[Phil]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Phil, on Mar 31 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Nice to see D6 following the lead of the So Cal Districts in allowing this however.

In D6 this has been allowed since 2003 at least (the first time I played in this district), perhaps for even longer. No coincidence, since Woolsey lives in SoCal and Robinson lives in D6.

Woolsey's in the Bay Area.

2003 is about the time I remember this getting switched. D21 (No Cal) followed some time after (I think)

[Siegmund]

In the mid- to late-90s, the "any defense to 1NT allowed" exception became very popular out west, and was for a time used in every western district except D19. (I was on the D19 board at the time, and was outvoted 2-9 for adopting that exception; I also floated a proposal to designate one 2-session pairs game at a regional as a mid-chart event, and that also got voted down 2-9. The rationale was that it would decrease attendance -- this after I brought with me to the board meeting written statements from several folk outside our district who said they'd come to the whole regional if we offered the event.) It has since been "de-adopted" by some of them - perhaps at the same time D20 left the Western Conference, I don't know.

I do remember busting Jade Barrett for using a midchart defense against me, on a Saturday afternoon at a D19 regional, which he had apparently been playing all week. (I am not surprised; I once played CRASH for an entire regional without receiving any complaints.) He handled it decidedly badly: something like explaining his partner's alert, and then, when reminded he was in district 19, attempted to deny he'd been playing the illegal convention despite the fact it was on his CC. We weren't damaged, so no score adjustment, but I admit I did enjoy seeing him get an earful.

[kenberg]

I won't say more about my frustration with the site. If everyone else is happy with it then I will adjust.

If I were king, there would be some changes on the Convention Chart. I only got into looking at it because of this suggestion from partner to play Woolsey. For example, I see that opening 2NT to show the minors is GCC, if you are not prepared, tough. But opening 2S to show the minors is midchart and, as such, I gather requires a pre-alert and a written defense. Observe that this is just the reverse situation from the Capp/Woolsey issue. In Capp/Woolsey, the lower bid of 2C/2D is GCC, the higher is midchart. In showing minors, the higher bid of 2S/2NT is GCC, the lower is midchart. I suppose there are reasons, a determined person can justify anything.

It all looks to me like it was designed by a committee whose members each had their own pet classifications.

But I am not king, a good thing all in all. Basically I am a play by the rules guy. If I can understand them, I'll play by them. Just don't expect me to agree that they make any sense.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on Mar 31 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

I won't say more about my frustration with the site. If everyone else is happy with it then I will adjust.

I wouldn't say I'm happy with them. I live with them.

As for the rest of your post, I don't usually post "me too's", but... me, too.

[JanM]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

Phil, on Mar 31 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Nice to see D6 following the lead of the So Cal Districts in allowing this however.

In D6 this has been allowed since 2003 at least (the first time I played in this district), perhaps for even longer. No coincidence, since Woolsey lives in SoCal and Robinson lives in D6.

We Northern Californians take exception to that!! Woolsey lives in Northern California.

Oh, I see Phil beat me to it .

[kenberg]

We academics take these priority issues seriously! I suggest that a committee be formed and report back to us.

joking, joking.


Geography we don't care about.