What Should Be the Decision of Appeal Committee

[lamford]

gordontd is correct that 3S would be invitational and show a suitable minimum, something like xxxx x Ax AKxxxx, and 4S is better, but I presume not as good as 4red which would be a splinter for spades. I would splinter with Qxxx x Ax AKxxxx. Given that I have been in worse grands with that 11-count opposite the hand you quote, and grand is huge opposite the 13-count, it seems completely automatic to move on with or without any UI. How many spades did 2S systemically show?

[Vampyr]

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

 

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

 

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

 

Why does the ACBL regulatory body dog get wagged by the players’ noncompliance tail?

[barmar]

Why does the ACBL regulatory body dog get wagged by the players’ noncompliance tail?

The same reason lawmakers often do what citizens want, not necessarily what's best for them. <cough!>Brexit<cough!>

[mikestar13]

The way I've played in the past, 2♠ was natural and non forcing but not weak, it would be at least mildly invitational, bad hands pass 2♣. This is fairly normal in North America, but it is also normal to require six clubs for the 2♣ opening, so this may not be directly relevant to this case.

[pescetom]

The same reason lawmakers often do what citizens want, not necessarily what's best for them. <cough!>Brexit<cough!>

 

That's not only OT, but a rather poor analogy.

Right now we have the chief lawmaker ready to break the law formulated expressly to stop him doing what the citizens once wanted but not in the way he proposes to do it.

[blackshoe]

That's not only OT, but a rather poor analogy.

Right now we have the chief lawmaker ready to break the law formulated expressly to stop him doing what the citizens once wanted but not in the way he proposes to do it.

Well, right now that's a bill, not a law. Kind of like how bridge players often say "the rule is this" and when you point out that it's not, their comeback is "well, it oughta be!" B-)