[glen]

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Gee, if you're going to do my work for me  , did you make a list of which pairs are playing what?

Yes I did short summaries, for the Canuck team. Then, over time I add details and style notes to them. Am doing same thing for Venice Cup.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Seriously, how did you differentiate between Natural with 2+ clubs and 1♣ clubs or balanced?

If the 1♦ opening still handled balanced, but with 4+♦s then it was natural with 2+ clubs (usually 4-4-3-2 exactly opening 1♣). If 1♣ handled a complete or almost complete balanced range, then it was "♣s or balanced" (these did not include Polish Club openings which is a different class).

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

And when you counted "variable NT" did you include minor variations (a lot of people play 14-16 and 15-17 depending on position and vul, ditto 11-14 and 12-14 - I wouldn't call those "variable").

The small upgrades/downgrades were not counted - so Meckwell 14-16/15-17 is not variable.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

What about 2♦ as both Majors? That's also a fairly popular method.

Richard did a count, posted above (the breakdown of the 2♦ openings) - I did my own counts too.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Another area that always interests me is jump overcalls - how many are playing ambiguous 2-suited jump overcalls (Michaels over a Major) and how many prefer to use an extra bid to avoid ambiguity.

Did not do this.

--- ---

Venice Cup Metrics:

38 Five Card Majors
9 Five Card Majors + 1♣ can be 2
2 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+
5 Four card majors (not big club)
8 Big Club with five card majors
2 Big Club with four card majors
1 Big Club with transfer openings (Moscito)
18 playing a weak or mini NT at least part of the time
11 With variable NTs
13 Multi with strong option
19 Multi just weak
2 2♦ as 11-15 short ♦
17 2♦ as natural, weak or intermediate
9 2♦ as big hand
2 2♦ as ♥ or big
1 2♦ as ♦+♣
1 2♦ as Flannery
1 2♦ as 4-4-4-1 15-18
33 2♥ as natural, weak or constructive
24 2♥ as H+minor or H+any
3 2♥ as Majors
1 2♥ as short ♦s
9 2NT as minors

[JanM]

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them. He further ruled that DeWijs-Muller, who play BS overcalls of 1♥, 1♠, 2♥ and 3♥ over 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids could play them all, because:

"The one level major suit overcall of one of a minor is one B/S convention, the 2 heart and 3 heart overcalls of one of a minor are also B/S . That is three in all so the card is acceptable for the K O stages. In my opinion the conventions etc are properly explained and the proposed defences are satisfactory."

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 don't know whether this will be the final word on either question.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them.

Out of curiousity, can anyone point to a statement in the Conditions of Contest establishing a limit on the number of BSC's that a pair can use?

I'm looking at the WBF Systems Policy right now
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfin...temsallowed.asp

I don't see anything that supports Wignall's ruling - and I certainly don't believe that the Chair of the System's Committee (nor the WBF Executive Committee) should be permitted to pull these types of policies out of their ass.

For what its worth, the announcement is available at:

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007...hai/default.asp

My reading suggests that Wignall doesn't necessarily agree with this decision.

[awm]

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?

I can't believe that an opening bid which could be openers shortest suit can be viewed as non-conventional simply because it's not forcing. Heck, if you play 1♣ "natural or balanced" you could be opening on a two-card club suit in preference to a five card diamond suit (3352). How is this natural? How does it suggest playing in clubs (other than because, well, it's not forcing)?

Ask yourself honestly, at whatever time in the past you were regularly playing 1♣ showing 3+ (or 4+), would it really have occurred to you that opening 1♣ which could show any balanced hand is a natural bid? Do you think 1♦ precision is a natural bid? How about 1♦ matchpoint precision? I can't see any reason these bids should be treated differently from 1♣.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Aug 20 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them.

Out of curiousity, can anyone point to a statement in the Conditions of Contest establishing a limit on the number of BSC's that a pair can use?

I'm looking at the WBF Systems Policy right now
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfin...temsallowed.asp

I don't see anything that supports Wignall's ruling - and I certainly don't believe that the Chair of the System's Committee (nor the WBF Executive Committee) should be permitted to pull these types of policies out of his ass.

For what its worth, the announcement is available at:

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007...hai/default.asp

My reading suggests that Wignall doesn't necessarily agree with this decision.

http://www.ecatsbrid...ents/files/2007 Championships Shanghai/2007 Supplemental Regulations.pdf
page 16.

(Sorry don't know how to make a link to an URL with spaces, you have to copy-paste-above, clicking doesn't work.)

