ACBL TD ruling

[david_c]

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.

Despite what you say, many people do play that Michaels applies by 4th hand. (Amongst the non-expert players where I come from, I would say close to 100% of them would interpret (1♣) : p : (1♦) : 2♦ that way, if 1♦ is natural.)

 

But this doesn't really matter, since the question I am asking is, do you think these particular players had an agreement about what a 2♦ overcall meant after the Precision auction 1♣:1♦? If, as seems likely, they had no agreement, do you still feel that you were misinformed?

[Al_U_Card]

Last nite our auction started p-p-1D-2C-dbl-2D-2H-p-2S all pass

 

Expert opps, no alert on the 2D reponse by the passed hand opp.....and it was....diamonds! 6 to the AJT. Boy, pard didnt dbl and I thot it was for C support as I had 2D and 4C.

 

I never even thot to ask......

[jillybean]

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.

Which law permits this?

[Finch]

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.

Which law permits this?

I would rephrase this as saying:

 

Had we been damaged, redress would have been available. As we already had a good score (i assume: >= the best score at all likely without the MI) there was no need to adjust the result.

[SteelWheel]

But this doesn't really matter, since the question I am asking is, do you think these particular players had an agreement about what a 2♦ overcall meant after the Precision auction 1♣:1♦? If, as seems likely, they had no agreement, do you still feel that you were misinformed?

 

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).

[Codo]

But this doesn't really matter, since the question I am asking is, do you think these particular players had an agreement about what a 2♦ overcall meant after the Precision auction 1♣:1♦? If, as seems likely, they had no agreement, do you still feel that you were misinformed?

 

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).

You err in this.

Your opponents must give you any information about any agreement they have. If your rho thought, that Michaels would be a good idea in this situation and invents this bid in that moment, he needed not to tell you. There is a grey area in this case, but if he truly belives, that his partner will have the same problems as his opps to understand the call, he needs not to give the opponents more informations.

 

We had the discussion, whether it is good sportmanship to tell you the intentions, while playing online for fun, but the rules are quite clear: You have to inform your opponents just about your agreements, not about your intentions and inventions.

 

Besides: I strongly disagree with your statement that it is common expert treatment that after (1X) pass (1y) 2 x shows length in the X suit. I saw a lot who use it to show a different hand type compared to X, 1 NT or 2 NT.

[SteelWheel]

(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.

[the hog]

"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? )."

 

Hmm Matey, you might be surprised. I know many experts who treat the cue bid of either of the opps suits here as showing the other 2 suits with different lengths in the other 2 suits. Whether you want to be pedantic and call it Michaels or not is another question.

 

Further, there are many who play 2/1 with a so called semi forcing NT. I assume you are familiar with that convention? In that case here the opener's pass was obvious.

 

All I am saying is don't make assumptions that your treatments are necessarily so called standard agreements.

[glen]

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.

Currently the "convention" I find the most interesting is the all-purpose double. Here's an example:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&w=sk987hk982dkj9caj&e=s6ha4da7543cqt953]266|100|[/hv]The bidding goes 3♠ by South, Double by West, and East (player with singleton ♠) passes. (please note that this hand did not involve me or anybody I know - to find an example I just quickly looked at old tourneys - also note the hand records do not show EW in sync with each other on other boards).

 

Does it help if either East or West alerts here? - the hand records show no alert here though there could have been private messages to inform NS of any agreements, if they had them.

[pbleighton]

"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."

 

You are right, this IS annoying.

 

It is also just bridge, and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it, except to play in strong fields where this sort of thing doesn't happen.

 

BTW, in real life they ARE allowed to do this. They get bad scores from this kind of thing more than good scores. Don't worry about it, and move on to the next hand.

 

Peter

[paulg]

[snip ...]

 

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

Standard bidding oft seen in the Beginners and Intermediates Lounge (BIL) until one of the teachers or mentors try to tell them differently about 2NT overcalls. And those in the BIL are seeking to learn, so there will be many more beginners and intermediates who are not being taught.

