[awm]

JanM, on Aug 20 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

As for 1♣ natural or balanced, I suppose that I think that Brown Sticker methods shouldn't be allowed over it because it is so common. And anyone who wants to argue that being common isn't relevant, remember that the WBF Systems Policy expressly excludes Mulit a "classic" BS opening bid, from being BS because it is so widely used. I confess that I'm not a fan of BS overcalls anyway, and I'd be happy to bar them over a Precision Diamond, or the Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ as well. I think that this issue will be discussed in more depth at the WBF Systems Committee meetings in Shanghai.

Here's what bothers me:

I get the strong impression that this is more a case of you wanting the methods you like to play to be protected from brown sticker defenses, while being perfectly happy to allow (and perhaps even employ) brown sticker defenses to methods like a strong or multi-way club (for example), a method which is quite common in some parts of the world (virtually standard in China/India and Poland respectively) but which you do not personally have an interest in playing.

I find this to be self-serving, and to be honest am somewhat embarrassed that a representative of my national organization (USBF) argues things in this way.

As to being "common" I should mention that 1♣ "natural or balanced" has been employed by a number of elite Italian pairs for quite some time. Certainly Fantoni and Nunes were employing such methods in the last Bermuda Bowl. I don't buy that this method has suddenly become much more common or that being common should necessarily be the criteria for protection from brown sticker defenses (strong club, for example, is probably a more common approach than short club, yet no one suggests disallowing BS defenses to this). It seems an awful lot like the goal is to protect methods that are popular among American pairs, or that Americans want to play while expressing little interest in having a fair and consistent policy.

I am not opposed to system regulation per se; I am opposed to system regulation that has no underlying logic and which changes from event to event based on who the competing pairs are, what they want to play, and who has the most pull with the conventions committee. I have complained bitterly about this approach to regulation within ACBL, and now I see that USBF is convincing the WBF to go the same way.

[JanM]

No, you're not understanding me. I don't happen to play Precision. But I think that overcalls over a Precision 1♦ should be treated in the same way overcalls of a standard 1♦ opening are treated. And overcalls over an artificial, strong 1♣, 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening should be treated in the same way - they're the same "sort" of bid.

I'd include the Polish and Swedish and Fantoni Nunes 1♣ bids as ones that should be treated the same as a natural 1♣ also. "Funny" overcalls of those openings should be classified as BS and should only be allowed in long matches and with written defenses. I don't play a Polish or Swedish club (although I probably do play the same thing as FN). It doesn't have anything to do with that. It has to do with when it's appropriate to allow highly artificial overcalls.

I don't think it's at all unusual for a method to be employed by a few people before it's employed by many. I've been doing summaries of methods used in World Championships for a long time, and the FN type of club has become more popular recently, whether you think so or not. So has the Polish Club. Of course they haven't become "popular" all at once, it's been a gradual thing. Also the original WBF ruling that they were to be treated as natural was made several years ago.

Quote

I am not opposed to system regulation per se; I am opposed to system regulation that has no underlying logic and which changes from event to event based on who the competing pairs are, what they want to play, and who has the most pull with the conventions committee. I have complained bitterly about this approach to regulation within ACBL, and now I see that USBF is convincing the WBF to go the same way.

I'm sorry, but you are way out of line here. The regulations haven't changed. There is considerable logic to them. The USBF has NO influence over the WBF. And I guess I need to do a signature for Forum posts to say that I am in no way speaking on behalf of the USBF.

Furthermore, over the years, our (consistent) complaints about inadequate Brown Sticker disclosure have generally fallen on deaf ears. Note that this year, Mr. Wignall ruled that 1m-1M showing the other Major or the bid major and the other minor was one convention, even though it will have to be dealt with differently for 1♣ and 1♦ and 1♥ and 1♠. In prior years, virtually every decision that has been made has been in favor of allowing BS methods.

