[Free]

blackshoe, on May 7 2008, 04:22 AM, said:

mike777, on May 6 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I do not think you are allowed to play 2 different cc's during the same session.

That depends on the regulations in force. As someone already posted, it seems to be legal in the EBU.

It's legal in the ACBL to play two diffferent cards in the same session, as well. See Item 1 under Part III of the Alert Regulations (although this does not, I think, extend to playing different cards based on who the opponents are).

In Belgium, where system rules are pretty flexible, we're not allowed to play different systems according to our opponents in 1 session. If you play a completely different system in 3rd and 4th seat you can always bring 2 CC's, but that is allowed since you always play this system in 3rd and 4th seat. Bringing one CC for experts and another CC for beginners however is not allowed.

I guess the point of this rule is that some players would vary their NT range, or play highly artificial methods only against beginners. This may be considered unethical for some, I don't know...

Note that this rule is hard to control though.

[FrancesHinden]

As blackshoe has already pointed out, whether you are allowed to play multiple systems in one session, and/or choose your system depending on the opponents etc is a matter for local regulation and the conditions of the particular contest you are playing in. Certainly in the EBU there is usually no restriction on the number of different systems you can have at your disposal and select between, although there are rules (depending on the event) on the number of different systems you can play against the same set of opponents.

To answer the original question, I believe seating rights give you the right to choose which opponents you play against, nothing else (in particular, not what system you play against). They sit down first, you sit around them. There is nothing to suggest they have to tell you what methods they play before you make that decision.

Once the auction starts, it has been established that the side that calls first has to select their system first.

It's not an entirely hypothetical question, at university we went through a phase of playing different systems depending on vulnerability (a mix of 4-card majors, 5-card majors and strong club). We then found it was too much memory work and gave up, but I think the principle is possibly sound.

[ArtK78]

I play two "different" convention cards routinely. One is a regular 2/1 (except rebid) type card with strong notrump and what used to be called Eastern Scientific type structure. The other is a light opening card with 10-12 1NT and 10 point opening one bids and very light 2 bids. We play the light opening card in 1st and 2nd seats nonvul, the regular card otherwise.

I have managed to put both "cards" on one ACBL convention card for use in face-to-face tournaments. On BBO, I have two cc's, and I change between them depending on the vulnerability. The only reason I use two cc's on BBO is because of spade considerations - I cannot get all of the info onto one BBO cc.

The system that I play is played by a trio of players in my area. One of them has the system on a laminated computer produced cc which has the light opening system on one side and the regular system on the other side.

Strictly speaking, I don't play two different systems. It is all one system. The meaning of various calls changes depending on the vulnerability - a bridge related issue.

I saw Paul Soloway play 2 convention cards with one partner. He had a light opening strong club system which he played when nonvul, and a fairly standard 2/1 type card that he played vul. The two systems were on two separate convention cards.

[rbforster]

FrancesHinden, on May 7 2008, 05:15 AM, said:

To answer the original question, I believe seating rights give you the right to choose which opponents you play against, nothing else (in particular, not what system you play against). They sit down first, you sit around them. There is nothing to suggest they have to tell you what methods they play before you make that decision.

Finally! I was wondering if anyone was going to answer the question Matt asked ("when do we declare our system vs when to we decide on seating?") instead of all this stuff about switching systems in the middle of a pair event or something.

I don't think you're required to say what you're playing (precision vs 2/1 for example), although the opposing team may ask. They may also do shady things like sit down second, ask you what your system is, and then decide to swap with their teammates who are better prepared to deal with your precision or weak NT or whatever. I'm not sure they should be allowed to do this.

and now for an even more hypothetical aside...
There's also the question of whether you can choose your system based on the other people's system or not. This is the "I play precision-against-2/1 and 2/1-against-precision" system. When you meet an opposing team with the same system, who has to pick first? Apparently it's whoever's dealer on the first board? Now I have to make sure that I know exactly what boards we're playing, how they will be split between the two tables, and whether I want to sit E/W or N/S in addition to worrying about seating rights. Or does it keep swapping back and forth each hand based on what system the opener's side uses as default?

