HUM system definitions

[Sigi_BC84]

Is it silly to claim that using Drury and shifting the range of opening bids by a King or so is sufficient for a system to qualify as an artificial?  Possibly - though it clearly seems to fall within the scope of the definition.  However, I'd argue that its just as silly to label Polish Club an artificial system.

What would be a good definition for "artificial system" in your eyes?

 

Of course it's silly to label Polish Club artificial as long as Precision or, say, Recursive Diamond, are not artificial per WBF definition.

 

Strictly speaking almost all Bridge bidding is artificial (except for actual sign-off bids). Opening eg. 1♠ doesn't mean you want to play 1♠ or even any number of ♠. You merely transport a conventional message where part of the message happens to be the suit symbol that is printed onto the bidding card. Now take the 1NT opener: very artificial to everybody who doesn't know what it means. It has become ingrained to us that a certain shape and range is associated with this bid, but artificial it still is. Who even thinks "artificial" after a Stayman or transfer over NT? And these bids are truly artificial, only they look natural to us because they naturally occur in most partnerships.

 

So assuming that we need some kind of systems regulations for certain classes of events, what are good definitions for the "non-evil" category? That is the category that should be used for short matches and events that don't allow for advance submission of methods.

 

The approach taken by the ACBL to positively define what is allowed and not allow the remaining methods per default is clearly wrong. You need easy to grasp definitions of the system categories that are not based on making exceptions. There are horribly unusual methods which are completely GCC legal. It just doesn't work.

 

What is completely beyond me is the reason behing the fact that those players in the midchart committe continue to waste their time there instead of putting some lobbying/whatever effort into establishing better systems regulations for the ACBL. If the likes of Jeff Meckstroth instead prefer to hold on to the present, clearly dissatisfactory body of regulations, they should not be surprised if others are wording suspicions that they in fact only cater to their own interests (as bridge professionals and national players).

 

About Bridge organizations memberships: I don't think that all of this regulations stuff will affect memberships or Bridge popularity as a whole significantly. As a new player you're learning something standard and simple anyway, and by the time you are seriously into Bridge (when you might realize that you can't play the methods you might prefer), silly regulations won't stop you from continue to play (even if it's merely online). So I don't think changing the regulations will have a significant influence on the influx of players in either direction -- it will, sadly, remain low as far as I can see.

 

About pampering the ACBL membership, serving their water with ice and whatever: apparently, the ACBL is a big bunch of old farts. Cater to their needs but don't be surprised if Bridge remains a terribly unsexy undertaking. I don't really care, I won't ever be an ACBL member and the situation in Germany is not much different anyway (BTW any old farts reading this don't be offended). I've pretty much given up hope for a positive trend outside of online bridge.

 

The Polish example shows that Bridge can be hugely popular without many restrictions to the game. Also keep in mind that having arbitrary conventions with partner is part of the rules, and if that should really turn out to be a problem in reality (I doubt it) then admit that there's something wrong with the game instead of inventing braindead regulations and bullying those who try to apply creative methods.

 

I'm sorry this has turned out to be a rant, I hope I have been slightly coherent. I'm not gonna proofread.

 

--Sigi

[pbleighton]

"the ACBL is a big bunch of old farts."

 

Generally nice old farts though :blink:

 

"Cater to their needs but don't be surprised if Bridge remains a terribly unsexy undertaking. I don't really care, I won't ever be an ACBL member and the situation in Germany is not much different anyway (BTW any old farts reading this don't be offended). I've pretty much given up hope for a positive trend outside of online bridge."

 

I've pretty much given up hope too.

 

Peter

[uday]

Maybe if we all walk away from the problem together, we can make a positive difference (especially if we pause to hurl fruit first ).

 

We actually seem to have the ear of someone who might be able to influence things and while I dont like sounding like a broken record, being nice is more likely to result in your post being acted upon.

 

If you are not a member of org hoohah and don't plan to ever be a member , why not let the members try to work w/hoohah in peace? what is it to a nonmember whether hoohah allows the worlds best convention or not ?

