[awm]

I'm going to give a bunch of examples, all of which are from real regular partnerships. Does the difference in "styles" make this two different systems? How should they disclose?

1) They play 2/1. One partner preempts extremely conservatively, and will always have six cards to two top honors for a weak two bid. The other partner is very aggressive, often opening weak two bids on five-card suits. If he picked up something that looked like one of his partner's weak twos, he would probably open at the three level. How should they disclose?

1A: No special disclosure, just style.
1B: They should say that they play "very wide ranging" preempts that encompass both styles.
1C: Their convention card should clearly indicate (by name) who plays each different approach.
1D: They should not be allowed to play together unless one or both changes preempt style.

2) They play a strong club. Their official opening range for 1M is 10-14. However, one partner opens all ten-counts and frequently upgrades 8 and 9 counts that "look good" to him. The other partner passes most ten-counts and would never open on less than ten. They play 2/1 GF in response to their 1M openings, and their standards for a game force are similarly different in a way that accommodates the opening style.

2A: Not a problem, just style.
2B: They should increase their opening range to "good 8 to 14."
2C: Their convention card should clearly indicate (by name) their different approaches.
2D: They should not be allowed to bid this way.

3) They are a pro-client pair. They play very standard methods with a 15-17 notrump, but the pro very frequently opens 1NT on random 13-14 counts in order to "right-side" the hand. How should they disclose?

3A: No disclosure, just bridge.
3B: They should announce "13-17" whenever either of them open 1NT.
3C: They should announce different ranges depending on who opens 1NT.
3D: They should not be allowed to bid this way; they are playing different systems.

4) They play a variant of Acol. Their agreement is that 1M shows four and 1m shows three. One partner loves to open four-card majors and play in 4-3 fits, so he opens 1M almost any time he has a 4-card major, whereas the other partner requires a really sound suit for a 1M opening on fewer than five.

4A: Not a problem, just style.
4B: They should indicate clearly that they only open 1M on "good four card suits."
4C: They should indicate their differing styles on their card.
4D: This is not allowed, one of them is basically playing 4cM and the other is playing 5cM.

5) They play a form of precision. The agreement on their card is that 1♦ is 2+, 1M is 5+, and 2♣ is 5+. Their 2♦ opening is multi. This leaves them with no opening call for 4414 hands. When asked about this, they indicate that they would "make the smallest lie" and one says he would probably open 1♥ whereas the other would probably open 1♦.

5A: Not a problem, just style.
5B: They should mark their card as 1♦ showing 1+ and 1♥ 4+ instead of 2+ and 5+.
5C: They should disclose their differing styles on their convention card.
5D: This is not allowed, they are playing different systems.

[qwery_hi]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5: C

As long as I know what to expect, I don't have a problem with "style".

Let me add: takeout doubles -

one partner like to DBL on any 12+ point hand, while the other partner would show ideal shape for the takeout DBL.

[Trinidad]

A convention card is not merely a list of conventions that are played. It should also tell something about the (implicit or explicit) agreements on style.

I don't have a problem with the two partners playing different styles, as long as they clearly disclose this.

On the ACBL CC this could be under "General approach", something like:
"2/1 GF, Style: Simon: solid, Garfunkel: loose"

I have played against pairs with different styles who clearly stated so on their convention cards.

Edit: This means 'C' on all questions.

Rik

[nigel_k]

1C, 2C, 4C, 5B

3D if partner adjusts their responses or C if they respond as if 15-17 in both cases. Only 3 comes anywhere near the kind of thing the 'two different systems' rule was created to deal with.

[Apollo81]

I've found that in the ACBL, there's an unwritten (or perhaps it is written somewhere) rule that infrequent deviations from the norm by one card or one point are "just bridge", and that seems reasonable to me.

In general, I favor option B. Players aren't allowed to play different methods, so their official agreements should encompass all possibilities by either player. I don't think the rules should force people to change their personal styles.

I am in favor of disclosing the difference in style (1) if asked for further clarification of any bids/alerts/announces or (2) after the auction if the conservative person has taken an action that is marked as wider-ranging than his style really is, but only if it's more than a slight difference in style.

So, here's what I would do in each situation:

(1) Indicate weak twos = 5+ on the card. Alert weak twos if bad 5 card suits are routinely opened by the aggressive guy per ACBL rules. Explain style difference per above guidelines.

(2) Indicate light 1M openings on the card and prealert per ACBL rules. IMO the difference you mentioned is slight.

(3) If the pro only did it on 14s then I'd say "just bridge", but 13's are more than the 1 point guideline mentioned above and I think this is more than a slight difference. Therefore announce 13-17, and explain style difference per above guidelines.

(4) Mark 4-card majors on the card. The sound guy will still presumably open strong 4 card majors like AQJx, so I consider this only a slight difference.

