[JanM]

david_c, on Jul 3 2006, 12:42 PM, said:

JanM, on Jul 3 2006, 04:38 PM, said:

You're right of course, but as I've said before, it's much harder than it seems to write clear, understandable and effective systems regulations. I know, I've tried. Have you?

Ah, I'm glad you asked that, because the answer is yes

JanM, on Jul 3 2006, 04:38 PM, said:

My attempt was in a much easier situation than the ACBL Convention Charts,

They're admirably short. And I'm sure that really they are easy to understand, it's just that some of your players don't bother to read them.

I would suggest you remove the word "artificial" from VIII C1(g), because "artificial" is another of those words that can be difficult, and in this instance it serves no purpose because natural GF bids are surely no problem either.

That leaves the use of the word "constructive" in VIII C1(f) as the only problem. It's difficult to suggest anything better without knowing what it is you're trying to achieve there. Because I'm struggling to think of any non-constructive bids that occur after the first round of bidding.

Thank you, both of those suggestions make excellent sense and I have made those changes, subject to approval in Chicago.

And you're probably right that most if not all of the complaints I get are from people who'd rather complain than read and conform , but since this is an area I care about, I keep trying to make it easier for people to provide useful information to their opponents without undue burdens.

[rbforster]

keylime, on Jun 30 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

We use a canape club method, and want to use 1♦-P-2NT as either a bust hand in clubs, or a forcing raise in diamonds. Is this kosher?

I ran into this same issue hoping to play 1M-2NT as a club bust or various very strong hands. As described already, this isn't GCC and is Midchart assuming your club bust is somewhat "constructive". My solution was to play the strong version GCC and give up or deal with the weak club hand in other ways.

I will point out that if you often play a 3♣ inquiry as semi-automatic after 1♦-2NT (forcing raise) as asking for further description of responders hand (ie shortness ask, values ask, etc), you can make a nice, very safe, and infrequent psych of 2NT with a weak club hand intending to pass partner's likely 3♣ inquiry. Psyching conventional suit responses such as this one at the level of 2NT+ are allowed GCC (see Disallow #2).

[keylime]

This has become quite a thread.

Pard and I after discussion using this thread (ty to Jan definitely) just elected to do the 1♦-2NT as the natural, balanced forcing call.

That leads to a general question for both the USBC and NABC+ events. How detailed should system notes (pard and I are of same mind that two copies should be present) be for the sole purpose of full disclosure? We are in the process of forming a tabbed presentation of our method, similar to what happened in the ladies' trials (if memory is right) as described.

[mycroft]

To JanM:

First, thank you for being willing to outline your reasons for your decisions - I feel much more comfortable with "I may disagree, but I understand" than "this makes no sense!". And given the somewhat antagonistic nature of both the Internet and Holy Wars (and convention regulation is certainly a religious issue) you have both great restraint and great courage to discuss it. Of course, I am sure that that is a drop in the ocean to the courage and restraint required to actually formulate regulations, get them approved, and deal with the grumblings!

Having said that, I believe that the decision made for the USBF championships does a disservice to both U.S. bridge and the world of bridge in exchange for improving the comfort of a few pairs. Of course, I don't expect to change anything, but it is to be pointed out:

1) It may be that a system that is not legal through the USBC (or during the RR of the USBC) is actually better - better for the pair, better against world-class competition - than the system that is legal. Unless it's a bolt-on element (say, changing 10-12 1NT openers to 9-12), a pair isn't going to investigate playing it because they'd have to learn it *after* learning a system that they can use to win the USBC. System work is *hard* - it's easier to spend the time on refining an "inferior" system than learning two.

2) I have never understood multiple sets of system regulations for the same event. I realize it's to make things comfortable for the punters who don't expect to qualify, but 1) above applies. How many SuperChart systems (not "bolt-on" SuperChart conventions, ones that are fundamentally unplayable Mid-Chart) will be registered in the USBC, never mind played?

3) By keeping up the "comfort level" of the USBC, we increase the fear factor of non USBC-legal systems. This, along with certain experts' (probably well-meaning) frustration with "Systemic Germs" - particularly US experts - makes the kinds of situations Richard is so frustrated about, where a system needs a defence because it's unfamiliar, and that defence is either impossible to provide or limited to 12+board segments, so it will never become familiar (because of 1), it's not worth learning two systems, one while still in the KOs and one for the losers' Swiss - and heaven help you if you want to play pairs!), so it will always need a defence, so it won't get played, so...

Multi requires a "simple" or a complicated defence in the ACBL. It requires a defence in England, too - but the standard defences are *much simpler* (see Dixon for an example) and can be remembered - mostly because everybody's grandmother plays Multi! I'm sure that were the ACBL conventions committee working in England, Flannery would require a 3 page defence to be playable (as it was, at least, about as uncommon there as Multi is here).

Does that make Multi "hard" or "simple"? Depends. Does that make 2C (weak 2 in diamonds or GF) "hard" or "simple"? Don't know. But I bet that if it was GCC legal, and frequently played, we'd find out within a couple of years that it isn't that much harder than defending against Lebensohl after a 10-12 NT, or 2D Precision-p-2S, or Flannery, or a "natural", NF, 10-15 1D showing 0+diamonds.

You can tell what side of the holy war I'm on, of course. But I'm sure that things that are hard because they are unfamiliar, and regulated against because they're hard, will remain unfamiliar. Whether or not this is a problem or the saving of the game I don't know, but when North American players go to world events and have to be prepared for all these unfamiliar things, they complain because it's hard. Well, of course!

