Conventional Question - ACBL GCC

[keylime]

My national pard and I recently had an idea, but with the morass that the GCC is, we don't know if it's legal.

 

We use a canape club method, and want to use 1♦-P-2NT as either a bust hand in clubs, or a forcing raise in diamonds. Is this kosher?

[inquiry]

No, not even close.

 

This is specifically identified as a super chart convention. Specifically the rules state"

 

All of the ACBL MidChart plus any other non-destructive convention,

treatment or method except that:

1. Artificial weak bids at the two or three level (including those with

strong adjuncts) must possess,

  a.) a known suit or

  b.) one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit bid.

 

I feel this falls into this category.

[pclayton]

Dwayne: I don't think this is classified, but it would probably be midchart.

 

Its very similar to a 1 minor - 2♠ call that a lot of right-coasters play that can show: a balanced GF hand, a mixed raise in a minor (and one other meaning I think).

 

This requires a pre-alert.

[hrothgar]

Hi Dwayne

 

I don't see anything in either the midchart or the GCC that would sanction this bid.

With this said and done, I suspect that you wouldn't have much trouble getting it approved.

[keylime]

The problem I have with the GCC is at times its lack of clarity.

 

I'm reading item five of the responses and rebids and it states to the order of a single jump raise or higher showing a raise, or a force to game...

 

As it is, our 1♦-2♥ (G/F in unknown major) and 1♦-2♠ (G/F with clubs or mixed diamond raise) may also need "retooling" [For those wondering, 1♦-2♣ is art. G/F.].

[awm]

This use of 1♦-2NT is definitely not general chart. The only non-natural jumps that are permitted (clearly this is not a natural 2NT) are ones which show a raise or force to game (5 under responses and rebids) or which show two known suits (6 under responses and rebids).

 

As for your other treatments, 1♦-2♣ and 1♦-2♥ are fine since both are game forcing, and therefore permitted (3 and 5 under responses/rebids respectively). The 1♦-2♠ sequence is not general chart because it's neither a raise (could have clubs) nor a game force (could be mixed raise); in general bids with multi-type meanings are not allowed even if the individual meanings would be okay (so no comic 1NT overcalls showing either of natural or weak takeout even though either of those meanings is okay, no 1♦ openings showing 8+ points natural or 10+ highly artifiical even though either of those individually is okay).

 

The mid-chart is considerably more permissive, and this is what's in force for most NABC+ events. The relevent rule is: "all other constructive rebids and responses are permitted" (#3 under allowed). This certainly permits the 1♦-2♠ sequence you're using, since a "mixed raise" is certainly at least moderately constructive. The 1♦-2NT situation is more tricky. Sam and I play a somewhat similar method (actually our meanings are GF balanced or weak with either minor) and had no trouble getting this approved as mid-chart. Perhaps the difficulty lies in how constructive the weak hand with clubs is. If opener is forced to bid 3♣ here regardless of hand, and partner always passes with the weak clubs hand, one could argue that this is purely destructive, especially if making this bid on very weak hands is typical. If there's a way to get to game at least when opener has clubs as a second suit (so some super-accepts are available), chances are you're okay.

 

Note that those of these conventions which are mid-chart do not require a suggested defense (asterix next to responses/rebids).

[JanM]

I asked my expert about 1♦-2NT and he said it's definitely Midchart legal (and as Adam said, doesn't require a defense, just a pre-alert).

[pclayton]

I asked my expert about 1♦-2NT and he said it's definitely Midchart legal (and as Adam said, doesn't require a defense, just a pre-alert).

Jan - can your expert quote chapter and verse (as in what part of Midchart allows this)?

 

I agree it should be midchart - what we can't determine is why.

[JanM]

I asked my expert about 1♦-2NT and he said it's definitely Midchart legal (and as Adam said, doesn't require a defense, just a pre-alert).

Jan - can your expert quote chapter and verse (as in what part of Midchart allows this)?

 

I agree it should be midchart - what we can't determine is why.

Well, I asked. You may not like the answer B):

 

C: "Constructive responses"

 

J: "Weak with clubs is constructive?"

 

C: "Constructive means the opposite of destructive; if there's only one weak meaning it's not destructive. 1♦-2NT showing a weak jump shift in any suit would be destructive and not allowed."

