[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 12:01, said:

I had the bidding sequence

---

and my opponents, Nickell-Freeman, looked slightly puzzled. Eric Kokish, who was kibitzing, nearly fell off his chair laughing.

"You know, David", he said, "I don't think anyone has passed that sequence here in North America in the last thirty years!".

Personally I have little sympathy for the failure of ACBL opponents to find out your basic system - we were playing Acol, of course.


There is a space for Basic System on the card. It is easy to check whether it says 2/1, Standard, Strong Club, Precision Club, Polish Club or Acol.

While it's surprising that N-F and Kokish failed to appreciate your system, I would have more sympathy if you were playing against LOLs in a side game. I've heard of Acol, but mostly what I know about it is that it's a popular system in the UK. I certainly wouldn't know if that sequence is forcing or not, and I wouldn't expect the average ACBL member to know, either. Naming a general approach is only helpful to opponents who are actually familiar with it.

I don't play 2/1 with my regular partner. On the basic approach line, I've written "Standard American (2/1 forces to 2NT)".

Another thing I think is missing from the ACBL CC: When opener rebids their major after responder's 2/1, does it promise extra length, or could it be a waiting bid when opener doesn't have the other suits stopped for NT? This isn't even covered by the general approach -- some 2/1 partnerships go one way, some go the other.

[mycroft]

So, what does Precision mean? Okay, *we* all know, but I would suggest that a large part of the flight B and below think "1C scary, need to play something destructive against it" as the limit of the system. They may have heard that "if they don't open 1C, they're limited to 15 - remember that", but that doesn't mean that they know it - and certainly I don't expect them to work out from there the fact that 1S-p-4S can therefore be T9742 8 K854 986 *or* AQT KQ85 QJT7 85, safely. I certainly don't expect them to work out that 1S-3S "preemptive" could easily be a flat 9.

I have less sympathy than most, because I *do* always have a CC, and it *is* always available for opponents viewing (as opposed to under my chair, in my handbag, covered in stickers,...) but that doesn't mean that seeing Acol and knowing what it all means is the same thing. That's not to say that we in the ACBL are not so good at NIH that it's not *worth* checking the opponents basic system - it's either Standard American or Sub-Standard American.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Re: two convention cards. We have a couple of pretty good players around here who play together fairly regularly. Today (it was a STaC) they had two cards. Rather, one of them had two cards, incompletely and illegibly filled out (in pencil). The other one is apparently too 'leet to carry a CC. I could have complained, I supposed, but the TD would do nothing, and these two wouldn't change their ways, so what's the point?

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-April-30, 01:30, said:

While it's surprising that N-F and Kokish failed to appreciate your system, I would have more sympathy if you were playing against LOLs in a side game. I've heard of Acol, but mostly what I know about it is that it's a popular system in the UK. I certainly wouldn't know if that sequence is forcing or not, and I wouldn't expect the average ACBL member to know, either. Naming a general approach is only helpful to opponents who are actually familiar with it.

Being an LOL does not actually mean you are illiterate. If you read Acol and you do not know what Acol is then - unless you really don't care - you glance further to see whether it means 5-card majors, etc. The idea that you need to know systems in detail is bizarre. Furthermore, why would an opponent need to know whether the given sequence is forcing?