[Gerben42]

Wow, someone is getting us into a great mess. I am pretty sure this was NOT what was intended by the rules. What about a forcing 1♦ opening promising 4 cards?

[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♣.

Additional to my previous post:

The WBF define "strong" as "high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand".

It is now 100% clear that a bid that shows:

clubs and unbalanced or
18-19 balanced with or without clubs
and possibly some other ranges

is not "natural".

[Trinidad]

LOL.

How much more rope does the WBF systems committee need to hang itself?

But at least now it is clear that the 2+ 1♣ opening is not natural. The only way for the WBF systems committee to get out of this mess is to make an exception for 1♣ (and possibly 1♦) openings, similar to the Multi 2♣/♦ exception.

I think it is clear that the players do not want more rules with even more exceptions. The Multi exception is already viewed as highly unfair since it specifically benefits those countries where the multi is popular. Now, we are creating an exception to protect a conventional opening against BSC's where other conventional openings do not enjoy that protection.

If my favorite system would be Polish club with a Wilkosz 2♦, I would be incredibly @#$@#.

Rik

[david_c]

Trinidad, on Aug 23 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

The Multi exception is already viewed as highly unfair since it specifically benefits those countries where the multi is popular.

And banning the Multi would be unfair because it benefits the countries where multi is not popular. You can't win.

Trinidad, on Aug 23 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

How much more rope does the WBF systems committee need to hang itself?

How many systems committee members does it take to change a lightbulb?
It can't be done: even if they're standing in the dark, they'll refuse to believe the current lightbulb doesn't work.

[rbforster]

Cascade, on Aug 23 2007, 02:02 AM, said:

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

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♣.

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.

Good point about this ruling protecting limited transfer openings from any special defenses. I look forward to using this ruling to deny my opponents the right to use 1♣(4+♥)-(1♥) as any sort of special bid other than hearts! Heck, this ruling protects ferts(!), assuming you could slip the rest of your forcing pass system past the WBF somehow.

Put me down as one more person who thinks this ruling makes no logical sense and just reflects some poor guy on the systems committee making up stuff he thinks will make the majority people happy (rather than actually following the rules, which is his job).

Quote

Only if there is a possible “strong” option to it will overcalls that would otherwise be deemed Brown Sticker be permitted.

My advice to potential defenders is to include a specific strong option in all their conventional overcalls to avoid being labeled BS. For example, 1♣(2+)-(2♥ multi) would include a weak 2 in hearts, a weak two in spades, or AKQ(x) AKQ(x) AKQ(x) AKQ(x) looking for the right jack for 7NT over the opening 1♣ psych. Partner will often be able to rule out this strong option by finding an honor in his hand and pass or bid according to the weak hand types. Similar very strong hands 12 trick hands with specific 11+ suits can be effectively bundled into weak bids showing length in other suits (making it likely partner holds length in the "strong" suit opposite the typical weak option). Advancer is also allowed to use his "table-feel" to judge the likelihood of the 1♣ psych in determining how to advance the auction.

"The can is open, the worms are .... EVERYWHERE"

[helene_t]

skaeran, on Aug 21 2007, 08:47 PM, 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.

Agree, but there's another HUM criteria saying that

WBF said:

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

It is really anoying that the lawmakers are too lazzy to make sure that each law has a unique interpretation. Some laws are inherently difuse and leave some space to the TD's judgement, but this particular law could, and therefore should, be spelled out in some formal way. For example:
IF an opening of 1x promises at least 3 cards in suit y xor (i.e. not and/or) at least 3 cards in suit z, where y<>z but x may or may not be identical to y or z, and x is a suit THEN the system is HUM.
Under that definition, short club is not a HUM because even though it promises length in either clubs or diamonds (you can substitute hearts or spades for diamonds), it does not deny simoultaneous length in both. Alternatively,
IF an opening of 1x promises at least 3 cards in suit y or (i.e. and/or) at least 3 cards in suit z, where y<>z but x may or may not be identical to y or z, and x is a suit, WHILE the same opening does not promise 3 or more cards in suits y and z simoultanously THEN the system is HUM.
Under that definition, short club is a HUM because it does not promise length in both clubs and (say) diamonds. Alternatively,
IF an opening of 1x promises at least 3 cards in suit y or (i.e. and/or) at least 3 cards in suit z, where y<>z but x may or may not be identical to y or z, and x is a suit, WHILE the same opening does not promise 3 or more cards in either u or (and/or) w where u may or may not be identical to either y or z while w is different from both y and z and u<>w THEN the system is HUM.
Under that definition, short club is not a HUM because even though it promises length in either clubs or (say) diamonds, because it also promises length in either clubs or, say, hearts.