 

Of course a non-jump 2NT bid showing the minors is alertable, but they have only learnt that an Unusual 2NT does not need alerting in ACBL tournaments ... so it is not malicious but inexperience. BTW strong 15-18 balanced hands either double or bid 3NT ...never 2NT as that is unusual :)

 

As someone who does work in the BIL, all I can say is that 99% of these 'infractions' are just poor play rather than deliberate ploys or concealment of methods. They are not fielding, they are just playing the game the best they can. Almost all of them have partially learnt 95 conventions without understanding the basics of their system. 2/1 means that 2-level responses are forcing to game, they may not have read that a 1NT response to 1M is forcing ... or they were away when that was covered! I'm afraid you just have to live with it and take the bad boards with the good.

 

Finally, the experience is far better on-line that f2f. You may get the occasional hesitation showing a problem (but beginners/intermediates have problems on all hands) but you are saved from the huffing and puffing that you get at a real table.

[bid_em_up]

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.

Would you like to make a bet on that?

[cherdano]

Besides: I strongly disagree with your statement that it is common expert treatment that after (1X) pass (1y) 2 x shows length in the X suit. I saw a lot who use it to show a different hand type compared to X, 1 NT or 2 NT.

Thanks to The Bridge World, it is easy to prove you wrong:

BWS polls, no. 406 and 407.

Among the experts, 84% and 88% voted that 2x and 2y as natural is acceptable for BWS. (This was probably voted for in earlier BWS polls.)

 

Of course, some may have voted "acceptable" when they slightly preferred another treatment, but the NA expert standard is definitely to play it as natural, and to strongly claim it's not even a common expert treatment is close to absurd IMHO.

[the hog]

Arend, the BW may be an authority for the US. That doesn't mean its an authority for the rest of the world. Further to use the term "acceptable" does not mean "standard". I don't know whether it is "common expert treatment" or not in the US, but I do know that many others play it quite differently in other parts of the world.

[glen]

... and now leaving the main topic, which seems finished (thanks everybody, good discussion), and returning to a sub-topic:

 

I looked up their notes. I am unable to find an exact match for your claim. Your may derive it from this below. ...

I believe you are not looking at their system notes (which they keep under lock and key - these run hundreds of pages and nobody has these on the net), but instead their cc notes, which are quite terse and I suggest you not use these to derive much system stuff.

 

Also note this Meckwell move: after a big club opening, in a forcing pass situation:

Pass asks for a double (unless partner would not pass a penalty double).

Double shows doubt (i.e. two-way values).

Bids show that suit.

Pass (forcing to double) and then bid shows that suit and another suit.

[csdenmark]

... and now leaving the main topic, which seems finished (thanks everybody, good discussion), and returning to a sub-topic:

 

I looked up their notes. I am unable to find an exact match for your claim. Your may derive it from this below. ...

I believe you are not looking at their system notes (which they keep under lock and key - these run hundreds of pages and nobody has these on the net), but instead their cc notes, which are quite terse and I suggest you not use these to derive much system stuff.

 

Also note this Meckwell move: after a big club opening, in a forcing pass situation:

Pass asks for a double (unless partner would not pass a penalty double).

Double shows doubt (i.e. two-way values).

Bids show that suit.

Pass (forcing to double) and then bid shows that suit and another suit.

As I said before Glen I trust you - so no point in trying to rally me. I don't recall any qoute from you indicating you have something real for your statement. The rumours about 800 hidden pages I don't trust. From Meckwell notes I can see that pair is one of very few really keen to disclose their methods best possible - in fact second to none.

 

Pass asks for a double (unless partner would not pass a penalty double).

Double shows doubt (i.e. two-way values).