4) Richard has a point - US I and US II get to play under two handicaps because of the above (they don't choose from the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nowhere else to play it, even in the qualifying events; and they don't get experience playing against the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nobody playing it in the events they play in, including the qualifying events); the fact that US bridge is so strong that it still is odds-on to place at least one of the two teams despite this is impressive.

Having said that, I like the USBF convention regulations - they're as clear as anything based on the ACBL Mid- and SuperChart can be, and (as long as the members of the Conventions Committee aren't playing) there isn't the same chance of "it's legal, but we don't want it to be, so there won't be a good enough defence" - as a player has to object first.

But I think the Canadian CNTC CoC is better - and it doesn't seem to stop the "we don't have a hope, but we're going to give it a try" teams (who, I will admit, have to qualify in their zones) from showing up.

Note: my Personal Opinion only; I am not speaking in any official capacity.
Michael.

[mycroft]

I like a lot of awm's definitions - I think there are loopholes, but probably far fewer. I prefer the ACBL's description of relay system; I think it's a bit cryptic, but if followed logically, is perfectly clear. But I think there's a problem with the relay system definition you provide, that isn't in the purview of the USBF discussion; remember that Relay Systems are not allowed in GCC events. Trying to explain that relay systems where the first relay is a response are disallowed, but relay systems where the first relay is an opening are allowed, provided the response isn't a counter-relay, is going to be hard. Oh, and with your definition of relay system, 2C-2D waiting, waiting-and-GF, or semi-automatic, especially in conjunction with either "cheapest 3 second negative" or natural NT responses become relay systems...

One I do not like is constructive/destructive - partly because I believe this is a false dichotomy. I do not believe that calls can either be constructive or destructive, but maybe I have a different definition of destructive. I think there is a fundamental difference between an obstructive call - one that tries to stop the opponents from getting to the right contract by taking away space, or one that is a reasonable "shot-in-the-dark" to find the right contract right off the top - and a call primarily designed to kill the opponents' system (1S over 1C automatic being the poster child for this one, but also a non-1C fert in a FP system). And I believe that there is a continuum between obstructive and destructive (EHAA 3-level preempts being in that grey area, certainly; I'd put Bergen-aggressive DONT overcalls there as well, Wonder bids over 1C, and I'm sure there are more); I'm sure that there's no possible consensus line to draw here, if we want to ban "destructive" calls.

However, even giving the "continuum" theory of destructive calls, I think there's a problem. A preempt - especially a third-seat preempt - is detructive with this definition; so is a standard single major raise in a limited opener system (for that matter, so is a third-seat 12-14 NT or a limited 1M opener opposite a passed hand!). Any "signoff" bid below game is destructive - which basically lumps a large fraction of responses after 1NT openers in the destructive category (especially if you do not play transfers!) All the bids that are "competing for the partscore" are destructive.

If you want to leave the word destructive with your definition and keep the Mid-Chart's DISALLOWED, 1, you are going to have a problem. Similarly, if you are going to allow some "destructive" calls, but not others, you are simply replacing one judgement call with another, and I'm sure mom-and-pop are going to be really happy when you describe their 3S call in 1S-p-2S-p; p-X-p-3D; p-p-3S as "destructive".

Psychics are hard to define. 1NT with a 14-that-looks-like 15 is obviously not a psychic; neither is a nominally 11+ 1S opener with AKQTxxx, even if 7222. And not just points, but cards - KJT9 isn't a psychic 5-card 1H opener, but 13 HCP Flannery with 3-5 or 4-4 in the majors? That's only one card, but it's a psych. And when there are regulations based on HCP (and there are many in the ACBL), you have to be careful - I opened a hand with 9 points that is nominally 10-15. When they complain, I say it was a psych. But it's not a psych, says the rules - it's legitimate, but not legal.

Michael.

[awm]

I think the regulations on psychs really do need another look, as do the regulations on high cards. Any method where agreeing to open 1♠ on:

Jxxx
QJx
QJx
Jxx

is okay, but agreeing to open 1♠ on

AT9xxx
KT9xx
x
x

is not permitted seems to be to be fundamentally flawed.

I think that opening 1♥ on KJT9 in a five-card major system is a psych. Of course, you could agree to open "five card suits or very strong four-carders" which is a perfectly reasonable agreement, but then your explanations and/or convention card should indicate this. Seems to me that if partner knows that you often open good four-carders, then you better let opponents know too. As things stand now there are calls which can be ruled a psych, tactical bid, or illegal agreement and any of the three seem to be okay. For example, suppose partner opens 1♦ and I respond 1♠ with 3145 shape. It's basically director's discretion to rule this a psych (basically okay but should be recorded) or a tactical bid (basically no penalties apply, but good luck getting this classification if you're not a well-known expert on good terms with the directors and committees) or an illegal agreement (note 3cM responses not allowed on general chart, basically you get drawn and quartered). My general impression is that this call is a tactical bid when Rodwell does it, a psych when I do it with an occasional partner, and an illegal agreement if I do it with a regular partner.

For relay systems, I'd just bundle thing as follows:

An opening bid is strong if by agreement, it guarantees 15 or more high card points. Again deviations by up to 2 points are okay if a reasonable justification can be made (for example opening AKxxxxx AKxx xx - with 1♣ strong would be okay) but deviating by 3 or more points must be considered a psych.

Any continuations after a strong opening bid or a natural 1NT opening bid are permitted.

Relay systems are disallowed (GCC), but this excludes methods after a strong opening bid or natural 1NT opening bid (the rule above).

