[kenberg]

Folks like myself who would like to have something on this but don't wish to spend a lot of time on it might find the following useful. No doubt there are other sites, perhaps with more sophisticated defenses but the main thing is to have some idea of what your own bids mean. Whether someone shades a point or 2 on his opening is not a big deal., but having to come up with a defense on the fly is.




http://www.swangames.com/help/Conventions/...wilkosz_2d.html

[pigpenz]

kenrexford, on Apr 3 2006, 02:24 PM, said:

As a mediator in this interesting discussion only, I'd note that DrTood used the terminology "5-8" as to the point count, without "HCP," even though he later uses "HCP" when HCP's was relevant. Thus, his "5-8" must have meant "5-8 points, including distribution."

That being said, most count a doubleton as one point, making this a six-count. Further, no one expects "5-8" to mean anything but 5-8 HCP.

yes Todd would have been better served by saying 5-8 distributional points instead of 5-8 HCP.....but I feel the resulst should have stood, they were only off 2 jacks or one queen

[kenberg]

pigpenz, on Apr 3 2006, 08:22 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 3 2006, 02:24 PM, said:

As a mediator in this interesting discussion only, I'd note that DrTood used the terminology "5-8" as to the point count, without "HCP," even though he later uses "HCP" when HCP's was relevant.  Thus, his "5-8" must have meant "5-8 points, including distribution."

That being said, most count a doubleton as one point, making this a six-count.  Further, no one expects "5-8" to mean anything but 5-8 HCP.

yes Todd would have been better served by saying 5-8 distributional points instead of 5-8 HCP.....but I feel the resulst should have stood, they were only off 2 jacks or one queen

Only if it is correct. If Kxxxx, x, xx, Kxxxx is not opened 2D because it is too strong (6 hcps, 3 distributional points) then 5-8 counting distribution correctly describes their approach. If the above would often be opened 2D, then that description would be incorrect.

For me a description such as: At least 5-4, at least one 5 card major, approx 5-8 hcps would be fine as a description of the opening bid. My main issue would be having to cope with this in a timed event, and I strongly suspect that that was what was really going on with the opponents as well, but since the convention is allowed they had to stake their claim elsewhere. It's really not enough to know what the opening bid shows. When the auction is opened 2D, you are playing against an unusual system, not an unusual bid. You need to know how the whole system works, you need time to digest it, you need time to prepare a defense to the whole system. Lacking that, you have a fine chance of getting hosed. For example: 2D-Pass-2H-X. What should that mean? You first have to know the circumstances under which third hand would bid 2H. When would third hand pass 2D? And so on. It's just crazy to think that a pair could be told "we are playing Wilkocsz, and it means at least 5-4 with 5-8 hcps" and then they would prepare an adequate defense on the fly and still have time to play the hands.

If you play in a tourney that allows this, and if for some reason you care about the results, then you have to be prepared in advance with a defense to this and of course to a myriad of other offbeat systems. In many of these tourneys you pick up a partner about 2 minutes before game time and this is out of the question. Undoubtedly this is a great convention for playing against casual partnerships in free tourneys.

Anyway, the tourney needs to choose. If they allow the system then they allow it, and they need to accept the fact that there will be some flustered opponents. They ahve to tell them tough luck. Presumably they will go elsewhere and soon the tourney can consist of a field of Wilcosz players.

[jillybean]

DrTodd13, on Apr 3 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

Not only have we violated no law but the opps have "failed to play bridge" by 1) not discussing a defense when this came up even though we told them they could do so,

Apart from the time constraints already mentioned are your opps expected to discuss their defense strategies openly at the table? Once a round has started it is not possible to talk privately with your partner.

jb

[helene_t]

I agree with Matt and Richard that your disclosure could have been better. Further, I would like to add this: It is not common sense that when you say 5-8 it means 3-7 at these colors and position: you give the self-alert at favorable vul so the opps reasonably assume your explanation applies to favorable vul, not to some irelevant "average" circumstances.

But I'm sure your discosure in general is better than that of the average BBO player. If the director is to adjust boards like this one he might as well adjust half the boards in his tourney.

Then again, it's a huge exageration to call this "Most ridicolous ruling of the year". Unlike most of all the rulings that have been discussed on this forum it's not even far from being a reasonable ruling.

[cicus]

hrothgar, on Apr 3 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

This is one where I am going to side with the Director:

You have every right to play a strong pass or a Wilkosz 2♦ or whatever you please. However, if you're going to do so, you damn better go out of your way to practice proper disclosure of your methods. In this example, you clearly failed to do so.

You announced a 2♦ opening that shows at least 5-5 shape and five to eight HCP. You chose to open this hand with a 3 count. In your defense, you claim this three count is equivalent to five HCP because you "I do have 3HCP plus a singleton which is around 5 points in my book". Unfortunately, when you open a 5-5 hand, you're pretty much assured of having a singleton or a void. I don't think that you can double count this way.

