[blackshoe]

There is no easy answer, but I think it's dangerous to try to find a "one size fits all" solution.

One reason we have directors is so that they can use their judgment in such cases.

[awm]

Dirk Kuijt, on Apr 18 2010, 10:40 PM, said:

I'm on record (to thunderous silence), and will repeat here the idea that the current rules about disclosure are unworkable. It it *impossible* to adequately explain the partnership agreements.

I'm not sure why you say this, nor do I think many agree with you on this point.

For the most part I find that I receive very good disclosure from my opponents. Occasionally there is the problem of transmitting UI to partner by asking, and sometimes I encounter a pair that is particularly poor at disclosing their methods, but for the most part the disclosure system works fine.

Perhaps you are concerned about disclosure of "style" type things, but in most cases partner is not aware of this. For example, you will not get info about exactly what criteria I use to determine whether to preempt or not on a borderline hand... but the thing is that we truly have no agreement about this and partner doesn't know either. You'll get what general rules we have.

[Mbodell]

If I wrote the system regulations then I'd allow anything subject only to proper disclosure and would not ever have "written defenses" provided - at least at the highest level.

People can work on meta-agreements and don't need to have the perfect defense to every possible meaning of every possible sequence.

If you are doing rules like awm's though, I think I'd want a rule that I can make any bid that is a genuine offer to play in the given strain at the given level.

[awm]

Mbodell, on Apr 18 2010, 11:41 PM, said:

If you are doing rules like awm's though, I think I'd want a rule that I can make any bid that is a genuine offer to play in the given strain at the given level.

I disagree with this one.

The issue is that there are three kinds of "to play" bids. They are:

(1) I want to play this contract because I have a reasonable expectation of making it.
(2) I want to play this contract because I expect that, even if doubled and going down, I will often obtain a good duplicate score here.
(3) I want to play this contract undoubled because I think the opponents can make something. However, I have no expectation to make this contract nor that playing this contract doubled will be any good. In fact I probably intend to run to an alternative "safer" contract if doubled.

The first two kinds of "to play" bids are very reasonable and should be protected. However, in a suit contract it's hard to imagine how bidding a suit where you have less than four cards and the partnership could easily have less than seven cards fits into these categories. Why would you have any expectation to make when you launch into a three-card suit that partner has never promised? Why would it be a good score ever, unless you are somehow "stealing" from the opponents? For a notrump contract, I've already allowed any notrump bid opposite a partner who has acted, and any notrump bid that shows 10+ points. What hand exactly expects to make "some number of notrump" reasonably often but has less than 10 points, opposite a partner who could have nothing at all? Maybe some sort of "gambling notrump" but that's borderline 10 points anyway.

I suspect that "to play" calls which do not already fall under my legal categories are "type three" to play calls. These are basically poorly disclosed fert bids, like when I open 2♠ "to play" with garbage and a long suit hoping that opponents pass it out, then if they somehow find a double I run to my suit. This is even worse than a 2♠ opening which shows a lousy hand with any suit, because at least the latter is actually disclosed as such instead of "to play." I don't see any reason these calls should be permitted.

Of course, none of this is applicable to psychs.

[EricK]

If I were making the rules I would try to differentiate between calls which show two or more different hand types and calls which do not.

So OK by default would be:
-Calls which show a continuous length range in one or more known suits (eg covered by this rule would be things like ">=3"; "<5"; "between 4 and 6";" 4+ in both majors"; but not covered would be something like "<2 or >5" or "5♥ and a 4 card minor")
-Calls which show a continuous point range (eg 16+; <7; 12-14; but not "<7 or >16"
-Calls which show a balanced hand
-Calls which ask for information of the above type (so eg Stayman is allowed because the responses from 2♠ downwards show 4-5♠; 4-5♥; 2-3♠ & 2-3♥ all of which are allowed)

And anything which could be made by joining these together by "And" but not "Or" (thus preventing multiple meaings bids like ">16points or <4 spades" from creeping in).

That's not to say that multiple hand type bids would not be allowed - they would be sanctioned on a case by case basis - just that single hand type bids wouldn't be disallowed.

[Mbodell]

awm, on Apr 18 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Apr 18 2010, 11:41 PM, said:

If you are doing rules like awm's though, I think I'd want a rule that I can make any bid that is a genuine offer to play in the given strain at the given level.

