[CarlRitner]

That's one of the best explanations I've read on this subject. I favour minimal system regulations, zero being a very nice small number, but the wording here makes me think twice.

Unless we can get a new call - the destructive double. The penalty structure would escalate severely, something like the tax schedules here in the USA.

[awm]

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

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.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

[billw55]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 12:17 PM, said:

...

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.

But if it was allowed, in time people would adapt and the advantage of opponents unpreparedness would evaporate, leaving the operators with nothing but the bad scores they deserve. Thus the problem would be self-correcting.

Why not let evolution take its course?

[rbforster]

billw55, on Apr 19 2010, 01:09 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 12:17 PM, said:

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.

But if it was allowed, in time people would adapt and the advantage of opponents unpreparedness would evaporate, leaving the operators with nothing but the bad scores they deserve.

Exactly. I'm sure all the same arguments were made against "weak twos" back in the day when everyone played strong twos - destructive (clearly), ill-prepared opponents (since it's new), "rolling the dice and randomizing" (preempts work), etc. 30+ years later everyone plays it and it's an accepted part of the game. Honestly I think just playing penalty doubles against weird weak openings is probably a pretty decent start.

[nige1]

minimonkey, on Apr 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

System regulations
All system regulations apply for the 1st round of the bidding, following that anything is allowed as all players have had the opportunity to speak. Doubles and redoubles are allowed to take any meaning at any time.
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
Overcalls
Any overcall 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
Responses
Responses are allowed if:
They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit
They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit
They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences
They are Game Forcing
This list would make illegal: multi- pre-empts, precision 1D openers on (41)35  shapes and are probably subject to abuse in ways I haven’t thought of.
Anyone else got any opinions or a simple list of rules they would like to see implemented?

awm, on Apr 18 2010, 05:28 PM, 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.
My view is that the main thing which needs restricting is bids which are not really attempts to reach a making contract (i.e. could be quite weak) and which also are quite vague about shape (don't show a known suit, don't show the suit bid necessarily, etc). These tend to be tough to defend and are also quite "randomizing" in terms of results. They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system and tend to obtain a lot of good results through "confusion" rather than technical merit. These include things like fert bids and 2♥ multi. The above approach legalizes almost all constructive methods, while banning the kind of stuff where opener bids a suit he doesn't have on a terrible hand and then responder passes and we see if their opponents can "guess right." I do think there is some slight need to regulate responses, because a 1♦ opening which is light and limited followed by a 2♥ response showing "very weak two in either major" is roughly as bad as a 2♥ opening showing "weak two in either major" to begin with. This also tends to prevent an "arms race" of weak (or possibly weak) multi-meaning bids which can be tough to disclose and tough to defend against without advance notice.

If we must have system regulations then I agree with

• minimonkey and awm: they should be simple and easy to understand.
  
• awm: we should enforce them rigorously and objectively.

The EBU had a series of restrictive regulations (e.g. about strength of openings and responses to multi). A few players were handicapped by complying with these rules. Much later, we found out that, in practice, directors tempered the letter of the law with subjective judgment. This illustrates how complex subjective rules create the impression of unfairness.

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

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.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

Well, you can always overcall 1♥ when they open 1♦ and you have hearts. Everything else can be the same as if they had opened 1♥. You have more room to describe your hearts after the transfer opening than after the natural opening. True: there is less chance that you will end up defending 1♥.

I realize a line must be drawn somewhere and it is not really my intention to argue the merits of transfer openings or the ease with which they may be defended. My point is more along the lines of even with the regulations you present, it would seen that there would be a need for multiple charts -- surely things like multi and transfer openings that could be based upon a 4-card suit should be allowed in some events -- and I wonder what the other charts would be and what criteria should be used to decide which is in effect.

[Gerben42]

Well I would not really change the rules, you get too much opposition. But I would rephrase them so that they are clear and unambiguous. Whatever happened to the project of rephrasing the GCC...

[awm]

Multi 2♦ is an interesting case. It should be allowed in serious competition for legacy/popularity reasons, but at the same time it's hard to write a sensible set of regulations which permits multi while disallowing other arguably similar conventions (2♥ multi, 2♦ wilkosz).

