[the hog]

Hannie, on Sep 16 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

[Codo]

1. 4 NT spec. Ace asking 5 NT two aces, 6 ♠
2. If 2 Spade is natural and decent, 3 Spade is weak and I see nothing besides pass
3. a heart
4. 4 ♠
5. 3 NT

[han]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 05:54 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 16 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

ROFL

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 04:54 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 16 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

English is a challenging language Ron, it keeps changing, and new abbreviations coming up that you may never have heard of...
http://www.learnthen...ssary/rotfl.htm
http://www.acronymfi...p?acronym=ROTFL
http://www.netlingo.....cfm?term=ROTFL
http://www.userland.com/whatIsRotfl
....

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Sep 15 2007, 07:02 PM, said:

To Cherdano: I've commented on this before, but its pretty obvious your English skills are letting you down again.

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 05:50 AM, said:

Hmm, what is the difference between imbecilic and idiotic?

[the hog]

cherdano, on Sep 16 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 04:54 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 16 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

English is a challenging language Ron, it keeps changing, and new abbreviations coming up that you may never have heard of...
http://www.learnthen...ssary/rotfl.htm
http://www.acronymfi...p?acronym=ROTFL
http://www.netlingo.....cfm?term=ROTFL
http://www.userland.com/whatIsRotfl
....

Shouldn't this be addressed to Hannie and not to me?


QUOTE (The_Hog @ Sep 15 2007, 07:02 PM)
To Cherdano: I've commented on this before, but its pretty obvious your English skills are letting you down again.

QUOTE (The_Hog @ Sep 16 2007, 05:50 AM)
Hmm, what is the difference between imbecilic and idiotic?

Josh, and your point is? Idiotic and imbecillic are both adjectives; further the former was a quote made by another poster. (2hrs later). Ah now I get it - Josh, it was a rhetorical question based on the fact that another poster used the term imbecile and no comment was made, whereas "idiotic" was jumped upon.

[ArtK78]

Whether the first hand is too strong for a NAMYATS 4♦ opening may depend on your requirements for a NAMYATS opening. In my opinion, if a hand is too strong for a NAMYATS opening, then it is a 2♣ opening.

My requirements for a NAMYATS opening bid are:

A long solid major suit
8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks
No more than one quick loser in more than one suit (in other words, the hand cannot contain two small doubletons).

This hand meets all these requirements for a NAMYATS opening 4♦ bid.

Whether opening 4♦ will solve the bidding problem on the hand is another matter. But opening the bidding 4♦ on this hand is likely to be superior to opening 1♠. It gets a reasonably good description of the hand in partner's possession immediately, and makes it harder for the opponents to compete effectively.

[ArtK78]

I agree that the hand has more than 8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks. But for slam purposes, that is a better description of the hand than a 2♣ opening.

If you are unwilling to open NAMYATS on these cards, then I submit to you that you have no choice but to open 2♣, as 1♠ is inadequate.

Back on the dear departed e-bridge forums, one poster defined a 2♣ opening in this manner:

"If you open the bidding one of a suit and it goes all pass, do you say 'Oh, S**T!"

This hand definitely passes the "Oh, S**T!" test. So, if you don't want to open 4♦ NAMYATS, I submit to you that you must open 2♣, even though a 2♣ opening has been chastised by a number of posters in this thread.

And before anyone comments by saying that a 1♠ bid could never be passed out, let me remind you of the story (possibly a bridge urban legend) of Les Bart. Les held AKxxxxxxx of diamonds in first seat. He decided to pass to await developments. The developments were pass-pass-pass. When it came time to compare results with his teammates, one of them turned to him and asked incredulously "You really passed holding AK ninth of diamonds???" To which Les responded, "But they were AK EMPTY NINTH!"

[kenrexford]

I once had 11 rippers, nine solid spades, and a worthless doubleton diamond.

I opened, first seat, 1♦. It passed out. I went down one. It was an average board.

On the first hand, 2♣ makes a lot of sense. You expect a 2♦ GF waiting. You bid 3♠, setting trumps and forcing cues. How is that bad?

Of course, the TD gets called, but you are used to that.

[ArtK78]

The TD gets called only by ignorant persons who try to jump on any perceived infraction, real or imagined.

I suppose you might find a TD who would think that this is not a hand worthy of a 2♣ opening, but that judgment is best left to the player. It is certainly not a psyche.

[Walddk]

ArtK78, on Sep 17 2007, 06:21 PM, said:

I suppose you might find a TD who would think that this is not a hand worthy of a 2♣ opening, but that judgment is best left to the player. It is certainly not a psyche.

A tournament director is not supposed to judge anything. If he/she is interested in judgement, he/she will confer with expert players around the room. The TD is supposed to determine whether a law has been violated. Certified directors are quite capable as far as the laws are concerned, but they are not necessarily good bridge players.

If I decide open 2♣ on

♠ x
♥ xx
♦ KQJ10xxxx
♣ AK

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

Roland

[jtfanclub]

Walddk, on Sep 17 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

If I decide open 2♣ on

♠ x
♥ xx
♦ KQJ10xxxx
♣ AK

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

Roland

How about the same hand, but two small clubs instead of the AK? Is it OK yet for the TD judge this?

