what is this?

[jillybean]

Hi,

We were playing in a (free) tournament, our opps opened these 2 hands.

 

 

 

[hv=s=sajxxhjxdajxxxcxx]133|100|1♥ = artificial 8 losers[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sajxxhjxdajxxxcxx]133|100|1♥ = artificial 8 losers[/hv]

 

Are these explanations considered sufficient and what is this system?

[blackshoe]

My answers: No, and I have no idea.

 

:-)

[McBruce]

At least they got the loser part right. B)

 

At the table, I would make my normal call and get the TD later if there seemed to be damage, or especially if there seemed to be a concealed partnership understanding. If they land on their feet and you cannot, from their explanations, figure out how, there is a good chance that they have more agreements than they are divulging.

 

Jokers who play stuff like this are often trying to bait the opponents into tempo breaks and questions to help them infer who has the missing strength. Your best bet is to make your normal bid in tempo and call the TD later if the result might have been different had the explanations been better.

[Winstonm]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these methods would require pre-alerts and an accepted printed defense to be legal - at least in ACBL-land.

[pbleighton]

"Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these methods would require pre-alerts and an accepted printed defense to be legal - at least in ACBL-land. "

 

They are actually illegal in the ACBBL, bu this wasn't an ACBL tournament. What is REALLY weird is that they seem to be using 1H and 1S for the same bid, unless there is a by-seat variance.

 

Peter

[jillybean]

We did recieve a type of prealert "Please note that we play a weird system opps. Move your mouse over our bids to see what they mean"

 

This was a “No Psyche, No Polish Club, No Multi” tournament so I assumed the TD was trying to protect the field against non sayc type bidding.

When I asked the TD to have a look at the bidding the reply was “I looked at the boards and saw nothing that I wouldn't do… there are no adjustments and the rules are plain for everyone to see”. I doubt the TD really wanted these methods in their tournament, if not perhaps “Sayc/21 only, no psyche” would be a better description.

 

What responsibility should the players of these systems have when they enter an online tournament, should they be using these methods at all? I know there are no specific rules regarding the general, free online tournaments, my feeling is that they shouldn’t be using them in an open tournament and the TD would not be out of line if they removed these players from their tournament.

 

tyia

jb

[pbleighton]

"This was a “No Psyche, No Polish Club, No Multi” tournament so I assumed the TD was trying to protect the field against non sayc type bidding."

 

Not really. Under the ACBL's General Convention Chart, Precision, Blue Team Club, EHAA and ACOL are legal, and so is Polish Club, if you remove the Wilcosz opening.

 

That said, the tournament organizers (as opposed to the TD), probably would frown on this system, given their stated restrictions.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

If they meant only SAYC and 2/1 then that is what they should have said. How are people supposed to know what the TD meant rather than what he actually said? The only reasonable assumption is that if nothing is specifically banned then everything is allowed. I think people who play weird systems "ought to" pre-alert and have suggested defenses available but I don't think they should be punished if they don't _unless_ the rules of the tournament state that this is a requirement.

 

To the exact questions at issue, to describe a bid adequately you need to know possible distributions and point ranges. The "8 loser hand part" is satisfactory for the point range requirement. Artificial means "any hand type" and is thus an answer to the distribution question. So, I think this could be an adequate answer. Given the system is so strange, I would ask what all the other low-level opening bids mean so I know what hand types are excluded.

[jillybean]

If they meant only SAYC and 2/1 then that is what they should have said. How are people supposed to know what the TD meant rather than what he actually said? The only reasonable assumption is that if nothing is specifically banned then everything is allowed. I think people who play weird systems "ought to" pre-alert and have suggested defenses available but I don't think they should be punished if they don't _unless_ the rules of the tournament state that this is a requirement.

 

To the exact questions at issue, to describe a bid adequately you need to know possible distributions and point ranges. The "8 loser hand part" is satisfactory for the point range requirement. Artificial means "any hand type" and is thus an answer to the distribution question. So, I think this could be an adequate answer. Given the system is so strange, I would ask what all the other low-level opening bids mean so I know what hand types are excluded.

I shouldnt have assumed the TD wouldnt want this system simply because they had banned polish club and multi - maybe there is a good reason to ban only PC and multi.

 

Your comment about querying the opps further about the openings, I can’t see how this is workable in an online, timed event. You dont have the time needed to get this type information, digest it and discuss defense.

 

jb

[pbleighton]

"Your comment about querying the opps further about the openings, I can’t see how this is workable in an online, timed event. You dont have the time needed to get this type information, digest it and discuss defense."