I disagree with this one.

The issue is that there are three kinds of "to play" bids. They are:

(1) I want to play this contract because I have a reasonable expectation of making it.
(2) I want to play this contract because I expect that, even if doubled and going down, I will often obtain a good duplicate score here.
(3) I want to play this contract undoubled because I think the opponents can make something. However, I have no expectation to make this contract nor that playing this contract doubled will be any good. In fact I probably intend to run to an alternative "safer" contract if doubled.

The first two kinds of "to play" bids are very reasonable and should be protected. However, in a suit contract it's hard to imagine how bidding a suit where you have less than four cards and the partnership could easily have less than seven cards fits into these categories. Why would you have any expectation to make when you launch into a three-card suit that partner has never promised? Why would it be a good score ever, unless you are somehow "stealing" from the opponents? For a notrump contract, I've already allowed any notrump bid opposite a partner who has acted, and any notrump bid that shows 10+ points. What hand exactly expects to make "some number of notrump" reasonably often but has less than 10 points, opposite a partner who could have nothing at all? Maybe some sort of "gambling notrump" but that's borderline 10 points anyway.

I think you are missing "this is my guess for our best spot, given what the auction has produced so far".

Maybe you don't think it should be allowed, but, for instance after partners natural 1nt which is doubled for penalty (or even with values with a major and longer minor) if you play 2♥ shows the majors but could be 5=4 or 4=5 or 4=4 or 5=3 or 3=5 or even 4=3 or 3=4 on occasion but you want to play either 2♥ or 2♠ under your rules you can't bid it. Partner has only promised 2 cards in each suit and even though you tend to often have 4+ in the suit bid you might only have 3. Much of the time you could expect to find an 8+ card major fit, but you aren't guaranteed it.

[minimonkey]

I really like amw's list. It says (to me) all constructive opening bids are allowed and defines constructive bids as those which show 10+HCP. I also think he nailed the problem with allowing unrestricted responces and came up with the nice solution of allowing any forcing bid.

The one point I would object to is

Quote

(2) Any opening or overcall which guarantees five or more cards in a known suit.
(3) Any opening or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in the suit bid.

I would change this to

(2)Any opening or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in a known suit.

Seems weird to me to allow things like 2H=4+H 4+S but not allow 2D=4+H 4+S.

[helene_t]

AWM's list looks ok to me.

I note that we couldn't play the 1♦ negative response to a strong 1♣ opening as opener can pass it with a minimum with long diamonds. We would have to build in some "impossible negative" or such to make it forcing. (Of course we could agree to make it forcing just for the purpose of making it legal, but I think that's silly. I don't want to be in the position that I think passing 1♦ would be the best call but I can't do that because I would then establish an illegal implicit agreement).

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

I'd go with the following:

Allowed openings/overcalls:

(1) Any opening or overcall which guarantees 10 or more high card points.
(2) Any opening or overcall which guarantees five or more cards in a known suit.
(3) Any opening or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in the suit bid.
(4) Any meaning for pass or double.

Allowed responses/advances:

(1) Any response/advance which shows four or more cards in a known suit.
(2) Any response/advance which shows a fit (7+ cards combined) in a known suit.
(3) Any response/advance in notrump, regardless of meaning.
(4) Any response/advance which is forcing one round (or further).
(5) Any meaning for pass, double, redouble.

Psychic actions which appear to violate these principles when the stated agreement is close to the boundary will be viewed as illegal agreements.

For what its worth, I like the structure that AWM has proposed.

There are a couple areas where I would quibble:

1. Its unclear to me whether HCPs should be enshrined in the regulations.

I understand the desire to have a simple / objective metric.
I understand that many people use HCPs.

However, I also think that there needs to be some room for judgment

I would prefer a situation that recognized that boundaries are fuzzy.

2. I would add the following allowed opening / overcall

"Any NT opening or overcall that shows a balanced hand"

I would define balanced as denying a singleton or a void.

I would add this so that folks who like mini NTs could gravitate towards whatever range they felt most comfortable with, be it 9-11 / 10-12 / 8+ - 12 / what have you.