[FrancesHinden]

Rob F, on May 7 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

Or does it keep swapping back and forth each hand based on what system the opener's side uses as default?

I think this is the case, unless there are regulations in place to control the number of systems you are allowed to play.

Quote

I don't think you're required to say what you're playing (precision vs 2/1 for example), although the opposing team may ask. They may also do shady things like sit down second, ask you what your system is, and then decide to swap with their teammates who are better prepared to deal with your precision or weak NT or whatever. I'm not sure they should be allowed to do this

I agree with this, although it certainly happens.

[mikegill]

Or what about this... suppose you make the agreement to play penalty doubles only against opponents who have "very light preempts" checked on their card.

1) Is this even legal? It's legal to play different defenses to a 13-15 and 14-16 NTs so it seems like this ought to be legal since the different in the preempts is pretty minor too.

2) Can they just decide to use their judgment and not open a very light preempt when they might have otherwise given the knowledge that we're playing penalty Xs?

3) Could you call the director if they didn't open a very light preempt when you think they would have normally? Can they always use their "judgment" to not preempt against opponents who are playing penalty Xs?

It seems like this question really has no good answer.

[ArtK78]

mikegill, on May 7 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

Or what about this... suppose you make the agreement to play penalty doubles only against opponents who have "very light preempts" checked on their card. 

1) Is this even legal?  It's legal to play different defenses to a 13-15 and 14-16 NTs so it seems like this ought to be legal since the different in the preempts is pretty minor too.

2) Can they just decide to use their judgment and not open a very light preempt when they might have otherwise given the knowledge that we're playing penalty Xs? 

3) Could you call the director if they didn't open a very light preempt when you think they would have normally?  Can they always use their "judgment" to not preempt against opponents who are playing penalty Xs? 

It seems like this question really has no good answer.

These questions have very easy answers.

You are certainly permitted to play penalty doubles against "light preempts." Presumably, you and your partner have an agreement, which you announce and mark on your card, that you play penalty doubles against "light preempts" and then go on to define what you mean by light preempts. That is a perfectly legitimate agreement.

If the opponents' agreement as to their preempting style falls within your definition of light preempts, then you play penalty doubles against them. If one of the opponents then makes a preempt that is not within the definition of their agreement, that is permitted as long as there is no partnership understanding that they will do so. As long as the partner of the preempter believes that the preempt is being made according to the partnership agreement, there is no problem.

Now, suppose the opponents have an agreement that if their opponents are using penalty doubles over their light preempts then they will not play light preempts and will then play "traditional" preempts. As long as that agreement is disclosed, there is no problem. You then revert to your methods against traditional preempts.

If one of the opponents, now supposedly using "traditional" preempts, opens a preemptive bid that you would define as a "light" preempt, that is OK as long as the preempter's partner is just as unaware of the deviation as you are.

As long as there is full disclosure, there is nothing unethical going on and everything is just wonderful. And this is not a circular problem as the opponents agreement against your methods is to play traditional preempts and your agreement is to use normal methods against their traditional preempts.

As to your last question, one cannot force the opponents to open a light preempt just because the hand would qualify for such an opening. Opening a preemptive bid is a matter of judgment at all times. I play very undisciplined preempts nonvul with one of my partners - 3-9 HCP and 5 cards to the 6 are sufficient for a weak 2 bid. That does not mean that I will open a weak 2 bid every time I have such a holding nonvul. It just means that if I choose to do so, the hand is within the expected range of our partnership agreement.

[han]

By the letter of the law I think Art's answer to (3) is wrong. They have to first choose how to preempt, then we can choose what our defenses are. So if we decide to play penalty doubles then they are not allowed to switch back to sounder preempts. If they start passing lighht preempts then that's effectively what they have done.

I don't have the illusion that you can ever win such a case in practice.

[jtfanclub]

Please stop posting your personal opinions as if there were something official.

Quote

Now, suppose the opponents have an agreement that if their opponents are using penalty doubles over their light preempts then they will not play light preempts and will then play "traditional" preempts.  As long as that agreement is disclosed, there is no problem.  You then revert to your methods against traditional preempts.

Find me something, somewhere, that claims it's OK to change your system based on your opponent's defense.

