JanM

OK, I'll bite - why? We're selecting the teams that will represent the US in the Bermuda Bowl. Why would we want a team that wasn't the most likely to have a chance to win the Bermuda Bowl to represent us?

Well, no, it's the WBF rule that Wignall has been applying for several years. Probably it hasn't previously been considered by the Systems Committee because no-one has complained or asked for clarification. I was told that the WBF rule was that a 2+ club that is so defined in order to allow 1♦ to promise 4 or an unbalanced hand would be considered natural. To be certain, I asked for a specific ruling about whether the Holo Bolo overcalls would be allowed over such a 1♣ opening bid. Mr. Wignall informed me (and everyone else of course) that they would not. In fact, the current ACBL rule is that a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card club suit is conventional and "anything goes" over it. Jan Martel, who should probably state that she is not speaking on behalf of the USBF, the ACBL, the WBF Systems Committee, or any member of any Systems Committee or Laws Commission.

Using existing hands, so long as you have the .lin file on your computer, is very easy if a tiny bit unintuitive (I'd never have figured it out if someone hadn't told me how to do it). I'll try to describe the steps: 1. Open up your partnership bidding table as usual. You don't need to do any hand constraints or dealer or anything. 2. In the partnership bidding table screen (iow, you have the table with NSEW but no hand yet), click on the "movie" button on the right hand side of the bottom button bar. 3. In the little movie window (which won't show any hands at this point), click on "open." 4. Navigate to the lin file for the event you want to use (the "open" dialog will start you out in "hands" for your name, which is where most of the lin files are, but if they happen to be from a session when you were logged in under a different name, you'll have to navigate to that name). 5. Click on "open" or select or whatever is highlighted (I forget what it is). 6. Your "movie" window now shows the hands from the match you chose. 7. Go back to the partnership bidding window and click "redeal" and you'll get the first hand (note that you'll only see the NS hands, but if you want to see the EW hands you can in the movie). Hope that helps :P Re-reading your post, I see that you might want to play the hands as well as bid them, presumably with GIBs as opponents. I think the same steps I listed above will work in any practice table, but I'm not positive, since I've only done this for bidding practice.

I'm trying to set up some bidding practice to bid against different methods. So I'd like to define the opponents' hands, not the hands of those practicing. Last time I did it (over a year ago, so I'm a little hazy about exactly what I did), I know that I created a movie with the hands I wanted and then did "open movie" at the bidding practice table to do the bidding. That worked fine and will work for what I want now, but I was wondering if there might be a simple way to get the hands for the movie. Would it work to set up a bidding practice table and constrain the NS hands to be what I want the opponents' hands to be, then run through a set passing them all out so I'd have a .lin file with the hands I want to be E/W in N/S and vice versa. Then is there a way to edit the .lin file (I've become pretty good with .pbn files but .lin files are less intuitive, at least to me) to move the positions around? If not, what needs to be in a .lin file to get just the hands, no bidding or play? Can you tell that my experience with .lin & .pbn files is all from corecting Vugraph records, which always have bidding and play in them? I have lots and lots of .dup and .lin and .pbn files and could select hands from them to combine into the .lin file I want, but I wasn't clear exactly what needed to be in the .lin file :) Thanks for any help anyone can give me.

I thought about this a bit as well. I think double as takeout of spades works best. I'm not trying to be pedantic here though as I would then use 2♠ as a takeout of hearts. I think it's good to bid 3 of opener's minor aggressively here as advancer is really in the dark and is going to have a hard time either competing or doubling not knowing what fit he has in the majors (unless he has 3+ in both and you were never stopping him competing). That is one of the weakness of the multi. I like 3♦ and 3♥ as transfers to 5 card suits with 3♠ showing a GF hand with 5 of the other minor. I'm not sure if I prefer 2NT to be natural or to be some sort of lebensohl. As Han, I will also think about continuations. Good point that it might be good to bid 3 of our original minor with a lot of hands, since it keeps them from finding out whether they have a fit. Although I like 3♦ and 3♥ as transfers, so that means that 3♣ should maybe be a constructive raise of opener's minor? One of the concerns with using 2NT as a transfer of some sort is that it might wrong-side the NT if we end up in 3NT, so I think it has to be either weak or FG (hopefully the FG hand will be okay as declarer).