 

Don't shoot the messenger please!

[pbleighton]

"Constructive means the opposite of destructive; if there's only one weak meaning it's not destructive."

 

And how did Alice respond to this?

 

B)

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

J: "Weak with clubs is constructive?"

 

C: "Constructive means the opposite of destructive; if there's only one weak meaning it's not destructive. 1♦-2NT showing a weak jump shift in any suit would be destructive and not allowed."

The ACBL's Encyclopedia of Bridge defines the expression "Constructive" as

 

"A description that is applied to a bid that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. The partner will take further action more often than not. See ENCOURAGING"

 

In a similar fashion, this same work defines "Constructive Raises" as

 

"The use of an immediate raise from 1S to 2S or 1H to 2H to show 8-10 points. Weaker raises are shown by bidding 1NT forcing and then reverting to Spades. This is a slightly weakened version of the Roth-Stone treatment in which the raise was virtually forcing."

 

The Bridge World's online glossary defines the term Constructive as

 

"(of a bid) indicating definite values"

 

It seems clear that the expression "Constructive" is commly used to describe strength rather than shape.

 

I appreciate the fact that the ACBL Conventions Committee likes to sow ambiguity as a mechanism to increase their own discretionary authority, however, its damn annoying for the rest of us.

 

Please note: I agree with your expert's opinion. The 2NT bid in question should be permitted at the Midchart level. However, the process by which this is being decided is abhorent. The regulatory system needs to be based on clear unambiguous laws that anyone can read and understand. A system that constantly devolves into random personal opinions of the conventions committee is no different from tyranny...

[JanM]

I appreciate the fact that the ACBL Conventions Committee likes to sow ambiguity as a mechanism to increase their own discretionary authority, however, its damn annoying for the rest of us.

I know that you think the ACBL Conventions & Competitions Committee is always the bad guy, but in this particular case, the interpretation of "constructive" as "not destructive" is actually being made by the ACBL Directors, not by the C&C Committee.

[david_c]

I appreciate the fact that the ACBL Conventions Committee likes to sow ambiguity as a mechanism to increase their own discretionary authority, however, its damn annoying for the rest of us.

I know that you think the ACBL Conventions & Competitions Committee is always the bad guy, but in this particular case, the interpretation of "constructive" as "not destructive" is actually being made by the ACBL Directors, not by the C&C Committee.

Still, the underlying cause of the problem is that the regulations need interpretation. A well-written set of regulations would not use terms such as "constructive" without also giving a clear definition. It's very frustrating for players that they can't tell what the regulations are supposed to mean without asking for an official interpretation.

[JanM]

I appreciate the fact that the ACBL Conventions Committee likes to sow ambiguity as a mechanism to increase their own discretionary authority, however, its damn annoying for the rest of us.

I know that you think the ACBL Conventions & Competitions Committee is always the bad guy, but in this particular case, the interpretation of "constructive" as "not destructive" is actually being made by the ACBL Directors, not by the C&C Committee.

Still, the underlying cause of the problem is that the regulations need interpretation. A well-written set of regulations would not use terms such as "constructive" without also giving a clear definition. It's very frustrating for players that they can't tell what the regulations are supposed to mean without asking for an official interpretation.

You're right of course, but as I've said before, it's much harder than it seems to write clear, understandable and effective systems regulations. I know, I've tried. Have you? My attempt was in a much easier situation than the ACBL Convention Charts, because I didn't have to deal with GCC (whatever you want to call it). I worked very hard at it. You can see the results at http://www.usbf.org/GeneralCoC2005.htm in the Systems Sections. We're still tweaking, but this is basically the best I could do. And it's apparently not easy to understand, even for our top players. Last time this issue came up here, I asked for suggestions of better ways to write these sections and the only suggestion I got was to tie to the WBF rules (which aren't any clearer than ACBL's), particularly for US players who are used to the ACBL context.

[cherdano]

J: "Weak with clubs is constructive?"

 

C: "Constructive means the opposite of destructive; if there's only one weak meaning it's not destructive. 1♦-2NT showing a weak jump shift in any suit would be destructive and not allowed."

