You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to believe that we let logistics such as “extra step of calculation” or “half-dollar change” stand in the way. These strike me as excuses rather than real hurdles.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bravo!
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, “minimum” is relative, defined in a context. For example, if you open 1, 11-14 is considered minimum. Maybe OP meant “minimum among choices from responder other than passing”. But even then, some play 3 as 0-5, which is less than “minimum new-suit response”. If I consider 0-5 as “minimum”, then both 2 and 2NT are “better than minimum”, 2 is 6-9, 2NT is invitational. So the technically correct answer is “more than one of those bids”, but I don't know if that is what OP intended.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does “better-than-minimum” mean?

Technically, as a responder, the minimum I can have is zero. Does this mean “which bids show better-than-zero-count”?
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do you want to play at 3-level when you could have rescued at 2-level?
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the method described by OP, 2 doesn't promise a 4-card major, since 2 and 2NT are used as transfers. Therefore it is logical to use 2 here as showing invitational hand with 4 spades. But that is by no means mandated by the rest of methods. For example, I can easily devise that 2 is forcing one round, showing either an invitational hand with 4 spades, or some kind of forcing hand with a 4-card major. Not that it is better than using 2 as invitational 4-spade only, but the point is that you can design 2 to have different meanings yet not conflicting with rest of the system.

In short, in the framework described so far, 2 as invitational hand with 4 spades is most common and simple, but by no means “standard.”
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's plausible. But arguably if West didn't bid 2NT, East may not have the chance to make the last mistake.

Maybe the focus shouldn't be splitting hair and figuring out who gets more blame than the other, rather it may be more productive to know how the bids should have been (from both sides)?
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are several very common agreements, based on which the rebid by West should be either 2 or 2. But 2NT is not one of the options.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again this boils down to a classic question: who should we blame more, the one who made first mistake or last?
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT was not good. But from East perspective, there could be entry problem in 6NT. Give West one more club and one less diamond, after spade lead East has to hope South didn't start with Kxx in clubs. At IMPs I think 6 will be a better slam.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But this is not like UI situation, here the player is on the non-offending side. What if, for arguments sake, the player says he would have bid 2 over mini-NT, but the peers polled have 50% double, 50% pass, none choosing 2? How are you going to weigh it?
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the 2 overcall, you lose the 2/2 bid (for inv+ hands), but you gain the X call. For simplicity and consistency, I think it makes more sense to have 2 as NF, good hands can start with X (takeout) or 3 cuebid. Technically it can be the other way around (2 forces one round, X shows willingness to compete which can stop at 2). One thing clear to me is that X shouldn't be penalty.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think polling has anything to do with it. This is not like we are trying to determine LAs. The player may think this hand is worth action over 10-12 NT but not 12-14, as long as there is plausible bridge reason for it, it doesn't have to be agreed by majority of peer players.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's always legal to think. Bridge is a thinking game.

But one should avoid hesitation in tempo-sensitive situations. Note that the hesitation in those situations is still legal, just that partner may not take certain actions, even if he is intended to take those actions without hesitation. Then we have director and committee rulings (if appealed), which are also legal but could get messy…
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if ACBL provides this service for free (which they don't), this whole incident is still bad. People have booked airline tickets and hotel rooms (by now most of those are non-refundable), planned time-off, based on the service advertised, only to find out it is not available.

ACBL doesn't owe anyone this service. It's ok to say at the beginning “we don't provide child care, please make your own arrangement.” But to promise that the service is provided (free or not), then cancel it in last minute without real help in arranging the alternatives, that is where many have an issue with.

I'd like to add that it shouldn't matter too much how many players are affected. Even if one is affected, this is injustice. It indicates a problem in the entire process, which is a bigger concern than the incident itself. If the process is not fixed, today maybe it happens to someone else, but tomorrow it can happen to any of us.
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,

Solutions should include immediate help as well as finding out what really happened and making sure it doesn't happen again.

People have suggested ACBL absorb some of the costs to help find outside childcare service, or to resolve insurance issue (if there is one). Also talking to representatives of one's district (it appears that many of the district reps are not even aware of it). To me, that is doing something!
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me get it right – an organization decided to break a promise in the last minute, and people who disagree are labeled as “just complained and whined”? As paying members who may be directly affected by this, don't they have the rights to complain anyway?

The main fallacy in the logic was, “complain” and “resolve” are mutual exclusive. Of course people are trying to find a solution, one way or another. It looks like the alternatives are not going to be as good as the one promised but no longer offered. So people are pissed – what's wrong with that?

As to whether it is wise for ACBL to offer childcare in first place, or they should continue offering it, that is not the point. The problem is not keeping the promise and informing members very late. I cannot think of a more effective way to turn people away.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it somewhat depends on the meaning of other bids. For example, what would bids like, 1 (1) 3 mean? Would it show GF hand with 6+ hearts (a sensible treatment under negative-free-bid frame)?
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's because I don't think one needs ATB to figure out 6 is wrong. Preempting then bidding again is always something to be frowned at, especially when it doesn't work out. I actually don't know if South was angry, I just think that might be a possibility.
Nov. 16, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top