[joshs]

I will re-submit my defenses one of these days. I am just still sore about what happened the first time around, both from the time and effort I put into this, and from being very unhappy from a process standpoint about what happened to my friends.

 

As to natural over the x-fer openings. I believe these results were partially TOSR specific artifacts. We open 1D showing hearts even with a much longer side suit. AKQJxx xxxx xx x is a 1D opening showing hearts. If you can't show hearts directly here, your next chance will be at the 3 level (since opener will rebid 2S with this hand), and you need both a great suit and good strength to make that bid. Hands like xx AQJxx AQxx xx get totally shut out.

Lets just say, Ira Rubin would be proud of our opening major suit bids (he loved opening suits of quality at least as good as 2345). This really was not that big of a deal at mps, but at imps the occasional bid swings associated with stealing the opps major were more important than some of the swings you saw from other methods. Again, because of the canape nature of our opening bids, certain hand types for the opps, like 4 in the other major and 6 in a minor, were a bit less common than they were over a natural 5 card major opening bid, and they only worked better than a takeout x or natural overcall some of the time. I really don't remember the exact statistics here, just that these really didn't seem to happen very much.

 

 

 

I actually didn't do a detailed study of the best defense to x-fers over 1C when I submitted a defense for that (the obvious one). Here your major suit length is slightly higher than in tosr for the x-fer opener, but since your strength is lower on average your suit quality is probably worse on average. A natural overcall, and 2 suited x is a reasonable defense, I just haven't studied it in any detail.

Neither have I studied any 2 suited defense. Some results will depend on how many balanced hand types are put into the 1C opening.

[kfgauss]

Josh, did you test using 2H over 1D as natural and 1H as 2-suited? (This is effectively what Jan was talking about over transfer responses to 1C.)

 

Andy

[Sigi_BC84]

If you are not a member of org hoohah and don't plan to ever be a member , why not let the members try to work w/hoohah in peace? what is it to a nonmember whether hoohah allows the worlds best convention or not ?

Well, I've gotten yelled at on BBO for opening 2♣ meaning Wk2♦ or strong. The accusations were something like "this is an ACBL club and your bidding is wacky and you are both ____". (Edit: NB this did not happen in an ACBL event.)

 

So apparently I'm to a certain extent within the sphere of influence of the ACBL, if I want it or not.

 

Furthermore I'm acknowledging the fact that most of the world's influential players are in fact US Americans and/or affiliated with the ACBL. This and the general experience that the US are quite influental not only concerning sports makes me concerned that what happens in the ACBL could quite likely affect my own Bridge experience as well.

 

To put it another way: I'm pretty sure that if, suddenly, a strong group of US top-players decided that HUMs are in fact not evil and induced a change of regulations within the US, the world would follow rather sooner than later.

 

So please let me be concerned with the structures of the ACBL and decisions made within the ACBL to a certain extent.

 

About your remark regarding hauling fruit and then walking away: what do you expect? Fred Gitelman more or less admits that the system in place might be inappropriate, that he himself actually doesn't care too much about the mid-chart and that the likes of Meckstroth/Martel are experts and should know what they are doing? If even Fred (whom I have perceived as very open-minded, smart and generous so far) displays such an attitude please forgive me if I start to be inclined to walk away in frustration.

 

If you take offense about the "old fart" bit: that was a polemic remark nobody here hopefully takes too serious. I regularly play in clubs with lots of senior members and many of them are friendly and I enjoy their company. However, Bridge has a serious image problem because of the majority of senior players and my somewhat disrespectful remark only reflects how I think Bridge is largely perceived by the hip young crowd that we are missing.

 

Lastly, I'm aware that Jan Martel is actually listening and I appreciate a lot hearing from somebody in her position about all this.

 

--Sigi

[joshs]

Josh, did you test using 2H over 1D as natural and 1H as 2-suited? (This is effectively what Jan was talking about over transfer responses to 1C.)

