SteelWheel

I know I'm a lonely voice in the wilderness here, but of all the "modern style" default agreements that are out there, I think that weak jump shifts are among the worst. Nobody is ever going to convince me otherwise. So the "limited by failure to WJS at first round" argument is not going to carry much weight with me. In theory, you have enough for game here, so it *should* be forcing. OTOH, just in case opener has 18 and responder has some poorish 6 (or some 5 count that he couldn't stand to pass), it's just barely possible that this is a signoff bid.....just barely. In practice, at the table, if playing with a new/unknown/pickup pard, I'd size him up: Is he on the youngish side, and does his preferred CC include lots of the Bergen-esque gadgets? If so, I'd assume that he thinks this is forcing. If he seems to be an older/more conservative type, I'd assume he thinks this is non-forcing. All in all, a good argument here to agree to play something intelligent like Wolff signoffs, or Transfers after 2NT rebids, or even just some kind of NMF. One of these gadgets will see you through situations like this one, without having to wonder if 3y is forcing.

I've played this (Dwayne's and Larry's) defense in midchart events myself for a number of years, the simple answer is there is no way to show balanced 12-15 hands. The theory is that just showing some random hand with opening bid values is not a big winner here--the opponents have come to do what they do best, which is find a major suit fit at as annoying a level as is possible, as quickly as is possible. Just wandering into the middle of this with an announcement that you hold some random balanced collection of high cards, is not going to help matters. It actually might be a negative, as now the opponents don't have to worry about some of the more obscene suit break possibilities. A fuller explanation of double (assuming that Dwayne and I are cribbing from the same source) is that double shows an overcall in an unspecified major, OR some really powerful hand that can handle the auction when partner starts making assumptions about what the doubler might hold. A direct 2NT is 15-18, balanced, hopefully with something good in the majors. A direct 3NT is "to play" but is more likely to be based on "tricks" and stoppers, than on high card values.

I was just thinking the same thing as I read through this topic... I just know that Al Roth would have passed this hand without a moment's hesitation; he always cautioned against opening when minimumish in high cards and lacking spade length. As another sort of sub-topic here: What about those who play weak NTs? It appears they are pretty much forced to open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ with this hand type.... Long ago and far away, in an old Bridge World issue somewhere, there is a brief write-up of a gadget called the "Noisicerp 2♦ opening" (You go figure out the derivation of the name on your own for extra credit). This toy was aimed at weak notrumpers; the idea was that this opening showed 4441 hands with HCP strength equal to that of the notrump opening range--but ♦ was guaranteed to be one of the long suits. Gets the hand off your chest in one bid, and partner is well placed to do the right thing. Additionally, it has the advantage of being a fairly frequently passable bid, so it may have some tactical advantage when the situation arises. In the case of this hand as presented: I suppose I'm a 2♣er with many reservations. I also used to be a 1NTer with this hand type. But Berkowitz and Cohen constantly make reference to this topic whenever it pops up in Master Solvers Club, and they insist that systemically rebidding 1NT when partner hits your singleton is "nuts". And that's one of the nicer things they had to say about it....

Pass. What huddle? :lol:

Why? Given the current status of ACBL-sanctioned online bridge, BAM would be easier to implement than, say, a Swiss team type game. People are willing to play an online ACBL game since if they do well, they get a section award that is as much as 1.xx masterpoints (I don't remember the exact cutoff number). There's no equivalent type of "section" award that you could give in a Swiss team game online. I would imagine that only match awards could be given, and those would be pretty puny. OTOH, BAM runs just like a regular matchpoint event. The real difficulty is only in the typical problems of online bridge--people who have to (or choose to) leave, people whose 'net connection craps out on them, etc. Otherwise, I see no reason why a BAM ACBL online event is not (at least theoretically) feasible.