[awm]

I should also mention that there's a difference between destructive and purely destructive. I'd define:

A call is destructive if its primary purpose is to interfere with the opposing bidding and/or find a good sacrifice. No real attempt is being made to reach a playable game contract. This is the opposite of constructive which implies at least some interest in bidding a game to make. Calls which are destructive are usually allowed, provided that they are natural and make some attempt to obtain a good score on a board (possibly by reaching a good sacrifice or partscore). Examples of legal destructive calls include preemptive openings opposite a passed hand, preemptive raises of partner's bids that guarantee less than game values, and so forth.

A call is purely destructive if no reasonable attempt is being made to obtain a good score on the board, either by reaching a makeable contract or finding a reasonable sacrifice. These calls exist primarily to randomize the result. Purely destructive calls are generally disallowed. Examples include a "random" 3NT opening (open 3NT on virtually any hand) or an agreement to "always open" in 3rd seat regardless of hand.

[pbleighton]

"A call is purely destructive if no reasonable attempt is being made to obtain a good score on the board, either by reaching a makeable contract or finding a reasonable sacrifice. These calls exist primarily to randomize the result. Purely destructive calls are generally disallowed. Examples include a "random" 3NT opening (open 3NT on virtually any hand) or an agreement to "always open" in 3rd seat regardless of hand. "

How would you categorize an aggressive player's weak 2s and preempts at favorable in the third seat?

Peter

[JanM]

mycroft, on Jul 4 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

To JanM:

First, thank you for being willing to outline your reasons for your decisions - I feel much more comfortable with "I may disagree, but I understand" than "this makes no sense!".  And given the somewhat antagonistic nature of both the Internet and Holy Wars (and convention regulation is certainly a religious issue) you have both great restraint and great courage to discuss it.  Of course, I am sure that that is a drop in the ocean to the courage and restraint required to actually formulate regulations, get them approved, and deal with the grumblings!

Having said that, I believe that the decision made for the USBF championships does a disservice to both U.S. bridge and the world of bridge in exchange for improving the comfort of a few pairs.  Of course, I don't expect to change anything, but it is to be pointed out:

1) It may be that a system that is not legal through the USBC (or during the RR of the USBC) is actually better - better for the pair, better against world-class competition - than the system that is legal.  Unless it's a bolt-on element (say, changing 10-12 1NT openers to 9-12), a pair isn't going to investigate playing it because they'd have to learn it *after* learning a system that they can use to win the USBC.  System work is *hard* - it's easier to spend the time on refining an "inferior" system than learning two.

2) I have never understood multiple sets of system regulations for the same event.  I realize it's to make things comfortable for the punters who don't expect to qualify, but 1) above applies.  How many SuperChart systems (not "bolt-on" SuperChart conventions, ones that are fundamentally unplayable Mid-Chart) will be registered in the USBC, never mind played?

3) By keeping up the "comfort level" of the USBC, we increase the fear factor of non USBC-legal systems.  This, along with certain experts' (probably well-meaning) frustration with "Systemic Germs" - particularly US experts - makes the kinds of situations Richard is so frustrated about, where a system needs a defence because it's unfamiliar, and that defence is either impossible to provide or limited to 12+board segments, so it will never become familiar (because of 1), it's not worth learning two systems, one while still in the KOs and one for the losers' Swiss - and heaven help you if you want to play pairs!), so it will always need a defence, so it won't get played, so...

Multi requires a "simple" or a complicated defence in the ACBL.  It requires a defence in England, too - but the standard defences are *much simpler* (see Dixon for an example) and can be remembered - mostly because everybody's grandmother plays Multi!  I'm sure that were the ACBL conventions committee working in England, Flannery would require a 3 page defence to be playable (as it was, at least, about as uncommon there as Multi is here).

Does that make Multi "hard" or "simple"?  Depends.  Does that make 2C (weak 2 in diamonds or GF) "hard" or "simple"?  Don't know.  But I bet that if it was GCC legal, and frequently played, we'd find out within a couple of years that it isn't that much harder than defending against Lebensohl after a 10-12 NT, or 2D Precision-p-2S, or Flannery, or a "natural", NF, 10-15 1D showing 0+diamonds.

You can tell what side of the holy war I'm on, of course.  But I'm sure that things that are hard because they are unfamiliar, and regulated against because they're hard, will remain unfamiliar.  Whether or not this is a problem or the saving of the game I don't know, but when North American players go to world events and have to be prepared for all these unfamiliar things, they complain because it's hard.  Well, of course!

4) Richard has a point - US I and US II get to play under two handicaps because of the above (they don't choose from the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nowhere else to play it, even in the qualifying events; and they don't get experience playing against the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nobody playing it in the events they play in, including the qualifying events); the fact that US bridge is so strong that it still is odds-on to place at least one of the two teams despite this is impressive.

Having said that, I like the USBF convention regulations - they're as clear as anything based on the ACBL Mid- and SuperChart can be, and (as long as the members of the Conventions Committee aren't playing) there isn't the same chance of "it's legal, but we don't want it to be, so there won't be a good enough defence" - as a player has to object first.

But I think the Canadian CNTC CoC is better - and it doesn't seem to stop the "we don't have a hope, but we're going to give it a try" teams (who, I will admit, have to qualify in their zones) from showing up.

Note: my Personal Opinion only; I am not speaking in any official capacity.
Michael.

My apologies for quoting the entire post to which I'm responding - I couldn't figure out any sensible way to cut it.