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Aug 20 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

(Sorry don't know how to make a link to an URL with spaces, you have to copy-paste-above, clicking doesn't work.)

http://www.tinyurl.com is how

I went ahead and just piggy-backed off your efforts:

http://tinyurl.com/246gyp

[the hog]

Why don't they call these the "Restricted Championships", or better the "Joke Championships"?

[han]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

or better the "Joke Championships"?

Perhaps because many of the best players in the world will be competing and take this very seriously?

[han]

awm, on Aug 20 2007, 07:28 PM, 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?

I can't believe that an opening bid which could be openers shortest suit can be viewed as non-conventional simply because it's not forcing. Heck, if you play 1♣ "natural or balanced" you could be opening on a two-card club suit in preference to a five card diamond suit (3352). How is this natural? How does it suggest playing in clubs (other than because, well, it's not forcing)?

Ask yourself honestly, at whatever time in the past you were regularly playing 1♣ showing 3+ (or 4+), would it really have occurred to you that opening 1♣ which could show any balanced hand is a natural bid? Do you think 1♦ precision is a natural bid? How about 1♦ matchpoint precision? I can't see any reason these bids should be treated differently from 1♣.

Agree with all this, this stinks.

[the hog]

Hannie, on Aug 21 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

or better the "Joke Championships"?

Perhaps because many of the best players in the world will be competing and take this very seriously?

Not because of who is competing, but because of unreasonable and patently unfair system restrictions. Imagine a tennis tournament where players are forced to serve underarm and you get the drift.

Of course the players take it seriously if they want to be regarded as the best in the world- at present they have no alternative in an unrestricted event, do they?

[Cascade]

Quote

Supplementary Regulations 17.2 General Regulations

During the Round Robin of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup HUM systems and Brown
Sticker Conventions will be prohibited
HUM Systems and Brown Sticker Conventions will be authorized for use in the Knock Out
stages in both the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup but not for the Seniors Bowl and only
provided additional, separate convention cards, including separate forms for each Brown
Sticker Convention to be played, together with viable proposed defences are submitted in
full accordance with the regulations below.
Each pair is permitted to register and play a maximum of three Brown Sticker
Conventions

Of course this is in direct conflict with:

Quote

WBF Systems Policy Section 3
...
Category 1: Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup 
  For such events all classifications of systems will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure, but teams using HUM systems must submit their Convention Cards in advance in accordance with the Conditions of Contest and will be subject to a reduction of seating rights, as follows:
  Whenever a team with one or more pairs using a HUM system opposes a team that has no such pair, the HUM systems team will be the 'Away' team, and lines up first throughout.
  No special seating rights or line-up restrictions shall apply when two teams containing HUM systems pairs (regardless of line-up) oppose one another. 

I stated earlier in this thread:

Quote

We might as well call these events the "Restricted World Championships'.

So I am in full agreement with Ron on that.

The WBF seem to be intent on creating a Restricted Systems Event whilst pretending to have a policy of 'all systems allowed'. I don't get that.

Does anyone have the 'offending' Brink-Drijver system card? The website says it has been removed.

[han]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Hannie, on Aug 21 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

or better the "Joke Championships"?

Perhaps because many of the best players in the world will be competing and take this very seriously?

Not because of who is competing, but because of unreasonable and patently unfair system restrictions. Imagine a tennis tournament where players are forced to serve underarm and you get the drift.

Of course the players take it seriously if they want to be regarded as the best in the world- at present they have no alternative in an unrestricted event, do they?

Why is there something wrong with a tennis tournament where players are forced to serve underhand? There are many sports where there are technical restrictions, for example softball where they have to pitch underhand or soccer where the throw-ins have to be done using a sub-optimal technique. As long as these restrictions are the same in all the events there really isn't a problem.

However, I do agree with you that some things are seriously wrong here. One is that the restrictions differ in different events, so that some teams can prepare much better than the others. The other is that the restrictions have to be determined fairly shortly before the tournament and seem quite arbitrary.

Still, I think the term joker-tournament is too strong, it is still a wonderful event, wouldn't you think?

[the hog]

"Still, I think the term joker-tournament is too strong, it is still a wonderful event, wouldn't you think?"

Yes, that was over the top. But "restricted" is a fair comment.