QUOTE (awm @ Jan 16 2007, 05:41 PM) This whole sub-topic is of great interest to me, as someone who has played a lot of strong club systems in my day. Here in the US, the ACBL GCC specifically forbids a conventional understanding that a 1♥ bid may occasionally be made here on a 3-card holding. Yet what other call am I, as a thinking bridge player, supposed to make in this situation? I independently "re-invented the wheel" and improvised a 1♥ call the first time I was confronted with this type of auction (actually, the second time--we won't talk about the disaster that occurred the first time..but the disaster was what made me realize there had to be a better way to handle this hand type). After awhile, my pards and I realized that we had an implicit partnership agreement. Being ethical, we started to alert it. And then one day, somebody called the TD on us. We were advised that it was ILLEGAL to have such an agreement. Following this, I showed a hand very similar to Adam's example hand above to several of the best TDs the ACBL has. I told them that they were playing Precision, and partner had opened 1♦ (potentially as short as a two-card holding), RHO had passed, and asked them what they would do. In each case, the answer was the same: They would all bid 1♥. Now that I had sprung the trap, I then referred each TD to the ACBL regs on what constitutes a "suit" as the ACBL defines it, and all the other relevant regs. I left one top TD in particular, scrambling for an acceptable way to explain such an improvised call, a way that would not be deemed to have been drawn from the "dark side". He couldn't come up with one. So what's the final outcome? Nobody is going to take away my license to play bridge. People can talk to me all day long about the Work/Goren point count system and how this many high card points is necessary for game, and this many for slam, and eight ever and nine never, all day long; for me bridge is not a game of following rules, it's a game where you are rewarded for thinking, not for following rules. If I think it's right to fudge on my heart length because I believe it will be the best way to handle the auction, I'm going to do so. The only problem is that now, I'm forced to NOT DISCLOSE this agreement, because the ACBL doesn't care to allow me to play bridge; instead, I'm expected to play some other game that looks sorta like bridge, but actually comes closer to Euchre (at least when it comes to matters like these). Make no mistake, I'm exceedingly unhappy about this situation, but that's the state of play in ACBL-land. And PS: In Al Roth's book, "Picture Bidding", (not one to embrace new and different ideas just for the sake of novelty), he devotes an entire chapter to the topic of responding in three-card majors to partner's 1-minor opener. I would have just loved to have seen someone call the bridge police on him. I'm willing to bet that the TD would have just laughed it off and moved on. As for the rest of us, we're just boxed in, and forced to play in a manner that leaves me extraordinarily uncomfortable, from an ethics point of view, but with no hope for a resolution in sight. Oh, and Frances: Even though you won by 90 imps or so--You wuz robbed. I would complain to the sponsoring organization. You have an obligation to protect the integrity of the event. Not all of the other teams will be as easily able to refrain from getting their brains twisted by this team's lack of FD. You should want this match to determine the best team in the event on the merits, and not based on which team can most readily baffle the field with its BS. Claus: Bwah Hah. Nothing else need be said.

One point that I find to be interesting in this discussion, is that some hold this hand to be too strong for an opening preempt (either on the 2- or 3-level), yet too weak to be opened on the one-level. I find this rather hard to swallow. Maybe there are some good partnerships out there who can sort this kind of thing out, and figure out which hands are "pass"-ers and have them fit in between, in a spectrum which runs from preempts through "pass", and then onto values good enough for an opening one-bid. For myself, I could never see playing this way. Depending upon one's opening bid style, this has to be either a one-bid or a preempt of some kind. In my youth, I probably would have opened this hand 1♦. Nowadays, when I play seriously, my tendencies are probably somewhat close to what I believe are referred to as "Trent Two-bids". So this would be a clear 2♦ bid, playing that approach. Opening with a three-bid just seems a little too far out there, especially since I have no particular reason to think that my opponents have a good fit in the majors. If you gave me a stiff or a void in one of the majors, I might have more sympathy for that call.

I'm kind of with Rebound here. I turned to the Goren-Wei Precision book very early on in my bridge career, because it imposed a bit more structure onto somebody who was trying to learn "Standard" (as Standard was defined or practiced in the early '80s). It certainly made more effective bidders out of my early partners and me. I would recommend going the same route to almost any new player who finds himself struggling a bit in trying to learn Standard or 2/1 today. Very simple system, easier to learn than standard. I don't think it's complicated at all. You could teach somebody Goren/Wei Precision in the 10 minutes it takes to drive to a bridge club (back when people still went to bridge clubs...sigh...), and have a ball. Now, so many years later, I still play Precision with a couple of my old partners. Playing with someone new though, I'm not nearly as interested in playing Precision. My ability to evaluate hands is improved enough that I no longer need fall back on the "he didn't open 1♣, therefore his hand is limited"--type of thinking, which was so helpful to me when I was starting out. These days, my interests run a little more towards K/S approaches. Additionally, I think that Polish, Unassuming Club, and Millennium Club all have a lot of theoretical merit, and would love to develop a partnership based around one of those approaches. And of course, Fantunes seems like a wild drug. :huh:

Once, quite awhile ago, I suggested a feature, and I don't believe my suggestion was followed up upon, so I'll toss it out there again. I play a lot of the ACBL tournaments, and inevitably I end up classifying a healthy amount of people as "enemies" for a variety of reasons--either because their abilities are so far beneath my estimation of my own, that I would not enjoy another session with them, because they are too critical of me, because they just leave right in the middle of the event because they're too annoyed at a perceived error of mine (or because they've made a rather silly error themselves, and would rather just leave, than take their lumps), etc. I end up classifying these people as enemies, so that I'll have a quick way to avoid playing with such people a second time. As I look through the Partnership Desk, or as I receive cold invites, it becomes easy for me to accept or reject certain invites, based on my having designated someone as an "enemy". The problem comes up when one of these "enemies" becomes my opponent in these tournaments--I've branded them "enemy", therefore anything they might say at the table, or in extended disclosure of systemic agreements (if the field available in the "alert" bubble is of insufficient size), is something that I cannot see--unless I re-define the player as neutral for the duration of the round; then I have to remember to "re-re-classify" the person as an "enemy" again. Isn't there an easy way to temporarily suppress the "no chat visible from enemies" feature for times when one of your enemies happens to be your current opponent?

I'm fairly certain I know the reason. Meckwell makes far more money from having an exclusive franchise on their system, than they could ever hope to gain from publishing and disseminating it to the masses. I'm sure that their services as bridge pros at the major NABCs and international competition compensate them very well. If we assume that their excellent results over several decades are at least partially attributable to their highly-refined bidding system, why give up some of their edge to their potential competitors? (I use the term "competitor" here in two senses, both the obvious sense, and in the sense that some of these competitors are themselves bridge professionals looking to sell their services to the highest bidder) An analogous situation exists in the gambling world. When people with skill as "card-counters" in blackjack first started coming onto the scene, they were in no hurry to write books about their skills--they could (and did) make a far greater amount of money applying those skills against the casinos. Most of the early classic books about blackjack were not written until those players had been barred from most casinos; at that point, with no other revenue stream available to them via playing the game itself, they turned to writing their books--partially to make money, in some cases also as a bit of a vengeful "parting shot" against the management and ownership of the casinos. If Meckwell ever retire from active play, I'm sure that they will be all-too-willing to publish their system. Yes, such a book will sell less well at this hypothetical point in the future, than a similar book might sell today (by that time, popular interest among bidding systems may have moved on to Fantunes, say, or something else we haven't even yet seen). But their primary concern is in "making hay while the sun shines", and at present that means tremendous reluctance to publish their system in its entirety.