 

Andy

I did not try swapping the natural overcall and the michaels bid with the 2000 hands. I think I thought briefly about it but decided that it was riskier and I didn't really want to change the meaning of any bids that you could have made over a natural opener, in order to keep the defense as simple as possible.

 

It does merit a study, since the michaels hand may be more frequent than the natural overcall, especially over the 1H opening which denies holding 4 hearts.

 

And yes, my original suggested defense to 1C-P-1H(spades) was

x=hearts

1S=a hand that would have xed 1C-P-1S

2H=Weak 2 in hearts

x then freebid of 2H=Intermediate

1N,2C,2S=However you play them over 1C-P-1S

 

This is basically what most people play except some people prefer:

2H=Intermediate with hearts

x then freebid of 2H=Strong with Hearts

 

Again, I haven't actually done a study of this auction either....

[TimG]

Why hasn't a defense to MOSCITO been approved? I'm just guessing, not passing on Chip's comments, since he hasn't made any. There are two huge differences between something like multi and an opening 1 level bid that shows a limited hand with 4+ in the next suit and possibly a longer side suit. First, and the reason I'd be very surprised if any defense to MOSCITO would be approved for an event with 2 board rounds, multi, even as some of us use it, comes up maybe two or three times a session; the MOSCITO opening 1 bids probably come up every other round.

...

The second difference that makes it difficult to develop a defense to MOSCITO is that the transfer bid affects the rest of the auction – the defense needs to deal with a lot of potentially different from normal continuations. And we can't expect people to apply their "normal context" judgment.

We may never find out what the best defense to a transfer opening is. As Josh has pointed out there are two options that appear to be close. There are probably more sophisticated approaches that are even better. But, I'm quite sure that no defense is ever going to attain 100% support; there isn't 100% agreement on how to handle a Standard American 1♦ opening bid. But, I don't think this should mean that some defense isn't approved.

 

The arguement that these methods are unfamiliar and will take more time for the opponents to cope with strikes me as flawed for a couple of reasons. First, players are already faced with a number of transfer methods: over NT openings (weak and strong) and after overcalls come to mind quickly. Transfers are not unfamiliar to any but the most novice of players. Yes, these transfers are a bit different, but it should not be a difficult thing for a pair to adapt to another transfer method, especially when they can refer to the opponents' cheat sheet.

 

Second, players are not going to develop a better ability to cope if they are always protected from facing new methods. I suppose you could decide that they shouldn't ever have to cope (which seems to be the view of many players in the ACBL). But, virtually all new methods have been met with initial resistance. I don't see why the ACBL should try to drag out the exposure process.

 

It seems to me that it shouldn't really be too hard to come up with some system regulations based upon the combination of known and unknown suits and whether the suit bid is one of the known suits and whether the method is constructive or obstructive. (I do realize there will probably have to be some sort of arbitrary evaluation technique used for this determination.) It also seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with generic defenses which would be considered adequate for the average player (in the events where the methods are permitted) based upon those basic combinations.

 

But, maybe I'm fooling myself. Maybe there should be a new thread where this community undertakes an effort at such classifications.

[hrothgar]

The arguement that these methods are unfamiliar and will take more time for the opponents to cope with strikes me as flawed for a couple of reasons. First, players are already faced with a number of transfer methods: over NT openings (weak and strong) and after overcalls come to mind quickly. Transfers are not unfamiliar to any but the most novice of players. Yes, these transfers are a bit different, but it should not be a difficult thing for a pair to adapt to another transfer method, especially when they can refer to the opponents' cheat sheet.

 

Second, players are not going to develop a better ability to cope if they are always protected from facing new methods. I suppose you could decide that they shouldn't ever have to cope (which seems to be the view of many players in the ACBL). But, virtually all new methods have been met with initial resistance. I don't see why the ACBL should try to drag out the exposure process.

One data point that i find quite interesting is comparing the licensing process for MOSCITO in the ACBL and the EBU.

