[H_KARLUK]

The_Hog, on Dec 19 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Karluk, I am sorry but I have read your post twice and have no idea what you are posting.

QUOTE (Rob F @ Dec 18 2008, 06:36 PM)
Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this. What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be. Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

Interesting words :"Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?"

Okay then let's go
Why don't you take a look MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EBU LAWS & ETHICS COMMITTEE HELD AT IMPERIAL HOTEL, RUSSELL SQUARE, LONDON WC1 ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 4 TH 2008

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%...20September.pdf

Read Page 2 and Page 3; #08.025 please. Thanks.
Dealer E NS Vulnerable
Scoring Matchpoints
to VPs
West : ♠None ♥Q 10 7 ♦K 10 2 ♣K 10 7 6 4 3 2
Pass Pass 1NT by West

Do the rest of bridge world should open 1NT with such a collection? Is it a must?

QUOTE (Rob F @ Dec 18 2008, 09:06 PM)
That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording

[TimG]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

For what it is worth, I did not come up with the idea of 1C = 4 spades and certainly did not devise it in an effort to exploit a possible loophole in the GCC. Jean-Rene Verne (the total tricks guy) has proposed a system with two one-level opening bids to show spades, one for hands with exactly 4 spades and one for hands with 5+ spades. The system that I wanted to play was an offshoot of that.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this. What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be. Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too. But it is simpler.

As for the 1♦ showing less than 2 cards, why should it be legal? In fact it's really some kind of a HUM system. Anyway, I don't mind if you allow it, it's up to you.

About the light openings, change point 1 and 3a to "rule of 18" if you like.

*******

My perspective on this is: Why are there so many discussions and loopholes, when it took me about 5 minutes to come up with a regulation that does NOT have said loopholes, and basically means the same thing.

I don't know what SHOULD be allowed, no doubt the ACBL is trying to maximize table numbers, and after all it's the simple folks who pay the hotels for the national teams.

I DO think that the American system is severely broken in several respects:

A. Tournaments TDs cannot judge what is allowed or not because the charts are not clear.
B. A messed up system of allowing things that are already on the Midchart but need a recommended defense.
C. Too few tournaments under WBF-ish rules where international players can practice playing against the systems they will meet in international play.

******

Solutions in case someone is listening:

A. Fix the charts so that they are unambigous (see my proposal, and adjustments above).
B. In Midchart events, allow all conventions that are on it and distribute suggested defenses, designed by a committee of smart people, to participants who want them at the tournaments in question.
C. Have more tournaments where all WBF-allowed methods are allowed, so American pairs can actually prepare for World Championships (note that this will encourage the players with the unknown methods to participate in the Nationals).

[Gerben42]

Quote

Okay then let's go
Why don't you take a look MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EBU LAWS & ETHICS COMMITTEE HELD AT IMPERIAL HOTEL, RUSSELL SQUARE, LONDON WC1 ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 4 TH 2008

http://www.ebu.co.uk...20September.pdf

Read Page 2 and Page 3; #08.025 please. Thanks.
Dealer E NS Vulnerable
Scoring Matchpoints
to VPs
West : ♠None ♥Q 10 7 ♦K 10 2 ♣K 10 7 6 4 3 2
Pass Pass 1NT by West

That was a psyche, this appeal is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

In most European countries (and I've played in at least 5), there is no discussion if a certain system is allowed or not, only if it should be allowed or not. Because the rules are written in a way so that TDs understand them, at least.

[H_KARLUK]

Gerben42, on Dec 19 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

That was a psyche, this appeal is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I disagree. I think you did not read all pages. If it was a psyche they would name for example The TD ruled this to be an Amber psyche like in page 7.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Dec 19 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

C. Too few tournaments under WBF-ish rules where international players can practice playing against the systems they will meet in international play.

I believe that Jan told us that the USBF has chosen to follow ACBL convention regulations in their Trials because that is what the players wanted. I agree that it would appear to make sense to have WBF-ish rules in place for some events so that payers can get experience, but that doesn't seem to be what they want.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I disagree. I think you did not read all pages. If it was a psyche they would name for example The TD ruled this to be an Amber psyche like in page 7.

FYI, I did read it. That West psyched is clear, but the appeal was not about ruling how to classify the psyche (green, obviously). The ruling was about the psycher removing a slow penalty Dbl by partner.

BTW had I been TD, I would have at least considered if NS would not perhaps keep their score, as 4NT uncovered the psyche and they didn't double. EW of course get a zero of some to-be-decided roundness.

[H_KARLUK]

Gerben, I've a good family friend from your country living and working in Turkiye, married with a Turkish Lady. They have two handsome sons. One day we were playing a bridge tournament and Peter - caddy (8 y.o.) saw everybody in a hot discussion during the smoking break.
Peter said something in Dutch language. "Als de hemel valt, blijft er geen tuinstok staan". I wondered. Asked to his father what was he meant.
The translation still makes me today immersed in thought. "If the sky comes down, not a pole will be left upright."

[awm]

I agree with Gerben. The biggest problem is clarity. There is really no excuse for the fact that players and directors have so much difficulty interpreting what is allowed and what is not. The rulings coming out of ACBL even contradict each other from time to time (depending on who is doing the ruling, Mr. Flader and Mr. Beye have very different interpretations of the charts). And frequently these rulings seem based on some rough "feel" rather than written laws, for example disallowing a 1m opening showing 4♠ even though "all-purpose 1m openings are allowed." While sensible people can disagree on exactly what should be allowed and disallowed in various events, there is really no logical argument that having vague and fuzzy rules is good for the game.

With that said, it seems logical to try and move the set of allowed conventions for the really big events closer to the WBF's standard, if only because these events are supposed to attract the best players from all over the world. As a simple suggestion:

(1) Switch the Spingold/Vanderbilt/Wagar to the standard WBF rules for Bermuda Bowl etc. (at least the rules that are in effect for the round robin phase). Note that the Super Chart is really not that different from the WBF rules in any case, so this is only a small change in the level of regulation.

(2) Switch the Reisinger to the WBF rules, but disallowing HUM/BSC methods (potentially difficult to prepare for in a format with many short rounds). This will allow a bit more than the current mid-chart (in particular bringing back Multi; banning Multi in the Reisinger is embarrassing) but continues to disallow the really "nefarious" stuff like 2♥ multi. Note that in the case of the Reisinger, there is even a simultaneous National Swiss that people can play if they are uncomfortable with anything more permissive than the mid-chart.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Dec 18 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

As an outsider, let me say that I find the GCC as it is currently written very tough to make heads or tails of. If it's too restrictive or not is none of my business.

I would start with something like:

ALLOWED:

1. A Natural opening bid that promise at least 10 HCP.

2. A Natural suit opening bid on the 2-level or higher that promise at least 5 cards in the bid suit.

3. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an opening bid showing one or more of:
a. A Natural opening bid with at least 10 HCP.
b. A balanced hand with at least 10 HCP.
c. A strong hand with at least 15 HCP.

4. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

5. STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER, showing at least 18 HCP.

6. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a. both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
b. a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

7. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

8. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors.

9. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of
a. a solid suit or
b. a minor one-suiter.

10. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.


Now other than making things clearer, I think I haven't changed much. And this is much clearer, I think.

I realize you say this is just a start, but I wonder if conventional/artificial responses and rebids would be permitted over all of these "allowed" methods.