Finally, I believe that the regulations should change as bidding methods change. 50 years ago negative doubles were sufficiently unknown that had there been alert requirements they would of course have been alertable. Now everyone plays them and they aren't. 10 or 15 years ago very few people played a 1♣ bid that is either natural or balanced. Now "zillions" of club players do so. Regulations need to grow along with bidding methods.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

The Systems Policy was drafted long ago, and hasn't been changed in some time. The way that WBF has handled evolution of that policy has consistently been through the Supplementary Conditions of Contest for individual events.

I wonder whether those of you who think the BS regulations make this event "restricted" or "joker" really recognize what methods are defined as BS. In fact, to allow a pair to play that an opening 2♥ bid is either a weak 2♥ or a weak 2♠ bid, in a relatively short Round Robin match is what would make the event a joke. It randomizes people's results and gives a huge and unfair benefit to the team playing those methods, because of their unfamiliarity to the opponents, and the fact that it isn't "worth it" for all of their opponents to prepare defenses to something that is unlikely to arise in a 16 board match. Go back to Jamaica, before we had any of the current regulations, and look at the methods that the British team used, and that got them into the Finals, in large part because their opponents hadn't been given the opportunity to prepare defenses and had a difficult time adjusting to a system where Pass showed an opening bid. Is that really what you think should decide our World Championships?

I quoted the Brink-Drijver BS methods in the first post in this thread - you don't need their convention card to see what they are. Except for those methods, their KO card is identical to their RR card.

It may well have been drafted long ago but the statement in those regulations that "all classifications of systems will be permitted" doesn't mean what I think anyone with an average grasp of English would expect it to mean.

It is beyond my understanding why someone would write a regulation that says "all" systems will be permitted and then write a supplementary regulation restricting systems.

I know what a Brown Sticker Convention is. More than 15 years ago I had my only experimentation with what is now a HUM system. We played forcing pass with transfer openings the first time that I played in the New Zealand Interprovincial Championships. We also played this method in one interclub event and maybe one or two tournaments as well as a few club sessions - I am actually unsure. Soon afterwards we gave the method away. Not because it was inferior or we didn't enjoy playing it. It was great fun to play. I can't really comment very authoritatively on how good the method was as we only had a short experiment. We gave the method away because the system regulations meant that we could only play the method in a few events. The cost of maintaining two systems in one partnership was too great.

I believe you are hoping for too much if you want to allow pairs only to play their methods in some events. When will they ever get to practice these methods against good opponents? It doesn't surprise me at all that there are so few Brown Sticker and HUM methods in the Bowl when they are treated like this? How would Bob Hamman or Paul Soloway feel if they were told that their favourite methods where only allowed to be played in the finals? Would they think it was a level playing field?

Jan you never commented on my earlier post that highlighted the problem with a short 1♣ opening:

Quote

One thing is certain the WBF regulation is symmetrical with respect to suits.

So if you think a short club - longest suit or some range of balanced - might be natural then presumably you would argue that a short spade using a similar criteria might be natural.

I am guessing that you wouldn't think this was a natural method and that the administrators wouldn't think so either.

Yet this short 1♣ meets the WBF definition of a HUM. It might not be what they intended as a HUM but by definition it meets the criteria set down for a HUM.

"Length three cards or more
Shortage two cards or less "

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

This one club opening could be made with "shortage" in clubs and it could be made with "length" in clubs therefore by definition it is a HUM.

It seems inconsistent to me that anyone would want to allow this degree of artificiality in an opening bid and yet restrict the defenses that other players can use against this method.

I think the World Championships should be decided by the best players playing the best methods and those players being best prepared against the opponents methods. That some players have protection for their pet methods with similar levels of artificiality to other players who have restrictions imposed upon their pet methods does not make for a level playing field. As such it detracts from what should be the pinnacle of achievement in our wonderful game.

[david_c]

awm, on Aug 21 2007, 01:28 AM, said:

JanM, on Aug 20 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted.