 

I would argue that MOSCITO is equally "foreign" to both environments.

 

To my knowledge transfer based "Major's First" opening coupled with relays and non-forcing 2/1s really have never been playd extensively in either North America or Britain.

 

For all intents and purposes, the approval process in Britain consists of the following.

 

Someone told the authorities that they were interested in playing method XYZ.

The authorities said that they needed a bit of time to think things over.

 

A few monthes later the regulatory authorities came back and said "Mostly Harmless". Here's a temporary license to use the methods at level 4. It will all be made official in the next release of the Orange book. (And low and behold if you look in the new Orange books its right there)

 

No elaborate discussions how that extra step of bidding space over a 1♥ would cause folk's heads to explode. No massive arguments about the theoretical merits of the methods. No need to document the response structure three rounds into the auction.

[joshs]

A good way of giving a method exposure is to first let it be played for longer matches (especially swiss teams) and then as people become "less scared of it" allow it for pairs movements. I expect this to be a natural process, as long as methods are approved for swiss teams. If things are only allowed only in the top flights of KO's they will never get enough exposure for people in the rank and file to be able to say "oh x-fer opening bids, lets play the suggested defense" and move on in pairs movements. Also, players are less likely to want to start playing the methods if they can't play them very often. Its a lot of work to have 2 fundamentally different systems (this is very different from a convention like a multi which can be inserted into your system, here your whole system goes out the window without x-fer opening bids). This is a triple wammy, since less people will play the methods AND they get less exposure AND you can play them in few events, so few new players will want to play the methods or be comfortable playing against the methods....

[TimG]

A good way of giving a method exposure is to first let it be played for longer matches (especially swiss teams) and then as people become "less scared of it" allow it for pairs movements. I expect this to be a natural process, as long as methods are approved for swiss teams. If things are only allowed only in the top flights of KO's they will never get enough exposure for people in the rank and file to be able to say "oh x-fer opening bids, lets play the suggested defense" and move on in pairs movements.

The 1♥ transfer opening (which is otherwise equal to a Standard American 1♠ opening bid) was approved for segments of 12 boards or more. A typical Swiss match at a New England Regional is either 7 or 9 boards. I do agree with you that a step-wise process is a good idea. I also agree with you that approving the method for segments of 12 boards or more severely limits the opportunities to put it into practice.

 

I will also note that the approved defense requires about two and a half pages when the defense could likely be summarized in 3-4 sentences. But, if you sit down against a pair, hand them the defense and say (honestly) all you really need to know is ... they will likely be skeptical and want to browse through the whole thing. Some pairs will be overwhelmed by the length and be sure you're trying to pull something over on them or that you're just out to confuse them.

[JanM]

The arguement that these methods are unfamiliar and will take more time for the opponents to cope with strikes me as flawed for a couple of reasons.  First, players are already faced with a number of transfer methods: over NT openings (weak and strong) and after overcalls come to mind quickly.  Transfers are not unfamiliar to any but the most novice of players.  Yes, these transfers are a bit different, but it should not be a difficult thing for a pair to adapt to another transfer method, especially when they can refer to the opponents' cheat sheet.

In most auctions in which we're comfortable with transfers, the side making the transfer bid has the majority of the values (a transfer response to a weak NT would sometimes be an exception). In the MOSCITO case, since the opening bid is quite limited, there really isn't an inference that they have most of the values. Also, in most other transfer auctions, the transfer shows more than a 4 card suit. So I think you're wrong that there isn't a significant difference between the MOSCITO transfer openings and other transfers.

 

"It seems to me that it shouldn't really be too hard to come up with some system regulations based upon the combination of known and unknown suits and whether the suit bid is one of the known suits and whether the method is constructive of obstructive. (I do realize there will probably have to be some sort of arbitrary evaluation technique used for this determination.) It also seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with generic defenses which would be considered adequate for the average player (in the events where the methods are permitted) based upon those basic combinations.

