scotty

You wouldn't be surprised to make slam on these cards - in fact you're the H10 away from it being good. I have a rule: when you play a slam in a partscore bOTH players are at fault. Both players should clearly have bid 4H

I'd like to see the entire hand

I guess I was not very clear. It was never my intention that system notes be provided AT the table as an explanation for system. That would be ridiculously impractical. I was saying that the notes should be "open" - i.e. previously accessible. The points made by Fred are cogent. And there are so many of them, that, for almost all events, I agree with him it is unfair/impractical/unenforceable to compel system note disclosure. That's as opposed to it being just unfair to keep them secret. The one American-run event where I think there should be full disclosure is the US Trials. Here, with early registration, I see no reason why system notes should not be lodged in advance in full. That way, a player who wants to study his or her opponents' methods (Meckwell springs to mind - they do always seem to qualify!) in detail has the ability to do so. Is that fair? I think so, but can see arguments both ways. I will continue to not conceal my notes. But, having read all Fred's posts, I'm beginning to feel that my position, while perhaps altruistic, is just plain wrong. Michael Rosenberg

Regarding the issue of whether system notes should be public or private: I agree with Fred that publication is not currently required and that, hitherto, this has been the practical solution. I also agree that, as far as constructive bidding after the first couple of rounds is concerned, the advance information would not particularly help, or be of interest to, one's opponents. But the following questions need to be answered: 1) What about ALL bidding agreements (some of which may be semi-obscure) in competitive auctions? Those would pretty clearly be useful to know advance. Such things as forcing pass agreements and 2-way doubles - these items do not appear on the ACBL card, yet are likely covered in system notes. 2) What about ALL carding agreements? Does it seem fair that a pair can base it's defense on things that a declarer would practically need ESP to find the right question to elicit the same information available to the defenders 3) What about all the stylistic issues (both in bidding and in cardplay), NOT IN THE NOTES, that become commonplace in a regular partnership, but cannot reasonably be divined by an opponent? Now (3) has no solution, except for how forthcoming the actual partnership is. But it is because of (3) that it seems pretty clear to me that everyone should be entitled to (1) and (2) in advance. (3) already gives the partnership an (unfair?) advantage. In case you haven't guessed yet, I am in the tiny minority (how unusual for me) who believe that all system notes should be open. In fact, I usually respond to questions about what I play by offering to email my entire set of notes (and I have different sets for different levels of strength and intensity). It just seems wrong to me that secrecy can be a part of "full disclosure". It's true there are things I have figured out that someone else may now gain a benefit from. But, for the purity of the game, I see no way round that. Another point - pairs are often asked, or are happy, to produce their system notes in Committee to prove what their agreements are. So, while there is, as far as I know, no requirement to produce them, there is also, as far as I know, no law saying "notes can be kept secret." Sorry to put you on the spot, Fred (well not THAT sorry), but I'd be interested in your answers to, and comments on, the above. Michael Rosenberg