The ACBL's Encyclopedia of Bridge defines the expression "Constructive" as

 

"A description that is applied to a bid that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. The partner will take further action more often than not. See ENCOURAGING"

 

In a similar fashion, this same work defines "Constructive Raises" as

 

"The use of an immediate raise from 1S to 2S or 1H to 2H to show 8-10 points. Weaker raises are shown by bidding 1NT forcing and then reverting to Spades. This is a slightly weakened version of the Roth-Stone treatment in which the raise was virtually forcing."

 

The Bridge World's online glossary defines the term Constructive as

 

"(of a bid) indicating definite values"

 

It seems clear that the expression "Constructive" is commly used to describe strength rather than shape.

 

I appreciate the fact that the ACBL Conventions Committee likes to sow ambiguity as a mechanism to increase their own discretionary authority, however, its damn annoying for the rest of us.

Welcome to the English language, where the meaning most words depend on context. I find it pretty clear that the meaning of constructive you are citing above ("non-forcing but encouraging towards game") has nothing to with the intended meaning in Midchart->Allowed->no. 3. (How on earth could a "constructive" bid in your sense be part of a relay?) The whole paragraph only makes sense if you take it to mean "constructive method" as opposed to "destructive". Your attack on the Conventions Committee is quite inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

I think you should make your criticism a little more, say, constructive...

 

(I agree it would be nicer if the regulations were 100% clear, but...)

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Last time this issue came up here, I asked for suggestions of better ways to write these sections and the only suggestion I got was to tie to the WBF rules (which aren't any clearer than ACBL's), particularly for US players who are used to the ACBL context.

The actual recommendation was somewhat different...

 

The USBF's charter reads as follows "The purposes of this corporation are charitable in nature and are to advance the interests of the United States in international bridge competition, including the selection and support of United States bridge teams and players in international and Olympic bridge competition."

 

I made what I believed was a reasonable suggestion that the Conditions of Contest for different USBF events should be designed to mirror the conditions of contest for the corresponding event. A USBF event intended to select a team for the Bermuda Bowl should use the a team trial format with the same system's policy as the Bermuda Bowl. In contrast, a USBF event that would select a team for a hypothetical Olympic event would use whatever systems policies that the Olympics decided on. (As I recall, the systems policy from the Salt Lake City demonstration matches used a somewhat different systems policy than the Bermuda Bowl or the Olympiad)

 

Personally, I don't expect that changing the systems USBF systems policies would have any significant impact on the methods that any of the top US teams adopted. (I doubt that many pairs are going to learn one system for UBBF events and another for the Spingold). However, it does side-step the entire tedious process of creating yet another set of systems regulations.

[JanM]

Last time this issue came up here, I asked for suggestions of better ways to write these sections and the only suggestion I got was to tie to the WBF rules (which aren't any clearer than ACBL's), particularly for US players who are used to the ACBL context.

The actual recommendation was somewhat different...

 

I made what I believed was a reasonable suggestion that the Conditions of Contest for different USBF events should be designed to mirror the conditions of contest for the corresponding [world] event.

I hate to rehash a previous discussion, but things haven't changed. The USBF's primary purpose is to select teams for international competition. But the committees charged with making policy for our selection events have decided that holding outstanding events for US players who are not likely to compete in the World Championship for which we are choosing a team is also a priority. With that in mind, the committees have chosen to have Systems regulations that more closely mirror ACBL regulations than they do WBF regulations. In some areas, the committees have chosen to depart from the ACBL approach, primarily because we have the luxury of advance entry requirements and thus can require advance submission of methods.

 

All of the committees (the Open, Women's, Senior and Junior ITT committees) that control the USBF events meet at each NABC, all are open to anyone who's interested in attending. All have had substantial experience with these events and have a lot of history to draw on. For instance, in the Women's event, we did in fact experiment with using WBF Systems regulations (even requiring completion of the WBF convention card). We got lots of complaints and therefore changed back to using more familiar regulations.

[cherdano]

Last time this issue came up here, I asked for suggestions of better ways to write these sections and the only suggestion I got was to tie to the WBF rules (which aren't any clearer than ACBL's), particularly for US players who are used to the ACBL context.

The actual recommendation was somewhat different...

 

I made what I believed was a reasonable suggestion that the Conditions of Contest for different USBF events should be designed to mirror the conditions of contest for the corresponding [world] event.

