[Jeremy69A]

Quote

There is no reference to a strong club in EBU regulations.

I think we are going to need to fill in a psyche form. What sort of amnesia is it when the author can't remember his own words?

[bluejak]

My post was done without checking. Of course it appears in the headings, which are not really part of the regulations. But you are correct.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2011-December-09, 17:47, said:

when I'm playing the Blue Ribbon Pairs to when I'm playing against Mr. and Mrs. Just Out of Rubber, for instance!)

Is the implication that rubber bridge players who venture occasionally to tournaments are weak players? Perhaps that is true in some places, but not in cities with high-quality rubber bridge clubs.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-12, 16:40, said:

Is the implication that rubber bridge players who venture occasionally to tournaments are weak players? Perhaps that is true in some places, but not in cities with high-quality rubber bridge clubs.

He's not commenting on their competence, just their experience with the panoply of different bridge systems. Social bridge players don't generally encounter many different systems and fancy conventions.

[mycroft]

I do not expect anyone Just Out Of Rubber - whether it's been 20 years as 5c/point or playing the Elks Club for ever, or the kind of kitchen bridge where the bridge is at best the fourth-most-important part of the game - to have ever seen a Strong Club system, never mind understand the nuances of a 1H-2NT!-4D!-4H auction either straight up or changed due to a Precision framework - so *my* disclosure requirements when playing against them are different.

Similarly, I would never explain my semi-standard 2♦ opener with the definition we use - "4=4=1=5 minus one card in any suit" to anyone who does not themselves play Precision; it's perfectly accurate, and makes perfect sense to people once they work it out, but is not full disclosure for rank-and-file.

[AlexJonson]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-12, 10:06, said:

My post was done without checking. Of course it appears in the headings, which are not really part of the regulations. But you are correct.

Headings? In the Orange.

Total ethics and total honesty in discussion evidently not required for top 'players'.

[bluejak]

An interesting post. It looks like an attempt to insult me, but I cannot tell because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is an attempt to insult someone else.

[AlexJonson]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-12, 17:38, said:

An interesting post. It looks like an attempt to insult me, but I cannot tell because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is an attempt to insult someone else.

I admire the majority of your post, Bluejak, but more than occasionally you are bonkers.