I think this is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Am I correct in interpreting this that your 1♣ (2+, not forcing) is "natural" whereas Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ showing exactly the same possible distributions is "conventional" simply because theirs is forcing and unlimited?

Presumably he has interpreted the non-forcing 1♣ opening as showing "willingness to play" in clubs, hence not conventional according to the Laws, whereas a forcing short 1♣ shows neither willingness to play nor length (which is defined as 3+ cards).

Nevertheless, this is not the normal interpretation. I do not know who this Mr. Wignall is, but in my opinion he should not have the right to reinterpret the meaning of conventional like this. Maybe he does have that right, but he should not. In doing so, he has lost all respect I might ever have had for him.

[Fluffy]

I can recall from a European Junior Bridge Championship, 3 or 5 years ago. I think it was Italians who where playing an extremely artificial overcall scheme after artificial 1♣.

Their opponents were aware of this and before the mach changed their system wich allowed 1♣ to be opened only if 4432 with 2 cards to a natural 3+ (1♦ with 4432).

The result was that the artificial overcalls on 1[C] where no longer legal and they had to use the natural scheme.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I can recall from a European Junior Bridge Championship, 3 or 5 years ago. I think it was Italians who where playing an extremely artificial overcall scheme after artificial 1♣

Yes that was in Prague 2004. My partner said "avoid opening 1♣ against them" which I found rather silly. It became worse when he actually opened 1♦ without our minimum suit quality, leading to a bad result. I found this interesting especially since Furio & Stelio di Bello didn't even seem to LIKE these overcalls much (they were Bocchi - Duboin canape overcalls).

Quote

I'm sorry, but you are way out of line here. The regulations haven't changed. There is considerable logic to them. The USBF has NO influence over the WBF. And I guess I need to do a signature for Forum posts to say that I am in no way speaking on behalf of the USBF.

Anyway, I think it is unacceptable that the same text meant in 2004 "you can play anything you like over a short ♣" and in 2007 it means something else.

Second point: How can you limit a pair to 3 BSC bids if you do not say in advance how you count?

MAKE CONSISTENT RULES THAT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND AND STICK TO THEM!

Now if you say "BSC should not be allowed after a short ♣" that is an acceptable point of view, but one should propose a rule change rather than trying to get it that way for a tournament which rules are already decided on.

Strangely enough in a preparatory junior international test tournament I opened 1♣, which turned out to be insufficient (RHO had opened 1♥ already) and corrected to 2♣ with my 6-card ♣ suit when the director ruled my bid as natural. Welcome to inconsistency.

[JanM]

Gerben42 @ Aug 21 2007, on 05:17 AM, said:

Yes that was in Prague 2004. My partner said "avoid opening 1♣ against them" which I found rather silly. It became worse when he actually opened 1♦ without our minimum suit quality, leading to a bad result. I found this interesting especially since Furio & Stelio di Bello didn't even seem to LIKE these overcalls much (they were Bocchi - Duboin canape overcalls).

I remember those canape overcalls from Paris - they were very difficult to find a good defense for, but the plus side for me was I had the opportunity to get to know Bocchi and DuBoin better because I had to discuss what they would bid with different hands and what they would do after DBL. By the way, B&D apparently found that they didn't like the canape overcalls either, because they are no longer playing them.

Quote

Anyway, I think it is unacceptable that the same text meant in 2004 "you can play anything you like over a short ♣" and in 2007 it means something else.

I agree with you on that, and I suspect that the difference came from a different person doing the interpreting (I know that's what happens in ACBL tournaments - we get different rulings on this particular issue all the time).

Quote

Second point: How can you limit a pair to 3 BSC bids if you do not say in advance how you count?

You're right there too - the problem is (I think) that everyone thought they knew what it meant and now we've found out that different people "knew" different things. I think that something that requires a separate defense should be treated as "different." Obviously others think that something that can be described in one phrase should be treated as the same.