Of course, having different rules for Round Robin and Knockout play discourages pairs from using methods that can only be played in the Knockout phase. However, that particular provision is no different from the WBF rules, which up until next year distinguished between methods allowed in matches of 20 or more boards and methods allowed in matches of fewer boards. Next year, the distinction will be Round Robin vs. KO. Brown Sticker bids will not be allowed in the Round Robin phase of the WBF events (at least if I am correctly reading the Systems Regulation that was sent to me). Having said that, it isn't in fact the reason that the USBF has different rules for Round Robin and KO play. The primary reason for the difference is that in both the Open and Senior USBCs, the Round Robin matches tend to be very short. The normal length for a Round Robin match in the USBC (Open event; sometimes I wonder whether the decision to call all of the events United States Bridge Championship, with Women's, Senior and Junior inserted before Bridge for those 3, was a wise one - most people still call them the Open, etc Trials, and all of the expected publicity from having US chamionships hasn't exactly appeared ) is 5-7 boards. Super Chart methods (or BS or HUM or whatever you want to call unusual methods) really do require some additional time for the opponents to prepare, and the relative amount of "additional time" and "playing time" in a 5-7 board match is simply unacceptable. In addition, in such a short match it's very random whether a particular method will come up or not, so some teams will have to confront the unusual methods and some won't.

As for the decision to use ACBL-type regulations vs WBF ones. First, there is much less difference than you might think. In fact, when we adopted WBF regulations for the Women's Trials (oops, USWBC), one of the complaints we received was from a pair who could not play something they normally played in ACBL events. I don't know of anything that's allowed in the WBF, except HUM systems, which no-one plays, that is not allowed under the Super Chart. The language is different, the procedures are different, but what's allowed is pretty much the same. And what is actually played is identical, as far as I have seen recently (the one exception in recent years was the 2/3♥ openings and overcalls that showed either a weak hand with hearts or a weak hand with spades; not surprisingly, there was no way that the people who wanted to play that could adequately describe it, so as a practical matter it is not allowed in WBF events either, even though it's not specifically barred).

Second, the number of people who would be "unhappy" at having WBF rules apply is more than "a few pairs" and in fact includes many of the pairs who do compete internationally. In part, that is because people who are prepared to spend the time (and/or money) to develop defenses to particularly unusual methods when they are going to face them in a World Championship may not want to do so for the USBC. In part, it is because there are a lot of people who just don't enjoy adding what they see as a random aspect to the game. In part, it is because none of us wants to have to review descriptions of methods and proposed defenses, which is part of the WBF procedure. Finally, as you say, systems work is hard, and US players want to use the time and energy required for things that they can play in both ACBL events and USBF events, and that they play against in both.

Multi is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it. And it's something of a lottery - sometimes it won't come up, sometimes whatever defense you're using will be fine. I think that most people decide just to take the risk that they'll be able to land on their feet against it (and that probably applies to people with lots more experience than we have), instead of spending the amount of time and energy necessary to develop more complete defenses and then learn them. That's why it's worth playing - if everyone employed a complete defense, I think multi would soon disappear. 2♣ weak in diamonds or FG, OTOH, is very easy to defend against, and personally I'd love it if all of my opponents played it (Chip has suggested that he'd happily pay his opponents to play transfer preempts). It's not on the GCC because the GCC is supposed to be things that are familiar. Whether that makes sense, I don't know. But I haven't played in the games for which the GCC exists in so long, that I don't think I'm at all knowledgeable about them, so I'm not about to express an opinion.

As for the US "handicap," I disagree. First of all, I'm reasonably confident that the few things that are allowed in WBF events and not in ACBL Super Chart events (HUM systems) are advantageous if and only if the people playing against them are unprepared (and by that I don't mean haven't had experience against them; I mean haven't spent the time and effort needed to develop defenses). I don't know of any serious expert who wants to employ those methods. Their advantage is if you believe you are not as good as the team against whom you are playing, so want to "roll the dice," and if you think that enough of your opponents will not be able to defend against them. Most of the US experts think that they can win because they play better than anyone else (and many of them are right). As far as practicing against the few methods allowed in WBF competition and not in Super Chart, when our teams qualify to play in the events where those methods are allowed, they can develop defenses, in part by practicing against the methods, and so far that's been pretty effective.

The main difference between WBF and ACBL system regulation is when people are allowed to use written defenses. I confess that I prefer the broader ACBL rules. I'm willing to devote the time to develop defenses, but less happy about having to spend a lot of effort memorizing them for the few times that they will arise (and the fact that I messed up a multi hand in Verona because I forgot something easy hasn't changed my opinion any ). I'd rather try to persuade WBF to allow more written defenses than eliminate them in ACBL and USBF events.

And I guess I should also say that this is my own personal opinion only and should not be considered an official position of any sort.

[mycroft]

JanM, on Jul 4 2006, 06:30 PM, said:

My apologies for quoting the entire post to which I'm responding - I couldn't figure out any sensible way to cut it.

Let's see if I can do any better. First, thanks again for taking my concerns in the nature they were intended, and thinking and responding. Your job is incredibly difficult (the technical part is bad enough; the PR part is impossible to get completely right!), and from what I can see, you are doing it impeccably.

Quote

Of course, having different rules for Round Robin and Knockout play discourages pairs from using methods that can only be played in the Knockout phase. However, that particular provision is no different from the WBF rules, which up until next year distinguished between methods allowed in matches of 20 or more boards and methods allowed in matches of fewer boards.

...and therefore was played the "can I play Midchart at this tournament" game of not knowing until very late whether the RR was going to be 16 or 20 boards. Ugh.

Quote

Next year, the distinction will be Round Robin vs. KO.

Better. I may not be happy with it, but better. And of course, the chances of me playing at that level is the traditional two (and Slim's leaving town).

Quote

Super Chart methods (or BS or HUM or whatever you want to call unusual methods) really do require some additional time for the opponents to prepare, and the relative amount of "additional time" and "playing time" in a 5-7  board match is simply unacceptable. In addition, in such a short match it's very random whether a particular method will come up or not, so some teams will have to confront the unusual methods and some won't.

