aelred

We played a (sort of) Magic Diamond opening structure last year. 2♣/2♦ openings showing 5+ w/o a 4 card major, about 9-13 came quite a lot. And my humble feeling was we were miles ahead when they came. Especially non-vul. It was matchpoints. I've got bragging rights for an extra national title after the event - so the field was not so atrocious after all (perhaps...). But ... the pain? When does it come ... the pain? I'm waiting impaciently! (After all, one has to be a masochist to keep playing bridge under current regulations.) Aelred

How about: double = takeout of diamonds (includes monster hands), pass then double = takeout of the last bid suit, the rest natural? It may not be optimal, but looks pretty straightforward. And after all, you need some expectance of a fit to want to compete (or tons of high cards to play game on strength). As a side note, probably you should err on the side of caution, even if you play quite aggresively otherwise. Wilkosz is a 55 two-suiter, so foul distributions are very much alike ... Aelred P.S. Whether forementioned takeout doubles might or might not contain (un)equal level conversion type hands is worth a discussion of itself. But this is the beginner/intermediate thread after all ...

I thought "constructive" in "all constructive responses" meant "that honestly tries to improve contract, not to confuse opponents", or something like such. That a certain strength range over an opening is traditionally called constructive does have little to do with this regulation IMHO. It is just a mere coincidence - or is it? Second, this certainly is not a relay system. There are no questions asked. As for the puppet aspect, it might intervene if opener will always bid the drop-dead suit at minimum level. But I think there may be some super-accept, although that may be deemed "not constructive" as opener is limited and responder is drop-dead B) Just my 2 cents, and I have no first-hand experience with the way the ACBL uses this regulation in practice as I never played there. Problem is, at this moment in time, in my impression "Law is what law does". At least, that is the way things go around here (Romania). Aelred

Now, there are some that think this is not a major change - because anyway SOs could regulate however they wished under the old laws, using the "Endicott fudge" to ban the use of conventions thereafter. Leaving apart the fact that the said "Endicott fudge" had a very dubious look, that is now gone, I'd like to point out the obvious difference: yes, before SOs could use the said fudge for their purposes - PROVIDED the SOs had enough competent persons aboard to know about the said fudge in the first place and to be able to draw such regulation. I can mathematically prove that SOs where no such competence can be found exist - in the usual mathematical way, by providing an example (only upon request). More exactly, I refer to an NBO - a national body. I happen to play in this NBO - I was born here. I'll better leave it unnamed, the precise identity of my NBO is of no concern. The problem, as I see it, is this: the rules of bridge should work. They should work everywhere. The responsibility for drafting rules that work should go to the rulemakers. The rulemakers seem to be drafting rules that confer SOs, NBOs etc lots of power and rely on these organisations having enough competence to exert that power. My NBO does not seem to have the said competence and also not the means to acquire it. So the rules do not work, and moreover if you happen to know what the rules require you to do (as a player) you are usually just restricted further than the field (that does not give a damn). It's not about good will - I'm pretty certain most guys in power around here have the best intentions. However, although there is lots of good will, I'm afraid resources are severely lacking. And I'm also afraid no change of persons in power will get us anywhere. Now, in such an environment there is already enough trouble with keeping the game running as it is. If you add more regulating power, the problem is, well, at some time someone will certainly use it. And it certainly won't be a thing of beauty. And over here, there is lots of regulating power added - the advantage of the guys in power being honest, simple-minded and not that well learned was, well, that you could tell them "hey, you're only supposed to be regulating conventions" and they'd say "oh, is that so? we did not know, sorry". And when the time will come that we'll have to cope with a stupid, horrible regulation that will detract massively from our enjoyment of the game, please allow me to hold responsible not the guys that will be imposing it (after all, they know no better) but those gentlemen in the laws drafting committee that thought it was just a small, convenient change.