(ok, I know I'm going to regret this, but I can't help myself....) As far as the original incident that triggered my post: The matter has been handled in a manner which I believe to be appropriate, and I'm pleased that this incident will be used as a teaching aide to help BBO ACBL TDs make better rulings in the future. However, take a look at these two hands from earlier this evening where the opponents' blooming idiocy and tendency to make up a gadget on the fly had the all-too-frequent outcome of somehow managing to end up in the right spot (again, playing in an ACBL BBO event): 2♠--2NT--P--3NT P--4♦--P--4NT P--5♣--all pass My 2♠ open was alerted and explained in a timely fashion as an undisciplined weak two bid (we were playing EHAA). The 2NT call was alerted and explained as "unusual". Now of course, nobody actually plays this agreement. My LHO simply looked at his/her hand, saw lots of minor suit cards, and decided to roll out a 2NT bid. The next time somebody puts a weak two bid to this person, he/she will have a 15-18 balanced hand with a stopper and bid (what else?) 2NT! How do they know the difference? I don't know, but somehow they always land in a good spot. For the record, the 2NT bidder's hand was: ♠ -- ♥ K2 ♦ K98432 ♣ KQJ85 The 3NT bidder's hand was: ♠ QJ652 ♥ AQ ♦ 7 ♣ A9762 Now try this one: Playing against opponents who actually have a CC filled out (which is certainly nice to see, although it appears to be the exception, rather than the rule), the opponents' card is marked 2/1. Then this auction occurs: 1♥--P--1NT--P P(!)--P 1NT was not alerted. Opener passed a theoretically forcing call. I passed in 4th seat (next to speak after the 1NT bidder). I might not have done so, if I had known that 1NT might be passed. Asking my RHO what 1NT was intended as would have accomplished nothing, as he apparently did intend it as forcing (although he did not alert). Opener's hand: ♠ AJ5 ♥ AT962 ♦ 86 ♣ Q32 Opener was queried about his actions by the TD. He apparently made some noises about how he had "opened light", and he just decided to pass, and after all, what was he supposed to do with his trashy 11 count? (Personally, I would suggest re-reading some reference work on 2/1, such as Lawrence or Hardy, but I don't give lessons to my opponents) Responder's hand: ♠ KQ9 ♥ 8 ♦ 97532 ♣ JT84 Notice how they skillfully manage to avoid landing in their best fitting suit (such as it is)? Naturally, my hand was: ♠ 7632 ♥ Q5 ♦ KQ ♣ AK765 The opponents made their contract. A quick look at the hand seems to indicate that best defense will beat this contract. I tend to think my partner was sufficiently "out of his normal rhythym" as a result of what had been going on, that he may have slipped a trick (or maybe I did, I'm not infallible by any means). And Yes, I know some of you think I should have ventured a 2♣ call immediately over the 1NT bid, regardless of whether or not it was forcing. Maybe so. Maybe I was trying to take advantage of the "lame ducks", as somebody here once called them. But we all know that next time, when it's "right" to follow one's partnership agreement and respond to partner's forcing call, they'll do so without a moment's hesitation. Why ever consider passing? Isn't 1NT forcing? Yeesh. Perhaps I'm just venting at this point. If so, somebody stop me. I'm not bitter, and my life is in no way affected one way or another by how I do in an online bridge event. But (as I said before) one of my pet peeves has always been that less experienced players have a never-ending ability to invent new applications of their agreements (or lack of understanding of them). When such events occur, it becomes very difficult to achieve redress, because the less-experienced player is shielded by the "I'm a less-experienced player, why would you expect me to understand my agreements?" defense. These two hands, and the one in my original post are all examples of this. It annoys me. I know it won't stop. Just don't tell me that the opponents are somehow "allowed" to invent conventions on the fly, then have partner field them. One way or another, wittingly or unwittingly, they are managing to "game" the system when this sort of thing happens.

This really is beating a dead horse, as the actual situation has been handled, and will be used to inform the BBO ACBL TDs to better handle similar situations going forward. Against my better judgment, though.... :) As for what I think the players' actual agreement was about this auction? I'll have to get back to you on that, my crystal ball is still in the repair shop. If they have no agreement, why is it I who must pull teeth to get the information I need? Why can't I simply assume that 2♦ means ♦ and act accordingly? I strongly suspect that if my RHO had had some diamond values, he would have doubled. I also think that if he had held a long string of diamonds (say, a 6+ card suit) he would have bid 2♦ without a moment's hesitation, just as surely as he did in the case at hand where he made the same call to indicate "majors". The agreement that they play "Michaels", would never have occurred to him, as he would just be thinking about/looking at the 13 cards in front of him, rather than focusing on a general principle or approach to bidding in such auctions. This is yet another symptom of my pet peeve about players who get loaded up with too many rules, and never learn the underlying principles of the game. They've been told that cue-bidding RHO's suit is a takeout for other suits (rule), but never seem to learn the underlying principle (this applies only to immediate overcall of opener's suit, and has nothing whatever to do with an auction in which both opponents have bid suits artificially to indicate the general strengths of their respective hands).

This is not merely an incorrect analogy, but also an incorrect anology to an entirely different auction. A Michaels cue-bid is an immediate bid by a player of his RHO's opening bid, at his first turn to act, showing two other suits (sometimes both known, sometimes only one known suit). It is NOT a bid by advancer/4th hand of his RHO's last bid suit, intended to show the other two suits. Actually, in most of my regular partnerships, we have no problem when the auction goes (1X)--P--(1Y)--? The common understanding is that a bid of 2X or 2Y is an offer to play in that suit; this is in fact the generally accepted treatment in (real) "expert" bridge circles. Or, to put it another way, if the opponents show one suit, we show two suits--if they show two suits, we show one suit (sounds like a Dr. Seuss rhyme, doesn't it? :huh: ). Apparently, some on here feel it is my responsibility to immediately interrogate my RHO about his methods, as a means of "giving lessons", or to attempt to determine whether or not I am dealing with a "solid opponent". I'm a simple soul; I assumed that the 2♦ call was "bridge", indicating a desire to play a contract in ♦. Using the intervention as a means of teaching my opponents the flaws in their methods, or the potentiality of transmitting UI to my partner, never occurred to me as being the right course of action.