 

But, maybe I'm fooling myself. Maybe there should be a new thread where this community undertakes an effort at such classifications."

 

I think it's much harder than you think to come up with system regulations that work and are reasonably simple. Neither ACBL nor WBF has managed (it would take another thread as long as this one to cover the flaws in the WBF policies, but trust me, in some ways it's better than ACBL's in some ways it's worse, but it is far from either ideal or simple). I'd love to see a group like this work on it, though - I'm sure that no one individual can do it, and I'm afraid that the C&C committee, most of whose members somehow understand our existing convention charts, and which has a lot of other stuff on its plate, isn't going to throw out what we have and start from scratch.

 

If you want a "simple" project to start with :), please take a look at the USBF General Conditions of Contest Systems sections and help me do better there.

[JanM]

The 1♥ transfer opening (which is otherwise equal to a Standard American 1♠ opening bid) was approved for segments of 12 boards or more.  A typical Swiss match at a New England Regional is either 7 or 9 boards.  I do agree with you that a step-wise process is a good idea.  I also agree with you that approving the method for segments of 12 boards or more severely limits the opportunities to put it into practice.

But most Regional Knockout matches do have segments of 12 boards - that's probably why 12 boards (instead of 16) was chosen. It seems to me as if there are at least as many Regional KOs as Regional Swisses (there seems to be a KO starting every day). So there should be adequate opportunities for people to play things that are approved for 12 board segments. And usually the people who choose to play in the KOs are the ones who will be able to deal with new methods and won't be unhappy that they're allowed.

[pbleighton]

"If you want a "simple" project to start with , please take a look at the USBF General Conditions of Contest Systems sections and help me do better there."

 

Here's a modest proposal, which would make a lot of us pretty happy: add to permitted bids (openings and responses):

 

"Any bid which shows at least four cards in a known suit, and at least 10 hcp for an opening bid, and at least 6 hcp for a response"

 

This, or something like it, was suggested by Adam in another thread. I understand (though disagree very strongly with) the sentiment among ACBL members to outlaw unusual preempts, or unusual super light one bids. Constructive bidding is another matter. Using a 10 hcp floor (or rule of 19, if you choose, though the ABCL seems to be more comfortable with hcp) seems to be a good compromise - the alert requirements use 10-21 as their "no alert" range for one bids. I don't think that most members would have much of a problem with this.

 

On defenses to transfer openings, given the above, I really don't see why double = stolen bid, and bidding the suit shown = takeout wouldn't work. The defenders have a very significant and useful extra bid at their disposal. Other things being equal, I would rather play against transfer openings than natural openings. Now, they are not equal, because the opening side has an extra bid too. But if you keep the prohibition against relay systems in the GCC, then bidding the suit shown shows either:

1. a natural trump raise of some sort, which is easy enough to deal with, or

2. an artificial game forcing (though non-relay) bid, which is very easy to deal with (if you are inclined to jump overcall in the sandwich seat, you would rather do it when only one of the opponents has shown her shape), or

3. a transfer response, which again is not so tough - you have a lead directing double at your disposal. BTW, while a transfer after a strong NT tends to imply the opps have the balance of power, a transfer over weak/mini NT (which I play) does not.

 

Peter

[JanM]

add to permitted bids (openings and responses):

 

"Any bid which shows at least four cards in a known suit, and at least 10 hcp for an opening bid, and at least 6 hcp for a response"

 

Using a 10 hcp floor (or rule of 19, if you choose, though the ABCL seems to be more comfortable with hcp) seems to be a good compromise - the alert requirements use 10-21 as their "no alert" range for one bids.  I don't think that most members would have much of a problem with this.

 

I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or perhaps I misunderstood Tim. I'm not asking for suggestions of new "grafts" onto the confusing tree of convention regulation, but rather for a better way to define what is allowed and what is not. The USBF context is simpler because there is no need to deal with what is now labeled GCC. USBF events have Round Robin phases (which sometimes have quite short matches, sometimes fairly long ones) and KO phases, where the Super Chart is allowed. The bids you want allowed are allowed in the KO phases, which are the major part of the events. What I'd like to see is a clear, simple and appropriate listing of what bids should (or should not) be allowed in both phases.