I have recently developped some interest in this kind of stuff (4 card majors, strong/art club/diamond, canape possible, a general aggressive approach to bidding). A question to you group: what are the best references available online (English or French only)? Books and/or articles you'd recommend? What I'm looking for is something in the lines of Auken-von Arnim; there were several Nordic systems in the same spirit I believe (bridgeguys.com refers to the original Carrot Club as being a 4 card major system) - alas, my first quick search produced mostly materials in Swedish and such ... I'd do a more extensive search but there is no time left - I leave tomorrow morning for a bridge tournament in neighbouring Bulgaria. So I thought I might just post here a short note. Any helpful pointer will be highly appreciated. Thank you all! Aelred

Aelred, you had BETTER not play money bridge against competent opponents. The Anonymous Bridge God has spoken! Peter I thank him for the advice. It's well taken. Anyway, I'm too much involved in the brand new form of the game these days to play "cut for partners" - you know, the one they call "duplicate" :P My sincere apologies to mr. Foo. I thought the discussion was about what one may or may not play with one's partner, after careful discussion, not about one might play with a random godzilla. Therefore I found little to no value in all his arguments. I stand corrected. Aelred

Lot's of reasons: 1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them. 2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot. 3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N. 4= When We don't pllay the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD. Well, that would be a great loss if you played in the novice game here at Saint Titus. However, I've heard Bro Lucius talking to Fra Paulo yesterday, and he was saying that doubling the opponents is pretty useless at higher levels of the game. Bro Cameron says this is partner's criminal sin (after all, he knows what you play, so he should know better). However, you should see Bro Cameron when HE gets over excited :D But he usually makes - probably by divine intervention ... The abbot told us last week: "Novice brothers, you know, when we open the bidding, we must not necessarily stop at game level or more." This was a complete revelation to me. Now I've seen the light! Yes, I've seen Fra Paulo declaring ... On the other hand, whenever those pesky opponents open, I seem to have so much trouble buying the contract in the right strain and level - if at all. But what do I know? I'm just a poor simple-minded novice after all. Aelred

A simple scheme we used a lot here (Romania) is: 10-13 1NT 1♣ 14-16 or NAT UNBAL 1♦ 17-19 or NAT UNBAL (bal hands rebid 1NT) The 1♦ opening is obviously inspired by Nightmare. And we switch the 1♣ and 1NT ranges when VUL or in 3rd (in 4th we play a 1NT opening as "to play there, usually balanced" :)) It seems to work pretty well, and our system is natural (well, maybe except T-Walsh). IMNSHO, playing a mini-NT when not vul is always a great idea. Keeping the strong bal hands on the one level, as in Precision, is also nice. Aelred P.S. As for the original posting, the key words are "in a strong club context". I've played quite a lot just about that scheme about 3-4 years ago. The only difference was that we used 10-13 and 14-16 for 1NT and 1♦-1banana-1NT respectively (we switched vul or in 3rd/4th). It's very playable IMO, either with 5c M possible or not.

Ok, I feel a few clarifications are required. First, I was pretty happy with our system - although we played it quite "agriculturally". But we won the championship after all. It seemed to fit well the "strain before level" matchpoint philosophy. Also, playing one's own games did not seem to be a problem. And in competitive situations we were usually well ahead. Most our losses came from situations were we had no firm agreements (due to lack of preparation). However, for IMP play, I like a vulnerability dependent strategy: try to bid your vulnerable games and talk your opponents out of their own. Hence I came with the idea of the two-card system (which is nothing new under the sun - see for instance Atack by Goodman-Soloway). It looks feasible - I think we can put the stuff we are playing now in notes of a couple pages. Another couple pages non vul and we are done. And here come local system regulations: bang! In our case, local means Romanian. Romanian system regulations mean a Romanian translation of the WBF/EBU ones - nothing more, nothing less. And probably no Romanian TD that understands anything out of them - this winter I spent one hour trying to convince a chief TD (at national level) that a 1NT opening showing a weak hand with both majors (starting at 0 :P ) OR a strong balanced hand is classified as HUM and disallowed. And half an hour more on the phone with the head of the Laws and Ethics comission. Now, from the WBF page: and So, whenever your basic methods vary according to vulnerability, unless your system violates the HUM rules, it is basically Red. Now, there is a catch here: Green (NV) + Green (Vul) = Red Also Red + Red. But there is this It seems to me that if I play two Blue systems that differ in the basic structure, the result may be HUM. A 1 ♦ opening that shows either clubs or diamonds, or either clubs or diamonds or a bal hand, or other such combinations - as most Blue schemes use - looks to me to be in violation of the HUM rules. (Ok, I know, there are lots of Blue schemes that use a natural 1♦ - but at the expense of using lots of level 2 for constructive openings, which I do not want) Now, I'd like to make such a concoction - just for the fun of it. It has to be allowed by the rules (meaning not a HUM as classified above). I want constructive level 2 openings VUL and almost none such NV (preferably all constructive openings shouls stop at 1NT - leaving all of level 2 for pressure bidding style preempts). I'd rather use my current scheme when VUL, with as little alterations as possible. Any ideas? Also, examples relative to what is known to be classified as HUM/non-HUM will be highly appreciated - especially if you could also provide documentation, preferrably online one. Many thanks, Aelred

