[aelred]

We played our national open pairs championship over the weekend using a (very basic) homegrown system based on a kind of Magic Diamond structure:
1 ♣ = 14-16 ANY except UNBAL with exactly 4M
1 ♦ = 17+, control responses (as in the good old stone age )
1 ♥/♠ = 4 cards UNBAL, <=16, usually canape OR <=13 single suiter
1 NT = 10-13 BAL (11-14-VUL)
2 ♣/♦ = 5+ cards UNBAL, no 4M, <=13
2 ♥/♠ = 5+ cards & 4+ minor, <=13
2 NT = 55+ minors, <=13

I must say it worked pretty well for matchpoints - as we eventually won

However, for IMP play, although I'm satisfied with the current structure when vulnerable, I'd like to dispense with level 2 openings altogether and use level 2 for wide-range major-oriented preempts when NV.

This means I'd have to cramp a lot the 1 level openings - I'm thinking of using a strong club (15+) and 4(5?) card majors with a prepared 1 ♦.

Now here comes the problem: our country is using the WBF/EBL system licencing scheme. Now, what we are currently playing qualifies as a blue system (strong club/diamond) which practically gives one open licence for the other (non-strong) minor opening. But drastically altering structure depending on vulnerability I think makes your system red (although you are esentially playing two different "blue" cards ). And here comes the tricky question: the "dustbin" licence for one minor openings is only granted to blue systems - so will my system become a HUM?

A 1 ♦ opening that shows an UNBAL hand with at least a minor seems pretty HUM to me, if not covered by the "blue" exemption

Could anyone that has more experience with the WBF regulations shed some light?
(over here, in Romania, I can practically adress nobody for such technical advice )

Aelred

[Gerben42]

To avoid any mess how about you do what I do in my Magic Diamond: Simply increase the strength in 3rd and 4th seat, so if partner is a passed hand

1 ♣ = 16-18 ANY except UNBAL with exactly 4M
1 ♦ = 19+, control responses
1N = 12 - 15
Other = whatever you feel like - 15

Saves you the trouble of learning a 2nd system too!

[Free]

Changing your system in 3rd and 4th seat also makes the system RED, which is apparently not what aelred wants...

[Gerben42]

What does changing the system mean exactly?

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on May 23 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

What does changing the system mean exactly?

My understanding is that this is a (fairly) fuzzy line...

Case in point:

Many players in the US vary their opening style dramatically in between first/second seat and third/fourth. In first and second, they play relatively sound openings. They lighten up significantly in third/fourth. In a similar vein, they also change the response structure used after these openings, adopting conventions like Drury, fit showing jumps, a game invitational 2NT response to a 1M opening, yada, yada, yada... At the same, I think that these players would maintain that they are playing a single "system" (2/1 game force)

To use a more extreme example:

MOSCITO uses highly aggressive transfer openings in first and second and relatively sound natural openings in 3rd / 4th. Here once again, I'd claim that this is all part of a single unified bidding system.

To me the hallmark of a system is "integration". Various components of the system are designed to complement one another. 2/1 game force uses light openings in 3rd/4th to protect against the sound opening style in 1st/2nd. 2/1 game force (typically) uses fit showing jumps in 3rd/4th because a passed hand has already denied hands suitable for a weak/strong jump shift....

This doesn't directly address the issue of changing a system based on vulnerability. If we accept my basic conjecture that a system is defined by integration, I'd argue that that there is no logical relationship between the set of methods that you play on a board where you happen to be vulnerable and the set of methods that you play on a hand where you are non vulnerable. These two examples seem discrete. Therefore, if you make any change to your methods you are playing two different systems.

Here's one piece of advice:

Set up a test case: Lets assume a system that uses

1. A 12 - 14 HCP 1NT opening when you are white.
2. A 15 - 17 HCP 1NT opening when red

Everything else is identical.

I'd argue that (logically) this should be considered as two separate bidding system. Find out of the local TDs agree. If the local TDs argue that you are playing two separate bidding systems, ask whether the same holds true if you are using

1. A 12 - 14 HCP 1NT opening with 2 way stayman when you are white
2. A 15-17 HCP 1NT opening with transfer when you are red

Realistically, you need to find where your local regulators define a boundary conditions.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Realistically, you need to find where your local regulators define a boundary conditions.

Local sounds pessimistic. Shouldn't there be at least "national"? Okay international would be nice but utopic so far

BTW I agree with your description.

[jtfanclub]

aelred, on May 21 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

2 ♣/♦ = 5+ cards UNBAL, no 4M, <=13
2 NT = 55+ minors, <=13

Interesting system...I have a friend who probably would want to learn it.