I suspect that when multi first became popular, it was treated as a forcing bid. This is because the early practitioners typically had strong options (often a very big balanced hand) and thus did not really produce the auction 2♦ multi - (pass) - pass. This version of "forcing multi" is arguably a lot easier to defend than the currently popular weak-only variety. I suspect that many of the "weak only multi" players do not produce the auction 2♦-pass-pass often for stylistic reasons; perhaps they should bid this way more. In any case, the "passable multi" seems very much in the style of things I'd prefer to disallow (i.e. artificial passable openings on very bad hands, in suits that opener need not hold).

Basically I see two solutions to this:

(1) Allow multi in serious events by giving it a special exception. Explain that this is for legacy reasons, and does not generalize to sanctioning other "similar" methods.

(2) Create a blanket rule allowing forcing openings or overcalls, while banning "psychic" passes of such openings if opener's LHO passes.

I'd tend to favor the second approach. Obviously this does restrict the multi in some way, but the style it is prohibiting (passing of the multi in uncontested auctions) is not currently popular and arguably makes the method much harder to defend against.

[Mbodell]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

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.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I think you can get around this with a relatively simple rule:

If bid A is legal, then all bids cheaper than A are legal providing they:

1. Show the same thing as bid A

2. Are strictly forcing through A if the opponents pass

Basically you allow any "constructive" system. If a natural weak 2♠ is legal then I should be able to open 1♦ showing a natural weak 2♠ as long as partner and I are required to bid if opponents pass until we reach 2♠. This can't be harder to defend against than a 2♠ bid because in the worst case defense you pretend they opened 2♠, and in the "normal" case you take advantage of the extra room.

If the pair in question uses the room between, in my example 1♦ and 2♠, to determine they only want to play 2♠ (lower level ogust or something), then I'd argue they are being constructive.

In this model you can safely pass the 1♦ transfer canape openings because you don't need to worry they will play 1♦.

[straube]

I think a lot of the decisions we're trying to make about allowing certain methods and excluding others would go away if we increased the penalty for undertricks.

Instead of banning bids that take up space and reveal nothing useful, make it more expensive to try to do so. Like putting a tax on smoking.

Sure, I like having different vulnerabilities (though it adds complexity for new players) but we might be better off with vulnerable and "super"-vulnerable. Maybe the undertricks would start at 100 and 150. Maybe not so much.

This change in the risk/reward ratio would decrease competitive (interference) bidding and lead to more constructive auctions.

[Cascade]

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

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.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

This just can't be true.

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

[straube]

Cascade, on Apr 19 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

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.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

This just can't be true.

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

1D allows more room than does 1H whatever its meaning.

The opponents aren't really doing me any favors by opening 1D when they have hearts. What they appear to be giving me they take back again if they open 1S (or whatever) to show diamonds.

Also, I have to play transfers (or something good) over their opening transfers to use the available space efficiently.

[awm]

I should note that I've previously suggested a much simpler approach to this, which potentially keeps two major groups (the "no regulations" group and the "restrict fert bids and similar" group) happy.

Legalize all methods (assuming proper disclosure). However this should be accompanied by a slight change to the scoring table. This change will increase the penalty for undoubled undertricks, such that "stealing" from the opponents by playing in a ridiculous strain when they can make game becomes unprofitable. More specifically, I suggest keeping the score for down one (and incidentally down two) the same. When a contract fails by two or more tricks, the score is the same as the current scoring for a doubled contract failing one trick less. So NV the scores are -50, -100, -300, -500, -800, etc. The V scores are -100, -200, -500, -800, etc.

This removes the incentive to (for example) try to play in 2♥ with very few hearts between us and very few values in case this makes it hard for the opponents to bid properly, since 2♥-5 will be worse for us than their heart game making, even if we are undoubled and favorable.

Note that the scoring tables have changed as recently as 1987 (within most of our lifetimes!) so it's not like these tables are somehow sacred or tampering with them somehow breaks with the long history of duplicate bridge. I also suspect that this change will have little effect on relatively "normal" bidding and play (occasionally it might be a factor if deciding whether to go all out to make and risk going down a lot, or play safely for one off). However, it would tend to deter the fert bids and chimera preempts that many people (including me) feel should be restricted. Even though nominally "all methods are allowed" I suspect that few people would want to play these type of things and risk "undoubled down four, -500": currently many pairs who do use such methods where they are permitted do so only at NV after all.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Apr 19 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

This just can't be true.