Yep. I fully agree. Of course, if it's a SuperChart *system*, as I defined in my previous post, where it fundamentally breaks the system to remove the SC elements, it'll show up (for a "mid-chart" vs GCC example of this, witness the transfer openings of MOSCITO - you can't remove them without fundamentally changing the system, and in 4 boards you would expect it to come up at least once).

Quote

As for the decision to use ACBL-type regulations vs WBF ones. First, there is much less difference than you might think. In fact, when we adopted WBF regulations for the Women's Trials (oops, USWBC), one of the complaints we received was from a pair who could not play something they normally played in ACBL events.

Heh. Well, that too is good practice for the game they're playing to qualify for, no? Along with training out the "no diamonds, partner" on defence? Of course, do we really want a team qualifying as US II that got there by playing a system they can't play as US II? Is that fair to their fellow-competitors?

Quote

I don't know of anything that's allowed in the WBF, except HUM systems, which no-one plays, that is not allowed under the Super Chart... (the one exception in recent years was the 2/3♥ openings and overcalls that showed either a weak hand with hearts or a weak hand with spades; not surprisingly, there was no way that the people who wanted to play that could adequately describe it, so as a practical matter it is not allowed in WBF events either, even though it's not specifically barred).

Yes. On the other hand, the "invisible, unappealable hand of legality" in the WBF is the committee who decides whether the *explanation* is complete enough, rather than whether the *defence* is good enough.

Quote

In part, it is because none of us wants to have to review descriptions of methods and proposed defenses, which is part of the WBF procedure. Finally, as you say, systems work is hard, and US players want to use the time and energy required for things that they can play in both ACBL events and USBF events, and that they play against in both.

Fair enough.

Quote

Multi is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it.

Weak 1NT is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it. I'm not joking here - it really isn't easy, and there are going to be hands where you will lose because they opened a weak 1NT and you were put to the guess, and you guessed wrong.

Flannery is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it. In fact, those that play it tend to say that they never get a bad result when they open 2D. I'm quite prepared to believe them, for bridge values of "never" - I just believe I gain enough with my 2D call (whatever it is) to make up for the losses I have to take opening those hands 1H (I bet people tend to get good results when they open 1H, too, whether or not they play Flannery!)

You can say this about a large number of conventions - many of them GCC legal. The difference with the Multi is that it's unfamiliar, because only players at your level can play it all the time, so feel it's worth building a system around.

Quote

That's why it's worth playing - if everyone employed a complete defense, I think multi would soon disappear.

This I disagree with. If everyone employed a complete defence, I'd still have 2H and 2S to come up with better uses than straight-up weak 2s (Polish-style 5-5s, say - they're almost certainly Flannery-like in value-per-opening). In fact, that's why I play the Multi - to free up 2H and 2S for other purposes (my experience has been with either Majors 2H or Precision 2H and 2S bad preempt in a minor - and the highest utility of *that* is that it frees up 3C and 3D for "partner, feel free to bid 3NT" preempts, not when 2S is actually bid).

Sure, the reason I play the Mini-Multi (no strong options) is that it's harder to defend against when second hand isn't guaranteed a rebid. Of course, that's why I play 2M to play after a weak NT, too. But (as I have said elsewhere) I'm mean.

Quote

[2C weak D or GF is] not on the GCC because the GCC is supposed to be things that are familiar. Whether that makes sense, I don't know. But I haven't played in the games for which the GCC exists in so long, that I don't think I'm at all knowledgeable about them, so I'm not about to express an opinion.

My belief is that the GCC has pretty much a blanket "no multi-meaning bids" policy (with a couple of minor exceptions). Which I may agree or disagree with, but at least it's straightforward.

[Edit: number of quotes are limited. All in bold from now on is JanM]
First of all, I'm reasonably confident that the few things that are allowed in WBF events and not in ACBL Super Chart events (HUM systems) are advantageous if and only if the people playing against them are unprepared (and by that I don't mean haven't had experience against them; I mean haven't spent the time and effort needed to develop defenses).

Fair enough. You have a *lot* more experience with this, and high-level bridge, than I. However,

I don't know of any serious expert who wants to employ those methods.

- Auken/von Arnim. Sabine's book has 5 pages dedicated to why she wants to play her BS methods.
- I'm sure that Wilkosz 2D (5-5 in two suits, not both minors) is at least neutral *on the merits* - i.e. against a well chosen and practiced defence - and it also has the advantage of making the 2M bids more clear. And if it were playable without having to "bolt it on", I bet 90% of Liga I Poles would play it.
- I'm being snarky, but until very recently, Meckwell played 10-12 when they had to (in the ACBL), and 9-12 otherwise (not SC illegal, but Stayman after it is).

The main difference between WBF and ACBL system regulation is when people are allowed to use written defenses. I confess that I prefer the broader ACBL rules. I'm willing to devote the time to develop defenses, but less happy about having to spend a lot of effort memorizing them for the few times that they will arise (and the fact that I messed up a multi hand in Verona because I forgot something easy hasn't changed my opinion any :( ). I'd rather try to persuade WBF to allow more written defenses than eliminate them in ACBL and USBF events.

Fair enough. But I'd like to have my written, 3-page defence to Raptor 1NT overcall, Precision 2D and 2NT opening weak with both minors, please. I'm sure I'd do better with that than if I had to remember the defences for the two times they come up a year.

I guess what I'm saying, at least in the Multi case, is that if you played in England, where everybody and her mother (especially the mothers) plays Multi, you would have the same number of messups in your defence that you have against weak NTs and Suction after your NTs here.

