and the defence becomes an open book. Ross Grabel from USA took full advantage in a strong game on BBO earlier today. He was South and listened to East opening 1♠, he passed and West responded 2♦. Now 3♥ pre-emptive by Chris Larsen in the North seat. East supported to 4♦, and Ross Grabel bid 4♥. West bid 4♠, and when this came back to Grabel, he had a clear double. Do you see why? Right, as long as Chris Larsen had just two spades, the contract would go down, because the auction had revealed that Larsen must be void in diamonds! So Grabel duly led ♦2 (suit preference for clubs). Here is the full deal: [hv=d=e&v=b&n=s84hqj87642dck963&w=s109753hakdkj10cqj10&e=skqj62h3daq86c854&s=sah1095d975432ca72]399|300|Scoring: IMP East: 4S doubled Lead: D2![/hv] The contract went 2 down for 500 and a good score (around 6 IMPs). Very neat I think. You may blame West for introducing his diamonds at all, but that doesn't make the defence any less spectacular. (Deal rotated). Roland

They are your words, not mine. I actually find the discussion natural vs. artificial systems very interesting, otherwise I wouldn't have responded in the first place. Never did I say that this question should never have been asked. "There is no right and there is no wrong in my opinion. The simplest of system may be superior to some, because the risk of a major disaster is bigger the more complicated your system is. You can bid to the right contract by using simplified methods too". This is how I started even before your first post appeared, and I haven't changed my mind since. I prefer natural methods to artificial systems, but I am not saying that any system is unplayable or almost unplayable. That is your conclusion regarding sayc and 2/1. Perhaps not the best approach before you sit down to play one of those systems (which you play quite frequently online according to yourself). Feel free to disagree with me. That is why we are having this debate. If we all agreed, there would be no need for this Forum. Roland