Quote

Now if you say "BSC should not be allowed after a short ♣" that is an acceptable point of view, but one should propose a rule change rather than trying to get it that way for a tournament which rules are already decided on.

I didn't try to change anything - as I said much earlier in this thread, I asked the person who is supposed to make Systems decisions after systems have been filed what the existing rule meant. His answer was different from what you expected it would be based on your experience in 2004. I admit that I was happy with the answer, because it meant I didn't have to spend as much time figuring out defenses, but if I'd had to do so I would have. What I didn't want to have happen was that the pair on "my" team wouldn't know in advance that Holo Bolo was going to be allowed vs their 1♣ opening.
And I have asked the Systems Committee, which will meet in Shanghai, to consider this whole question. I am fairly confident that they will do so.

Quote

Strangely enough in a preparatory junior international test tournament I opened 1♣, which turned out to be insufficient (RHO had opened 1♥ already) and corrected to 2♣ with my 6-card ♣ suit when the director ruled my bid as natural. Welcome to inconsistency.

One more reason why whether you can make a "funny" overcall over a bid shouldn't turn on the definition of "natural."

[joshs]

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

No, you're not understanding me. I don't happen to play Precision. But I think that overcalls over a Precision 1♦ should be treated in the same way overcalls of a standard 1♦ opening are treated. And overcalls over an artificial, strong 1♣, 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening should be treated in the same way - they're the same "sort" of bid.

Why is that? Over a natural 1D bid you want to be able to
a. Overcall in H,S and C
b. Suggest playing NT
c. Suggest playing in 2 or 3 of the other suits

The one thing you don't frequently want to do is to play in Diamonds. Yes, on occasion you want to do it, but its not common enough to dedicate much bandwidth to it.

The situation changes over a precision 1D (and gets even more extreme when 1D can be 0 Diamonds and 8 clubs). You just have more territory to cover and you have the same number of bids. You frequently have diamonds, or at least enough diamond length to make standard takeout x's less effective.
The only way of handling this problem is to make 1 or more of the bids multi meaning. For instance if you were playing 1D opening as a standard 1C or 1D opening (and using 2C for something else), your expected length in clubs and diamonds are the same, so I am just as likely to want to overcall in diamonds as in clubs. (Yes, if they have clubs you can overcall diamonds later, but you can get frozen out of the auction when its your hand for game or slam.

I for instance, over 1D openings that can be 1 card play modified woolsey:
x=Takeout (may have just 2C) or a Strong NT or a very strong hand
1M=Natural
1N=Overcall in EITHER minor, relatively sound
2C=Majors, can be 5-4
2D=1 Major, premeptive
2M=That and a minor, about 8-11ish white and more like 11-14 red

I am not picky about how one uses the 2D and 2M bids here (Iplay it like woolsey for consistancy), but I like having the 1N bid as an overcall in either minor and I want to use up a bit of space before responder figures out what opener has (there needs to be some disadvantage to non natural opening bids). Opening a nebulous suit, should not be a license to steal by freezing the opps with too much length in diamonds out.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Yet this short 1♣ meets the WBF definition of a HUM. It might not be what they intended as a HUM but by definition it meets the criteria set down for a HUM.

"Length three cards or more
Shortage two cards or less "

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

This one club opening could be made with "shortage" in clubs and it could be made with "length" in clubs therefore by definition it is a HUM.

This isn't correct - the 2+♣ 1♣ opening doesn't meet the criteria set down for a HUM system. The opening doesn't show shortage or length in the ♣ suit. It shows a balanced hand or a natural ♣ opener. That the opening CAN contain a doubleton ♣ isn't synonymous with SHOWING short ♣'s.

The quoted rule defines an opening showing completely different hand types with regard to the lenght in one specified suit, either 2- or 3-suited hands with shortness in the spesified suit or hands with lenght in the suit.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Yet this short 1♣ meets the WBF definition of a HUM. It might not be what they intended as a HUM but by definition it meets the criteria set down for a HUM.

