REBECCA ROOD'S MAILBAG.........

Dear Rebecca,
I cannot for the life of me understand why the EBU has refused to sanction my new system of 1 and 2 level multi ( 3-way ) bids.  Heavens above..... the multi 2 diamond bid was approved and licensed without any objections , but there again that's what comes from having a surname like Reese or Flint.
To me this all smacks of double standards and favouritism. Don't bridge governing bodies what a bidding system that completely crucifies rabbits and wooden tops far more effectively that the rather antiquated and blunt-edged multi 2 diamonds convention. 
For instance my multi 1 club promises either a balanced 15-16 , a weak 6 card suit in diamonds, or a hand with 4-4 in the majors , while the 1 diamond promises either a balanced 17-18 , a weak 6 card club suit, or a hand with one good major and a void or singleton in the other.   Indeed this particular bid alone ( when used in rubber bridge ) has earned my partner and I a stack of stunning results and loads of money .

Yours Sick In Despair

Dear SID, 
Let's face it....one smart arse bid is enough to contend when partnering players, who find basic Acol bidding too difficult to comprehend and fully understand.
Your idea of having multi-three way bids on all openings at the 1 and 2 level, which no doubt would involve a system cards running into several pages , would be just another nail in the coffin of a game which is already in terminal decline. Indeed , it could be the thin end of the wedge , allowing the floodgates to open up with numerous mullti 3-way responses ! 
If bidding systems become monstrous complex mazes in which only the inventors can negotiate that elusive path of understanding , then it seems to me that many of the game's top players will left scrabbling around in the dark.
So yes , the EBU did do the right thing.

Yours  " simple bidding systems make for level playing fields " Rebecca Rood