What actually happened (not on the hand, but with respect to my following up on this both through the forums, and an email to the appropriate parties): I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available. Furthermore, the issues raised by my inquiry have been deemed to be of such great interest that Gweny has been advised, and this entire matter is being brought to the attention of all BBO ACBL TDs, for future reference in similar situations. All in all, not a bad outcome for a player who is "not solid", who has "wasted his strongest weapon", a "lame duck", who is "risk free to interfere against", is "unfamiliar with Wilkosz" (a very important thing to be aware of in an ACBL GCC event, to be sure), "has much homework to do", "not a good strong club player", "not ready to accept responsibility", and who "wastes his bids for nothing".....wouldn't you say? :huh:

ok, I can't take this anymore. Claus, please do us all a favor and learn how to read, before offering more of your ridiculous opinions: If you had bothered to READ the original post, you would have seen that this was not asking for "lessons" about whom to "blame" as I consider myself quite capable of handling myself as a bridge player, thank you. I was merely trying to determine where the TD might have gone wrong in adjudication. It would seem that the general sense of the posters here is in agreement with my position.

Thank you again for the lecture. I reiterate: My best weapon against a NATURAL 2♦ overcall is to make a TAKEOUT double. If I am made aware of the CONVENTIONAL meaning of my opponent's call, I could take several other courses of actions, IF I AM SUPPLIED WITH THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION, not in a situation where I have to figure out what silly mistake my opponents may have made. And BTW: This is four posts in, and we're already totally off-topic. The purpose of my original post was to ask for someone, (preferably an experienced live ACBL player, or better still, "live" TD) to point us in the right direction as to how an issue such as this one is handled under the current regs. I don't need to hear unhelpful criticisms regarding actions I might have taken in the auction if I had been informed correctly, especially from someone who appears to hold the ACBL (and its TDs) in such low regard. This is not the point of my original post. I'd appreciate it if we can get back on track with the original proposed discussion.

Thanks for the lecture. I've seen a million different types of defenses against strong club auctions. As for what 2♦ might mean here, just off the top of my head, I've seen the following: ♥ OR ♠/♣. ♥ OR ♣. ♦ OR ♠. Short in ♦ and therefore takeout for the other three suits. I've even seen a situation where it would mean ♦! Who would have thought it possible? In fact, with the actual hand I held, "natural" was seemingly consistent: ♠A65 ♥AK52 ♦T4 ♣AK52. Again, I don't believe it is my responsibility to help the opponents sort out their agreements. I operate under what I assume are the rules of the game. I suppose I lose points in the "solid" department for not asking about the meaning of an apparently natural call at my turn to act. TD involvement was not "asking for problems"--it was asking TD to try turn something gone wrong back into a bridge hand, which is what TDs are supposed to do. TDs are assumed to be familar with systems like K/S, Precision, 2/1, SAYC in America (at the very least). This was hardly out of the ordinary as these things go. And I think it's insulting to those who direct on BBO to assert that I "cannot expect those TD to have a good knowledge of your kind of methods." As I indicated, the TD understood the issues, just could not find the Laws or ACBL regs to support it.

"Self-alerting" means that as a general rule, a cuebid of an opponent's suit is deemed to automatically carry the message, that "this call is not an offer to play in your bid suit". For example, a Michaels cue-bid is deemed to be self-alerting in ACBL-land. I'm old enough to remember when such calls were alertable. Eventually, the realization came that if the opponents had just opened 1♠, there was little likelihood of next hand wanting to bid 2♠ and have it actually be intended as a serious offer to play a contract in ♠s. Hence, the current procedure where such cuebids are not alertable (in fact, now it's the other way 'round--if you bid RHO's suit and it IS an offer to play a contract in that strain, that now REQUIRES an alert. But I digress....). Again, the bone I'm picking here is: The calls my pard and I had taken were not natural, hence the opponents' 2♦ call requires an alert if it is not an offer to play a contract in ♦s. (We won't even begin to speculate on why their agreement would be that 2♦ shows majors here. What would a bid of 2♣ here have shown? Minors? Another digression....)