Pass (forcing to double) and then bid shows that suit and another suit

These 3 above I doubt as they indicate inverted doubles - brownsticker features. Such is restricted unless disclosed. As far as I can see it is not disclosed. Bocchi-Duboin played that but has been forced to strip this strong feature due to tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2006.

 

I trust you on the basis that Meckwell Club is a very special construction - and I am not convinced it really qualify as a precision approach. But that doesn't matter much.

[Finch]

Pass asks for a double (unless partner would not pass a penalty double).

Double shows doubt (i.e. two-way values).

Pass (forcing to double) and then bid shows that suit and another suit

These 3 above I doubt as they indicate inverted doubles - brownsticker features. Such is restricted unless disclosed. As far as I can see it is not disclosed. Bocchi-Duboin played that but has been forced to strip this strong feature due to tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2006.

 

There's nothing 'brown-sticker' about this agreement. It's called a 'take-out' double. In low-level auctions I've been playing something similar to this method for years and (as long as you alert appropriately) it's legal in any jurisdiction I am aware of.

 

The equivalent auction for us (not playing strong club) in a low-level forcing pass auction is

 

1S x xx (strong) 2C

 

- Pass = either a penalty double or a hand that would not stand a penalty double with extra values. Forcing. Partner will double if he would have stood a penalty double from you.

- Double = "take-out", but usually a doubleton or low trebleton trump.

- Bids = weak & distributional.

 

This isn't quite the same as Meckwell play because we distinguish strength rather than 1/2/3-suiters (having bid a suit naturally to start with). It's entirely legal and quite normal.

 

Inverting pass/double in high level FP auctions is also pretty common, though seems to be becoming less popular.

[glen]

Thanks Claus. Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods. Given that, I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

[csdenmark]

There's nothing 'brown-sticker' about this agreement. It's called a 'take-out' double. In low-level auctions I've been playing something similar to this method for years and (as long as you alert appropriately) it's legal in any jurisdiction I am aware of.

 

The equivalent auction for us (not playing strong club) in a low-level forcing pass auction is

 

1S  x   xx (strong)  2C

 

- Pass = either a penalty double or a hand that would not stand a penalty double with extra values. Forcing. Partner will double if he would have stood a penalty double from you.

- Double = "take-out", but usually a doubleton or low trebleton trump.

- Bids = weak & distributional.

 

This isn't quite the same as Meckwell play because we distinguish strength rather than 1/2/3-suiters (having bid a suit naturally to start with). It's entirely legal and quite normal.

 

Inverting pass/double in high level FP auctions is also pretty common, though seems to be becoming less popular.

Might be correct with no brown-sticker. I checked with BD and there are no specific reference to brownsticker for that feature. I thought I remembered correct because it was stripped in 2006 as they changed the rules for brownsticker. In fact I use the brown-sticker alert in Bocchi-Duboin FD-file. Maybe that is an un-necessary approach. I will study and consider to correct. Thank you for the hint Frances.

[csdenmark]

Thanks Claus.  Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods.  In particular I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

Sorry I dont understand this - I simply dont know what NASCAR is - LOL. If there are any differences between Hampson-Greco and Rodwell-Meckstroth I think they are very small. I have not been able to discover them. But what I know is they stripped exactly the same features both pairs before starting Bermuda 2006.

[fred]

Thanks Claus.  Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods.  In particular I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

Sorry I dont understand this - I simply dont know what NASCAR is - LOL. If there are any differences between Hampson-Greco and Rodwell-Meckstroth I think they are very small. I have not been able to discover them. But what I know is they stripped exactly the same features both pairs before starting Bermuda 2006.

Meckstroth-Rodwell and Hampson-Greco use completely different response structures to their strong 1C openings. HG play 1C-1H=8-11 (art) and all other positive responses are 12+ whereas most of MR's positive responses to 1C start at 8 HCP (and are artificial).

