Xango Club

[kenrexford]

While drunk in Gatlinburg, my partner and I came up with a fish tale. Amazingly, 75% of people polled believed the problem and rendered an often heated opinion. Some of the believers were gold life masters or higher! The problem, as told by my partner and me:

 

Yeah, we are waiting around for the committee to decide if we won our match or not.

 

What's the issue?

 

Well. We are playing in the top bracket of the knockouts, against a team using the Xango Club System.

 

Xango Club???

 

It's some new system from Zimbabwe. Anyway, we agreed to use their approved defense. Dealer opened 1♠, Kenny redoubled, pass, and Ken doubled.

 

What?!?! Redouble?

 

Yeah -- it's part of the Xango defense. 1♠ had denied a 1♠ opening, any shape and strength but not five spades with an opening count.

 

[sOMETIMES] How can you redouble 1♠?

 

Well, it was a Mid-Chart event.

 

[sOMETIMES MORE NEEDED] And besides, he accepted the redouble. [THIS USUALLY WON THE DAY]

 

So, the redouble showed 0-4 HCP, the pass was forcing, and the double showed 16-19 with spades. Had he been not vulnerable, an important point on this hand, he would have held only 14-16. As it was, Ken held 16, so it did not matter at this point.

 

OK.

 

So, Opener bid 1NT, denying any crazy distribution, like a seven-card suit, or 6-4. It also denied even three spades, and showed 6-9 HCP.

 

OK.

 

Kenny passed, which they initially questioned. But, without a black-suit Queen, pass is obvious. Responder then bid 2♣. This was not alerted. Ken passed, Opener bid 2♦, and that was the contract. As Kenny was about to lead, Responder notified us of a failure to alert. Apparently, in the original Xango Club, 2♣ was an optional relay to 2♦, with Opener allowed to bid something else with the right hand. In the modified version, this was a mandatory relay. So, we called the director. He asked Ken whether this would change his bid.

 

OK.

 

Ken showed the TD his hand, and said, "Of course, what would you do with this hand?!?"

 

What did he have?

 

Ken held 5134 pattern. Over the new Xango, this clearly calls for a 2NT takeout (4-3 in the minors), after which we find and make 3♣.

 

How did the Director rule?

 

Well, 2♦ made. We would have made 3♣, so the director changed the result. The opponents have appealed, claiming that, had I been alerted, I would bid 3NT, for 4♣ down one, because I had 16 points. However, we countered that 16 is a minimum for 16-19 because we were vulnerable, whereas it would only be a maximum of the 14-16 range if were we not vulnerable.

 

[THE MAJORITY REACTION, EVEN AMONG INTELLIGENT PEOPLE] That's ridiculous! If the opponents are playing such unusual systems and fail to alert, they should not be able to cry foul because of your confusion over agreements. That's just nonsense, a frivolous appeal if you ask me! (Very heated)

 

BTW, the small minority who caught on but played along made the "right" ruling, IMO. The result of 2♦ should stand because it is rather well-known that there are two versions of the Xango Relay in this sequence, and I should have known to ask, notwithstanding the failure to alert. We of course agreed with this assessment.

[Free]

1♠ - RDbl - ...

 

Article 36 clearly states that whatever is bid now will just be removed and Kenny is allowed to bid. You however have to pass for the rest of the auction. Even if there are other bids after the RDbl, these are canceled and the bidding goes back.

 

So all the rubbish about failure to alert is nonsense, the RDbl is illegal and should be replaced, whatever the rest of the players bid. THAT is the correct ruling.

[the hog]

1♠ - RDbl - ...

 

Article 36 clearly states that whatever is bid now will just be removed and Kenny is allowed to bid. You however have to pass for the rest of the auction. Even if there are other bids after the RDbl, these are canceled and the bidding goes back.

 

So all the rubbish about failure to alert is nonsense, the RDbl is illegal and should be replaced, whatever the rest of the players bid. THAT is the correct ruling.

roflmao

Enough said!

[bid_em_up]

1♠ - RDbl - ...

 

Article 36 clearly states that whatever is bid now will just be removed and Kenny is allowed to bid.  You however have to pass for the rest of the auction.  Even if there are other bids after the RDbl, these are canceled and the bidding goes back.

 

So all the rubbish about failure to alert is nonsense, the RDbl is illegal and should be replaced, whatever the rest of the players bid.  THAT is the correct ruling.

This is true, but....the opponents provided the defense, which said XX showed this hand. Since the defense that was provided by the opps was illegal, its their fault that pard had to make an illegal bid, so we should now be allowed to bid freely as we choose.

 

The result gets adjusted to 3C making.