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

One thing the defending side loses is the ability to pass with the suit shown by opener and know that they will either get another turn or have opener play in their suit.

If RHO opens 1♥ canape (promising only 4) and I hold a decent hand with hearts, I can pass with the knowledge that either I will get a second chance to act or they opponents will be playing in my suit.

If RHO opens 1♦ showing the same hand and I hold a decent hand with hearts, I can't pass with the same safety. Even though I have an extra option to show my hand, something has been taken away from me.

I don't think your conclusion that 1♦ must be easier to defend because of the extra option available is necessarily correct.

[CarlRitner]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

This change will increase the penalty for undoubled undertricks, such that "stealing" from the opponents by playing in a ridiculous strain when they can make game becomes unprofitable.

This is what I was thinking of when I mentioned the "destructive double" earlier. But changing the scoring table is so much easier than inventing a new call.

Not nearly as revolutionary, or enticing, but simpler.

[blackshoe]

It seems rather disingenuous to say "all methods are allowed" while simultaneously arranging the scoring table to discourage those methods you don't like.

[Bbradley62]

minimonkey, on Apr 18 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

Responses are allowed if:

They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit
They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit
They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences
They are Game Forcing

I like bidding Stayman with a 3-4-5-1 yarborough (and passing a 2♦ response). Would this be allowed?

[Mbodell]

Bbradley62, on Apr 19 2010, 06:12 PM, said:

minimonkey, on Apr 18 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

Responses are allowed if:

They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit
They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit
They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences
They are Game Forcing

I like bidding Stayman with a 3-4-5-1 yarborough (and passing a 2♦ response). Would this be allowed?

For that matter regular stayman wouldn't be allowed unless it was game forcing or unless it shows a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences.

[Dirk Kuijt]

First, sorry not to have answered awm’s question sooner; I have been traveling.

Let me try to explain why I think that full disclosure is impossible.

1. As awm hinted at, style matters, and getting this information is hard. Look at the discussion held earlier in this forum about what to open with 4-4 in the minors. Frank Stewart generally favors 1C while I believe I’m right in saying that most of the people on this forum favor 1D. Stewart’s choice is going to mean that 1D will tend to be a better suit that the other choice. Obviously, when RHO opens 1D I *can* ask this question, but I’m not likely to. There are countless examples of this; sequences that may be defined by a practiced partnership (or might not be) whose meaning in terms of strength or distribution is likely to differ from my definition. While this doesn’t affect bidding all that much, simply because one side so often just passes, it will affect the defense.

2. As pointed out in a Bridge World editorial (which I can’t lay my hands on, so this is from memory), there is a serious risk of passing unauthorized information to partner *simply by asking about a bid*. Hence, even if I can get all the information I want perfectly (which I don’t think I can), I can’t ask the question. For example, this sequence, starting with LHO: (1H)-Pass-(2C)-?. Sounds simple, right? But, if this is against an Acol pair, where 2C might be only 8 or 9 HCP, I want my double to be takeout; this might be our hand, especially if we have the spade suit. On the other hand, if this is against Auken-von Arnim, where 2C is a semi-artificial game forcing response, then our side is outgunned in high cards; we can outbid them only with extreme distribution. But, double as a lead director is attractive, since responder doesn’t promise clubs. But, can I ask? Not really. If I have clubs, and want to consider the lead directing double, what will happen if I ask about 2C, and get the answer “long clubs, 10+”. Now, I have to pass; double risks them redoubling 2C and making overtricks. But, partner now knows that I had a problem, and it isn’t going to be hard to figure out what that problem is. Under the current laws, I don’t see a way out of this legal trap. Note that the same situation arises in point 1. If I ask, “what do you open with 4-4 in the minors?” over their 1C bid, partner knows I’ve got something good in diamonds, and partner and I have to spend the dinner break explaining our defense to a committee.

[minimonkey]

Quote

For that matter regular stayman wouldn't be allowed unless it was game forcing or unless it shows a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences.

Yes this would be an issue in what I wrote, I think i could just about convince people that stayman was a catchall (no 5H/S or 6C/D or Some Other Shapes or 9+ HCP no 4cM) but I like awm's solution better of allowing any forcing response.