 

"On defenses to transfer openings, given the above, I really don't see why double = stolen bid, and bidding the suit shown = takeout wouldn't work. "

 

But that's not enough, at least for people who aren't familiar with this method. What about:

(1♦(H))-DBL(D)-(RDBL)-?? Certainly you'd want to know what RDBL means, wouldn't you? Possibly different pairs would give it different meanings. So a "generic" defense to everyone's transfer openings isn't going to cover everyone.

 

And, perhaps more basic, you haven't suggested how we define which bids require advance notification and a recommended defense. I raised the point about Polish Club needing advance submission for Verona and the fact that I'd be very surprised if it happened, in part because it's a good example of how complex the regulation of systems can be and how important your basic definitions are.

 

I guess I should create a signature line making it clear that "these views are the opinions of the individual, not the organization" :)

[hrothgar]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or perhaps I misunderstood Tim. I'm not asking for suggestions of new "grafts" onto the confusing tree of convention regulation, but rather for a better way to define what is allowed and what is not. The USBF context is simpler because there is no need to deal with what is now labeled GCC. USBF events have Round Robin phases (which sometimes have quite short matches, sometimes fairly long ones) and KO phases, where the Super Chart is allowed. The bids you want allowed are allowed in the KO phases, which are the major part of the events. What I'd like to see is a clear, simple and appropriate listing of what bids should (or should not) be allowed in both phases.

Here is a remarkably simple / boring suggestion:

 

The USBF events are designed to select the US teams for events like the World Championships.

 

In my humble opinion, it would make sense to use the same Convention Licensing specifications that will be used in the Championship in question. After all, your goal should be to select players who will do well that event and who have invested the time necessary to cope with the methods that they will be encountering.

[uday]

Richard, that makes excellent sense (but i don't know what I'm talking about).

[fred]

Richard, that makes excellent sense (but i don't know what I'm talking about).

One possible argument against this suggestion:

 

If the USBF believes that the WBF systems policy allows systems or conventions that would randomize the outcome of the trials, then allowing such systems or conventions in the trials would be contrary to the purpose of the trials:

 

To select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

If the USBF believes that the WBF systems policy allows systems or conventions that would randomize the outcome of the trials, then allowing such systems or conventions in the trials would be contrary to the purpose of the trials:

 

To select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships.

As I've noted in the past, this entire process can be modelled as a statistical sampling problem. (I find this sort of thing useful because it formalizes the problem).

 

In any case, if your goal is to select the "best" team, you have a couple choices:

 

1. Use an event format that protects against the rub of the green. Long head to head competitions are the best format to identify the best team playing. Adopting methods with a low expected value / high variance works in short events. It runs into BIG problems if you have a reasonable number of samples.

 

2. Don't use a trial based system to select your teams. Ultimately, your complaint boils down to the fact that the team that you think is best might not win the event. If you know the best team why bother playing a match. Alternatively, if there are teams that aren't good to represent the country, don't let them play.

 

(Personally, I think that option 1 is a lot better. It certainly sidesteps a lot of political problems. I have very little sympathy for players who complain that this format is flawed becase they might only get to play in one match. After all, the goal is to select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships, not to ensure a "fun" weekend)

 

As a final note: One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because they compete in a very sheltered environment where they don't get to practice against the methods in widespread use throughput the rest of the world. I agree that permitting a broader range of methods might increase the variance in results. With this said and done, it might also provide some useful practice...

[fred]

As a final note:  One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because they compete in a very sheltered environment where they don't get to practice against the methods in widespread use throughput the rest of the world.  I agree that permitting a broader range of methods might increase the variance in results.  With this said and done, it might also provide some useful practice...