I hate to rehash a previous discussion, but things haven't changed. The USBF's primary purpose is to select teams for international competition. But the committees charged with making policy for our selection events have decided that holding outstanding events for US players who are not likely to compete in the World Championship for which we are choosing a team is also a priority. With that in mind, the committees have chosen to have Systems regulations that more closely mirror ACBL regulations than they do WBF regulations. In some areas, the committees have chosen to depart from the ACBL approach, primarily because we have the luxury of advance entry requirements and thus can require advance submission of methods.

 

All of the committees (the Open, Women's, Senior and Junior ITT committees) that control the USBF events meet at each NABC, all are open to anyone who's interested in attending. All have had substantial experience with these events and have a lot of history to draw on. For instance, in the Women's event, we did in fact experiment with using WBF Systems regulations (even requiring completion of the WBF convention card). We got lots of complaints and therefore changed back to using more familiar regulations.

I think the problem lies in the fact that you are relying on opinions from people with direct experience at the events. You would get much more reliable opinions from people at the BBF forum who have never been involved with the USBF events, or know people who have.

 

<end sarcasm>

 

Arend

[david_c]

Still, the underlying cause of the problem is that the regulations need interpretation. A well-written set of regulations would not use terms such as "constructive" without also giving a clear definition. It's very frustrating for players that they can't tell what the regulations are supposed to mean without asking for an official interpretation.

You're right of course, but as I've said before, it's much harder than it seems to write clear, understandable and effective systems regulations. I know, I've tried. Have you?

Ah, I'm glad you asked that, because the answer is yes :lol: I live in England and have suggested several additions and changes of wording to the EBU, and I've got a fairly decent record of having them adopted. [For an EBU example, compare sections 11C2 through 11C5 of the new Orange Book to the equivalent sections 12.2.2, 12.2.3 and 12.3.5 of the old Orange Book. One of the main reasons for the change in wording is that it avoids any use of the word "natural", which is notoriously difficult to define.]

 

My attempt was in a much easier situation than the ACBL Convention Charts, because I didn't have to deal with GCC (whatever you want to call it). I worked very hard at it. You can see the results at http://www.usbf.org/GeneralCoC2005.htm in the Systems Sections. We're still tweaking, but this is basically the best I could do. And it's apparently not easy to understand, even for our top players. Last time this issue came up here, I asked for suggestions of better ways to write these sections and the only suggestion I got was to tie to the WBF rules (which aren't any clearer than ACBL's), particularly for US players who are used to the ACBL context.

They're admirably short. And I'm sure that really they are easy to understand, it's just that some of your players don't bother to read them.

 

I would suggest you remove the word "artificial" from VIII C1(g), because "artificial" is another of those words that can be difficult, and in this instance it serves no purpose because natural GF bids are surely no problem either.

 

That leaves the use of the word "constructive" in VIII C1(f) as the only problem. It's difficult to suggest anything better without knowing what it is you're trying to achieve there. Because I'm struggling to think of any non-constructive bids that occur after the first round of bidding. I would take the view that if something never actually happens in practice, there is no need for your regulations to worry about it. So cut that word and save any potential confusion. On the other hand, if you can think of some examples of non-constructive bids which would worry you then I'd be very interested to hear what they were. (Even if such a thing did exist, it would be allowed at beginner level here in England.)

[awm]

The ACBL midchart is actually not that bad. I'd add a glossary to define some of the frequently-used undefined terms, something like the following:

 

An opening suit bid is natural if it guarantees four or more cards in the suit named (if a major) or three or more cards in the suit named (if a minor). An opening notrump bid is natural if it guarantees two or more cards in every suit. A response or advance (any call made after partner has made a non-pass call) is considered natural if the rules above apply or if partner is expected to frequently pass it. This defines major suit single raises and 1♦-1NT in sayc as natural calls (which they currently aren't, weirdly enough). It also makes the 2M response to 2♦ multi, or an accept of a transfer a natural call.

 

Artificial is simply the opposite of natural. Any bid which is not defined as natural (other than pass, double, or redouble) is therefore artificial.

 

A call is conventional if it is artificial, or if it promises length or shortage in some suit other than the one named which was not already indicated by previous bidding. This does not include "obvious" inferences from the fact that the bidder holds thirteen cards. Thus a 2♥ opening showing both majors would be natural, but also conventional.

