[mike777]

pbleighton, on Apr 18 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

Quote

"In Southern Calif and Illinois we were asked our opinions very often."

We got asked about bad attendance on Saturday night sectionals.

Quote

In any case there are elections/email accounts in your district, etc.

I've never had the opportunity to vote.

I sent my (politely worded) opinions to the President of my District a few years ago regarding proposed changes to the GCC and MC, and received a polite f**k you back.

Peter

I hope you are joking. If not then the ACBL is really in trouble if that is how they treated you. Does this still happen today?

[pbleighton]

I'm not joking or exaggerating at all, Mike.

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Apr 18 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

I'm not joking or exaggerating at all, Mike.

Peter

Ugg...

I only hope this has improved for you today.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Apr 18 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Relay systems are banned under the GCC, but that chart defines such a system by "A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid." Note that the definition only applies after an opening bid of one of a suit, and only to sequences of relays. 1NT and higher openings are not included, so a sequence of relays after such bids is legal. Aside from that, most versions of Stayman are not sequences of relays, as responder's second bid is usually natural.

I'll grant that Stayman might have been banned for other reasons, had it not already been popular.

That's what I was trying to say. Relay methods after a 1NT opening (e.g. Stayman followed by MSA) are allowed, probably because they were popular before the GCC was written.

I wasn't aware that ACBL does not consider Stayman a "relay". Most bidding theorists do, though. What's in a name ...

[helene_t]

awm, on Apr 19 2007, 01:41 AM, said:

I don't really see a problem with transfer openings. In general it seems to me that if a particular bid is allowed to show a particular hand type, using a cheaper bid to show the same hand type is probably also okay. So if
I'd probably go with some rules like: "Any opening bid that shows a strong hand is okay (must guarantee 15+ hcp, i.e. some defense). Any opening bid of 1m that shows at least an average hand (10 hcp or equivalent) is okay. Any opening bid at the one level which shows four or more cards in a known suit or guarantees a balanced hand (no singleton or void), and also guarantees 8 hcp or equivalent is okay. Any opening bid at the two-level or above which shows five or more cards in a known suit is okay (even if weak). Other openings are not okay." Of course one might want to add exceptions for popular conventions (this set of rules disallows multi, precision 2♦, and mini-roman 2♦ for example) but this is going to make for a more complex set of rules.

I think this makes sense. As I've stated before, no exceptions please.

Of course, no-restrictions events could be set up as well, as could SAYC-only (or WJ2005 only or Moscito-2005 only) events. Then let the market forces chose the winner(s). Personally, I'd like to see the different kinds of events co-exist.