(5) Mark 5-card majors, 1♦=NF 0-2, and announce 1♦ as "could be short as 1". The difference here is that I believe in the ACBL youre supposed to mark expected minimum length in the major openers section and announce absolute minimum length when opening a 1-minor that could be shorter than 3. This situation seems similar to partnerships where 1 guy tends to open 1c on 4432 and the other guy tends to open 1d on 4432. In that case, they've gotta mark NF 0-2 on their card and announce it. I'd put an asterisk or something next to the part on the card where it says expected major length 5, then write an explanation of the asterisk somewhere. I don't think there should be any alerts here, since 4-card majors aren't even alertable/disclosable (or if they are, no one ever does).

[Apollo81]

deleted

[matmat]

Apollo81, on Sep 2 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

I've found that in the ACBL, there's an unwritten (or perhaps it is written somewhere) rule that infrequent deviations from the norm by one card or one point are "just bridge", and that seems reasonable to me.

I think the issue is with the part I emphasized in your quote. The point, I think, is that the deviations in question are not infrequent. (measuring the frequency is hard enough, though).

IMO partnerships should be allowed to play slightly different methods (slightly needs to be defined, so that's another can of worms) so long as the differences are clearly delineated.


I'd also like to see the change in name from "Convention Card" to "Partnership Card." -- putting more emphasis on agreements and styles and less on conventions.

[AlexOgan]

Apollo81, on Sep 2 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

...Alert weak twos if bad 5 card suits are routinely opened by the aggressive guy per ACBL rules...

Is this really an ACBL rule? I've never heard this.

[TimG]

I would like the answer to be C in each case, but suspect that ACBL rules, if strictly enforced, would mean that D is the answer for some (especially the ones where responder makes allowance as in the weak openings affecting the strength of a 2/1).

I would prefer to move in the direction of D than in the direction of B. B strikes me as half disclosure and very misleading.

[peachy]

Never A, mostly C, but when and how to disclose... I find that problematic.
As to the frequent 13-14 NT openings, that is a different system, so D because it is not a style or judgment of hand issue, it is a method to make the pro the declarer.

[blackshoe]

Apollo81, on Sep 2 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

(5) Mark 5-card majors, 1♦=NF 0-2, and announce 1♦ as "could be short as 1". The difference here is that I believe in the ACBL youre supposed to mark expected minimum length in the major openers section and announce absolute minimum length when opening a 1-minor that could be shorter than 3.

No. When an opening 1-minor could be shorter than 3 cards, but does not fit another alert category (e.g., Precision 1♣, which requires an alert), you announce "could be short". You do not say anything about the potential minimum length unless asked.

ACBL Alert Regs said:

Partnerships whose systems include extremely aggressive methods, such as frequent use of four-card overcalls at the two level or higher, weak two-bids with bad five-card suits, or three-level preempts with bad six-card and/or most five-card suits must pre-Alert the opponents before the round begins.

This does not explicitly establish a requirement to alert such calls when made, but I think that if it's unusual enough to require a pre-alert, it's unusual enough to require an alert under the "highly unusual and unexpected" rule.

I think the current "correct" term is "System Card". The current laws use that term nine times (okay, once is an entry in the index — in the ACBL version, anyway).

[Jacki]

AlexOgan, on Sep 2 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Sep 2 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

...Alert weak twos if bad 5 card suits are routinely opened by the aggressive guy per ACBL rules...

Is this really an ACBL rule? I've never heard this.

Yes, if the partnership routinely opens a weak 2 with bad 5 card suits it requires a pre-alert.

Jacki

[mtvesuvius]

Jacki, on Sep 2 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

AlexOgan, on Sep 2 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Sep 2 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

...Alert weak twos if bad 5 card suits are routinely opened by the aggressive guy per ACBL rules...

Is this really an ACBL rule? I've never heard this.

Yes, if the partnership routinely opens a weak 2 with bad 5 card suits it requires a pre-alert.

Jacki

"Hello opponents, we have a pre-alert: My partner is insane. He pre-empts on total garbage, you are advised to double regardless of your holdings"

[awm]

A lot of people like option C, and I agree that in fact this is probably easiest to play against and very much in the spirit of full disclosure. But what will you think when people come to the table playing some combination of these methods? You will get a pre-alert like:

"My partner likes to preempt on utter garbage, frequently opens 1M with eight points on a weak four card suit, and opens 1NT on balanced 13 and 14s. On the other hand, my preempts are very sound, my major suit openings are always at least eleven hcp and show five unless three of the top four honors, and my 1NT starts at a good 15."

Doesn't this sound like they are playing two different systems (prohibited in many places)?

In fact many pairs take option B, which I think is rather deceptive and poor disclosure, since they claim a huge range for these calls but actually never get into trouble because each partner's style encompasses only about half that range. The bidding side gets the advantage of a narrow range whereas the opponents are forced to cope with a huge range (because they don't know the style of the individual player). But pairs who try to "do the right thing" and disclose as in option C (or above) could easily be accused of having illegal methods (playing different systems). Maybe playing different systems should be allowed?