"Length three cards or more
Shortage two cards or less "

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

This one club opening could be made with "shortage" in clubs and it could be made with "length" in clubs therefore by definition it is a HUM.

This isn't correct - the 2+♣ 1♣ opening doesn't meet the criteria set down for a HUM system. The opening doesn't show shortage or length in the ♣ suit. It shows a balanced hand or a natural ♣ opener. That the opening CAN contain a doubleton ♣ isn't synonymous with SHOWING short ♣'s.

The quoted rule defines an opening showing completely different hand types with regard to the lenght in one specified suit, either 2- or 3-suited hands with shortness in the spesified suit or hands with lenght in the suit.

A system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced should be classified as artificial (red).

[Cascade]

skaeran, on Aug 22 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Yet this short 1♣ meets the WBF definition of a HUM.  It might not be what they intended as a HUM but by definition it meets the criteria set down for a HUM.

"Length three cards or more
Shortage two cards or less "

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

This one club opening could be made with "shortage" in clubs and it could be made with "length" in clubs therefore by definition it is a HUM.

This isn't correct - the 2+♣ 1♣ opening doesn't meet the criteria set down for a HUM system. The opening doesn't show shortage or length in the ♣ suit. It shows a balanced hand or a natural ♣ opener. That the opening CAN contain a doubleton ♣ isn't synonymous with SHOWING short ♣'s.

The quoted rule defines an opening showing completely different hand types with regard to the lenght in one specified suit, either 2- or 3-suited hands with shortness in the spesified suit or hands with lenght in the suit.

What you say might be the intention - I have no idea what was intended - but it is not what the regulation says. The quoted rule says nothing about completely different hand types.

In my experience the players who play this method often describe their method as "1♣ could be as short as two". Thus showing shortage in clubs. Of course they can describe it in another way but that does not change the fact that they are making this bid on one set of hands that has two clubs (shortage) and another set of hands that has three or more clubs (length) in clubs.

I doubt that the administrators would rule the same way if I had a 1♠ opening that could be short but I could group the hands according to some other criteria even if that criteria was 'balanced' as you are proposing her for the "Short" 1♣ openers.

Do you think a "Short" 1♠ opener would be acceptable? There is nothing in the regulations that treats spades differently than clubs. So presumably they are saying that a "Short" 1♠ is "natural" if a "Short" 1♣ is natural. What if the opening could be as "short" as one - so that a 1♦ opening also shows five? Is that "natural" or is it a HUM or do you argue that it doesn't show shortage it shows clubs or balanced or three-suited? And would this be the same for a 'short' as one 1♠ opening.

It seems to me that there is a major inconsistency here. A 'short' opening is treated as 'natural' when it is one suit but would not when it is another suit. If this is the intention the regulations should reflect this. Although I can't think of any good reason why the suits should be treated differently by the regulations. If a certain level of artificiality is allowed for one suit why shouldn't it be allowed for a different suit?

Alternatively the inconsistency is that some players are allowed to their pet artificial openings and the administrators protect them by not allowing their opponents to develop effective defenses against their artificiality.

Josh made an excellent point when he said:

Quote

The one thing you don't frequently want to do is to play in Diamonds. Yes, on occasion you want to do it, but its not common enough to dedicate much bandwidth to it.

about precision 1♦ openings. The same is true of a "short" 1♣ opening with regards to a 1♣ overcall.

A short 1♣ opening is a flawed method. Flawed because there is an ambiguity that the opening side has to resolve. This doesn't mean that it is a bad method - that will depend on the rest of the system. But it is a flaw that the users of this system have consciously or unconsciously put into their system. I am sure that they would rather play a "natural" 4+ 1♣ opening but they want the luxury or five-card majors and four-card diamonds and they have to do something with these balanced hands so the ambiguity in their 1♣ is a price they are prepared to pay.