[keylime]

1. 4♠ is, well, brash. I wouldn't open 2♣ per se but I would try to bid something like (SAYC):

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 2NT
4♠ - 5♦
6♠

2. I take a stab at game.

3. I try a club.

4. If 2C is a forcing call, I wouldn't hang pard for making a raise, If it's a NFB tho, I'm giving a bump.

5. I like 3NT.

[hrothgar]

Quote

A tournament director is not supposed to judge anything. If he/she is interested in judgement, he/she will confer with expert players around the room. The TD is supposed to determine whether a law has been violated. Certified directors are quite capable as far as the laws are concerned, but they are not necessarily good bridge players.

If I decide open 2♣ on

♠ x
♥ xx
♦ KQJ10xxxx
♣ AK

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

You're quite right that a TD shouldn't let his personal opinions about what constitutes a 2♣ opening dictate their decision. However, I suspect that you'd run into trouble if you opened your example hand with a strong 2♣ bid in a number of different jurisdictions.

1. Many jurisdictions have regulations that specify the minimum strength (measured using HCP or "Rule of X" or whatever) for a 2♣ opening

For example, in the EBU, the minimum strength required for a "Strong Opening" is defined by the "Extended Rule of 25". (Rule of 25 means that you add together your HCP + the length or your longest suit + length or your second longest suit. Extended Rule of 25 also permits

(A) Hands with 16+ HCP
(B) (Subject to proper disclosure) Hands 8 clear cut tricks and at least enough High Card strength for a one level opening

2. Many jurisdictions have rules that explictly prohibit psyching a conventional opening

I'm (obviously) not an EBU director, but I suspect that you'd run into trouble in Britain. The only way this bid would appear to be legal is if you alert that your 2♣ openings could be made with a weaker hand than is normally expected for a 2♣ opening that also contains a long suit.

God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2♣ with it...

[ArtK78]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:01 PM'] [QUOTE]God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2[cl] with it... [/quote]
And what is wrong with that? If, in the player's judgment, a hand merits a 2[cl] opening bid, the player should be permitted to bid 2[cl].

This is bridge. It is not illegal under the Laws of Bridge to open 2[cl] strong, forcing and artificial on a hand which you believe fits that description. And no TD or governing body should have the right to tell you otherwise.

[zasanya]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 05:54 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 16 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

Seems to me ROTFL cannot be faulted if one prefers to roll on THE same floor again and again and again?

[hrothgar]

[quote name='ArtK78' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:06 PM'] [quote name='hrothgar' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:01 PM'] [QUOTE]God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2[cl] with it... [/QUOTE]
And what is wrong with that? If, in the player's judgment, a hand merits a 2[cl] opening bid, the player should be permitted to bid 2[cl].

This is bridge. It is not illegal under the Laws of Bridge to open 2[cl] strong, forcing and artificial on a hand which you believe fits that description. And no TD or governing body should have the right to tell you otherwise. [/QUOTE]
First of all, this decision is 180 degree reversal of earlier "official" rulings from Memphis. Please excuse me if believe that issuing multiple contradictory official rulings in random channels is a recipe for disaster. I really don't think that its too much to ask that the organization

1. Gets its ***** together
2. Publishes some kind of definitive document explaining what is/is not legal
3. Actually applies said document in a consistent manner

Its getting damn tempting to see if it would be possible to get EBU sanction for games here in North America. (Might be a grass is always greener phenomena, but the Brits seem to have their ***** together)

Second: In general, I believe that we are best served if the regulatory authorities publish fairly clear guidelines and then try to stick to these. Abdicating responsiblity by throwing ones hands up into the air and saying do whatever you damn well please strikes me as appalling. I think that it will lead to enormous amounts of rules lawyering and ugly director calls down the pike.

I understand that one size doesn't always fit all. I'd be perfectly happy to see that ACBL publish a set of examples hands and say "These are legit", "These are right out", and these are "Borderline"... We could go either way. However, the typical ACBL director doesn't have enough of a clue to be trusted with these sorts of rulings.

[Fluffy]

kenrexford, on Sep 17 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

On the first hand, 2♣ makes a lot of sense. You expect a 2♦ GF waiting. You bid 3♠, setting trumps and forcing cues. How is that bad?

I think you expect too much from all players, chances of getting you back at 2♦ I think are less than 15%.

[ralph23]

hrothgar, on Sep 17 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

I'd be perfectly happy to see that ACBL publish a set of examples hands and say "These are legit", "These are right out", and these are "Borderline"... We could go either way.

Seems like a great idea to me. There will always be "borderlines" no matter what the standards, so publish a set of illustrative hands for the hypothetical "reasonable" player (like the law's hypothetical "reasonable" man).

The problem is, the Laws (appear to me, anyhow) to dictate a subjective standard about the meaning of a "psychic call." In the Definitions section, that term is defined as one which ...."deliberately" and grossly mis-states the hand (strength or distribution or both).

I don't see how you can interpret "deliberate" except by inquiry into the specific intent of the actual bidder, whether or not he's a "reasonable" man.

Of course, some 2♣ openings won't pass the red-face-test. E.g. ...

♠xx
♥xx
♦KQJT987
♣xx

"Yea, I opened 2♣. What of it? I had a strong hand!!" Nahhhh.... no one will believe THAT one !!

But this could be easily fixed by simply re-writing the ACBL Rule on when 2♣ opening is disallowed. E.g. "It's either a psychic call OR one which reasonable players would almost univerally consider a psychic call."