[Cascade]

1. Its clear to me that HCP should not be enshrined in regulations

2. What is wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton?

[Cascade]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

[TimG]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Apr 19 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

2. What is wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton?

I have no objection to opening 1NT with a singleton

AWM's would allow 1NT openings with a singleton so long as the bid promised 10+ HCPs

[Free]

minimonkey, on Apr 18 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

Opening Bids

Any Opening Bid is allowed if:

It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit
It shows 15+ HCP
It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength

Or any combination of the above

You don't allow modern precision systems where one will open 1♦ routinely on a 1=4=3=5 hand. Maybe you can start adding exceptions

I'm glad a 3-suited hand with short ♦ is allowed, since ♣ is the anchor suit.

I would add however, that if opener doesn't promisse a 4 card suit, overcaller shouldn't promisse a 4 card suit either. So
- over NT openings (balanced) everything goes
- over strong ♣ (15+) everything goes
- over combinations everything goes (for example polish club: bal/♣/strong => no anchor suit, so everything goes)

Responses shouldn't be regulated.

Otherwise I find this a very acceptable set of rules.

[Free]

Cascade, on Apr 19 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

Any opening (even 1-level) removes the ability of the opponents to play their system. If you open 1♦ I can't play my awesome 1♣ system anymore... Boo hoo!

[helene_t]

It's the strong pass that remove opps' ability to play their own system.

Over a strong pass, the requirements of an opening would be similar to that of an overcall. Maybe a 2♣ opening would be a WJO. Maybe we would play something else. Now if they play a 1♣ fert we can still play our system but if they play a higher fert we can never get to play our system (OK, maybe their 1♣ opening is defined in such a way that it makes sense to play system on).

Anyway, I don't think it's a particularly strong argument to disallow fert bids. At EBU level 4 you can play a 2♣ as showing 0-7 points with a 4-card in either diamonds, hearts or spades. And a few pairs actually do so. If that is allowed I don't see why a 1♦ fert shouldn't be allowed.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Apr 19 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

It's the strong pass that remove opps' ability to play their own system.

I have never bought into this line of argument

Any pair with any level of competence varies their opening requirements by seat.

A 2♠ opening in 3rd seat looks nothing like a second seat opening or a fourth seat opening.

Many pairs use completely different response structures over 3rd / 4th seats 1M openings that they do over 1st / 2nd.

[TimG]

If your opponents are using ferts (and a forcing pass), shouldn't you encourage them to open a fert? In first seat, I think it's right to pass with lots of good hands and invite the opponents into the auction.

I think the reason forcing passes are often prohibited is because of the randomness associated with the results after a fert, not because of the effectiveness of the fert.

[akhare]

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

I think the reason forcing passes are often prohibited is because of the randomness associated with the results after a fert, not because of the effectiveness of the fert.

Indeed -- one can even make the argument that a FP system with a 1♣ fert is actually a constructive system and that it should be allowed at almost all levels .

A 1♦ isn't as bad, but with a 1♥+ fert, we start getting into some really odd sequences...

[awm]

Cascade, on Apr 19 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

To elaborate on this, perhaps the point is that I don't think opening very bad balanced hands at a moderately high level is really bridge (by very bad, I mean like zero-counts; I have no problem with "mini notrumps" really). I doubt that it has much technical merit and I believe that a competent pair with a worked-out defense would get excellent results against such bids.

The problem is, that by using such an opening, you typically move the opponents from a situation where they have had a lot of discussion (bidding in second chair after a first-seat pass showing weakness) to a situation where they have had virtually no discussion (bidding in second chair after a first-seat 1♠ bid showing 0-5 points with no five-card suit). For this reason, and this reason only, the people bidding 1♠ on garbage are likely to do reasonably well in most events when this opening comes up (pairs events in particular, where there is no advance disclosure of methods and not much time for the opponents to discuss).

I don't see this as particularly desirable; essentially it's people gaining a big advantage from opponents unfamiliarity with their approach while playing a method which has little (in my view) actual merit against well-prepared opposition.

Sure, if people were allowed to play such methods, opponents would discuss somewhat and have some agreements, but it will never approach the level of familiarity with their own methods after a pass. And yes, you can argue this about virtually any opening... but again, I think there is a difference between constructive openings where we are trying to reach a good contract for our own side and would expect to get reasonable results even against very well-prepared opposition... versus openings like the "garbage 1♠" above, where it's only real upside seems to be the lack of preparation by opponents.