[McBruce]

I agree with the original post where it said "here's a mad player" -- taking the word mad to mean insane and not simply angry.

This South player could have:
--asked West to further explain the 2D call
--asked East to give an idea of the strength of the jump to 3H
--asked the opposite player the same questions to gauge how good their agreement was
--passed 3H and probably go plus

Instead, the South player chose to believe that North had a near opener and that E-W were talking N-S out of a game. If North actually held this kind of strength, the E-W pair were going to have trouble making ONE HEART.

Full Disclosure does not spare the opponents the obligation to ask questions about announced agreements. I would probably listen to the player for awhile, then point out that he certainly has some excellent typing skills, and should probably use them whenever he needs information about a call, instead of waiting until the roof caves in and using them on the poor Director.

[jonottawa]

My ruling:

'You're right, if you had known that opener shows only 4 Hearts you'd probably be less inclined to run from 3N doubled. Would you like me to assign you that result instead?'

[Cascade]

jtfanclub, on Aug 9 2008, 09:02 AM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 8 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

Of course the agreement is allowed (unless explicitly stated otherwise). Has the ACBL definition jtf referred to do with the fact that Ekren is not allowed under GCC? In that case you're right, my bad.

I certainly didn't mean to imply it was illegal.

It's just that's the 'most official' definition of two-suiter I've been able to find. If there's a WBF source that defines two-suiter, I'm unaware of it.

There's just so much information, and it's so difficult to try to get it into an explanation. If a bid is defined as "weak" or "two-suiter" or "invitational", they have to have some definition besides Humpty Dumpty's.

Why do we need an official definition of "two-suiter".

Can't we just use common sense?

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Aug 10 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Why do we need an official definition of "two-suiter".

Can't we just use common sense?

OK, so what's the common sense definition of two-suiter?

[Mbodell]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 10 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Why do we need an official definition of "two-suiter".

Can't we just use common sense?

OK, so what's the common sense definition of two-suiter?

A hand that has, primarily, two different suits you are happy to play in. Depending on context, that may mean 65 or 55 or 45 or 64 or 74 or 44 or even 53. I could imagine that when my partner opens a 10-13 nt and is doubled, depending on which run outs I have available, I might make a two suited take out by bidding 2♣ showing a 2 suited hand on something like xxx xx xxxxx AJT. Normally I'd be promising 45 or better, but if I want to use judgement what I'm communicating to partner is I have two suits I'm making an offer to play in. Similarly with a 64 hand sometimes I'd treat that as one suited and sometimes I'd treat that as two suited. I think the best default assumption is if the lengths matter to you you should ask, and that anything that shows a suit suggests 4+ (longer than average) so two suits suggests 44+ (two suits both of which are longer than average).

[Cascade]

I think 5=3 is going a bit far as a two-suiter. Actually 5=3 would have to be a three suit as you have to be at least 3=2 in the other suits.

I think any 4-card suit is a "suit" for 1-suited, 2-suited or 3-suited purposes.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Aug 11 2008, 06:17 AM, said:

I think 5=3 is going a bit far as a two-suiter. Actually 5=3 would have to be a three suit as you have to be at least 3=2 in the other suits.

I think any 4-card suit is a "suit" for 1-suited, 2-suited or 3-suited purposes.

So 4-4-4-1 is a two suiter? How about 4-1-4-4?

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Aug 11 2008, 07:39 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 11 2008, 06:17 AM, said:

I think 5=3 is going a bit far as a two-suiter.  Actually 5=3 would have to be a three suit as you have to be at least 3=2 in the other suits.

I think any 4-card suit is a "suit" for 1-suited, 2-suited or 3-suited purposes.

So 4-4-4-1 is a two suiter? How about 4-1-4-4?

beeep I cant respond without risking my warning level increased (ns)

cascade said:

I think any 4-card suit is a "suit" for 1-suited, 2-suited or 3-suited purposes.

[Rossoneri]

I would think any 4441 is a three-suiter.