Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are not bidding directly over the 3 bid. Partner bid 3NT.
Feb. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So essentially the regulators are saying if I have a weak reasonably balanced hand not only do I have to tell you about that but I must pass and leave the other side as much bidding room as possible.

It is hard to imagine less well thought out reasoning in a competitive game.
Feb. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Les the NZ regulations do not say that 1NT must be “balanced”.

They define balanced as you quoted and they say for the purpose of classifying 1NT openings.

They then define colours of systems - Green, Blue, Red.

For a Green system your 1NT must be balanced. And without going into all the details some lower grade tournaments may have such a restriction.

However by labeling your system Red you are not restricted to the balanced definition for a 1NT opening.
Jan. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A special partnership understanding
is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.”

It is an absurd proposition that “1NT might contain a singleton” is something that “a significant number of players” in any tournament would not understand.

I mean i know some bridge players are thick but it really is patronising to assume they would not understand our “1NT might contain a singleton”.
Jan. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is flawed to have regulations constrain judgement. This repeatedly causes problems and yet the regulators insist on regulating judgement.
Nov. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played on any competitive auction where the opponents have bid a suit and where we do not have a cue below three of our suit that:

2NT is weak or GF raise
3suit is invitational raise

If you are worried about wrong siding 3N after a GF 2NT then you have the option of 3-theirsuit.
Oct. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And now the “weak” New Zealanders include World Champions Bach and Cornell.
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the player had a unique code and entered that then the scorer would know which direction should be positive therefore it would be all but impossible to score on the wrong side.

I enter my code.

The scorer then knows i am EW.

I enter 4S N = and the scorer refuses to accept that score. I either have to change declarer to E/W or give the machine to north or south.
Sept. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any boards where EW and NS are declaring in the same strain.”

Yeah right.

We had a score entered as 2S= W in this event where east-west's spades were two small opposite three small. Several pairs played it in 2S by north or south making. As best I can tell this was neither flagged nor corrected. Despite the benefactors going to the officials and asking for it to be changed.

Its all very well to have some system and to write something in the bulletin but when it does not actually happen in a clearly blatant error you may as well not have those systems.
Sept. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double entry would be add a level of checking. If both NS and EW entered their scores in their own devices then whenever there was a discrepancy it would be automatically flagged.

Of course this would not eliminate all errors but it would reduce the number by at least an order of magnitude.
Sept. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Would someone object to a precision 1D opener on AJTx x KT98xxx x?”

There is a flaw in tying the regulations to someone's or some group's judgement. If you are allowed to use your judgement then why cannot another player use their judgement. It seriously is not workable if you have a limit of “n points” and then allow different people or worse certain people or types of players (eg experts) to use their judgement to work around the rules.
Sept. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Karen Allison.

Just because you do not discuss you system in third seat does not mean that you do not have agreements in third seat. You can have implicit agreements. You also have partnership experience which both must be disclosed and may create implicit agreements.

These implicit agreements are subject to regulation.
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been arguing the 2+ club problem with the regulations for years.

It really seems the regulators are not interested in having rules that mean what they say. I have said it elsewhere but the “unwritten rules are worth the paper they are written on” in my opinion.
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The name HUM may well be short for Highly Unusual Method. However I do not think you can depend on that or an argument that something is not “highly unusual” to declassify it as a HUM. This is what the WBF system policy says:

WBF Systems Policy,
20
13
(revised)
Page
2
2.2
HUM Systems
For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:
a)
A Pass in the opening position shows at least
the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one,
even if there are alternative weak possibilities
b)
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
c)
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
d)
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
e)
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another.
EXCEPTION
: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

I think we can or at least should be able to assume that if you have one or more of the features described then your method for the purposes of the WBF System policy is a HUM however Highly Unusual or not you think it is.
Sept. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can have an agreement to open some hands light in third seat. If the method is undisclosed it is not in the least surprising if the accusers do not describe it accurately.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Adam it seems unfair. However it is also unfair that some players play according to the written rules whilst other players flout those written rules knowingly.

Is it right that a pair flaunt the rules knowing that the rule is not enforced? I do not think that it is. Perhaps others think that that tactic is ok. I would like to try and understand their justification.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is fine Tom if that is the regulation. It is not the regulation so players doing whatever they want is playing contrary to the rules when what they want is not according the regulations.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Yet here we are discussing it as if it were some sort of crime to do what everyone in the room is doing.”

The problem with your premise is that this is simply not a true statement. There are players who play according to the written rules.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No it is not sufficient to explicitly state “light 3rd seat openings”. While that discloses the agreement it simultaneously makes the system a HUM if by light they mean a king or more below average strength. Then they need to comply with the HUM regulations which would also require a notification on their card.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one seems to understand this.
Sept. 12, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top