Thanks for listening to me,
Michael.

[JanM]

mycroft, on Jul 5 2006, 07:25 PM, said:

Quote

Super Chart methods (or BS or HUM or whatever you want to call unusual methods) really do require some additional time for the opponents to prepare, and the relative amount of "additional time" and "playing time" in a 5-7  board match is simply unacceptable. In addition, in such a short match it's very random whether a particular method will come up or not, so some teams will have to confront the unusual methods and some won't.

Yep. I fully agree. Of course, if it's a SuperChart *system*, as I defined in my previous post, where it fundamentally breaks the system to remove the SC elements, it'll show up (for a "mid-chart" vs GCC example of this, witness the transfer openings of MOSCITO - you can't remove them without fundamentally changing the system, and in 4 boards you would expect it to come up at least once).

Yes, I think the transfer 1-bids would come up on average once every 4 hands. But there will still be some 5-6 board matches in which they won't come up and some in which they'll come up 2 or 3 times. However, that wasn't my main point. The problem is that before each match against a pair playing SuperChart methods, the opponents are going to have to take some time to decide what they're doing (or to review what the've already decided). The amount of time that will take is acceptable when the match is long; it isn't acceptable for a 5 or 6 board match. That there will also be a random effect is an additional reason not to allow those methods in short matches.

Quote

Quote

Multi is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it.

Weak 1NT is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it. I'm not joking here - it really isn't easy, and there are going to be hands where you will lose because they opened a weak 1NT and you were put to the guess, and you guessed wrong.

Flannery is a whole different thing. It really isn't easy to defend adequately against it. In fact, those that play it tend to say that they never get a bad result when they open 2D. I'm quite prepared to believe them, for bridge values of "never" - I just believe I gain enough with my 2D call (whatever it is) to make up for the losses I have to take opening those hands 1H (I bet people tend to get good results when they open 1H, too, whether or not they play Flannery!)

You can say this about a large number of conventions - many of them GCC legal. The difference with the Multi is that it's unfamiliar, because only players at your level can play it all the time, so feel it's worth building a system around.

There really is a difference, though. It's hard to defend against a weak NT because by opening 1NT we've taken away a bunch of bidding room on a hand which may belong to you - you can't devise an "adequate" defense because of that. It wouldn't help you to have a computer for a memory, or to spend a lot of time and effort developing a defense. The reason Flannery works well (personally, that's what I use the 2♥ "freed up" by multi for) is because it makes bidding the 45 hands easier, and also eliminates the awkward rebid problem with a 4522 minimum after 1♥-1NT. It isn't difficult to defend against, but most of the time the hand belongs to the Flannery bidders, so that doesn't matter, what matters is that they can do a better job getting to the right spot because they've started by showing 9 cards.

The difficulty with multi is that there's a lot to do and you don't have a cue bid. And of course, the hand often does belong to the non-opening side. To a large extent that can be solved by a carefully constructed defense. And that defense can also be designed to collect the occasional number that wouldn't be available after a weak 2M opening. BUT that defense is going to include a bunch of artificial (and unintuitive) bids, and is not going to be easy to memorize. And for those of us who use such a defense in ACBLand, it's tough to give up all our great methods when we have to memorize the defense, so we foolishly continue to play it and then forget things.

You may be right that people wouldn't stop playing multi if most of their opponents used better defenses. We probably won't find out. It seems as if gaining the extra 2M bid is a compensation for the occasional horrendous multi result (the opponents bid 3NT and we lead the wrong suit; we go for a number that they wouldn't have found after a 2M opening), but I confess that I'm still looking for a good use for 2♠, having now been playing Polish for something like 3 years and only having it come up when I "cheat" with a 4 card minor; Flannery comes up a lot more. We've been thinking about using 2♠ to distinguish sound and light 3m bids (I'm leaning towards 2♠ sound though).

Quote

Quote

I don't know of any serious expert who wants to employ those methods.

- Auken/von Arnim. Sabine's book has 5 pages dedicated to why she wants to play her BS methods.
- I'm sure that Wilkosz 2D (5-5 in two suits, not both minors) is at least neutral *on the merits* - i.e. against a well chosen and practiced defence - and it also has the advantage of making the 2M bids more clear. And if it were playable without having to "bolt it on", I bet 90% of Liga I Poles would play it.
- I'm being snarky, but until very recently, Meckwell played 10-12 when they had to (in the ACBL), and 9-12 otherwise (not SC illegal, but Stayman after it is).

But BS isn't HUM and most BS methods are SuperChart legal, it's mainly the HUM ones that aren't. I don't know which methods Sabine discusses in her book (haven't read it yet - it's on my "to read" list). But I could find out what BS things she and Danielle played in Monaco (they didn't use them in either Estoril or Verona, perhaps because of the discomfort of playing different things in the RR and KO phases). 2♦ = weak 2♥ or weak spades + minor; 2♥ weak 2♠ or weak hearts and a minor; 2♠ weak with both minors or both majors; 2NT minor suit preempt without 2/top 3 honors. And you're right - those are methods that are legal in WBF events that are not SuperChart legal (except for 2NT). They're also methods that seem to have gone out of favor recently - we used to see them a lot in WBF events; haven't recently. I don't know whether that's because their ambiguity ends up causing problems for those using them or because people don't want to bother with bids that they can't use much or perhaps a little because we developed good defenses to them and gave them to anyone who asked. The Wilkosz 2♦ is SuperChart illegal, for the same reason as the 2♦ and 2M bids above are - because the bid does not contain a known suit and can include the opened suit - that makes it very hard to defend against (and incidentally tough to bid constructively over - people almost certainly choose to use these bids mainly for destructive reasons). I think that Meckwell decided the 9-12 NT wasn't as good as they'd expected it to be . In fact, one of the best arguments I know for allowing a lot of these things is that pretty soon people discover they really don't work. If they're banned, people just assume they'd be wonderful if only they were allowed.