Their opponent's are also disrupted by this ambiguity. They cannot overcall in clubs and play their Michaels cue-bids. This is the same sort of disruption that occurs with other HUM methods. And now the regulators are saying that we cannot even create effective defenses against this artificiality to exploit the weaknesses created by the ambiguity in their opening bids. This sort of protection is only a short step away from mandating "five-card majors". Since if you play five-card majors the regulations and regulators will protect you by stopping the opponents exploiting the weaknesses in your system.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

Their opponent's are also disrupted by this ambiguity.  They cannot overcall in clubs and play their Michaels cue-bids.

I can.
Vs this openings (and vs a natural 1♣) i play:
2♣=natural
2♦=wjo in a major
2♥=weak Michaels
2♠=strong Michaels

I know 2♦ is a BSC vs a natural 1♣, but I play in a SO where BSCs are allowed.

[Cascade]

skaeran, on Aug 22 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 21 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

Their opponent's are also disrupted by this ambiguity.  They cannot overcall in clubs and play their Michaels cue-bids.

I can.
Vs this openings (and vs a natural 1♣) i play:
2♣=natural
2♦=wjo in a major
2♥=weak Michaels
2♠=strong Michaels

I know 2♦ is a BSC vs a natural 1♣, but I play in a SO where BSCs are allowed.

This is exactly the problem.

This "conventional" method has been protected by disallowing BSC conventions by ruling that the "short" 1♣ "convention" is in fact "natural". Thus requiring the opponents of the "conventional" "short" 1♣ to play sub-optimal defenses.

[JanM]

joshs, on Aug 21 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

I for instance, over 1D openings that can be 1 card play modified woolsey:
x=Takeout (may have just 2C) or a Strong NT or a very strong hand
1M=Natural
1N=Overcall in EITHER minor, relatively sound
2C=Majors, can be 5-4
2D=1 Major, premeptive
2M=That and a minor, about 8-11ish white and more like 11-14 red

I am not picky about how one uses the 2D and 2M bids here (Iplay it like woolsey for consistancy), but I like having the 1N bid as an overcall in either minor and I want to use up a bit of space before responder figures out what opener has (there needs to be some disadvantage to non natural opening bids). Opening a nebulous suit, should not be a license to steal by freezing the opps with too much length in diamonds out.

The only two of those bids that are BS are 1NT and 2D. All of the rest promise 4 cards in a known suit and thus are allowed even if BS rules apply over a Precision 1D. Does that change your opinion? I know you like your 1NT, but you could play that as Majors and have 2m NAT and then fiddle with 2M (choosing between PRE and 54 I guess) and get pretty much everything you now have.

[awm]

Here's the definition of conventional from the laws:

Convention:
A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

I think the dispute focuses on the phrase: willingness to play in the denomination named. The question is what exactly is this supposed to mean. Does a "short" 1♣ or 1♦ opening which is not forcing express a willingness to play in the denomination named? It seems clear to me that the answer is no. To explain:

It seems likely that this provision was put in to protect raises, corrections and non-forcing notrump bids. For example, say partner opens 3♠ (normal preempt). There are many hands where I would raise to 4♠ which do not include spade length or strength (in fact I could make this raise with a spade void). Nonetheless the intent of my 4♠ bid is always to play there (either to make or as a sacrifice) and it seems ridiculous to consider this raise a convention. Similarly, if partner opens 2♦ flannery and I reply 2♥, I'm just correcting to partner's known suit. While it's true that I might bid 2♥ on fewer than three cards, the intent is still to play in partner's longest suit. I find it highly unlikely that this phrasing was installed to protect nebulous non-forcing bids.

