[barmar]

I've always liked the style advocated by Lawrence (and I think Cohen as well). It's a 3+ suit with 1 or 2 high honors, suggesting that partner upgrade his hand if he has fitting honors.

However, I know some people play it as any 3+ suit with 2+ losers, asking partner to upgrade his hand if he can cover the losers. The problem with this latter style is that sometimes shortness is helpful (if partner's suit is xxx), other times it isn't (if he has Kxx). Yes, the shortness will reduce losers, but because you have duplication it doesn't create winners.

But this is a laws forum, not the place to discuss good versus bad agreements. What both styles have in common is that the suit needing help should be at least 3 cards, so the bid is somewhat natural.

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-December-05, 02:56, said:

If we systemically bid 3♣ with xxxxx/AKQJ/AK/xx, to take a bad example, should this not be alerted?

Yes, it should be alerted in the ACBL, where you alert "Game tries that, by agreement, may have fewer than three cards in the suit bid".

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2012-November-06, 01:50, said:

I don't think there's any good answer to this

A solution may be possible: Change the law book to stipulate "Unless opponents stop you, announce all your partner's calls, both natural and artificial. To keep down the noise, provide a card of common meanings.

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2012-December-05, 19:31, said:

To keep down the noise, provide a card of common meanings.

That's a cool idea; we could call it something funky like a "Convention Card". I doubt it would ever catch on in America though. They would just use it as a scoresheet or to sit on or something.

[shintaro]

 paulg, on 2012-November-02, 03:43, said:

As anyone who watches the BBC Weather knows, the UK consists of London, the South-East, and suburbs of London, some of which may be north of Watford and without Tube stations. The BBC remains that biggest supporter of devolution in 2014 without even realising it.

Agreed Paul

Home Rule for Yorkshire I say

[helene_t]

 nige1, on 2012-December-05, 19:31, said:

A solution may be possible: Change the law book to stipulate "Unless opponents stop you, announce all your partner's calls, both natural and artificial. To keep down the noise, provide a card of common meanings.

We could have anouncement cards in the bidding box, like "weak", "strong", "stayman/transfer"

[FrancesHinden]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-December-04, 02:31, said:

For an experienced player arriving in England and wanting to know what they should alert, the best place to start would be the Tangerine Book. For more details, progress on to the Orange Book. Additional questions probably need to be addressed to one of the club's TDs or, if they do not know, then asking David or Frances here is probably as good as anything else.

probably?

[FrancesHinden]

 f0rdy, on 2012-December-04, 06:21, said:

I apologise for maligning the EBU regulations! I feel the problem (there being no definitive source) still exists in principle, but I'd have to trawl my memory + crosscheck OB sections to find the non-silly examples.

The problem does still exist in principle, we're accumulating a list of auctions where various members of the L&E disagree on whether bids are actually alertable under the current regulations (we are usually in agreement over whether bids should be, but that's a different question). The list is just getting a little more obscure than it used to be.

The difficulty is that the more auctions you define, the longer your regulation becomes, the less likely anyone is to remember it all and the more complaints you get over the number of pages of regulation.

[Zelandakh]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-06, 16:07, said:

probably?

Hehe, well the 'proper' procedure is probably to write to the EBU and it is possible that your personal opinion is different from that of the Committee as a whole on some specific case. But it is unlikely enough that writing here seems easier and simpler. The "probably" preempts someone responding to this effect.

[mycroft]

I would have thought that "probably" means "well, if everybody started doing it, then Frances or David might start to get a little frustrated, and suggest that they Do The Right Thing instead".

[bluejak]

For a long time now one of the major parts of my life has been helping other people, whether players, TDs, AC members or organisers, over the Laws and Regulations. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Frustrating? Of course it's frustrating. I get very little reward for it and a lot of negative treatment. But I shall continue anyway.

So if you want to ask me, feel free. If you look in the Orange or White books you will find my eddresses. I don't like showing them en claire, so you can always write to me at the eddress in my sig, which will change sometime when it gets too much spam, and is merely a remailer anyway, or you can make sense of the following:

o..r..a..n..g..[at]..b..l..a..k..j..a..k..[dot]..o..r..g
w..h..i..t..e..[at]..b..l..a..k..j..a..k..[dot]..o..r..g

[PhantomSac]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-November-15, 00:39, said:

How about this, I will give lalldonn a 3 year time period. If he sees anyone bid 2S against him with 4-4 in the majors I'll give him 20 bucks. I'm really confident I will not have to pay 20 bucks.

Also, since he doesn't play as much as me I will also watch and report back if I ever see anyone bid 2S with 4-4 in the majors. It won't happen.

It's been a little over 3 years. Do I owe you 20 dollars jdonn?