I'm actually more interested in dealing with this bid over a natural or semi-natural 1♣, both because that's what the pairs on "my" team are playing and because in that context the defense can be as artificial as you want, since it's a written defense that can be consulted at the table. I'm also a lot more familiar with playing a structure where 1♣ is basically natural. I was wondering about using Transfer Lebensohl type bids, as if the auction went 1NT-2♥ showing either Major (of course this is probably even less playable than the jump overcall being ambiguous). Leaving aside what DBL should be for a moment (yes, I know that has a big impact on what the other bids are), what about: 2♠ - limit raise in clubs without great positional stoppers, so don't particularly want to declare NT - sort of like 1♣-(1♠)-2♠ (with good stoppers just bid 3NT?) 2NT relay to clubs, either a weak club raise or a FG club raise (so different from normal LEB, because bids after partner's 3♣ would show FG raises (maybe FG BAL hands as well? You can see I really don't have this all worked out. :) 3♣ Diamonds, invitational or better 3♦ Hearts, invitational or better (I think this has to promise at least 5 hearts) 3♥ Spades, INV+ (ditto) 3♠ whatever FG hand we can't show some other way - wait to see what that will be 3NT natural, might not have stoppers in both majors, but would like to. So the hands I'm missing are invitational and forcing hands with a 4-card Major. Great, I don't see how I can really get all of them into DBL & 3♠, do you? After 1NT-(2♦) = a Major, this basic structure works okay because you can afford to DBL with a fairly wide range of hands, since you don't have to worry that diamonds is their primary suit. Probably Hannie's idea of double promising 4+ hearts and invitational values makes sense - that's a hand where they probably have spades, or if they have hearts we're happy to defend, so opener can comfortably pass the DBL. So that leaves INV hands with 4+ spades and FG hands. Can we afford to pass with the first? They're likely to have hearts. Opener can reopen with a takeout DBL if he has extra and then responder can bid 2♠. We might pass out some hands in 2♥ where we could make a partscore but probably not ones where we could make a game. What if advancer bids 2♠? Now it'll get back to responder at 3♥ - maybe okay to sell to that with the invitational, 4 spade, hand? Wonder if the FG hands with a 4 card Major can go into 2NT? 2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a FG club raise and 3M shows a FG hand with 4 of that Major? But that might get a little crowded (and of course there's the risk of advancer preempting, but to do it they have to have both majors, so we might be able to use opener's DBL, 3 and Pass over advancer's 3♥ to show something - won't be great if what responder had was a bad hand with clubs though. Maybe I need to rethink that idea. Anyway, thanks for the thoughts; keep them coming :). I see a bunch have arrived since I started this.

Non vul opponents play that a jump overcall of 2♥ over your 1m opening (whatever the 1m opening is, natural, strong or anything else) shows a weak 2♥ or weak 2♠ overcall. No further description. Any thoughts on the most effective way to handle this?

In fact, the "too many" ruling was made before the 2+ minor opening ruling, so it is 100% clear that the latter did not cause the former.

The rule that a 2+ 1♣ opening is to be treated as natural as long as it is not forcing is not new - it was made at least 3 years ago. The current statement clarified that it still applied and applied to 1♦ as well. The Netherlands pairs knew about it since it had been the rule in the Netherlands in the past, although it's now been changed there apparently. Whether their bids are BS vs a 2+ 1♣ has absolutely no relationship to whether they are playing too many BS bids - they filed BS cards and planned to play Holo Bolo vs all 1m opening bids. They knew those bids were BS. The only issue was whether all of the bids counted as one BS convention or whether the different bids were different BS conventions. Wignall compromised on that, treating all 1M/1m bids as one convention, but 2H/1m and 3H/1m as separate ones. I think that is wrong because there's a significant difference in preparing a defense against 1m-1♠ and 1m-1♥ (and also whether the 1m is clubs or diamonds). I'm sure the Netherlands players think it is wrong not to call all of Holo Bolo one convention.