Quote

Quote

The main difference between WBF and ACBL system regulation is when people are allowed to use written defenses. I confess that I prefer the broader ACBL rules. I'm willing to devote the time to develop defenses, but less happy about having to spend a lot of effort memorizing them for the few times that they will arise (and the fact that I messed up a multi hand in Verona because I forgot something easy hasn't changed my opinion any ). I'd rather try to persuade WBF to allow more written defenses than eliminate them in ACBL and USBF events.

Fair enough. But I'd like to have my written, 3-page defence to Raptor 1NT overcall, Precision 2D and 2NT opening weak with both minors, please. I'm sure I'd do better with that than if I had to remember the defences for the two times they come up a year.

Good point - and why not? I guess people would argue that it will take more time, but I don't really think that's true. I carry around a bunch of defenses at ACBL tournaments, not being too fond of the approved defenses or of the way in which they're presented, and even when I have to pull them out and hand a set to my partner (don't ask) it doesn't add more than a few seconds to the time, and may sometimes save time because we don't have to work through what a bid means. It's not the same game if we allow written defenses? People with good memories should have an advantage? Those seem spurious to me, but might not to the ones with the good memories.

Quote

I guess what I'm saying, at least in the Multi case, is that if you played in England, where everybody and her mother (especially the mothers) plays Multi, you would have the same number of messups in your defence that you have against weak NTs and Suction after your NTs here.

If you promise to play Suction vs my NTs, you can have anything else you'd like free .

[hrothgar]

>>>I don't know of any serious expert who wants to employ those methods.

>>Auken/von Arnim. Sabine's book has 5 pages dedicated to why she wants to play
>>her BS methods.

>But BS isn't HUM and most BS methods are SuperChart legal, it's mainly the HUM ones that aren't.

I'll note in passing that the USBF round robin requires that players submit a suggested defense for any Midchart method that they plan to use during the round robin stage. Furthermore, these methods can be banned if the "Conventions Committee of the USBF Championship" deems the defense to be inadequate.

You don't get to argue how lenient the Midchart/Superchart is with respect to conventions when the actual hurdle is the ability to get a suggested defense approved...

You might not know any "serious experts" who want to use

A 1♦ opening that shows 4+ Hearts or
A 2♦ opening that shows a preemptive hand with 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades

However, these methods are commonly used in other parts of the world. I suspect that their failure to jump the pond has a lot more to do with systems regulations than perceptions about technical merit...

[mycroft]

In the USBF's defence, Richard, that is not completely true. It is only if an objection is made to a defence by a player that the Conventions Committee rules on it. If no objection is made within the time period, it is deemed adequate unless serious omissions in the description is made.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2006, 09:30 AM, said:

You might not know any "serious experts" who want to use

A 1♦ opening that shows 4+ Hearts or
A 2♦ opening that shows a preemptive hand with 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades

However, these methods are commonly used in other parts of the world.  I suspect that their failure to jump the pond has a lot more to do with systems regulations than perceptions about technical merit...

Both of those methods are MidChart legal (as long as someone who wants to play them gets a defense approved, and no - I don't want to get into that argument again). They are clearly SuperChart legal, and thus are allowed in the KO phase of the USBC. They are allowed in the Round Robin phase of the USBC so long as a defense is submitted, and as has already been mentioned, the only time the USBF Conventions Committee gets involved is if one of the other players in the event objects to the proposed defense.
There are certainly methods that can be played in the KO phase of the Bermuda Bowl that are not allowed in the USBC, but not the ones you set forth here.

[mycroft]

Now it's my turn to come to Richard's defence, Jan. According to my reading of your CoC, the methods may be Superchart legal, but still can't be played in the USBF, even in the KO phase, without a defence being submitted and surviving peer challenge.

There is no exception for defence submission for methods only going to be used in the KO stage.

BTW, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response to my second screed. I chose not to respond becaues I thought further communication would neither bring up anything new nor do any convincing - but I did read and appreciate it.

Michael.

[JanM]

mycroft, on Jul 7 2006, 10:50 AM, said:

Now it's my turn to come to Richard's defence, Jan.  According to my reading of your CoC, the methods may be Superchart legal, but still can't be played in the USBF, even in the KO phase, without a defence being submitted and surviving peer challenge.

You're right, although as a practical matter objections are few and far between (to the best of my recollection, last year we had either one or none). And yes, requiring defenses is different for the USBC and the WBF (although not very; WBF requires a recommended defense for BS bids; most things that are SuperChart are also BS). The ITTC did give serious consideration to the question of whether to require recommended defenses. The reason to do so is similar to the reason for not allowing WBF-legal methods that are not ACBL legal: players in the USBC don't want to spend a huge amount of time (or money) to develop defenses to unfamiliar methods. Also, as a matter of efficiency, less time will be spent if one person develops a defense for everyone, and the person playing a method is generally in a better position to create a defense than someone who has to first figure out when the method will be used and what the problems will be and then come up with a defense. Anecdotal, of course, but last year one person first objected to having to submit a defense for a fairly easy bid, then came up with a much better defense than I had seen before.

[JanM]

keylime, on Jul 3 2006, 10:20 PM, said:

That leads to a general question for both the USBC and NABC+ events. How detailed should system notes (pard and I are of same mind that two copies should be present) be for the sole purpose of full disclosure? We are in the process of forming a tabbed presentation of our method, similar to what happened in the ladies' trials (if memory is right) as described.