[awm]

It seems like there is an issue with system vs. style. I don't think I can change my systemic agreements based upon the defenses selected by my opponents -- for example I can't change my notrump range because opponents are playing penalty doubles against my weak notrump, nor can I switch to a sounder preempt agreement because opponents play fishbein against my hyper-active preempts.

But a lot of times there are issues of range/style. For example, suppose my two-level preempts are extremely wide ranging, including both "very light" preempts and "fairly sound" preempts. Our agreement is just "we play very wide range preempts" and then modified ogust over them. But if I find out opponents are playing penalty doubles over me, I stop preempting the "very light" hands and just pass them. Partner isn't privy to this (it's not an agreement) so all I've changed is style.... similarly I could decide not to preempt on garbage versus a pair of beginners (because I expect a good board from them if I play normal bridge) or opposite an opponent who I know likes to penalize, etc. Similarly I could decide not to upgrade so many 13-counts into my 15-17 notrumps if my opponents are playing penalty doubles. I guess the point here is that:

(1) The side that bids first must specify methods first. You can't change methods in response to opponents defense to your methods.

(2) However, "stylistically" you can do whatever you want within the framework of your agreements. This can include varying style based upon opponents defense.

[han]

So 14-16 1NT vs 15-17 1NT openings is system, but whether you preempt on a minimum of 3 HCP or 7 HCP is style?

[jdonn]

han, on May 7 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

So 14-16 1NT vs 15-17 1NT openings is system, but whether you preempt on a minimum of 3 HCP or 7 HCP is style?

It's actually a hard question, because people often explicitely agree their exact high card ranges for notrump openings but not preempts. I don't pretend to know the answer.

[Mbodell]

For a while my partner and I were bringing two different convention cards to the table in ACBL pair events and playing relay when our opponents were vul and something else when they weren't (2/1 briefly, and then more standard precision). We were doing it partially for fun, partially because we wanted experience playing each other's system, and partially because we wanted to discourage interference over our relays by the vulnerability. I agree it is difficult to say were we playing 2 different systems or were we just playing one system that happens to have the meaning of bids differ greatly based on vulnerability or seat? Here I'd say 2 different systems but I'd have sympathy with someone who said it was just their own one system.

However right now we are playing only 1 system (TOSR) but a 2♠ bid means one thing in 1st and 2nd seats (standard weak 2 generally 6+ cards), something else in 3rd seat (weak but 5 spades with 4+ of a minor) and something else in 4th seat (single suited spade high offense/defense ratio that can take 7 tricks opposite a complete non-fitting bust). Similarly our 1nt is 10-13 in 3rd seat but 12-15 in the other 3. All of these wrinkles to me seem like more style or details of our system then a different system but exactly where the line is seems tough to define. I'd be pretty surprised if the ACBL had good definitions or consistent rulings around this.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on May 6 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

It's legal in the ACBL to play two diffferent cards in the same session, as well. See Item 1 under Part III of the Alert Regulations (although this does not, I think, extend to playing different cards based on who the opponents are).

I can't find any page on the ACBL web site that's called "Alert Regulations". I found "Alert Chart" and "Alert Procedures", but neither of them has numbered parts.

My understanding is that partnerships are allowed to vary their defenses based on opponents' system (e.g. different overcall methods over strong and weak NT -- the ACBL CC even has two columns for this), but you can't vary your system based on the opponents' defense. The reason for this is simple, logical practicality: if you allow this, you can end up in an infinite loop. Suppose pair A plays DONT vs strong NT, Cappaletti vs weak NT, and pair B plays weak NT if and only if the opponents don't play penalty doubles. If they sit down opposite each other, pair B will never be able to decide whether to play strong or weak NT.

[Vilgan]

I am not sure this is even technically correct. I bet if you had something like "14-16 normal" "11-13 if they play DONT against a weak NT range" I bet it would fly. On the flipside, I don't think you would find many (any?) people who play DONT against a weak NT at the higher levels.

The infinite loop really isn't really a problem as there is no I declare this, then I decide this. Dual defenses mean exactly that, we have 2 agreed defenses based on what your NT range is... now pick one and go with it. Not really a case of switching or anything like that.