As I think I already mentioned, this whole topic will be discussed by the WBF Systems Committee in Shanghai. Hopefully they will revise some of the Systems rules that haven't really been changed in many years. The rulings that have been made at this point are for the events in Shanghai and have been made by Mr. Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee. That these rulings might lead to unusual results for some opening bids won't matter, because the Systems for Shanghai have already been filed so no-one is going to play the bids you have suggested (except of course 1♣ natural or balanced and 1♦ Precision). (OK, I didn't double check that the Australian and NZ women aren't playing Moscito, but the BB players aren't). By the way, even if allowed to play a BS overcall of a weak transfer 1 bid, I wouldn't - you have to recognize that BS doesn't mean "means something other than natural" - Michaels isn't BS, nor is a cue bid that shows shortness in the suit bid, or a transfer that promises the suit to which you transfer. It's only a bid that can have a weak meaning and if it is weak doesn't show at least 4 cards in a known suit. So 2C showing a weak hand with 4 spades and another 4 card suit isn't BS. But 2C showing either 44 in the Majors or 44 in the minors (and weak) is. The bids that are particularly difficult to deal with are those that can be weak in the suit named or in some other suit(s). As for this suggestion: The BS definition specifically includes a statement that strong meanings aren't relevant - what is relevant is whether the bid includes a weak meaning with no known suit.

Today's update on Shanghai Systems included the following: So a Precision 1♦ will in fact be treated the same as a Natural or Balanced 1♣.

Well, in the Bermuda Bowl, there are 9 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both majors, 6 pairs playing 2♥ as weak with both Majors (that's including one pair that plays it as either Flannery or weak both majors) and none playing 2♣ as weak with both majors (unless they didn't put it on the front of the cards and I missed it in my first run through the backs, but I'm pretty sure about it). In case anyone wonders whether this relates to country, the 9 2♦ pairs are 3 each from Australia and Chinese Taipei, and one each from Norway, Poland & US. The 6 2♥ pairs are from Argentina, Canada, China, Japan, Netherlands and Poland. Thanks for the defense suggestions, as we're just working on that :lol:. I agree, although I think I'd say it's impossible to play a 2-way type double over 2♥ both Majors (having tried to figure out a defense that would work against both and failed).

You're wrong about the US being the only country guaranteed a BB team (I think - I haven't actually double checked, but...), both Australia and New Zealand are also guaranteed teams. This is (I think, all of it was established a long time ago) because the US, Australia and NZ are all very large in terms of bridge population. If Canada didn't finish in the top half of its Round Robin group in 2004, I guess the rule must have been waived (again), because of course you are correct that they have a team this year. Obviously, I should be trying to get the US extra teams based on finish in the Rosenblum, if Europe gets an extra based on finish in the Olympiad, where we're allowed only one US team. :) PLEASE NOTE - this is not a serious comment !!!

The only two of those bids that are BS are 1NT and 2D. All of the rest promise 4 cards in a known suit and thus are allowed even if BS rules apply over a Precision 1D. Does that change your opinion? I know you like your 1NT, but you could play that as Majors and have 2m NAT and then fiddle with 2M (choosing between PRE and 54 I guess) and get pretty much everything you now have.