I'm afraid your thread really got hijacked - my apologies for my part in that .

When I read the part of your post quoted above, I said "surely someone will answer that; if not, I'll get back to it." Then the thread flew off into many other places and now I see that no-one has responded, so belatedly.

There's a major difference between when you're playing with screens and without. The pre-written explanations, via index cards or whatever method one uses, are wonderful with screens. They save time and confusion at the table; there's no question over whether something is a ♥ or a ♠, or more often M or m, if it's typed; more complete explanations; a clear written record of what was said; reasonable certainty that you and your partner will give the same explanation. All of that has a cost, of course - you have to spend a lot of time in advance deciding what to put on the cards and how to say things (a simple extract from system notes is rarely adequate - most of us have system notes that are comprehensible to us but probably not to a casual reader, and most system notes cover long lists of sequences at once, instead of defining one sequence). Part of the cost is deciding how much to put on the cards. Part of the cost is organization. In my experience, if you're willing to make the effort, your opponents will be grateful and will probably like whatever you've done.

Without screens, OTOH, and that means for most of the NABC+ events, I suspect that pre-written cards, used by both partners, would not be acceptable. You aren't planning to use them to help you remember things, but it would be easy to do so. (Note that that could happen behind screens also, but it's less likely).

[han]

JanM, on Jul 6 2006, 12:51 AM, said:

You may be right that people wouldn't stop playing multi if most of their opponents used better defenses. We probably won't find out.

If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi?

[pbleighton]

"If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi? "

A few years back, I looked at all of the ccs for the next-to-last Bermuda Bowl for the round of 16, about 48 of the best pairs in the world, many (most?) of them from jurisdictions where the multi was legal. I found that a large majority of them (don't remember exactly, memory fades) used some form of the multi. As I remember, many used the weak-only variant. They generally used 2M for a wide variety of 2 suiters. I remember being surprised that such a high percentage of a group of world-class players did this.

Maybe they knew that none of their opponents knew how to bid against it, the multi being as unknown as it is?

Peter

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Jul 8 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

JanM, on Jul 6 2006, 12:51 AM, said:

You may be right that people wouldn't stop playing multi if most of their opponents used better defenses. We probably won't find out.

If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi?

For kicks and giggles (and because I have 30 minutes to kill while the keema reduces), I compiled a listing of of all registered systems in Verona, along with their definition for a 2♦ opening. (Please note: Its quite possible that "Registered systems" are biased in one direction or another)

A few things stood out.

There were 60 different systems registered at Verona. There doesn't seem to be much consensus regarding the best use for a 2♦ opening. The three most popular definitions were

Multi 2♦: 23 pairs
Ekrens style: 11 pairs
Natural / weak: 8 pairs

Nearly all the pairs playing a Natural / weak 2♦ opening were from North America. One hypothesis would be that the North American pairs have developed extremely sophisticated and effective defenses to everything but natural / weak 2♦ openings.

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docde...ionships+Verona

Auken - von Arnim: Multi
Bertens - Bakkeren: Hearts or GF two suiter
bianchini-comunian: Both majors
birkeland-lindqvist: Multi
Borevkovic-Zoric: Both majors
breed-quinn: Natural / weak
Brguljan-Rase: Both majors
Brink-Drijver: Vulnerable = weak/natural, NV = multi
caracci-robles: Weak, both majors
clarke-rogers: Weak, both majors
cuevas-caracci: Weak, both majors
cuevas-smith: Weak, both majors
Doub-Wildavsky: Mini-Roman
dyke-wiltshire: Natural / weak
finikiotis-fanos: 4+ Diamonds and 4+ Spades
froge-gundersen: Multi
garveycarrollsystem: Multi
Gotard-Piekarek: 5+ spades, 5+m
gromov-dubinin: Both majors
gromova-ponomareva: Multi
Hamman - Soloway: Flannery
Hans - Nunn: Strong, art forcing (2♣ = both majors)
hedy-saesseli: Multi
humberg-mattson: Multi
JaneczekBunikowski: Multi
jansma-verhees: Natural V, Multi NV
Jansson-Johansson: Multi
jokisch-kasimir: Weak in H or semi foricng with Diamonds
kholomeev-khiuppenen: 18-19 balanced
kirilenko-shudnev: 18-19 balanced or strong 4441
kondoch-smirnov: Weak, both majors
krasnosselski-rekunov: multi
ladyzhenski-ladyzhenski: multi
landen-pratap: Natural/weak
lasut-manoppo: Intermediate, 6+ Diamonds or 5♦ + 4M
lebedeva-khazanov: Multi
letizia-steiner: Precision
mandey-aguw: Mini-Roman
Matisons-Smilgajs: Multi
Meckwell: Multi
muller-petrovic: Multi
NARASIMHAN-LEVITINA: Natural/Weak
Nickell - Freeman: Natural/Weak
nikitina-sytsevich: Multi
norgren-olsen: Multi
panina-rosenblum: Weak in ♥ or semi-forcing with Diamonds
Pravdic-Cekol: Weak both majors
RasmussenMiller: Natural/weak
renton-watts: Strong, art forcing
richman-nagy: Constructive, Diamonds
roche-rayner: Multi
ROSENBERG-STANSBY: Natural/weak
saesseli-grey: Multi
sawirudin-budirahardja: Strong balanced or 4441
schroder-schroder: Multi
stewart-woolsey: Multi
strauch-gwozdzinsky: Natural/weak
Sver-Pilipovic: Multi
tidone-chiaro; Constructive, Diamonds
woolsey-woolsey: Multi