Since most SOs who forbid HUMs also allow short club, either the first or the third (or some fourth) interpretation must be the intended one. Or maybe the second interpretation is the indtended one, but short clubs has aquired legal status because the TDs interpret the legal practice in this respect to be so strong that it overrules the litteral interpretation of the law.

Quote

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.

This is absurd. The easier your system is to defend, the less protection you get. It should be the opposite.

[paulg]

I think you are all being too tough on the WBF. It is not easy to draft rules, if it were the world would not be full of lawyers.

I'm sure the committee has a reasonable idea of the systems that it wishes to permit, and those that it believes are inappropriate for elements of the tournament, but struggles to come up with wording that is unambiguous, succinct and easily understood.

It is unfortunate that in this case that they appear to have made a reasonable decision that is probably wrong. I think it would have been more sensible to classify the short club as conventional and let people do what they want over it, but at least they do appear to have made a decision so now let's just get on with the bridge.

BTW I don't buy Wayne's argument that the short club is a HUM. Clearly it was not the intention of the writers to interpret the rule in this way.

[JanM]

As I think I already mentioned, this whole topic will be discussed by the WBF Systems Committee in Shanghai. Hopefully they will revise some of the Systems rules that haven't really been changed in many years. The rulings that have been made at this point are for the events in Shanghai and have been made by Mr. Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee.
That these rulings might lead to unusual results for some opening bids won't matter, because the Systems for Shanghai have already been filed so no-one is going to play the bids you have suggested (except of course 1♣ natural or balanced and 1♦ Precision). (OK, I didn't double check that the Australian and NZ women aren't playing Moscito, but the BB players aren't).
By the way, even if allowed to play a BS overcall of a weak transfer 1 bid, I wouldn't - you have to recognize that BS doesn't mean "means something other than natural" - Michaels isn't BS, nor is a cue bid that shows shortness in the suit bid, or a transfer that promises the suit to which you transfer. It's only a bid that can have a weak meaning and if it is weak doesn't show at least 4 cards in a known suit. So 2C showing a weak hand with 4 spades and another 4 card suit isn't BS. But 2C showing either 44 in the Majors or 44 in the minors (and weak) is. The bids that are particularly difficult to deal with are those that can be weak in the suit named or in some other suit(s).

As for this suggestion:

Quote

My advice to potential defenders is to include a specific strong option in all their conventional overcalls to avoid being labeled BS.

The BS definition specifically includes a statement that strong meanings aren't relevant - what is relevant is whether the bid includes a weak meaning with no known suit.

[glen]

officeglen, on Aug 16 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Venice Cup Metrics:
1 Big Club with transfer openings (Moscito)

One VC is.

[Trinidad]

JanM, on Aug 23 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

As I think I already mentioned, this whole topic will be discussed by the WBF Systems Committee in Shanghai. Hopefully they will revise some of the Systems rules that haven't really been changed in many years. The rulings that have been made at this point are for the events in Shanghai and have been made by Mr. Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee.

This is the exact problem: Mr. Wignall doesn't follow the rules that apply but makes up his own on the fly.

JanM, on Aug 23 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

That these rulings might lead to unusual results for some opening bids won't matter, because the Systems for Shanghai have already been filed so no-one is going to play the bids you have suggested (except of course 1♣ natural or balanced and 1♦ Precision).

This makes the problem even bigger. These Dutch pairs have filed their system notes, according to the system rules. Then after they have filed their system notes, the rules are changed: All of a sudden a 2+ 1♣ opening is considered natural, the WBF System committee rules that the pair now has too many BSC's and they cannot play any BSC's. Note that the ruling is not: "No BSC's after a 2+ 1♣ opening." No, the ruling is: "No BSC's at all."