I remember those canape overcalls from Paris - they were very difficult to find a good defense for, but the plus side for me was I had the opportunity to get to know Bocchi and DuBoin better because I had to discuss what they would bid with different hands and what they would do after DBL. By the way, B&D apparently found that they didn't like the canape overcalls either, because they are no longer playing them. I agree with you on that, and I suspect that the difference came from a different person doing the interpreting (I know that's what happens in ACBL tournaments - we get different rulings on this particular issue all the time). You're right there too - the problem is (I think) that everyone thought they knew what it meant and now we've found out that different people "knew" different things. I think that something that requires a separate defense should be treated as "different." Obviously others think that something that can be described in one phrase should be treated as the same. I didn't try to change anything - as I said much earlier in this thread, I asked the person who is supposed to make Systems decisions after systems have been filed what the existing rule meant. His answer was different from what you expected it would be based on your experience in 2004. I admit that I was happy with the answer, because it meant I didn't have to spend as much time figuring out defenses, but if I'd had to do so I would have. What I didn't want to have happen was that the pair on "my" team wouldn't know in advance that Holo Bolo was going to be allowed vs their 1♣ opening. And I have asked the Systems Committee, which will meet in Shanghai, to consider this whole question. I am fairly confident that they will do so. One more reason why whether you can make a "funny" overcall over a bid shouldn't turn on the definition of "natural."

No, you're not understanding me. I don't happen to play Precision. But I think that overcalls over a Precision 1♦ should be treated in the same way overcalls of a standard 1♦ opening are treated. And overcalls over an artificial, strong 1♣, 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening should be treated in the same way - they're the same "sort" of bid. I'd include the Polish and Swedish and Fantoni Nunes 1♣ bids as ones that should be treated the same as a natural 1♣ also. "Funny" overcalls of those openings should be classified as BS and should only be allowed in long matches and with written defenses. I don't play a Polish or Swedish club (although I probably do play the same thing as FN). It doesn't have anything to do with that. It has to do with when it's appropriate to allow highly artificial overcalls. I don't think it's at all unusual for a method to be employed by a few people before it's employed by many. I've been doing summaries of methods used in World Championships for a long time, and the FN type of club has become more popular recently, whether you think so or not. So has the Polish Club. Of course they haven't become "popular" all at once, it's been a gradual thing. Also the original WBF ruling that they were to be treated as natural was made several years ago. I'm sorry, but you are way out of line here. The regulations haven't changed. There is considerable logic to them. The USBF has NO influence over the WBF. And I guess I need to do a signature for Forum posts to say that I am in no way speaking on behalf of the USBF. Furthermore, over the years, our (consistent) complaints about inadequate Brown Sticker disclosure have generally fallen on deaf ears. Note that this year, Mr. Wignall ruled that 1m-1M showing the other Major or the bid major and the other minor was one convention, even though it will have to be dealt with differently for 1♣ and 1♦ and 1♥ and 1♠. In prior years, virtually every decision that has been made has been in favor of allowing BS methods. Finally, I believe that the regulations should change as bidding methods change. 50 years ago negative doubles were sufficiently unknown that had there been alert requirements they would of course have been alertable. Now everyone plays them and they aren't. 10 or 15 years ago very few people played a 1♣ bid that is either natural or balanced. Now "zillions" of club players do so. Regulations need to grow along with bidding methods.

If you think that meta agreements can deal with a 2♥ opening bid that is either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak 2♠ bid, or a similar overcall, you are living in a different world than mine. I'm not sufficiently familiar with methods in Oz to know but I don't think most of them are BS. Certainly Moscito isn't. CRASH opening 2 bids are, and having done defenses for those, I know that a simple generic defense isn't good enough (as it isn't vs Multi by the way).