 

:)

[jchiu]

Quite frankly, I would never believe this tale because of certain facts

 

1. The top bracket is populated by usual suspects, e.g. Meckwell, Melanie Tucker and her juniors, Justin Lall, etc. I doubt that any team from Zimbabwe would be sponsored to go to Gatlinburg to compete. Even more so, I doubt that anyone sounding like a drunk (bad-lawyer)-wannabe would be in the top bracket (and if they were, they would neither drink in the afternoon nor survive to the evening round).

 

2. Midchart defenses must be approved by the regulatory body of the ACBL. It would be easier to publish a nonsense paper in Nature than to get anything this ludicrous approved by the stodgy ACBL. This is certainly not because they have higher acceptance standards. I have heard (from a fairly believable source) that they just throw many of these applications for mid-chart approval out without reading them.

 

3. Bridge players seem incredibly complacent when they appear to be listening to the local blabbermouth. I have heard personally from players that they were just keeping their long-winded acquaintences company while completely filtering out the details. I also rarely hear people have a strong negative opinion against the party that come up to them waiting for the appeal to be decided.

[cherdano]

2. Midchart defenses must be approved by the regulatory body of the ACBL. It would be easier to publish a nonsense paper in Nature than to get anything this ludicrous approved by the stodgy ACBL.

ROTFL. This is really a good one, Chiu.

[helene_t]

So all the rubbish about failure to alert is nonsense, the RDbl is illegal and should be replaced, whatever the rest of the players bid.  THAT is the correct ruling.

Edit: Sorry, just realized that bid_em_up already said the same.

I'll have to disagree with this. Remember, the redouble was part of the suggested defense. This should imply that the Xangonians will allways waive the bar on further actions by the partner of the insufficient bidder.

 

This may not be written in so many words in the midchart, but it follows from common sense. The alternative is that the Xangonians would effectively be using their suggestion of defense as a means of fooling opps to bar themselves from bidding.

 

Board adjusted to 3♣=.

Edited April 21, 2007 by helene_t

[Free]

You have the right to protect yourselves, and if you redouble without any thought "because someone else suggests you do that", you didn't use this right and made an illegal call, whatever the cause. It's a suggestion, not an obligation. Articles never talk about suggested defenses anyway (they are quite useless imo), so there are no applicable rules for those as far as I know.

 

It's an easy argument that it's a suggested defense, but you KNOW that RDbl can NEVER be a call that is allowed, under any regulation! You have to be very naive to make this mistake and blame someone else.

[bid_em_up]

I wasn't being serious.

[helene_t]

I wasn't being serious.

You shouldn't make jokes about such a serious topic. It was the top bracket of the knock-outs in a Midchart event

[kenrexford]

I've been reading up recently on some aspects of the new Xango system. It is very hard to find sources, however.

 

One interesting Xango call came up a while ago. It's the "Splintemptive Jump Shift." A very classic bid.

 

I had opened 1♥ on xx-AKQxxx-AQx-Ax. Partner made a Splintemptive 3♠ call, which of course shows either heart support and a stiff spade, slammish, or a long spade suit, stiff heart, and weakish.

 

Figuring that my hearts were sufficient opposite either holding, I leapt to 6♥.

 

Dummy held the weaker hand of KQJxxxx-x-xxx-Kx. As heart split 3-3, as spades split 2-2, and as the diamond King was behind the A-Q, 6♥ was clearly superior to the field contract of 6♠, especially with my RHO holding J109x in diamonds.

 

Xango has a way of finding these superior trump suits, especially in slam auctions.

 

I also recently saw a write-up on the "Reverse Reverse." Too many of the old Xango players were having problems with the standard concept of reverses showing extra strength. This is a big problem that most club players have failed to solve, until the Xango Reverse Reverse. The concept is actually quite simple. Rather than opening, say, 1♦ and then rebidding 2♥, which would show extra strength, you "reverse" the "reverse" and open 2♥, planning to rebid 1♦.

 

This concept seems very sound. As the rationale for a reverse showing extra strength is that you force a higher level to correct to your first suit, bidding in this backwards, or "reverse," manner solves the problem.

 

However, in practice, I find that the opponents, or partner, have a tendency to preempt the auction before I get a chance to complete my pattern. Or, even worse, the auction passes out.

 

I understand why this stuff is only Midchart. It's not really the complexity of the approach or the difficulty of the suggested defenses, as most of Xango is rather logical. Instead, it seems that placing Xango in midchart-only events keeps the riff-raff from playing Xango and messing the system up with undisciplined and unsound theory. The purity is protected because only the best of the best play Xango.