I think that you systemically practicing misleading disclosure in a situation where you should be bending over backwards to make sure that your opponents understand your agreements. You doing so your making life a lot more difficult for anyone else who plays anything out of the mainstream.

Lets more on to the Director's ruling. In a perfect world, the Director would be able to nail you with a proceedural penalty for your offense. However, you know as well as I do that the BBO software doesn't allow for this. You claim "You join their tournament with the valid expectation that they will follow the rules of bridge". You also join the tournament with the understanding that the Director needs to avail themselves of the tools that they have available.

In this case, the Director (essentially) cancelled the board by assigning averages to both sides. I'd prefer to be able fine tune the results a bit more (I'd let the opponents keep their score, while giving you and Average minus and a proceedural penalty). Sadly, I can't.

My view, exactly. If I find anything ridiculous with the whole thing it is the explanation that the hand is worth 8 HCP because it contains a singleton (not to mention that 5 points for a singleton is an evaluation which has been overlooked by all leading theorists so far).

[Codo]

Fot the ruling, everything has been said. I am with the guy, who will give you a penalty and the opps their score.

For the problem of using wilkosz and varieties of this convention: I guess 95 % of all players have no defence against this opening. Just because it is banned in some (?) or many countries for normal tourneys.

Now, you play a tourney with 3/4 boards against a pair, which plays this method. Wonderful. So, to prepair a defence, you better discuss this. What time do you need? 2 Minutes? 5 Min? Of course, experts have their methods, advancing players may have meta- agreements. But this is not enough. To find a good defence against Wilkosz is quite hard work. So, when I would play this or similar conventions, I would at least give a full and working defence to the opps. I won´t want to win a hand, because they had no chance to find the right defence against a highly unusual bidding.
And I would surely never upgrade my hand from 3 HCPs to 5 "points". I would tell the opps, that I have 3-8 HCP and stay fixed.

Even if you had the right to do all this and even if it is normal to evaluate hands, it "smells", if you do this in a highly unusual situation. I absolutely understand, that the opps. were upset about your bidding and that the TD ruled against you.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Apr 4 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 3 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

Not only have we violated no law but the opps have "failed to play bridge" by 1) not discussing a defense when this came up even though we told them they could do so,

Apart from the time constraints already mentioned are your opps expected to discuss their defense strategies openly at the table? Once a round has started it is not possible to talk privately with your partner.

jb

Full disclosure applies to defense against Wilkosz as well. Besides, if they could discuss this in private when it came up, the defense could be "my double shows A-Kxxx-Ax-Kxxxxx". OK, I'm being paranoid. But I think Todd was allready quite generous in offering the opps that they could discuss a defense when it came up.

[hotShot]

Any licenced TD will have to enforce the WBF Bridge Laws and the WBF sytem policy Wilkosz and your modified Wilkosz is a Brown Sticker convention and banned for most of the WBF events.

Quote

CATEGORY 3

All other WBF Tournaments & Championships and stages of such events not covered by Categories 1 & 2 above

The use of both HUM systems and Brown Sticker conventions is prohibited.

So i don't share your view that, if the tournament rules do not say anything, Brown Sticker conventions are permitted.
This means your use of an illegal convention made the board unplayable and an artifical score has to be assiged. (Ave- for you and Ave + for your opps).
In the few cases where Brown Sticker conventions may be used, you have to supply a defence.

Quote

Brown sticker conventions will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure, but players using them must submit their Convention Cards & Brown Sticker Announcement Forms (appendix 1) in advance in accordance with the Conditions of Contest. At the same time a viable suggested defence to any Brown Sticker convention must be filed. This will be deemed to be a part of the Convention Card and may be referred to by the opponents at the table.

When opps did not discuss a defence, they did well. After seeing the cards it is impossible to ignore shape and strength of your own hand while discussing a defence. The amount of UI that will be exchanged would make is almost impossible to play the board.
Assume for a second west would have suggested to bid all 19+hcp hands with dbl ......
As others pointed out after the round clock has started, it is impossible to invent and agree a defence against HUM methods and finish the board on time.

If you play HUM and provide information about it, you should make sure that your hand fits the description. I don't know what you said at the table but in your post you said:

Quote

I open 2♦ and alert as 5-8, two-suiter with at least one 5 card major.

You did not specify the minimum legth of the second suit, so we assume 4.
You did not specify what kind of points you use, so (4321) HCP is assumed.
Now if you have a 5-4 distribution you will always have at least 2 distributinal points. So you should say 3-8 or "points including distribution".

[Free]

DJNeill, on Apr 3 2006, 09:41 PM, said:

Hi all,

I suggested he call the 5-4+ 2-suiters Mucas Twos or Lucasz Twos (sz is pronounced like 'sh' in English).  He didn't like the former.

Thanks,
Dan

It looks exactly like 'Rainbow', without the strong meanings. Perhaps 'mini-Rainbow' is the most accurate. Rainbow however doesn't contain both Majors...

