[blml] Fwd: natural bids and conventional bids

[richard willey]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: richard willey <richard.willey at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 8, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids
To: Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>


On 1/4/07, richard willey <richard.willey at gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a discussion whether a Muiderberg style 2M opening that
> showed 5+ SSpades and a 4+ card minor was legal at the GCC level.  I
> claimed that the opening is
>
> (a) Conventional
> (b) Not legal at the GCC level

I just recieved a response to my question about Muiderberg 2s from
Richard Beye.  I'm attaching his response:  The short form is that he
thinks that Muiderberg 2s are not legal at the GCC level.

I have no idea if any of these opinions are authoritative

>Mr. Wiley,
>
>I do not have a copy of the original email. However, I likely
disagree with Mike's
>interpretation below. The agreement you note in your first paragraph
below would
>not be legal on the GCC unless it promised two known suits and a minimum of 10
>HCPs. The GCC seems pretty clear on this point.

>It sounds like Mr. Meyerson is attempting to play some variation of Wilkosz, a
>convention pretty much obsolete, prohibited in most parts of the world. If you
>could, please send me a copy of the original email. Too, feel free to share my
>email with Mr. Meyerson.

>As a side note - We have no agreements on the GCC which would require a written
>defense.

>Respectfully,

>Richard F. Beye
>Chief Tournament Director
>American Contract Bridge League
>2990 Airways Boulevard
>Memphis, TN 38116
>901-332-5586, ext. 1331