The problem is that there are many situations where, knowing that my side has substantially less than half the values, I might be willing to play undoubled in a "ridiculous" denomination where the opponents have the vast majority of the cards. After all, down six nonvulnerable is a fine sacrifice against their game. This type of "willingness" really shouldn't be protected or considered non-conventional. If it is, then an opening 2♥ showing "a weak hand with a major" seems to be non-conventional, since it expresses a willingness to play 2♥ (there are many hands where partner should pass) and it doesn't imply length in any other suit (sure, if I don't have five hearts I will have five spades, but similarly a "short" club promises either 4+ clubs or a 4-card major). Certainly I don't have to have any spades for the 2♥ bid.

Maybe a better way to express this is to say that if partner has a typical hand for what he's shown, I expect to do just as well in the denomination named as any other, even if I am doubled. When you open 2♥ holding spades and partner has a flat hand, you don't really expect to do well in 2♥X, and you're probably not going to sit for it, and this calls the idea that "2♥ is not conventional" into question even though you might well sit for 2♥ undoubled. Similarly, if you open 1♣ on two cards and partner has a typical balanced hand, do you really expect to do well in 1♣X (keep in mind partner's expected club length is about 3.6, so you're in a five or six card fit most of the time and it's breaking evenly between your two hands)? Will you really sit for 1♣ doubled if it goes 1♣-X-P-P (assuming partner's pass doesn't guarantee club length; if it does then is your bid really natural when you're going to run unless partner has length)?

Of course, one can make a case that brown sticker defensive bids shouldn't be allowed at all, or that they should be restricted in some way. But this is an argument for changing the rules and has to go through proper channels. What I think is ridiculous is trying to argue that according to the current rules, a short club is not conventional. Certainly there is some very lawyerly interpretation that "any non-forcing bid is a willingness to play in the denomination named" but assuming one doesn't subscribe to this interpretation (which seems to be a ridiculous interpretation, because of the aforementioned 2♥ multi) then I don't see any way to interpret the current rules in accordance with a short club being natural.

[joshs]

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

joshs, on Aug 21 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

I for instance, over 1D openings that can be 1 card play modified woolsey:
x=Takeout (may have just 2C) or a Strong NT or a very strong hand
1M=Natural
1N=Overcall in EITHER minor, relatively sound
2C=Majors, can be 5-4
2D=1 Major, premeptive
2M=That and a minor, about 8-11ish white and more like 11-14 red

I am not picky about how one uses the 2D and 2M bids here (Iplay it like woolsey for consistancy), but I like having the 1N bid as an overcall in either minor and I want to use up a bit of space before responder figures out what opener has (there needs to be some disadvantage to non natural opening bids). Opening a nebulous suit, should not be a license to steal by freezing the opps with too much length in diamonds out.

The only two of those bids that are BS are 1NT and 2D. All of the rest promise 4 cards in a known suit and thus are allowed even if BS rules apply over a Precision 1D. Does that change your opinion? I know you like your 1NT, but you could play that as Majors and have 2m NAT and then fiddle with 2M (choosing between PRE and 54 I guess) and get pretty much everything you now have.

Nope it doesn't change my opinion. Quite frankly, I think a precision 1D bid is harder to defend adequitely that a multi 2D is (multi 2D has many less hand types, and only 2 frequent hand types), but its in a similar category.

Some systemic bids have big gains and big losses. Others are more down the middle. Bids which do not immediately show there longest suit or hand type tend to have the big gains and losses (they tend to minimize the ability of both sides to find a fit). A nebulous minor suit opening
a. makes it harder for the opps to compete since they don't know what your suit is
b. makes the lead against a NT contract a little more blind
at the price of
c. not finding minor suit fits
d. being VERY poorly placed if the opps pre-empt

If you knew the opps were going to pre-empt, you would not want to open a nebulous minor. Even opening NT is a disadvantage if the opps compete and that has a lot less possible hands in it than the 1m bid did.

If someone wants the advantages of a and b, I think they should have to suffer the disadvantages of c and d. To make them have to suffer these, I want to bid immediately and most effectively over there opening bid.