[JanM]

And if you don't like page 16, which says:

Quote

Each pair is permitted to register and play a maximum  of three Brown Sticker
Conventions

There's also page 18, where it says:

Quote

Pairs wishing to play Brown Sticker conventions (maximum of three per pair) in
the Knock Out Stages  must register a separate card together with the relevant
forms at the same  time  as they register their card for the Round Robin (i.e. by
10  August 2007).

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.

[the hog]

When you say "I am not a fan of BS overcalls...." do you mean of using them yourself, or of allowing them?

[JanM]

Cascade, on Aug 20 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Quote

Supplementary Regulations 17.2 General Regulations

During the Round Robin of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup HUM systems and Brown
Sticker Conventions will be prohibited
HUM Systems and Brown Sticker Conventions will be authorized for use in the Knock Out
stages in both the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup but not for the Seniors Bowl and only
provided additional, separate convention cards, including separate forms for each Brown
Sticker Convention to be played, together with viable proposed defences are submitted in
full accordance with the regulations below.
Each pair is permitted to register and play a maximum of three Brown Sticker
Conventions

Of course this is in direct conflict with:

Quote

WBF Systems Policy Section 3
...
Category 1: Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup 
  For such events all classifications of systems will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure, but teams using HUM systems must submit their Convention Cards in advance in accordance with the Conditions of Contest and will be subject to a reduction of seating rights, as follows:
  Whenever a team with one or more pairs using a HUM system opposes a team that has no such pair, the HUM systems team will be the 'Away' team, and lines up first throughout.
  No special seating rights or line-up restrictions shall apply when two teams containing HUM systems pairs (regardless of line-up) oppose one another. 

I stated earlier in this thread:

Quote

We might as well call these events the "Restricted World Championships'.

So I am in full agreement with Ron on that.

The WBF seem to be intent on creating a Restricted Systems Event whilst pretending to have a policy of 'all systems allowed'. I don't get that.

Does anyone have the 'offending' Brink-Drijver system card? The website says it has been removed.

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.

[the hog]

"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?"

STRONGLY disagree. As I and others have pointed out on inumerable occasions in the past, BS methods are part and parcel of many little old ladies' arsenals in Oz. The sky hasn't fallen down, the apocalypse has not occurred. Why? Bcause any decent pair has meta agreements to cope. If you don't have meta agreements or if you think 'it isn't "worth it" ' to work on defences, then imo you shoudn't play in the event.

[JanM]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

When you say "I am not a fan of BS overcalls...." do you mean of using them yourself, or of allowing them?

I suppose I really mean I'm not a fan of allowing them vs bids that aren't 1NT or a completely artificial and forcing bid. If I were the "systems Czar" (which I'm not) I'd bar them over Precision 1♦ as well as over natural or balanced 1♣. I don't think it's any more fair to make someone who wants a 1♦ opening to be unbalanced, or someone who wants to put all the awkward hands that have to come out of 1♣ in a strong club system into 1♦, deal with a 1♥ overcall that is either spades or hearts and a minor or a 2♥ bid that is weak in either hearts or spades, than it is to make someone who plays a completely natural 1♣ or ♦, either in a short match (or a 2 board round in a pair game!) or in a long match without a written defense.

In long matches, I'd prefer to allow more things but to allow written defenses to be used against them. If we did that, I think that methods that are good only because they are difficult to defend against would tend to disappear, and the complex methods that are good even if people have adequate defenses will remain. And I think that would be a good result.

Jan, back to working on defenses against less exotic things

[JanM]

The_Hog, on Aug 21 2007, 12:19 AM, said:

STRONGLY disagree. As I and others have pointed out on inumerable occasions in the past, BS methods are part and parcel of many little old ladies' arsenals in Oz. The sky hasn't fallen down, the apocalypse has not occurred. Why? Bcause any decent pair has meta agreements to cope. If you don't have meta agreements or if you think 'it isn't "worth it" ' to work on defences, then imo you shoudn't play in the event.

If you think that meta agreements can deal with a 2♥ opening bid that is either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak 2♠ bid, or a similar overcall, you are living in a different world than mine. I'm not sufficiently familiar with methods in Oz to know but I don't think most of them are BS. Certainly Moscito isn't. CRASH opening 2 bids are, and having done defenses for those, I know that a simple generic defense isn't good enough (as it isn't vs Multi by the way).

[the hog]

Crash opening 2s, Toxic 2 bids, Leptosplerosis 2s as well as a whole plethora of RCO, OCR, CRO 2 bids are very common. In adition we see the 2H = a weak 2 in H or S, canape overcalls as well as mutitudinous home grown methods.