[Trinidad]

In most jurisdictions where you are not allowed to play different systems, you are allowed to play different styles. I have no problem with opponents playing different styles, but I want to be informed. The biggest problem that I have is the pro opening wide range 1NT to end up declaring. If the pro would play 14-16 and the client 16-18 that would be perfectly fine with me (and I realize that the pro will open 1NT more often than the client).

Where it goes overboard is if one player plays transfer responses to 1NT and the other natural. I think it makes sense to disallow something like that.

Rik

[Apollo81]

Adam, I really don't have a problem with B in theory. In each case, the opponents are going to either alert, announce, or indicate something unusual on their convention card. I have never in my life played against a pair playing 13-17 NT, so if a pair announced they play that then (1) I would automatically think that something like what you described might be going on and (2) I would ask about their individual styles if I really needed to know. As long as they answer (2) honestly, it isn't a problem. Maybe you don't like B because in practice most people who use B don't really answer such inquiries honestly?

[TimG]

Apollo81, on Sep 3 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

Adam, I really don't have a problem with B in theory. In each case, the opponents are going to either alert, announce, or indicate something unusual on their convention card. I have never in my life played against a pair playing 13-17 NT, so if a pair announced they play that then (1) I would automatically think that something like what you described might be going on and (2) I would ask about their individual styles if I really needed to know. As long as they answer (2) honestly, it isn't a problem. Maybe you don't like B because in practice most people who use B don't really answer such inquiries honestly?

I don't like B because if I look at the CC and see a 13-17 range with no special note, I don't want to have to ask the opponents if that range is their true range.

To those people who don't like the pro opening 13-14 HCP hands 1NT when the range is stated as 15-17: would you mind if the situation were reversed and the pro stuck to the 15-17 point range while the client took liberties?

[awm]

Let me explain why I don't like option B. I'll give an example of a pair (hypothetical this time); I think what they are doing is clear-cut cheating.

When pair X come to the table, they pre-alert that they play very wide-ranging weak two bids, often with mediocre five-card suits. Their convention card lists a range of 6-12 hcp and says "often five card suit" in the box.

However, in reality when pair X open a weak two bid, they always have 10-12 hcp and a six-card suit. They frequently raise their preempts on doubletons, blast game on random 14-counts, and are quick to penalty-double opponents with as few as nine high card points if there is no fit for the suit partner opened. These tactics almost always work out well for them because, in essence, they are playing intermediate two bids.

If anyone asks about this, they make comments about how they "didn't like" a particular hand for a weak two bid (even though it seems to be in their wide range) or it's "really not my style" to open this hand. They explain their blasted games and penalty doubles as "we're very aggressive" or "just my style to try game here."

------

Assuming you accept that this is cheating, suppose we take the exact same pair X, except that if someone asks about how they decided to bid game or whatever, they answer truthfully and say "well, even though our range is very wide, he almost always has a good hand so I took a shot." Isn't it still cheating?

------

Now suppose that while they give the same pre-alert and have their card marked the same way, if it happens that someone expresses incredulity at their methods and asks "do you really have that wide a range?" they are willing to say "well, usually we have 10-12, we very rarely actually open the bad hands." Nonetheless, most pairs take the pre-alert and CC at face value and don't get this information. Still cheating?

------

Okay, now suppose a partnership where only one partner, X1, always has 10-12 and a six-card suit. The other partner, X2, really does have a huge range of hands. Nonetheless, when X1 opens a weak two bid X2 will raise on doubleton, or blast game on random 14s, etc, because he knows the crazy preempts are "not really X1's style." Again, this is never disclosed to opponents except in the case where they start asking very specific questions, so most opponents take the pre-alert (and CC) at face value and assume a wide-ranging style. I think it's still cheating.

[CarlRitner]

This is all really good stuff. It makes me think hard about what I need to tell my opponents to be fair and truthful.

I think a lot of these cases exist where the partnership does not set out to deceive anyone, but over time they fall into a pattern, which then becomes an implicit and often concealed partnership understanding (CPU).

If they are still unaware that they are doing this, and/or not revealing this to the opps, it's wrong but not cheating. Once they are aware of the CPU they need to pre-alert or pre-announce this, and even so there's still the question of it possibly being diverse enough to constitute different "systems".

I think you can play different leanings and acceptance criteria withing a legal range, but not play two different ranges that happen to overlap.

Could be wrong though.

[nigel_k]

I seldom use the word cheating, but I agree that the conduct in Adam's example is, and ought to be, illegal. Not illegal to do it, but just illegal to use the type B description.

However when the issue is sometimes opening a four card major with 4441 shape, or the choice of minor suit with 4432, I think this can still be regarded as style, especially when partner will not adjust the way they respond.

I'll reiterate the test I proposed in the other thread:

"If it is possible to bid sensibly without any agreement on the matter, then it is style and judgment."

You can't bid sensibly if one player has 6 HCP and his partner expects 10-12. But you can in the 4441 and 4432 situations.