We played our national open pairs championship over the weekend using a (very basic) homegrown system based on a kind of Magic Diamond structure: 1 ♣ = 14-16 ANY except UNBAL with exactly 4M 1 ♦ = 17+, control responses (as in the good old stone age :P ) 1 ♥/♠ = 4 cards UNBAL, <=16, usually canape OR <=13 single suiter 1 NT = 10-13 BAL (11-14-VUL) 2 ♣/♦ = 5+ cards UNBAL, no 4M, <=13 2 ♥/♠ = 5+ cards & 4+ minor, <=13 2 NT = 55+ minors, <=13 I must say it worked pretty well for matchpoints - as we eventually won ;) However, for IMP play, although I'm satisfied with the current structure when vulnerable, I'd like to dispense with level 2 openings altogether and use level 2 for wide-range major-oriented preempts when NV. This means I'd have to cramp a lot the 1 level openings - I'm thinking of using a strong club (15+) and 4(5?) card majors with a prepared 1 ♦. Now here comes the problem: our country is using the WBF/EBL system licencing scheme. Now, what we are currently playing qualifies as a blue system (strong club/diamond) which practically gives one open licence for the other (non-strong) minor opening. But drastically altering structure depending on vulnerability I think makes your system red (although you are esentially playing two different "blue" cards :wacko: ). And here comes the tricky question: the "dustbin" licence for one minor openings is only granted to blue systems - so will my system become a HUM? A 1 ♦ opening that shows an UNBAL hand with at least a minor seems pretty HUM to me, if not covered by the "blue" exemption :( Could anyone that has more experience with the WBF regulations shed some light? (over here, in Romania, I can practically adress nobody for such technical advice ) Aelred

'Silny Pas tourney' - when is this running? I'd like very much to watch. aelred

Take 1♣[1] - 1♦[2] 1♥[3] - 2♦[4] 3♣[5] - 3♠[6] ... for a start. [1] ♣ UNBAL or 10-13 bal (yes, we currently open that hand ;) ) [2] 4+ ♥ [3] 10-13 bal or ♣ w 3 ♥ [4] GF relay [5] 10-13 bal, 4+ ♣, 3 ♥ [6] values Here at St. Titus, the Abbot always tells us to use simple, straightforward bidding. Bro Aelred

To find the Romanian Federation's Alert Policy go to the EBL site - Romania currently uses the EBL Systems Policy, Alert Policy, Appeals Code Of Practice or whatever ... not that anyone around here either understands anything of the given policies or cares about them. Anyway, by local standards, your opponents were as courteous as you might get; most would rather question the legality of your agreements at full length - this should contain the magic words "Brown sticker" uttered at least five times - and finally concede that maybe they are legal after all, but that is a very sad situation. What town do you play in? Gene

It is certainly a psyche if it is a gross misstatement of high-card strength or suit length, according to their agreements. Which are ... ? Do they have a convention card? What does it mention about doubles? If, say, they'd be playing something along the line of "non-vul, versus passed hand, a take-out double may be very light with classic shape (8+)" - would this bid be alertable in your jurisdiction? For instance, around here NO doubles are alertable. Are the opponents an established partnership? A casual one? What facts did the TD establish regarding their agreements? Now, let us suppose they are a casual partnership and double is "nothing special". The East player may smell that it is his partner that is bidding on very thin cards from the fact that North-South are vul vs not. But that is not all: let us suppose South opened very light in third - at unfavourable! - or even psyched. Is it not an ample chance that South will not pass the redouble, to show a light distributional hand? The abbot taught us to always bid this way when weak. Bro Aelred