 

In general MR have a lot more agreements than HG - probably if you were to print out system notes for both pairs you would need 10 times as much paper for MR's.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Thanks Claus.  Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods.  In particular I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

Sorry I dont understand this - I simply dont know what NASCAR is - LOL. If there are any differences between Hampson-Greco and Rodwell-Meckstroth I think they are very small. I have not been able to discover them. But what I know is they stripped exactly the same features both pairs before starting Bermuda 2006.

Meckstroth-Rodwell and Hampson-Greco use completely different response structures to their strong 1C openings. HG play 1C-1H=8-11 (art) and all other positive responses are 12+ whereas most of MR's positive responses to 1C start at 8 HCP (and are artificial).

 

In general MR have a lot more agreements than HG - probably if you were to print out system notes for both pairs you would need 10 times as much paper for MR's.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I see correct Fred. I have never noticed - I have never suspected it could be so.

 

Not possible to print notes for Hampson-Greco. I have none. Will you be able to provide some notes as I would very much like to create files for Hampson-Greco system? Looks like the rest of HG system as openings are according to Meckwell.

 

Is the HG approach new because they have switched to Team Ekeblad or was the approach over 1♣ also to be applied as they played at Nickell Team?

[fred]

Thanks Claus.  Note that I may now be wrong (about particular agreements), as Meckwell continues to adapt their methods.  In particular I wonder how much they are or will be influenced by the work of Greco-Hampson, who took the identical base system in some new directions – sort of taking an F1 race car and modifying it for NASCAR styles.

Sorry I dont understand this - I simply dont know what NASCAR is - LOL. If there are any differences between Hampson-Greco and Rodwell-Meckstroth I think they are very small. I have not been able to discover them. But what I know is they stripped exactly the same features both pairs before starting Bermuda 2006.

Meckstroth-Rodwell and Hampson-Greco use completely different response structures to their strong 1C openings. HG play 1C-1H=8-11 (art) and all other positive responses are 12+ whereas most of MR's positive responses to 1C start at 8 HCP (and are artificial).

 

In general MR have a lot more agreements than HG - probably if you were to print out system notes for both pairs you would need 10 times as much paper for MR's.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I see correct Fred. I have never noticed - I have never suspected it could be so.

 

Not possible to print notes for Hampson-Greco. I have none. Will you be able to provide some notes as I would very much like to create files for Hampson-Greco system? Looks like the rest of HG system as openings are according to Meckwell.

 

Is the HG approach new because they have switched to Team Ekeblad or was the approach over 1♣ also to be applied as they played at Nickell Team?

Most of the leading USA pairs are unwilling to give out copies of their system notes.

 

I do not have a copy of the MR or HG system notes so I could not send you a copy even if I thought it would be OK for me to do this (I don't). I do have system notes for a system similar to what HG play (because I use it when I play with H and a few other people), but since I did not develop this system I do not think it would be appropriate for me to send you (or anyone else) a copy.

 

The version of Precision that HG play is based on a version that M and R play with some of their students.

 

No doubt M and R believe this approach is inferior to the one they use and probably H and G believe this too. I suspect HG chose to play the simplified version because it is easier to learn and play.

 

HG switched to Precision (from a natural system) a few years ago, but as long as they have been playing Precision they have used basically the same version of it. Their switch to Precision had nothing to do with the team they were playing on at the time.

 

HG have never played on the Nickell Team. They are now on the O'Roarke Team.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

Yeah I play that 1C-1H stuff too, it's pretty sweet. Actually I think when I played against Fred we were using almost identical systems both based off of the dumbed down meckwell stuff.

[csdenmark]

Thank you very much for the information Fred. I thought I remembered HG had played on same team as MR at least once.

 

I looked up USBF for more info and found this interesting about team constitution for the future. Maybe somebody else than me will find the info interesting too.

 

http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_conte...ask=view&id=141

 

I certainly understand you have no authority to disclose private information. I am informed of circulation of some different system approaches with Eric Greco as co-author. So I think it was right to give it a try. It is always interesting to have a bit inside information.