In my case, my 1N overcall is forcing an unlimited. I might have a 18-20 count with a minor and a side 4 card major (or a 1 suiter) and I want to be able to bid again, hence 2m natural is not quite as good. Your scheme is ok, but I think x and then diamonds should never be natural (else what do you do with big 4432 type hands when you x and partner bids your 3 card suit), and I am from the east coast school of quite heavy simple overcalls and rarely xing without adequite support for an unbid major (at some point your hand is just too good....). You would never see me xing a 1H opening with say 1336 and an 18 count if playing standard takeout x's. Yes I can still overcall 2m on those, but if the methods enable me to two step the good hands, thats much better. I don't think the burden of proof is on me to defend using an ART defense to an ART opening. I am just doing the best I can given the available space to counteract the opps methods.


Anyway, thats my two bits.

For the record, I have played a non-forcing 2 card 1C suit (with x-fer responses) for about 8 years now, and people play all sorts of strange defenses over that in ACBL events... And my 1C opening is merely standard SAYC 1C (well 1 point lighter) + 17-19 balanced with no 5 card major (e.g. with a weak NT I open 1D normally) so its really pretty close to natural and when its not natural its probably not their hand, so some of these crazy defense are probably not a good idea.... But I think they are entitled by the rules to do whatever they want.

[awm]

Looking at some of the defenses, it's striking how similar many of them are to defenses to 1NT openers. This makes a lot of sense since the "short" club or diamond is very frequently a weak notrump, and in this most common case doesn't really favor one minor over the other. I think it makes a lot more sense to defend this like a "0NT" call showing 12-14 (or 11-13 or whatever) than it does to defend it as actually showing the bid suit...

[Trinidad]

awm, on Aug 21 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

Looking at some of the defenses, it's striking how similar many of them are to defenses to 1NT openers. This makes a lot of sense since the "short" club or diamond is very frequently a weak notrump, and in this most common case doesn't really favor one minor over the other. I think it makes a lot more sense to defend this like a "0NT" call showing 12-14 (or 11-13 or whatever) than it does to defend it as actually showing the bid suit...

I agree with Adam. His analysis only supports the point of view that the 2+ 1♣ opening is a convention.

If you describe the 2+ 1♣ opening on your convention card, it should say something like:

Meanings ranked in order of frequency:
I) weak NT, no 5M, not 4♦ (if applicable: "(23)44 possible")
II) Natural, 5+, suggesting a club contract.
III) 18-19 NT, no 5M, not 4♦ (if applicable: "(23)44 possible")

There are three options, of which only one is natural. The other two are entirely conventional which makes the whole 1♣ opening a convention.

Rik

[JanM]

Today's update on Shanghai Systems included the following:

Quote

The Chairman of the Systems Committee has asked me to give you the following information:

The Systems Policy intends an opening bid of one of a minor which is non-forcing to be treated as natural. Only if there is a possible “strong” option to it will overcalls that would otherwise be deemed Brown Sticker be permitted.

So a Precision 1♦ will in fact be treated the same as a Natural or Balanced 1♣.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 23 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Today's update on Shanghai Systems included the following:

Quote

The Chairman of the Systems Committee has asked me to give you the following information:

The Systems Policy intends an opening bid of one of a minor which is non-forcing to be treated as natural. Only if there is a possible “strong” option to it will overcalls that would otherwise be deemed Brown Sticker be permitted.

So a Precision 1♦ will in fact be treated the same as a Natural or Balanced 1♣.

This is great news.

Well actually being a sceptic I doubt that it is.

I also doubt whether that is their intention.

I think they are just saying this because they don't want to enforce their regulations against the "conventional" "short" 1♣.

Anyway back to the great news.

It appears that it is now legal to play a "natural" 1♣ showing four plus hearts and a "natural" 1♦ showing four plus spades so long as these bids are non-forcing. A range of 8-13 should ensure the non-forcing requirement.

I will probably see Mr Wignall in a week's time assuming he is in New Zealand at the moment. I might discuss this with him then.