Help
Not sure how Rubensohl got into this, and I frankly don't see why it should require some kind of special defense.
I know this may not go down well
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,839
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted Yesterday, 10:21
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#22
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,886
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted Yesterday, 12:06
It shouldn't. Of course.
And maybe it doesn't, depending on what "Transfers after No Trump Bids" means.
But a similar argument could (and probably should) be made for Transfers/1Mx, Tranfers after KI 1♥-p-1♠-p, and many others.
And "relays"? So, do we mean Stayman? Or Blackwood? Or Keri with it's 2♣ puppet (or Marionette)? Or 1♠-2♣ LR or ART GF; 2♦ "which one?"-? Or...
What about Rolling Gerber or the like, where instead of a specific bid, the next suit up ("the relay") asks for Kings?
"Artificial Elements". So, NMF? 4SF? Bergen Raises? J2NT (with those newfangled "coded" responses)?
Effectively, the regulation has been written in a "we all know what we mean, don't we?" style, which as "we" have learned over much time, no, "we" don't, and also, it will be used to denigrate what "we" think is complicated (i.e. we don't play) but not what "we" think doesn't require warning (i.e. what "we all" play).
And, as I said to start, it very much duplicates the big box on the Front of the Card that are "elements of system opponents should note"/"special bids that may require defence".
And they're using the same mechanism to flag bids that aren't opening bids as they are to classify systems based on their opening bid structure. Which makes it *harder* to understand "so it's RED. What's RED about it, and do we care?"
And maybe it doesn't, depending on what "Transfers after No Trump Bids" means.
But a similar argument could (and probably should) be made for Transfers/1Mx, Tranfers after KI 1♥-p-1♠-p, and many others.
And "relays"? So, do we mean Stayman? Or Blackwood? Or Keri with it's 2♣ puppet (or Marionette)? Or 1♠-2♣ LR or ART GF; 2♦ "which one?"-? Or...
What about Rolling Gerber or the like, where instead of a specific bid, the next suit up ("the relay") asks for Kings?
"Artificial Elements". So, NMF? 4SF? Bergen Raises? J2NT (with those newfangled "coded" responses)?
Effectively, the regulation has been written in a "we all know what we mean, don't we?" style, which as "we" have learned over much time, no, "we" don't, and also, it will be used to denigrate what "we" think is complicated (i.e. we don't play) but not what "we" think doesn't require warning (i.e. what "we all" play).
And, as I said to start, it very much duplicates the big box on the Front of the Card that are "elements of system opponents should note"/"special bids that may require defence".
And they're using the same mechanism to flag bids that aren't opening bids as they are to classify systems based on their opening bid structure. Which makes it *harder* to understand "so it's RED. What's RED about it, and do we care?"
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)