[FrancesHinden]

han, on May 7 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

So 14-16 1NT vs 15-17 1NT openings is system, but whether you preempt on a minimum of 3 HCP or 7 HCP is style?

The EBU defines this as follows:

Quote

10 A 8 A partnership may play two Basic systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 or Unusual Systems competitions, and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. Each member of the partnership must display two convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply.

It is permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/or
vulnerability. Examples of variations which do not constitute playing two Basic systems for the purpose of this regulation are:

(a) Playing a different range for certain bids (for example opening no trumps or preempts).
( Playing five card majors in some positions and four card majors in others.
© Playing different lengths for minor suit openings, as a consequence of the
differences in (a) and/or (.
(d) Playing different meanings for opening two-bids (for example playing Acol twos in 4th seat, weak twos otherwise).

I think there can be really fundamental differences between 4CM and 5CM systems, but that does depend a bit on how the 4CM system is played (opening lower of 4 card suits is not far off a 5CM system, strictly opening 4CMs including sometimes with a 5card minor is very different). But anyway, them's the rules.

and for interest's sake:

Quote

10 OVERALL RULES FOR AGREEMENTS
41 10 A 9 A partnership may agree to play different systems against different opponents in the same event. The partnership must each make out different convention cards, and make sure the correct ones are offered to the relevant opponents.

[ArtK78]

The rules in the ACBL are different on the issue of varying systems based on who the opponents are.

Under "Alert Procedures" the following language appears regarding two-system methods:

(1) "TWO-SYSTEM" METHODS

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable.

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

I sent an e-mail to the ACBL regarding the circular problem discussed earlier - change of methods depending on defenses being used by the opponents. The ACBL regulations are clear that a pair may alter their defenses in response to the opponents' methods. What is not clear is whether the opponents may alter their methods in response to the other pairs' defenses. I found nothing in any published materials which address this.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on May 8 2008, 12:49 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 6 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

It's legal in the ACBL to play two diffferent cards in the same session, as well. See Item 1 under Part III of the Alert Regulations (although this does not, I think, extend to playing different cards based on who the opponents are).

I can't find any page on the ACBL web site that's called "Alert Regulations". I found "Alert Chart" and "Alert Procedures", but neither of them has numbered parts.

Part III: Pre-Alerts. It's about halfway down the page. Item 1 here deals with "Two System" Methods.

The Alert Procedure is a regulation.

[rbforster]

ArtK78, on May 8 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call.

The rules above only address changing your system during the session. I think it's generally understood that the ACBL wants to you play the same "system" throughout your session.

The point of the original question was when do you have to pick the system you'll use for the session - before or after you figure out if you're seated against the client? The rules mentioned above don't address this point.

[awm]

Well it seems strange that you are not allowed to change your methods during a session for subjective reasons (i.e. who are your opponents) but that you would be allowed to change your methods immediately prior to the start of play for those same subjective reasons.

So it looks to me like:

(1) You have to select your methods at the beginning of the session (possibly even prior to the beginning of the session in the case of long events like Spingold). It can't depend on any information that you will discover during the session (even if immediately prior to play, like who sits at which table). Of course, your methods can vary based on things like vulnerability (even to the extent of playing two different systems) and you are also allowed to have defenses to the opponents methods (obviously which defense you play depends on what their methods are).

(2) When the opponents are to sit around you, it is not clear whether they are allowed to ask questions about your methods before selecting their seats. On the other hand, major events often require convention cards to be posted in advance, and in many cases the methods used by a pair are sort of "common knowledge" in any case.

(3) You can't change your methods during a session, except to devise defenses to your opponents methods. So it's not legal to switch systems when you see who your opponents are, or decide to play weak notrump because your opponents are playing DONT.

(4) It is allowed to vary your style based upon opponents. Often system allows for more than one call in a particular situation (for example, if I have ♠KQJxx and out I can open 2♠ or pass; if I hold an above-average balanced 14-count I can open a 15-17 notrump or one of a minor). You are allowed to select your call however you like in these situations (even taking into account who your opponents are). But you can't have an agreement with partner about this, it has to be a unilateral "judgement call."