This is the equivalent of changing the rule so that BSC's are also applicable after the opponents open 1NT and subsequently saying that you cannot play Cappelletti (where 2♣ would clearly be a BSC). And since you filed that you are playing Cappelletti, you cannot play convention XYZ either.

The deal is: Make the rules and stick with them. For a new event, you can come up with new rules. If in the next event, the 2+1♣ opening is going to be considered natural, fine with me.

But it is not acceptable to send out the rules, allowing BSC's against the 2+1♣, change the rules after the systems have been sent in and then bar a pair from playing their system when this system is according to the original rules.

Rik

[david_c]

cardsharp, on Aug 23 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

I think you are all being too tough on the WBF. It is not easy to draft rules,

But that's their job. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect the people on the WBF systems committee to be people who are actually good at writing systems regulations. And yet the plebs here on BBF regularly find gaping holes in the regulations and offer better alternatives (admittedly mixed in with some bad ideas, but we can tell which ones are the good ones).

Anyway, no matter how difficult it is to get the regulations right, there is no excuse for coming up with a new interpretation of the regulations after the systems have already been submitted, as has been done here.

[joshs]

helene_t, on Aug 23 2007, 09:09 AM, said:

Quote

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.

This is absurd. The easier your system is to defend, the less protection you get. It should be the opposite.

Of course its absurd. Thats the point. Its completely absurb that the criteria for "natural" is "limited and non-forcing". In many ways Forcing is easier to defend against then Non-Forcing, since you are guaranteed another bid. (What exactly do you do with 6 clubs and an unbalanced 19 count when red vs white, over a could be short 1C?).

Back when I was in New Mexico, there was a few pairs from NM and texas who played some wierd system where their 1D opening was an unbalanced hand with a major. I can't remember if they played it as forcing or not, but if it was non-forcing, why should that limit my options over it (where in fact thats harder to defend).

In the US, most people play a weak only version of the multi 2D in part because this is much harder to defend against (you have to worry about 2D-P-P) than the version with strong options. This is all so backwards....

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on Aug 23 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

This is the exact problem: Mr. Wignall doesn't follow the rules that apply but makes up his own on the fly.

Please look at the wording of Wignall's original statement on this matter:

It is far from clear whether Wignall was responsible for this decision. It is entirely possible that the Conventions Committee reached a decision that Wignall doesn't happen to agree with and he is merely conveying this decision.

From my perspective, this decision is farcical. However, its unclear who (specifically) should be tarred with this brush.

One quick question: Can anyone confirm this chain of events:

Quote

These Dutch pairs have filed their system notes, according to the system rules. Then after they have filed their system notes, the rules are changed: All of a sudden a 2+ 1♣ opening is considered natural, the WBF System committee rules that the pair now has too many BSC's and they cannot play any BSC's.

Did the "excessive" number of BSC's come about as a result of the new policy regarding that short Club and 0+ Diamond openings are natural?

[JanM]

The rule that a 2+ 1♣ opening is to be treated as natural as long as it is not forcing is not new - it was made at least 3 years ago. The current statement clarified that it still applied and applied to 1♦ as well. The Netherlands pairs knew about it since it had been the rule in the Netherlands in the past, although it's now been changed there apparently.

Whether their bids are BS vs a 2+ 1♣ has absolutely no relationship to whether they are playing too many BS bids - they filed BS cards and planned to play Holo Bolo vs all 1m opening bids. They knew those bids were BS. The only issue was whether all of the bids counted as one BS convention or whether the different bids were different BS conventions. Wignall compromised on that, treating all 1M/1m bids as one convention, but 2H/1m and 3H/1m as separate ones. I think that is wrong because there's a significant difference in preparing a defense against 1m-1♠ and 1m-1♥ (and also whether the 1m is clubs or diamonds). I'm sure the Netherlands players think it is wrong not to call all of Holo Bolo one convention.

[JanM]

In fact, the "too many" ruling was made before the 2+ minor opening ruling, so it is 100% clear that the latter did not cause the former.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 24 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

(OK, I didn't double check that the Australian and NZ women aren't playing Moscito, but the BB players aren't).

One of the NZ women pairs is playing their version of MOSCITO. Its possible there is a second pair. They certainly play a strong club with 4-card majors canape style and possibly transfers.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 24 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

The bids that are particularly difficult to deal with are those that can be weak in the suit named or in some other suit(s).

e.g. a "short" 1♣ opening.