I suppose I really mean I'm not a fan of allowing them vs bids that aren't 1NT or a completely artificial and forcing bid. If I were the "systems Czar" (which I'm not) I'd bar them over Precision 1♦ as well as over natural or balanced 1♣. I don't think it's any more fair to make someone who wants a 1♦ opening to be unbalanced, or someone who wants to put all the awkward hands that have to come out of 1♣ in a strong club system into 1♦, deal with a 1♥ overcall that is either spades or hearts and a minor or a 2♥ bid that is weak in either hearts or spades, than it is to make someone who plays a completely natural 1♣ or ♦, either in a short match (or a 2 board round in a pair game!) or in a long match without a written defense. In long matches, I'd prefer to allow more things but to allow written defenses to be used against them. If we did that, I think that methods that are good only because they are difficult to defend against would tend to disappear, and the complex methods that are good even if people have adequate defenses will remain. And I think that would be a good result. Jan, back to working on defenses against less exotic things :)

Of course this is in direct conflict with: I stated earlier in this thread: So I am in full agreement with Ron on that. The WBF seem to be intent on creating a Restricted Systems Event whilst pretending to have a policy of 'all systems allowed'. I don't get that. Does anyone have the 'offending' Brink-Drijver system card? The website says it has been removed. The Systems Policy was drafted long ago, and hasn't been changed in some time. The way that WBF has handled evolution of that policy has consistently been through the Supplementary Conditions of Contest for individual events. I wonder whether those of you who think the BS regulations make this event "restricted" or "joker" really recognize what methods are defined as BS. In fact, to allow a pair to play that an opening 2♥ bid is either a weak 2♥ or a weak 2♠ bid, in a relatively short Round Robin match is what would make the event a joke. It randomizes people's results and gives a huge and unfair benefit to the team playing those methods, because of their unfamiliarity to the opponents, and the fact that it isn't "worth it" for all of their opponents to prepare defenses to something that is unlikely to arise in a 16 board match. Go back to Jamaica, before we had any of the current regulations, and look at the methods that the British team used, and that got them into the Finals, in large part because their opponents hadn't been given the opportunity to prepare defenses and had a difficult time adjusting to a system where Pass showed an opening bid. Is that really what you think should decide our World Championships? I quoted the Brink-Drijver BS methods in the first post in this thread - you don't need their convention card to see what they are. Except for those methods, their KO card is identical to their RR card.

And if you don't like page 16, which says: There's also page 18, where it says: As for 1♣ natural or balanced, I suppose that I think that Brown Sticker methods shouldn't be allowed over it because it is so common. And anyone who wants to argue that being common isn't relevant, remember that the WBF Systems Policy expressly excludes Mulit a "classic" BS opening bid, from being BS because it is so widely used. I confess that I'm not a fan of BS overcalls anyway, and I'd be happy to bar them over a Precision Diamond, or the Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ as well. I think that this issue will be discussed in more depth at the WBF Systems Committee meetings in Shanghai.

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them. He further ruled that DeWijs-Muller, who play BS overcalls of 1♥, 1♠, 2♥ and 3♥ over 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids could play them all, because: "The one level major suit overcall of one of a minor is one B/S convention, the 2 heart and 3 heart overcalls of one of a minor are also B/S . That is three in all so the card is acceptable for the K O stages. In my opinion the conventions etc are properly explained and the proposed defences are satisfactory." Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted. I don't know whether this will be the final word on either question.

Perhaps you and I are remembering a different time when no Mexican or Canadian team finished in the top 50% of the Olympiad. I'm talking about Maastricht, where the US team finished 3rd and the Canadian team finished just short of the top half in its Round Robin group (I don't remember where Mexico finished, just know that it wasn't in the top half). The WBF originally said that Canada/Mexico/Bermuda would therefore not get a team in the next Bermuda Bowl and then changed that ruling. If what the WBF actually said was that Zone 2 got two teams, I think it would be reasonble for those teams both to be US, since the US team "earned" us the right to a second team by doing well in Maastricht (but of course I'm prejudiced, whether justifiably so or not). I am confident that it is WBF and not ACBL that says one of our three teams must be from a country other than the US. Whether they would allow ACBL to say that another of our teams can be from any country I don't know, but of course ACBL isn't going to do that and I would be arguing very strenuously if they did. Sure, if USA2 had to play in a tri-country playoff, it would always qualify (just as Italy always qualifies out of the EBL, despite often not sending their "real" team to compete), but that would still mean it had to take another week out of a sometimes busy schedule to play in the event. Some of our top teams would rather not play in a US Trials every year; they would certainly be *very* unhappy to have to go play in another event that they would see as pointless. I know that some years ago when I was involved with the US Women's Trials, I proposed (and the Women's committee agreed) that we allow "mixed country" teams to play. We asked WBF if that would be acceptable and they said no. So I do know for sure that it is WBF that insists that each team represent only one country.