[Gerben42]

Agree with many posters.

First: You cannot call it Wilkosz if it does not promise 5 - 5.

Second: If this is allowed, please state that 2♦ shows 3 - 8 HCP, not 5 - 8 or whatever.

On the other hand:

First: I know for a fact that you ALWAYS state that opps can discuss defence at the table.

Second: This is a typical case of whining. They would not have bid differently if ♣Q was in South instead of North. The relevant information on the AUCTION is that 2♦ is a weak bid, how weak is not relevant at this point, it might be important during the PLAY.

Third: You can't win anything in these tournaments, nor can you lose anything. Play to improve your skills and do not be annoyed when a director makes clueless decisions. It happens. Now if the tourney had a $100 first prize, things change.

SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION:

1. Put your system into Full Disclosure - at least the first round of bidding. In FD then not only enter the meaning of the bid but also a suggested defence for anything that might need one (in your case most opening bids )

2. Relax and have fun

[Gerben42]

BTW suggested auction:

2♦* Dbl 2♠* Pass
3♣ 3♦ Pass 3♠
Pass 4♠ Pass 4NT*
Pass 5♦* Pass 5♥*
Pass 6♥* Pass 7♠
All Pass

Dbl: Take out of ♠ or 18+
Pass of 2♠: Waiting to see what happens next
3♦: 18 - 21 with ♦
3♠: Forcing with ♠
4♠: Fit
4NT: RKC
etc.

[Fluffy]

This post title reminded me of the most ridicoulous ruling ever.

The bidding was:

N - E - S - W
1NT-... -ps-ps


South bid pass before East could bid.

The director was then summoned, and asked if west ahd accepted south's pass, he did. So it was north's turn now. He passed also, so the bidding was 1NT -no bid-pass-pass-pass and the bidding seemed to be over afte 3 passes.

But then East claimed that it was unfair that the bidding would be over before she could make a single bid!. Director agreed with her, and after thinking a while took back North's last pass and FORCED her to bid somethign else. So the bidding would not be over.

After some shock North bid 2♣, wich was alerted as stayman (I guess its the first time ever when a 1NT opener bids stayman himself ). And they ended in a correct 4-3 fit in 2♥.

[Gerben42]

That's funny

Perhaps the director would do well to look in the Law book.

[hotShot]

Gerben42, on Apr 4 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

That's funny

Perhaps the director would do well to look in the Law book.

A clear case of LAW 34.

[Echognome]

Unlike others that have a problem with using the methods themselves in a short match like a tournament, I do not agree with them at all. Yes, it is probably the case that you have an unfair advantage against unsuspecting opponents. But, this is online bridge and the great testing ground for many conventions. It is ONLY online where many people get to try out their more unusual methods. It is the only place where I have played a forcing pass system and played against one. It is online where I learned the different ways you might want to psyche and how to counter other's psyches. So I feel quite strongly that if the tourney did not state any convention restrictions, then Todd was quite right in playing whatever methods he preferred. It is probably a good way for them to learn meta agreements for conventions they are unfamiliar with.

[Sigi_BC84]

hotShot, on Apr 4 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

Any licenced TD will have to enforce the WBF Bridge Laws and the WBF sytem policy Wilkosz and your modified Wilkosz is a Brown Sticker convention and banned for most of the WBF events.
[...]
This means your use of an illegal convention made the board unplayable and an artifical score has to be assiged.

What the WBF regulations say does not matter on BBO, because most BBO tournaments are not WBF endorsed events.

When I'm a BBO TD and chose to open a tourney where "anything goes", I'd certainly not accept if anybody pointed to any WBF regulation and told me I couldn't hold the event as I liked.

All the system regulations around, be it WBF, ACBL or national specialties only matter if the event is hosted under the auspices of the respective body. This is not the case for a typical BBO tournament.

--Sigi

[hotShot]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 4 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

What the WBF regulations say does not matter on BBO, because most BBO tournaments are not WBF endorsed events.

When I'm a BBO TD and chose to open a tourney where "anything goes", I'd certainly not accept if anybody pointed to any WBF regulation and told me I couldn't hold the event as I liked.

All the system regulations around, be it WBF, ACBL or national specialties only matter if the event is hosted under the auspices of the respective body.  This is not the case for a typical BBO tournament.

--Sigi

As far as i know, BBO has no book of laws of their own. So the only set of bridge laws arround are those of the WBL. Any other organisazion adapts them for their use.

The only organisations that certifies TD's, are doing this using the laws of the WBL. So this is the set of laws they are certified to enforce.

So if you decide only to use a subset of those laws, you should state that in your condition of contest.

The right to host tourneys on BBO, has nothing to do with beeing a certified TD.

[Free]

Not all TD's allow psychs, so they're also not following the WBF rules...

[hotShot]

Free, on Apr 4 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

Not all TD's allow psychs, so they're also not following the WBF rules...

Your are right, and they should state that "loud and clear".