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on Aug 24 2007, 05:20 AM, said:

JanM, on Aug 23 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

As I think I already mentioned, this whole topic will be discussed by the WBF Systems Committee in Shanghai. Hopefully they will revise some of the Systems rules that haven't really been changed in many years. The rulings that have been made at this point are for the events in Shanghai and have been made by Mr. Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee.

This is the exact problem: Mr. Wignall doesn't follow the rules that apply but makes up his own on the fly.

Its not completely clear that it is Mr Wignall making up the rules. It may be a resolution of the systems committee that he does not agree with.

John Wignall may well have played Ferts and/or transfer openings in the past. There is an amusing story that I think Alan Truscott told of being picked up at the airport in NZ by John Wignall in his Rolls Royce with the personalized number plates ACOL. Alan thought this was rather ironic for someone (Wignall) who for as long as he had known had played Strong Club with Symmetric Relays.

John Wignall was a sometime partner of Roy Kerr the inventor of Symmetric Relays.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 24 2007, 05:37 AM, said:

The rule that a 2+ 1♣ opening is to be treated as natural as long as it is not forcing is not new - it was made at least 3 years ago. The current statement clarified that it still applied and applied to 1♦ as well. The Netherlands pairs knew about it since it had been the rule in the Netherlands in the past, although it's now been changed there apparently.

If this ruling has really been made three years ago why have the system regulations not been ammended to reflect this?

How can players that have not been privy to this previous ruling be expected to be aware of the ruling.

My view is that if they publish regulations they are stuck with them. Its not reasonable to publish regulations that say 'white is white' and then make rulings that state 'white is black'.

A "short" 1♣ is difficult to defend against. This has been pointed out by others.

Why should the players that play this "convention" be given special dispensation that is not given to players that play other "conventions"? When this special dispensation is not written into the rules including the supplementary regulations then it makes a nonsense of issueing regulations.

[bluejak]

JanM, on Aug 14 2007, 01:40 AM, said:

It's an interesting question whether the various overcalls are BS if they are made over a 1♣ bid that can be only 2 cards but is not forcing. The BS overcall rules say they apply over a "natural" opening bid. Natural is defined as "a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)" and the Laws define a convention as 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 (3 cards or more) there." Is a non-forcing 1 ♣ bid that might be made on a 2 card suit in certain balanced hands a "convention" under that definition? Since one of the pairs on "my" team (USA1) plays that sort of 1♣, I suspect I'll find out

It is strange the way people try to get round rules, and claims that lots of people do something are irrelevant. A 1♣ opening showing 2+ clubs is a convention. Thus BS rules allow any defence to such a 1♣.

Now, it is to be admitted that the Dutch decided to re-define convention. But they cannot - legally, at any rate - because 'convention' is a Law book term. On the other hand they do not need to since they can allow or disallow anything they like in their competitions [subject to one or two exceptions concerned with non-conventional bids].

So if the Dutch say "In our Type AA competitions you may not play BS conventions, nor may you play conventional defences to a 1♣ opening that may be on a doubleton" then that is legal. But re-defining conventional is neither necessary nor legal.

Interestingly enough, the ACBL have also tried re-defining conventional, but only for alerting purposes. Again, they do not need to since, if they avoid the word convention altogether, they can make up any alerting rules they wish.

Many people - including one or two posts here - assume 'natural' and 'conventional' are opposites, an unjustified and unwarranted assumption. The opposite of 'conventional' [being a law-book definition] is 'non-conventional'. A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is 'non-conventional' [even though it was alertable until recently in England and Wales] but a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is 'conventional'.

The English Bridge Union has avoided the problems inherent in using a term defined in the law-book by avoiding it wherever possible, so alerting and other regulations in England is based on whether a bid is 'natural' or 'artificial'. Since neither are defined in the Law book, the EBU can define them how it wishes. For alerting it actually makes it simpler, defining natural, and referring to 'natural' and 'not natural'. But it does follow the normal international approach by allowing any defence to an artificial opening, without the arguments ensuing from the word 'conventional'.

David Stevenson
Senior Consultant TD, EBU
Liverpool, England UK
<webjak666@googlemail.com>
IBLF: http://blakjak.org/iblf.htm