A "double elimination" KO has some issues to be resolved. First, should it start, as Hannie suggests, with the Round of 8 losers, or with the Round of 16 losers? Second, as Arend points out, there are often teams with byes. We never know until after the Vanderbilt how many byes there will be, and there has been some discussion of making it harder to get a semi-final bye in a 2-team year, but I'm guessing that there will be 2 or 3 Round of 8 byes (2 of which might in fact be one semi-final bye). Third, how long should the matches be? If you follow Hannie's "format," USA2 will have 4 teams when the USA1 finals starts. Those 4 need to reduce to 1 to play the losing finalist. So do they play matches that are half as long as the USA1 finals? Or does the losing finalist get a day of rest while they finish? (that would still involve shorter USA2 matches). I suspect that the conclusion you're all reaching - that a double elimination KO is the right solution - is right, and so then we have to resolve the non-trivial problems that involves.

There are 2 Zone 2 representatives only if not enough teams finish in the top half in the Olympiad. If the US team doesn't finish in the top half in the Olympiad, the US gets 1 team and Canada & Mexico get one team (or at least I think that's what happens; I don't know because the US team has always finished in the top half in the Olympiad). If neither Canada nor Mexico finishes in the top half, the US gets 2 teams and Canada & Mexico get none. That's a WBF rule (and incidentally has always been waived for Canada/Mexico). I don't think that I'm being US-centric (or whatever the word should be) to believe that the USA2 team shouldn't have to play in an additional Playoff. For one thing, the team allocation is made by WBF. I'd be more than happy to have a Zonal selection process where all 3 countries competed for our 3 teams. But WBF doesn't allow that (and I do understand the reasons, before all you Canadians come down on me :P). For another, it's already very difficult to win the chance to represent the US; I don't think it would be reasonable to make it even more so.

I've suggested more Round Robins a few times when we have been discussing the USBC format. As someone mentioned above, it hasn't been a popular suggestion among US players. The main objection raised is that, particularly with a mild cut, there is too much opportunity for "sportsmanslike" dumping - a situation where it is to one team's advantage to lose to a "bad" team in order to eliminate a "good" team. IMP carryover prevents this to some extent of course, but IMP carryover also has flaws - it means that sometimes your goals are uncertain - should you go all out to win a match, knowing that you might end up losing lots of IMPs and thus being eliminated from the event when you might not have been eliminated had you just played down the middle? Should you "look ahead," trying to build up IMPs against a team you are pretty sure will advance, even if that might change which other teams advance? That's a basic problem with Round Robins, of course - in a KO match, your goal is clear: beat the team against whom you are playing. In a Round Robin, sometimes both your fate and your goal depends on what other teams are doing. Another flaw, and one that I know many people on the drafting committee consider overwhelming, is that sometimes a team that has already been eliminated has an effect on which team(s) advance. That's an uncomfortable position for the "eliminated" team (I know, having once been in that situation), as well as making the teams still fighting for a place feel awkward. Another problem with Round Robins that is less obvious is that not everyone plays the same field, because we have a significant number of sponsored teams, where the team is of varying quality depending on when the sponsor plays. That leads to some luck in a KO (whether the sponsor plays when boards are "swingy," but much more in a Round Robin. We try to mitigate the problem to some exent by requiring blind lineup submissions for the Round Robin - teams have to submit their lineups before knowing what team they are playing the match against - but that is less effective with fewer teams in the Round Robin.