 

You can't discuss defense, but you can get inferences which may not have been alerted, i.e., 5 card majors yes/no, balanced/unbalanced (these *should* be alerted, but the space provided in the alert box isn't much).

 

Don't waste time worrying too much about what sounds like a lousy system.

 

Let me give you some generic advice about defending against unusual systems. I'm far from an expert, but I do play them. I am currently playing 10-13 NT, 5 card majors with very sound, unlimited opening bids, and 5 card weak twos (8-12 hcp) in all four suits. Regardless of the unusual system, I have found that the biggest mistake opps make is NOT failing to have a clever way to combat our unusual bids, but rather departing from their normal overcalling/doubling practices unilaterally, without discussing it with their partners.

 

Just bid normally, and don't worry about optimum defenses.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that if TD wanted these relatively innocuous things banned then he would probably want a host of other things banned. Alas, he didn't say so and he should be forced to tolerate it until the next tournament where he can write better rules. I'm not sure it is all that different in a face-to-face situation. Once or twice I've had people query my entire system before bidding and it is true we nearly ran out of time. I think this is an argument for flexibility in timing rather than for banning. The problem online is not that it couldn't be done but that people are non-responsive.

[helene_t]

Agree with Todd and Peter. Whether the explanation was sufficient is hard to say, depends how broad a range of distributions can be opened 1♥/♠.

 

FWIW, I think it's quite funny to play against people who play weired systems. It does require a partner who's on the same wavelenght, though.

[blackshoe]

You know, it's funny... as a relatively new (last couple of years) club level TD, I started doing it because I enjoy it. However, it seems most of the club owners around here don't really enjoy it much any more, if they ever did. They're the ones I hear saying "bridge is a timed event" and wanting to get the session done as quickly as possible so they can go home.

 

Bridge is a timed event, but... the relevant Laws are 8B and 8C.

 

B. End of Round

In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

C. End of Last Round and End of Session

The last round of a session, and the session itself, ends for each table when play of all boards scheduled at that table has been completed, and when all scores have been entered on the proper scoring forms without objection.

 

"Progression of players" in 8B means that the round ain't over until the moving players move on. Note that there is no specific time limit here, and in particular no time limit is mentioned for an individual hand. The ACBL's "7.5 minutes a board" is a guideline - and it doesn't take into account all pertinent factors. A TD is expected to use his judgement in keeping the game moving. That said, there's a lot players can do, but rarely do, to keep things moving, particularly in a club game.

 

I note that in the Laws for Online Bridge the wording of these two laws is unchanged. Nonetheless, the exigencies of online bridge may require some modification in procedures. As I understand it, the software will simply abort a hand in progress if the time limit is exceeded. That's not good, on several levels, but if that's what is, TDs and players have to deal with it. I would much rather, though, see a system whereby a certain amount of time is allocated (as a guideline) per board, with a specified minimum time for the last board. If there isn't that minimum available for the last board, it doesn't get started - you don't abort boards in the middle of play because time has run out. Once a board is started, it must be finished. If that means the end of the round is delayed at a particular table, tough. If it means a programmer (I'm a programmer, btw, so don't think I have no idea what's involved here) has to work a bit harder to allow this delay, tough. This would bring online bridge closer to face to face bridge in this regard, or at least to what face to face bridge ought, IMO, to be.

 

"Bridge is a timed event", yes. But what this should mean is that under normal circumstances a round should end within the specified time limit. If there are director calls, or explanations required or, at the beginning of a round, some time for discussion of methods in view of opponents' unusual methods is needed, then the round ends when it ends according to law, and not just because the computer - or the TD - counted a certain number of ticks.

[hrothgar]

Few comments here:

 

1. The opponents are not practicing anything remotely resembling full disclosure. As other folks have mentioned, the explanations for the 1♥ and 1♥ openings are identical. Something is clearly missing from the explanation...

 

Perhaps there are distributional requirements for the opening bids...

Perhaps the definition of the bids varies by seat...

Perhaps the partnership is randomizing between different 1♥ and 1♠

 

Regardless of whats going on, you have the right to get an overview of the opponent's system

 

2. I'm just making a guess here, but from the sounds of things the opponents are playing a step opening system in which the level of the initial opening clarifies the strength of the hand... These systems are almost universally quite poor, but for whatever reason, every two to three years another one springs up. The best way to handle these systems is by eating up bidding space. Let the opps start looking for their fit at the three level. Any serious partnership should have some kind of meta agreement to deal with artifical bids that clarify range, but not shape...

 

You might want to modify your NT overcall structure. Alternatively, you might want to base your defense on the one you use versus strong club openings. Either way, make sure that you have something that you're comfortable using