I had this one pop up earlier this evening playing in one of the ACBL BBO thingies: 1♣--P--1♦--2♦ X--P--P--2♥ 1♣ was alerted and explained as strong forcing and artificial 1♦ was alerted and explained as 0-7 2♦ was not alerted X was alerted and explained as takeout I was the strong clubber. When RHO bid 2♥, I asked what 2♦ meant, and was told "majors". I called the TD, and explained what had been going on thus far. I indicated that I thought the 2♦ call should have been alerted--the meaning of this call is not natural, by any means, and I don't believe I should have to guess, or try to "wake up" my opponents (less of an issue online with self-alerting and self-explaining, of course, but still following my general approach to these sorts of things). The TD was sympathetic to my argument, but nevertheless could seem to find no rationale in the ACBL regs to support it. All she could find was the general principle that "cuebids are self-alerting", and hence we were not entitled to an alert/explanation unless we asked for one. My contention was that a call in either minor here is not a cuebid, as we have not bid any natural suits. A simpler version of this would be if I opened a strong club, and LHO bids 2♣: If they're playing, e.g., Truscott or Suction, then I'm entitled to an alert. If they're playing "natural" (a perfectly reasonable treatment), then there should be no alert. Can someone here figure out where in the Laws or ACBL regs one should look for clarification on this? Or am I actually wrong here? (Wouldn't be the first time, and in ACBL-land anything is possible of course....) Not bothering to post rest of auction, or final result, since it's not relevant (we did get a decent score, fwiw). If there's a more appropriate BBO forum in which to post this, please feel free to move this post--just didn't know where it should go, so I chose this one. Thanks all.

..and is somewhat geographically desirable. (I'm in the NYC area) 1500 ACBL attendance points. Good defender. OK declarer. Play a lot better when system has been discussed and has some kind of system notes behind it, rather than just winging it and hoping to survive. Enjoys a little bit of a walk on the wild side. Could be something as simple as weak NT/ KS. Could be Precision-ish. Could be Polish Club or Don Varvel's An Unasssuming Club. Could be Fantunes. Could be EHAA. Could also include Overcall Structure. Anything to get away from the 2/1 disease that affects so many players. If this might be you, send a PM to me through BBO, and we'll see where our philosophies might mesh

I have been intrigued with Unassuming Club for quite some time now. If anyone wants to give it a spin on BBO sometime, PM me. Thanks.

Part of my problem in answering is I'm not sure how responder's sequence (puppet and then 2♥), differs from an immediate 2♥ call over the 1NT rebid--which is the "light invite" type hand, and which shows the signoff type? Assuming the puppet was an attempt to signoff: Then I think opener's 2♠ call must mean, "Sorry, pard, but I rebid 1NT on a hand which is actually 4=1=4=4, and now I strongly suggest you pick another suit to play in". If the puppet was an attempt to show the light invite type hand: I think that here, the 2♠ call must be a natural-ish move, to see if we can manage to bid a game in ♥s, maybe NTs in some rare cases, but in any case willing to risk playing 3♥, if no other meaningful information can be be brought forth from responder's and opener's next calls.

The heyday of the Bergen/Cohen partnership seems to me to be the genesis of the "modern" school in opening bids generally (at least in the US). At the time, people had already started shading their 1NT opening to 15-17 rather than 16-18, because they were opening most 12 counts, and did not want to have too wide-ranging of a 1NT rebid. Bergen/Cohen pushed the envelope still further, opening most 11 counts, and even many of their 10 HCP hands. As a result, their 1NT opening was shaded still further, to the 14-16 range. I recall playing against them a few times back then. Their 1NT open was 14-16 1st/2nd, and 15-17 in 3rd & 4th. Presumably, with their light opening strategy, they felt they had little to protect against, and therefore played relatively sound openings in those seats, hence the stronger NT open.

FWIW: Obviously, there's not a country associated with Esperanto, but the language itself does have a semi-official status within the UN. Nevertheless, I can understand your policies, and you're the boss after all, Fred. Just thought it would be fun, and might assist in finding people who share my interest in bridge as well as Esperanto; the vocabulary for the basics of card games does exist within the language, but more advanced terms ("finesse", "ruff-and-slough", etc) have not been developed. No big deal, thanks.

A bit of a whimsical request on my part.... Could the Esperanto flag be added? Esperanto is an "artificial language" invented over 100 years ago. It is the most widely used of such languages by far, has produced a large body of literature, and is spoken today by over two million people world-wide. Esperantists have devised a "national flag" to identify themselves, and (again, whimsically) refer to their nation as "Esperantujo"--literally translated, this means "a container of Esperanto-speakers", hence the name. Picture of flag available here: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/qy-eo.html Thanks.