• Re: Any Bailey Weak-2 Bidders Out There?

    From lawrencelintonlang@lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com to rec.games.bridge on Mon Feb 10 12:46:43 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
    A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
    described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
    our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre- alert needed?


    Sent via Deja.com
    http://www.deja.com/

    I like them at match points. My partner doesn't alert them, but I do. In my opinion, not alerting is unethical. If they ask, tell them everything you know. Full disclosure. Anything else is unethical in my opinion. Pre alerts are not necessary.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John Hall@john_nospam@jhall.co.uk to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 10:33:33 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    In message <f0a261a6-4f43-4a6f-b1c6-8fa76b9a2554@googlegroups.com>, lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com writes
    On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
    A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
    described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody
    around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
    our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre-
    alert needed?


    Sent via Deja.com
    http://www.deja.com/

    I like them at match points. My partner doesn't alert them, but I do.
    In my opinion, not alerting is unethical. If they ask, tell them
    everything you know. Full disclosure. Anything else is unethical in
    my opinion. Pre alerts are not necessary.

    I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
    19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.
    --
    John Hall
    "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
    sit next to me."
    Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From gazelle@gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 13:01:14 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    In article <RLQsf5B9LoQeFwgv@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
    John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
    ...
    I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
    19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.

    I noted the date of the original post, but I don't think it matters.

    Certainly, in a group like this one (rgb), any posts we can get are welcome.

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.
    --
    "Everything Roy (aka, AU8YOG) touches turns to crap."
    --citizens of alt.obituaries--
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John Hall@john_nospam@jhall.co.uk to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 16:51:57 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    In message <r1u8iq$pim$1@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> writes
    In article <RLQsf5B9LoQeFwgv@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
    John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
    ...
    I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
    19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.

    I noted the date of the original post, but I don't think it matters.

    Certainly, in a group like this one (rgb), any posts we can get are welcome.

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about >necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.


    No, there's no harm in it, but it does seem a little strange to be
    answering a question that was posed almost 19 years ago.
    --
    John Hall
    "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
    sit next to me."
    Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@gadekryds@lundhansen.dk to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 18:07:36 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    Kenny McCormack skrev:

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

    I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
    a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
    the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
    only to never appear again.

    And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
    one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
    little sense to answer the question ten years later.
    --
    /Bertel
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From lawrencelintonlang@lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 11:17:55 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
    A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
    described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
    our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre- alert needed?


    Sent via Deja.com
    http://www.deja.com/

    I was doing a web search on Bailey Weak Two Bids, saw the question, and didn't look at the date. So I answered it. Excuse me all to hell. If it is really going to upset people to answer the question, then take it down.

    We play Bailey Weak 2 bids. So although it may be an outdated question to you, it isn't to us. In fact the question consistently comes up.

    I hope this doesn't spoil your whole day. Maybe take some aspirin and get a good night's sleep.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John Hall@john_nospam@jhall.co.uk to rec.games.bridge on Tue Feb 11 21:09:04 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    In message <ee4ce2ac-b5cd-4730-9846-4878a783ec97@googlegroups.com>, lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com writes
    On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
    A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
    described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody
    around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
    our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre-
    alert needed?


    Sent via Deja.com
    http://www.deja.com/

    I was doing a web search on Bailey Weak Two Bids, saw the question, and >didn't look at the date. So I answered it. Excuse me all to hell. If
    it is really going to upset people to answer the question, then take
    it down.

    I was mildly amused rather than upset. As for taking it down, this is
    Usenet not a Web forum, and there's no real way of taking a post down.
    I'd guess that you are using Googlegroups, which presents Usenet
    newsgroups as though they were Web forums, but they are very different.


    We play Bailey Weak 2 bids. So although it may be an outdated
    question to you, it isn't to us. In fact the question consistently
    comes up.

    I hope this doesn't spoil your whole day. Maybe take some aspirin
    and get a good night's sleep.

    I doubt that anyone was upset, but it gave us something to talk about in
    a group that's become extremely quiet in recent months.
    --
    John Hall
    "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
    sit next to me."
    Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From gazelle@gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) to rec.games.bridge on Wed Feb 12 14:13:51 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    In article <1fsd4vgzanmwq$.dlg@lundhansen.dk>,
    Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
    Kenny McCormack skrev:

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about >> necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

    I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
    a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
    the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
    only to never appear again.

    Every once in a while, in the obits newsgroup, you'll see a post attached
    to an item about somebody dying, say 20 years ago (It will say at the top
    of the post something like "On 13 April, 2001, so and so said this and
    so"). The new post will say that the person referenced in the obit (who
    died, say, 20 years ago) was their gramma (or something similar).

    I think this sort of post is charming and useful. Not to be discouraged.

    And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
    one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
    little sense to answer the question ten years later.

    Maybe...

    Anyway, bridge is pretty timeless. Nothing wrong with commenting 20 years later on a bridge topic. Also, the whole idea of newsgroups (as opposed to private email) is that it is for everyone, not just the OP. If your intent
    was solely to inform the OP, you'd just send them a private email (and not
    cost the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by doing so).
    --
    Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
    day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
    1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial)
    2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching TV sports"
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From lawrencelintonlang@lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com to rec.games.bridge on Wed Feb 12 10:55:45 2020
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 6:13:52 AM UTC-8, Kenny McCormack wrote:
    In article <1fsd4vgzanmwq$.dlg@lundhansen.dk>,
    Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
    Kenny McCormack skrev:

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about >> necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

    I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
    a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
    the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
    only to never appear again.

    Every once in a while, in the obits newsgroup, you'll see a post attached
    to an item about somebody dying, say 20 years ago (It will say at the top
    of the post something like "On 13 April, 2001, so and so said this and
    so"). The new post will say that the person referenced in the obit (who died, say, 20 years ago) was their gramma (or something similar).