So 2♣/2♦ is a 5 card suit only with 5431 with 5-4 in the minors? I guess I would make it 6+ and open the mentioned shape 2NT.

[Gerben42]

That's my cue

http://www.geocities...dge/magicd.html

@ your service

[aelred]

Ok, I feel a few clarifications are required.

First, I was pretty happy with our system - although we played it quite "agriculturally". But we won the championship after all. It seemed to fit well the "strain before level" matchpoint philosophy. Also, playing one's own games did not seem to be a problem.
And in competitive situations we were usually well ahead. Most our losses came from situations were we had no firm agreements (due to lack of preparation).

However, for IMP play, I like a vulnerability dependent strategy: try to bid your vulnerable games and talk your opponents out of their own. Hence I came with the idea of the two-card system (which is nothing new under the sun - see for instance Atack by Goodman-Soloway).

It looks feasible - I think we can put the stuff we are playing now in notes of a couple pages. Another couple pages non vul and we are done.

And here come local system regulations: bang!

In our case, local means Romanian. Romanian system regulations mean a Romanian translation of the WBF/EBU ones - nothing more, nothing less. And probably no Romanian TD that understands anything out of them - this winter I spent one hour trying to convince a chief TD (at national level) that a 1NT opening showing a weak hand with both majors (starting at 0 ) OR a strong balanced hand is classified as HUM and disallowed. And half an hour more on the phone with the head of the Laws and Ethics comission.

Now, from the WBF page:

Quote

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:

  1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
  2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
  3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
  4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
  5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another.

EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

and

Quote

Green  Natural
Blue  Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong
Red 

Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue').

Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet
Yellow  Highly Unusual Methods ('HUM') as defined above.

So, whenever your basic methods vary according to vulnerability, unless your system violates the HUM rules, it is basically Red.

Now, there is a catch here: Green (NV) + Green (Vul) = Red
Also Red + Red. But there is this

Quote

EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

It seems to me that if I play two Blue systems that differ in the basic structure, the result may be HUM. A 1 ♦ opening that shows either clubs or diamonds, or either clubs or diamonds or a bal hand, or other such combinations - as most Blue schemes use - looks to me to be in violation of the HUM rules. (Ok, I know, there are lots of Blue schemes that use a natural 1♦ - but at the expense of using lots of level 2 for constructive openings, which I do not want)

Now, I'd like to make such a concoction - just for the fun of it. It has to be allowed by the rules (meaning not a HUM as classified above). I want constructive level 2 openings VUL and almost none such NV (preferably all constructive openings shouls stop at 1NT - leaving all of level 2 for pressure bidding style preempts). I'd rather use my current scheme when VUL, with as little alterations as possible. Any ideas?

Also, examples relative to what is known to be classified as HUM/non-HUM will be highly appreciated - especially if you could also provide documentation, preferrably online one.

Many thanks,

Aelred

[hrothgar]

Couple very quick comments:

1. One of the interesting things about "Attack" was that the choice of methods was triggered by the opponent's vulnerability. Goldman recommended a 2/1 based structured if the opponents were NV (and likely to jump all over a strong club opening). If the opponent were vulnerable, they switched over to a strong club system.

2. Here in the US there aren't any (real) restrictions regarding varying methods based on seat. In theory, I could play

System A if we open in first seat vulnerable
System B if we open in first seat non-vulnerable
System C if we open in second seat vulnerable
System D if we open is second seat non-vulnerable
yada, yada, yada

This little factoid (probably) isn't particularly useful. The US convention regulation system is completely removed from the WBF convention licensing system. Expressions like HUM and Red system aren't used over here and the WBF restrictions against HUMs have no real impact. (There are parallel sets of regulations which accomplish many of the same ends)

3. As for restrictions regarding HUMs. The best advice that I can give you is to study each of the clauses in the definition

Quote

1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.

Clause 1 and 2 focus on "forcing pass" systems. If you play a strong pass (Regres, Suspensor, etc) or a variable pass Carrotti you are playing a HUM

Quote

3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.

Clause 3 is a riff off Law 40D. Law 40D states that

Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organizations may delegate this responsibility.

I suspect that Clause 3 was seen as a natural outgrowth of 40D

Quote

4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another.

My belief is that this portion of the definition is also a reaction against a common feature in some of the Polish Strong pass systems. For example, playing "No-Name" a 1♥ opening showed 8 - 12 HCP with either (6+ Hearts or 0-2 Hearts)