 

A bid is a relay if it gives no information about the bidder's hand other than general strength, and forces partner to take another call. A bid can still be a relay if a few unusual distributions are excluded; the general guideline is that if a substantial majority of hands with the proper strength would make the call then it should be considered a relay.Examples of relays include 1NT forcing response to a major opening, 2NT asking response over a weak two bid, and stayman if not promising a four-card major. A 2♣ response to 1M which is simply artificial and game forcing and asking for description would be a relay, even if this bid excludes a few hand types (such as hands with 4+ support), but a 2♣ bid that promises clubs is not a relay.

 

A relay system is a sequence of two or more relay bids where the first relay is the first non-pass bid of the auction for one of the two partners.Note that this does define certain strong club systems as relay systems, in particular the 1♣ opening would qualify as a first relay (it shows general strength and no distirbutional info). In most of these cases the relay sequence is game-forcing anyway, but it might be desirable to permit relay "systems" if the first relay is a strong opening bid.

 

An auction is game-forcing if the bidding cannot stop below 3NT. An occasional stop in 4-minor is permitted, but this should be relatively infrequent (so an auction like 1♣-4♣ where opener usually passes is not "game forcing").

 

A bid guarantees invitational values if the partnership is guaranteed to hold the majority of the high card values (21+ points) and if a maximum hand for partner would guarantee enough for game.Playing standard methods this places the invitational response at 10+ points; if openings are lighter or sounder than standard the range may vary slightly.

 

A bid is constructive if there exist reasonably frequent hands partner could hold where game would make opposite this bid, and the methods permit such a game to be found; an alternate formulation is to say that there exist hands where partner would drive to game opposite this bid even if the opponents were barred from bidding.Thus a weak jump shift response can be constructive or destructive depending on the range of strength promised. If opener is expected to "always pass" or "always pass unless a huge fit" then it would be classed as destructive, but more typical weak jumps are constructive. Note that destructive bids are not necessarily disallowed (a third hand preempt is probably destructive); however there are tighter constraints on destructive conventional calls than on constructive conventional calls. Destructive is the opposite of constructive.

 

A psych is a bid which deviates from the agreed strength or distribution. Hand evaluation is sometimes tricky, and deviating from a stated high-card point range by two points or fewer is not necessarily a psych provided the player can give reasonable justification for this evaluation. However, any deviation from stated distribution or from stated strength by three or more high card points will be deemed a psych. In general psychs are permitted provided that they are not too frequent (a "normal" hand for any action should be at least ten times more common than a "psych" of that action) and the partnership methods do not allow partner to determine that a psych has occurred.As an example, if I choose to open 1M with six points in third seat, this is a psych. It's okay if we play drury over this, provided that my call showing a "bad opening" normally shows something like a balanced 10-count. If partner is absolutely barred from bidding on after drury if I show a bad hand (even holding something like ten points with five-card support and a stiff that would often make game opposite a balanced ten) then it becomes a psychic control which is disallowed.

 

As implied by the above, some examples in the glossary can also be of help. This doesn't even require a real "revision" of the convention charts, and some of this material apparently exists in the form of a database which is available to regional level directors only (no idea why that would be). Some further elucidation of the "defense approval" process would also be helpful, since I agree that it's undesirable for a method that appears to be okay on the mid-chart to be held up for years by a defense committee that simply doesn't want the method played in major events.

[JanM]

You're right of course, but as I've said before, it's much harder than it seems to write clear, understandable and effective systems regulations. I know, I've tried. Have you?

Ah, I'm glad you asked that, because the answer is yes :)

 

My attempt was in a much easier situation than the ACBL Convention Charts,

They're admirably short. And I'm sure that really they are easy to understand, it's just that some of your players don't bother to read them.

 

I would suggest you remove the word "artificial" from VIII C1(g), because "artificial" is another of those words that can be difficult, and in this instance it serves no purpose because natural GF bids are surely no problem either.

 

That leaves the use of the word "constructive" in VIII C1(f) as the only problem. It's difficult to suggest anything better without knowing what it is you're trying to achieve there. Because I'm struggling to think of any non-constructive bids that occur after the first round of bidding.

