You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously the OP meant 2 to be forcing. So what is the point of all the comments saying 2 was NF? At least 80% of the people in ACBL land play 2 as forcing. I once used the term 3rd suit force at the club or sectional, and opponents (Flight A players) thought I a) didn't know the difference between 3rd and 4th in the English language, and b) didn't realize only two suits have been bid prior to the 3rd suit bid.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that if these examples are the worst of why Bracket B is not enjoyable, then playing Bracket B isn't that bad after all.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad, as I commented before, it would have been much better having a bidding poll on what to do with S's hand over 3NT.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, Steve thinks his 3 partners are the other 3 people at the table.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I most certainly am not confusing 2/1 with forcing 1NT. N will be shot dead bidding 3NT in a 2/1 auction. A 3 jump rebid does not promise 7 tricks. But if you think 3NT promises 8 1/2 tricks, then you are right about responder's choice of 4 vs. P. I would not cue though.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually there is a lot of guess. 3NT rebid does not promise more than 7 tricks. S's two bullets make 9, and the “long” suit reduces the probability of a lead and their running 5+ (as Brad repeatedly pointed out). There is no indication that S will contribute more than 2 tricks in , which would make 9 the likely limit.

It would have been much better to post S's hand as a bidding poll with some explanation on what N's 3NT hand may be like. I think P should be a popular choice.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If N rebids 3NT instead of self-splinter or JS with 7=2=3=1 hand, he wants to take S out f the bidding. I would happily comply as S whether I am in heat or not. The likely hand for N's 3NT is 6(322) with solid spades and 4+ losers, why should S cue covering 2 of those losers?
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A S in first “heat” probably should do something other than Bridge.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is natural unless 3 denies having 4 hearts.Even then, it should indicate 4 hearts, so our side can play the Moysian fit if appropriate. I can't comment for world experts like Kit, but read Mel Cochimiro's article in last month's Bulletin re danger suit.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2D = same as (1) - P - (1) - 2D if 1 is natural. X is gratuitous.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always do something never. :-)
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always knock out declarer's stopper in this situation. Otherwise it is telling declarer where all the other high cards lie.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer to defend against the balanced hand as declarer rather than the unbalanced hand.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda, I would think if reading the draft, many think the language implies a single known suit which is not the bid suit is not OK, but one known suit plus other unknown suit(s) is OK, there would have been complaints. After all, this problem is exactly what the OP alluded to. So either readers did not read this part of the draft, or they read it but did not notice the ambiguity.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne, I apologize because I kind of unfairly grouped you with the person who started this comment thread. But the rest of my comments stand with respect to people not ready and/or willing to help when they had the chance.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't ask my “you” specifically did not comment, I asked why all these native English speakers, people with sufficient linguistic and semantics skill di not. You might not have seen it because you were preoccupied or even not a member then, but everyone of the whiners here?

Anyway, now is the time to put things right. I would like to see the whiners volunteer to go through the regulations language and fix everything instead of wasting time insulting people who put in a lot of hard work in getting the revised bidding charts approved by the BoD for our benefit.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the point of changing one particular case, which would require at the very least a BoD meeting to do, if there are other cases waiting to be exposed. As a native English speaker (which I am not), why don't you volunteer to fix up everything wrong with the regulations in terms of clarity of language?

I really wonder where all these native English speakers were when the committee posted the new charts here asking for comments.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne, if it was so obvious, why did the entire committee missed it, and then the BoD, plus the ACBL professionals who read it, plus the crowd sourcing? I myself did not read the language as anything other than what the writers of the regulations intended.

Since you are such a great cleat writer, why don't you volunteer to go over the regulations and fix any ambiguities, misleading statements etc.? If you are not willing to do that, point out that is wrong, but don't write gratuitous statements about the people who worked hard to improve the bidding charts.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne, what was posted was the actual language. So if people read it and did not find any problems, the problems are not as glaring as people now made them out to be. Or maybe many were to lazy to read them then when it would have been helpful, but do not hesitate now to condemn.

Do you know how difficult it is to anticipate misunderstanding when writing something which you know the intention? I have written many papers and reports, and read many more by others, and I know the author often will have blind spot. I have certainly made the kind of mistakes that is bing attributed to the writers of the new rules. I guess I should have been disallowed from writing article and reports.

I don't know how easy it is to make changes now. These charts were voted in by the BoD back In November. So the least that would have to be done is a vote for revision by the BoD at some upcoming NABC. BTW, I guess if BoD could not read and see the problems, they should also be disallowed from anything related to formulating rules, laws, or regulations since they evidently lack the necessary reading comprehension ability.

Meanwhile, why don't you people with great linguistic and semantic skills go through the charts carefully and point out other mistakes that for sure will be there (it is not possible there is one and exactly one mistake). If the BoD is going to vote on revisions, it has to be all the necessary revisions, not one correction at a time.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is very rude and insulting to the people who put in hard work as volunteers. These rules were posted for comments in BW and other places for a long time. Where were you people with sufficient linguistic and semantic skills then?
Aug. 14
.

Bottom Home Top