[hrothgar]

awm, on May 22 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

Are you sure about this one? Given that we both live in North America, lets consider the legality of this method under the GCC

A 3NT opening that shows 6-8 balanced is a natural bid. Furthermore, this bid is not conventional. The bid does not need to be sanctioned by the GCC in order to be played.

Furthermore, the ACBL has not seen fit to ban this method. There are a number of cases where the ACBL has explictly banned certain methods. For example, a weak two suited opening that could be based on a 4-4 pattern has been described as destructive and banned. Furthermore, there ACBL has seen fit to use its power to regulate conventions to dissuade pairs from adopting certain natural methods that it disapproves of. (You can't use any conventions over a 1NT opening that could show 9 HCPs. You can't use any conventions after a wide ranging weak two bid)

I don't know of any explicit prohibition that would ban a 3NT opening based on 6-8 balanced. I have little doubt that folks would - probably - ban this if anyone started trying to play this seriously. However, I don't think that anyone has ever bothered to get around banning this one yet. For what its worth, I had one partner who tried to convince me to convince me that a white on red 2NT opening in 2nd seat should show 8- 10 balanced. He was convinced that that this had theoretical merit. As far as I could tell, this would have been completely legal. (this one was a bit too much, even for me)

The whole this is analogous to clause 4 under Allowed in the ACBL Midchart.

Quote

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

This used to permit any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. However, once I started playing Frelling 2 bids in the ACBL and preemptiving with 4-4 patterns the COnventions Committee modified the sanction to neuter assumed fit methods.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on May 22 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

This used to permit any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. However, once I started playing Frelling 2 bids in the ACBL and preemptiving with 4-4 patterns the COnventions Committee modified the sanction to neuter assumed fit methods.

[rant]Of course not. After all, if we made all of the mechanisms legal over a three card 1♣ that are legal over a Precision 1♣, the ACBL would have to find some other way to cheat in favor of Standard American[/rant]

In all seriousness, the General Convention Chart should just say 'all bids that show length in an unknown suit are banned unless specifically listed'. Even if there is a known 'anchor suit', if a bid also says that there's a second, unknown suit it's banned. Apparently, it scares people, or something.


Midchart speficially allows it- Hrothgar already pointed out the correct number.

[awm]

It's #1 under disallowed:

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods..

Admittedly this passage is very ambiguous and subject to interpretation. I think the basic idea though, is that there must be some reason to believe that a certain bid or agreement will improve my expected score on the board. There must be some substantial chance that this bid will lead to a contract which is either making or a good sacrifice against something the opposition can make. A bid which is simply destructive for the sake of being destructive, where I expect to go for a huge number and a lousy result most of the time (but where I introduce randomness for the sake of randomness) would be disallowed. I think this applies to the 6-8 point 3NT opening, or to automatically opening all weak hands in 3rd seat at the three-level (even if 4333) and so forth.

The general rule is that you "have to try to do well in the event" and that simply messing around for no reason (and randomizing the event) is not approved. This applies to designing your methods as well as to the play and defense. Of course, measuring intent is difficult -- hrothgar's former partner could argue that he really thought the 8-10 point 2NT opening would improve his results -- but at some point it becomes obvious that a convention is an attempt to randomize with a very poor expectation.

[redbird97]

I must play in a different circle. Not many people I play against play Mini-Roman
My question for the exotics is do you bother to pre alert and list reasonable suggested defenses? My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them. These methods are generally outlawed by the ACBL (which I am usually no friend of) as they are destructive. If you think about it, there is really not much of a need for opening some of these bids except for the fact that I am sure they are successful against LOL's.

[the hog]

redbird97, on May 23 2007, 04:37 AM, said:

I must play in a different circle. Not many people I play against play Mini-Roman
My question for the exotics is do you bother to pre alert and list reasonable suggested defenses? My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them. These methods are generally outlawed by the ACBL (which I am usually no friend of) as they are destructive. If you think about it, there is really not much of a need for opening some of these bids except for the fact that I am sure they are successful against LOL's.