One could also compare the results of USA (serious system restrictions) and Australia (few systems restrictions) and conclude the relatively "mainstream" methods are much more effective than "unusual" methods.

 

If that comparison is not fair due to population size and the professional bridge factors, compare Canada (serious systems restrictions) and Australia. I believe that a previous post of yours stated that Canada, despite having a 30+% bigger population than Australia, has about half as many bridge players.

 

Canadians have won a lot of medals at the world level during the past 35 years. Australian medals during this period have been few and far between (I can't remember any off the top of my head).

 

Of course systems may have nothing to do with this...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

There is another significant advantage that the USA have over other countries.

 

That is that they are the only country that sends two teams to the world championships. This has both direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefit is that they have a higher probability of winning medals. The indirect benefit is that more of their players are given experience playing in these events.

[Cascade]

It may interest people to know that over the 1D and 1H x-fer opening bid (showing 4+ hearts and 4+ spades) the best uses for x and the 1 level "cue bid" were

a. x=natural, e/g the suit xed and the cue-bid is the takeout x

b. x=the takeout x, and the cue-bid = sound hand with 5+ cards in opener's suit!

I too find this interesting.

 

We play against these things relatively often in New Zealand and Australia.

 

b/ is my preferred defense to these openings.

 

In fact we have a meta-defense that if the opponents play any method (opening or overcall) that shows 4+ suits and they may have a longer suit we can always bid their potential four-card suit naturally. I think this works well.

[Sigi_BC84]

(1♦(H))-DBL(D)-(RDBL)-?? Certainly you'd want to know what RDBL means, wouldn't you? Possibly different pairs would give it different meanings. So a "generic" defense to everyone's transfer openings isn't going to cover everyone.

What about (1♥[♥])-Dbl-(Rdbl)-?? if "Rdbl" was a transfer to, say, ♣ (in a 2/1 context)? That is unfamiliar and opps won't be prepared to it but I guess (?) it is allowed without having an suggested defense. The kind of problem for the defender that you mentioned arises everytime if the opponents do anything that is not widely perceived as "standard" (not only when the opening was unusual).

 

To me it seems like you open Pandora's Box if you require suggested defenses multiple levels into the bidding tree.

 

--Sigi

[JanM]

Here is a remarkably simple / boring suggestion:

 

The USBF events are designed to select the US teams for events like the World Championships.

 

In my humble opinion, it would make sense to use the same Convention Licensing specifications that will be used in the Championship in question.  After all, your goal should be to select players who will do well that event and who have invested the time necessary to cope with the methods that they will be encountering.

We did in fact use that approach (including requiring WBF convention cards) for a while in the USWBC, which selects our women's teams. When I proposed it for the USBC, the ITT Committee, which determines the conditions for that event, decided that there were two purposes for the event - to select our team and also to have a high quality event that people would enjoy playing in. In order to meet the second purpose, the committee chose to limit bidding methods to those that are allowed in ACBL events. The WITT committee then agreed to change the rules for their event so that we would have consistent conditions of contest for both.

 

I should add that saying "we'll use the WBF rules" wouldn't actually solve all problems - some of those rules are not easy to interpret either. I just had one of our Junior pairs ask whether 3♠ showing a gambling 3NT, which they defined as AKQxxxx in one of the minors, was Brown Sticker. I'm comfortable that it's not, because it's not "weak" but that was far from clear to them.

[JanM]

As a final note:  One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because

Would you like to make a side bet on the Rosenblum? I'll take the USBF teams against the rest of the field (of course, since the Rosenblum is now transnational, that would be tricky).

 

But seriously, the US has a better record in the Rosenblum (where we are not limited in the number of teams that can enter) than any other country or probably all the rest put together. And our record isn't bad in the other events.

 

I think we do an excellent job of selecting our teams, using an open Trials with long matches. I'd like to do a better job of describing what systems are allowed and which ones need advance disclosure and recommended defenses, but not because I think we're doing anything wrong in terms of selecting the best teams.