Thank you, both of those suggestions make excellent sense and I have made those changes, subject to approval in Chicago.

 

And you're probably right that most if not all of the complaints I get are from people who'd rather complain than read and conform :), but since this is an area I care about, I keep trying to make it easier for people to provide useful information to their opponents without undue burdens.

[rbforster]

We use a canape club method, and want to use 1♦-P-2NT as either a bust hand in clubs, or a forcing raise in diamonds. Is this kosher?

I ran into this same issue hoping to play 1M-2NT as a club bust or various very strong hands. As described already, this isn't GCC and is Midchart assuming your club bust is somewhat "constructive". My solution was to play the strong version GCC and give up or deal with the weak club hand in other ways.

 

I will point out that if you often play a 3♣ inquiry as semi-automatic after 1♦-2NT (forcing raise) as asking for further description of responders hand (ie shortness ask, values ask, etc), you can make a nice, very safe, and infrequent psych of 2NT with a weak club hand intending to pass partner's likely 3♣ inquiry. Psyching conventional suit responses such as this one at the level of 2NT+ are allowed GCC (see Disallow #2).

[keylime]

This has become quite a thread.

 

Pard and I after discussion using this thread (ty to Jan definitely) just elected to do the 1♦-2NT as the natural, balanced forcing call.

 

That leads to a general question for both the USBC and NABC+ events. How detailed should system notes (pard and I are of same mind that two copies should be present) be for the sole purpose of full disclosure? We are in the process of forming a tabbed presentation of our method, similar to what happened in the ladies' trials (if memory is right) as described.

[mycroft]

To JanM:

 

First, thank you for being willing to outline your reasons for your decisions - I feel much more comfortable with "I may disagree, but I understand" than "this makes no sense!". And given the somewhat antagonistic nature of both the Internet and Holy Wars (and convention regulation is certainly a religious issue) you have both great restraint and great courage to discuss it. Of course, I am sure that that is a drop in the ocean to the courage and restraint required to actually formulate regulations, get them approved, and deal with the grumblings!

 

Having said that, I believe that the decision made for the USBF championships does a disservice to both U.S. bridge and the world of bridge in exchange for improving the comfort of a few pairs. Of course, I don't expect to change anything, but it is to be pointed out:

 

1) It may be that a system that is not legal through the USBC (or during the RR of the USBC) is actually better - better for the pair, better against world-class competition - than the system that is legal. Unless it's a bolt-on element (say, changing 10-12 1NT openers to 9-12), a pair isn't going to investigate playing it because they'd have to learn it *after* learning a system that they can use to win the USBC. System work is *hard* - it's easier to spend the time on refining an "inferior" system than learning two.

 

2) I have never understood multiple sets of system regulations for the same event. I realize it's to make things comfortable for the punters who don't expect to qualify, but 1) above applies. How many SuperChart systems (not "bolt-on" SuperChart conventions, ones that are fundamentally unplayable Mid-Chart) will be registered in the USBC, never mind played?

 

3) By keeping up the "comfort level" of the USBC, we increase the fear factor of non USBC-legal systems. This, along with certain experts' (probably well-meaning) frustration with "Systemic Germs" - particularly US experts - makes the kinds of situations Richard is so frustrated about, where a system needs a defence because it's unfamiliar, and that defence is either impossible to provide or limited to 12+board segments, so it will never become familiar (because of 1), it's not worth learning two systems, one while still in the KOs and one for the losers' Swiss - and heaven help you if you want to play pairs!), so it will always need a defence, so it won't get played, so...

 

Multi requires a "simple" or a complicated defence in the ACBL. It requires a defence in England, too - but the standard defences are *much simpler* (see Dixon for an example) and can be remembered - mostly because everybody's grandmother plays Multi! I'm sure that were the ACBL conventions committee working in England, Flannery would require a 3 page defence to be playable (as it was, at least, about as uncommon there as Multi is here).

 

Does that make Multi "hard" or "simple"? Depends. Does that make 2C (weak 2 in diamonds or GF) "hard" or "simple"? Don't know. But I bet that if it was GCC legal, and frequently played, we'd find out within a couple of years that it isn't that much harder than defending against Lebensohl after a 10-12 NT, or 2D Precision-p-2S, or Flannery, or a "natural", NF, 10-15 1D showing 0+diamonds.