Well, I will cast the cat amongst the pigeons here and ask, "Why can't I be allowed to play destructive methods in open competition?" As bridge is a game of bidding and card play, why can't I play methods designed to optimise my results by preventing the opponents from bidding to their best contract? I, for one, think this is perfectly legitimate.

As for providing defences, well I am not going to open that can of worms again.

[pbleighton]

Quote

My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them.

How do you know what their motivations are?

Do you read minds, or do you just enjoy insulting people who play methods which you are unfamiliar with?

Peter

[hrothgar]

redbird97, on May 23 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

I must play in a different circle. Not many people I play against play Mini-Roman

My question for the exotics is do you bother to pre alert and list reasonable suggested defenses? My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them. These methods are generally outlawed by the ACBL (which I am usually no friend of) as they are destructive. If you think about it, there is really not much of a need for opening some of these bids except for the fact that I am sure they are successful against LOL's.

What a load of crap:

First and foremost, take a good look at the method that started this discussion. The player wants to use a 2M to show ~10 - 16 HCP with 4 cards in the bid major and a longer minor. If your goal is simply to screw over the opponents, you would hardly be playing anything this innocuous. Normally, when I encounter these types of 2M openings, they're in the context of some kind of strong club system where the player is unable to open 1♣ with the hand pattern. These bids are used to complement other parts of the constructive opening structure. The fact that you (apparently) can't distinguish between a constructive opening and some of the nastier preempts out there really doesn't incline one to listen to the rest of your arguments.

Second: There are a number of people (myself included) who believe that making life difficult on the opponents is an important part of system design. I am more than happy to provide complete disclosure regarding my opening structures. In all honesty, I think that I can (and do) provide much better descriptions of my openings than most pairs who are "just playing bridge". At the same time, I am more than happy to design and use methods which are a royal pain in the butt to defend against.
Regretfully, some folks seem to believe that convention regulations are intended to make the world safe for inferior bidding methods...

[Wackojack]

Yes the 2M opening bids are permitted by the EBU (actually level 2 according to the Orange Book) What i wanted to do was devise a system which improved on the Polish Club. The opening 2M was not devised as destructive weapon but to fit in with with the other bits. The general aim was to get all opening hands described within tight limits at least by the first rebid allowing responder to take control.


These are the opening bids:

1c Strong 17+, or 11-13 with a 4 card major (balanced or any 4441)
1d 11-16 with no 4-card major (or 6d + 5M)
1h/s 11-16 at least 5cards
1NT 14-16 balanced
2c 11-16, 6 cards with no 4 card major
2d 5-9, 6 card major or minor suit near game hand
2h/s 11-16, 4 major + 5 or 6 cards in minor
2NT 20-21 balanced

The 11-16 range for the 2h/s opening is uncomfortably large, but in practice is 11-15 since 16 point hands with a 6 card minor and many with a 5 card minor could be uprated to to 17+ for a 1c opening.

My initial thought on responses were more or less as given Ulven, hrothgar and Gerben (thanks). But now i think it better to step the responses to distinguish between 5 and 6 card minor thus:
3c = min 5m
3d = min 6m
3h = max 5m
3s = max 6m
next step which minor then step 1= clubs, step 2 = diamonds, except after 3s where you just cue and find out

[jtfanclub]

Wow that's a tight 1♦, am I correct that it's at least 5 cards except 4 diamonds and 5 clubs?

EDIT: I guess not, since you have no other way to open a 3343 12 count.

I guess if you were going to play in a GCC event, you'd have to include 5+ diamonds and a 4 card major in there, and have 2♥ & 2♠ be a 4 card major and 5+ clubs, which is listed as GCC legal.

[awm]

I would think that knowing the second suit is actually pretty important. There would seem to be cases where:

(1) Responder wants to be in game if his fitting cards in diamonds are working, but only has an invite opposite major+clubs.

(2) Responder wants to play 3NT opposite major+diamonds but prefers 5♣ or 4M opposite major+clubs.

These both prioritize finding out what the minor is over how many cards in the minor. Usually the exact minor suit length is not going to effect the choice of games all that much -- when this matters it will usually be part of a slam decision.