    I think this sort of post is charming and useful. Not to be discouraged.

    And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
    one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
    little sense to answer the question ten years later.

    Maybe...

    Anyway, bridge is pretty timeless. Nothing wrong with commenting 20 years later on a bridge topic. Also, the whole idea of newsgroups (as opposed to private email) is that it is for everyone, not just the OP. If your intent was solely to inform the OP, you'd just send them a private email (and not cost the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by doing so).

    --
    Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
    day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
    1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial)
    2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching TV sports"
    Larry Lang <lawrencelintonlang@gmail.com>
    10:40 AM (4 minutes ago)
    to rec.games.bridge
    Bertel,
    If I had understood the date of the question and where it came from, I would not have replied. Next time I'll do a research project on where the question came from, before I answer. I hope this will make your life easier.

    But here's the scoop. As a Bridge director, I can tell you the official ACBL stance on alerts has been modified at least 8 times in the last 20 years. Your remark about washing machines doesn't apply. And since my comment is so important to you, I'll finish what I started and answer the question in a more general sense and thus answer the question completely..
    There is an ethical and a legal aspect of what you should alert at Bridge As of now, they do not coincide because there is not enough room in the rule book to cover every possible situation and auction. One must balance the problem that could be caused by alerting partner to your understanding of the agreement, against not giving the opponents full disclosure that they need to defend and bid to the best of their ability.
    I would argue that Bailey Weak 2 bids are so different from normal weak two bids (5 cards instead of 6) that ethically you should alert. However, if you don't, few directors would take exception. As in all situations, if the opponents ask, you must give full disclosure, even and up to including things you know about partner's bidding style through past history.
    Will this change sometime in the future? Certainly it will. The ACBL has passed and then revoked many laws about weak twos already, and written and revised many pamphlets about alerting. It revises Bridge Laws, seemingly every 4 years? The whole attitude has changed about penalties, such that they now wish to put a board back to normalcy after an irregularity rather than penalize the person causing the irregularity.
    And yes, Bailey Weak 2 Bids are still played, and people still argue about alerting.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Robert Park@bpark56@comcast.net to rec.games.bridge on Mon Sep 20 11:46:41 2021
    From Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge

    On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:55:47 PM UTC-5, lawrencel...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 6:13:52 AM UTC-8, Kenny McCormack wrote:
    In article <1fsd4vgzanmwq$.d...@lundhansen.dk>,
    Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
    Kenny McCormack skrev:

    But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
    necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

    I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
    a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
    the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
    only to never appear again.

    Every once in a while, in the obits newsgroup, you'll see a post attached to an item about somebody dying, say 20 years ago (It will say at the top of the post something like "On 13 April, 2001, so and so said this and so"). The new post will say that the person referenced in the obit (who died, say, 20 years ago) was their gramma (or something similar).

    I think this sort of post is charming and useful. Not to be discouraged.

    And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
    one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
    little sense to answer the question ten years later.

    Maybe...

    Anyway, bridge is pretty timeless. Nothing wrong with commenting 20 years later on a bridge topic. Also, the whole idea of newsgroups (as opposed to private email) is that it is for everyone, not just the OP. If your intent was solely to inform the OP, you'd just send them a private email (and not cost the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by doing so).

    --
    Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
    day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
    1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial)
    2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching TV sports"
    Larry Lang <lawrencel...@gmail.com>
    10:40 AM (4 minutes ago)
    to rec.games.bridge

    Bertel,
    If I had understood the date of the question and where it came from, I would not have replied. Next time I'll do a research project on where the question came from, before I answer. I hope this will make your life easier.

    But here's the scoop. As a Bridge director, I can tell you the official ACBL stance on alerts has been modified at least 8 times in the last 20 years. Your remark about washing machines doesn't apply. And since my comment is so important to you, I'll finish what I started and answer the question in a more general sense and thus answer the question completely..

    There is an ethical and a legal aspect of what you should alert at Bridge As of now, they do not coincide because there is not enough room in the rule book to cover every possible situation and auction. One must balance the problem that could be caused by alerting partner to your understanding of the agreement, against not giving the opponents full disclosure that they need to defend and bid to the best of their ability.

    I would argue that Bailey Weak 2 bids are so different from normal weak two bids (5 cards instead of 6) that ethically you should alert. However, if you don't, few directors would take exception. As in all situations, if the opponents ask, you must give full disclosure, even and up to including things you know about partner's bidding style through past history.

    Will this change sometime in the future? Certainly it will. The ACBL has passed and then revoked many laws about weak twos already, and written and revised many pamphlets about alerting. It revises Bridge Laws, seemingly every 4 years? The whole attitude has changed about penalties, such that they now wish to put a board back to normalcy after an irregularity rather than penalize the person causing the irregularity.

    And yes, Bailey Weak 2 Bids are still played, and people still argue about alerting.
    Bob Park here.
    Interesting to see this thread brought back to life. I just signed on to r.g.b after several years aways from it and found it.
    My most regular partner and I have now been playing Bailey 2-bids in the majors for more that 20 years now. We seem to have been averaging between 60-65% with them, though I don't have statistics to back that up. The responses we use (not Bailey's) let us open 2M also with (5-4) and (6-4) majors, so they come up even more often for us than they did for Evan...often 2 or 3 times per session. We never use Baileys in 4th seat.
    As for alerts...we've never had a problem. We always alert: "5 or 6 cards, 2, 3, or 4 in oM, 8-11 HCP. Sometimes we add, "No void," but we don't see that as needed, as users of standard weak 2's never alert the "no void" when that is part of their agreement.
    FWIW, we have never seen the "No void" alert to be of any use to opponents.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2