 

You can tell what side of the holy war I'm on, of course. But I'm sure that things that are hard because they are unfamiliar, and regulated against because they're hard, will remain unfamiliar. Whether or not this is a problem or the saving of the game I don't know, but when North American players go to world events and have to be prepared for all these unfamiliar things, they complain because it's hard. Well, of course!

 

4) Richard has a point - US I and US II get to play under two handicaps because of the above (they don't choose from the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nowhere else to play it, even in the qualifying events; and they don't get experience playing against the full range of system allowed in the world championships, because there's nobody playing it in the events they play in, including the qualifying events); the fact that US bridge is so strong that it still is odds-on to place at least one of the two teams despite this is impressive.

 

Having said that, I like the USBF convention regulations - they're as clear as anything based on the ACBL Mid- and SuperChart can be, and (as long as the members of the Conventions Committee aren't playing) there isn't the same chance of "it's legal, but we don't want it to be, so there won't be a good enough defence" - as a player has to object first.

 

But I think the Canadian CNTC CoC is better - and it doesn't seem to stop the "we don't have a hope, but we're going to give it a try" teams (who, I will admit, have to qualify in their zones) from showing up.

 

Note: my Personal Opinion only; I am not speaking in any official capacity.

Michael.

[mycroft]

I like a lot of awm's definitions - I think there are loopholes, but probably far fewer. I prefer the ACBL's description of relay system; I think it's a bit cryptic, but if followed logically, is perfectly clear. But I think there's a problem with the relay system definition you provide, that isn't in the purview of the USBF discussion; remember that Relay Systems are not allowed in GCC events. Trying to explain that relay systems where the first relay is a response are disallowed, but relay systems where the first relay is an opening are allowed, provided the response isn't a counter-relay, is going to be hard. Oh, and with your definition of relay system, 2C-2D waiting, waiting-and-GF, or semi-automatic, especially in conjunction with either "cheapest 3 second negative" or natural NT responses become relay systems...

 

One I do not like is constructive/destructive - partly because I believe this is a false dichotomy. I do not believe that calls can either be constructive or destructive, but maybe I have a different definition of destructive. I think there is a fundamental difference between an obstructive call - one that tries to stop the opponents from getting to the right contract by taking away space, or one that is a reasonable "shot-in-the-dark" to find the right contract right off the top - and a call primarily designed to kill the opponents' system (1S over 1C automatic being the poster child for this one, but also a non-1C fert in a FP system). And I believe that there is a continuum between obstructive and destructive (EHAA 3-level preempts being in that grey area, certainly; I'd put Bergen-aggressive DONT overcalls there as well, Wonder bids over 1C, and I'm sure there are more); I'm sure that there's no possible consensus line to draw here, if we want to ban "destructive" calls.

 

However, even giving the "continuum" theory of destructive calls, I think there's a problem. A preempt - especially a third-seat preempt - is detructive with this definition; so is a standard single major raise in a limited opener system (for that matter, so is a third-seat 12-14 NT or a limited 1M opener opposite a passed hand!). Any "signoff" bid below game is destructive - which basically lumps a large fraction of responses after 1NT openers in the destructive category (especially if you do not play transfers!) All the bids that are "competing for the partscore" are destructive.

 

If you want to leave the word destructive with your definition and keep the Mid-Chart's DISALLOWED, 1, you are going to have a problem. Similarly, if you are going to allow some "destructive" calls, but not others, you are simply replacing one judgement call with another, and I'm sure mom-and-pop are going to be really happy when you describe their 3S call in 1S-p-2S-p; p-X-p-3D; p-p-3S as "destructive".

 

Psychics are hard to define. 1NT with a 14-that-looks-like 15 is obviously not a psychic; neither is a nominally 11+ 1S opener with AKQTxxx, even if 7222. And not just points, but cards - KJT9 isn't a psychic 5-card 1H opener, but 13 HCP Flannery with 3-5 or 4-4 in the majors? That's only one card, but it's a psych. And when there are regulations based on HCP (and there are many in the ACBL), you have to be careful - I opened a hand with 9 points that is nominally 10-15. When they complain, I say it was a psych. But it's not a psych, says the rules - it's legitimate, but not legal.

 

Michael.