[the hog]

Wasn't Noisicerp a precursor of Xango? In Noisicerp a 1S opening showed 16+ any. 1H was the catchall, 1D showed H and 1C showed S. The 1NT opening showed 20-22 and 2NT showed 13-15. 4NT was always to play, regardless of when it was bid.

The bid I liked best in Noisicerp was the 2D opening which was always "undiscussed" and so could be a 3 suiter or some weak 2 or a multi or Blackwood, or or or........I remember playing Noisicerp in a side event at the National Champs some years ago.

Would this be GCC, Ken?

 

What about those players playing the Chameleon System against Xango? Is that Mid chart or GCC? (I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone who posts here, but the Chameleon System is where you pick up the opponent's system card and play that against them - its a great pairs system and of course requires no alerts as everyone knows what all bids mean.)

[kenrexford]

You have definitely found some of the early pioneers who ultimately have arrived at Xango. Xango still features the original of the multi 2♦ calls, immitated by so many without really understanding it. 2♦ multi was meant to be figured out at the table, as needed by the hand you are dealt, not preset to such limited ideas as a weak two in a major or strong. Much more flexibility is needed when you convert theory to practice at the table.

 

From what I understand, Noisicerp was around long before the GCC, listed on the old "approved conventions" list. As such, it is never specifically mentioned in the GCC but is allowed because of a grandfather clause. Xango, being a much more modern system, has no such luxury.

 

However, strangely, when one pair uses the Chameleon Defense and the other uses Xango, then both are allowed. Neither is allowed undependently. In fact, Chameleon is only allowed against Xango, at least in the North American NBO's. I cannot speak for any NBO rules elsewhere, with the sole exception that Chameleon is allowed in Zimbabwe, of course.

 

Actually, I also am aware of Chameleon being allowed against Chameleon. This of course creates some problem in interpreting bids, but most of the time that works itself out. Some of the most interesting auctions involve two pairs both using Chameleon.

 

One variant to Chameleon you may like is Progressive Chameleon. It is a bit tricky, but one very interesting auction explains the premise:

 

1NT (15-17) - 2♦ (Jacoby Transfer to Hearts) - (2♥ Jacoby Transfer to Spades, accepting hearts) - 2♠ (accepting spades and asking about 4-card minor) - 2NT (no four-card minor)-all pass.

 

With this auction, Progressive Chameleon works wonders. Dealer showed 15-17 points. Overcaller held five hearts. Responder held three hearts and five spades. Advancer held three spades and was interested in defending a minor suit contract.

 

What else should dealer bid? If he held five hearts, that would be a poor contract, facing a 5-0 split. Sure, spades might offer a fit, if Opener holds five of them, but then the 5-0 or 5-1 heart split would mean lots of ruffs by Advancer. With no four-card minor, why would Dealer want to play in a minor, especially if that is precisely what Advancer wants? So, 2NT is likely the right spot.

 

Most analysts initially discard Progressive Chameleon, until auction like this, where the obvious merits of the system are seem.

[Gerben42]

I hope you learned your lesson.

 

1. Don't put your trust in "suggested defenses". READ them.

2. If opponents play something that is obviously not allowed, call the director before the game.

3. Know your regulations or carry a copy.

 

Any football player knows the offside rule (I don't but I don't play), how come so few bridge players know their laws?

 

Your Xango friends (sounds like juniors, not Zimbabwans) better do their homework, too. Are you sure you only needed a ruling on 1 board?

[the hog]

Quote Ken: "One variant to Chameleon you may like is Progressive Chameleon. It is a bit tricky, but one very interesting auction explains the premise:

 

1NT (15-17) - 2♦ (Jacoby Transfer to Hearts) - (2♥ Jacoby Transfer to Spades, accepting hearts) - 2♠ (accepting spades and asking about 4-card minor) - 2NT (no four-card minor)-all pass.

 

With this auction, Progressive Chameleon works wonders. Dealer showed 15-17 points. Overcaller held five hearts. Responder held three hearts and five spades. Advancer held three spades and was interested in defending a minor suit contract."

 

Is there a write up on this? Do you have notes? Wow, I am getting really excited. I think Chameleon was invented by Sidney Lizzard. Did he invent Progressive Chameleon transfers as well?

[kenrexford]

Mostly oral tradition. People have tried committing some of these systems to writing, but the necessary breathing space inherent in such innovative theories negates any real ability to conceptualize the system in written fashion. As soon as an idea is "written up," the necessities of evolving theory so radically change the system core that the written becomes the archaic.

 

It is practice, mostly.

 

Some of the most challenging issues to write up include concepts like inferential precursors. I can describe it, but not using traditional bidding prose. For instance, a 2♦ overcall of a 2♣ opening sounds strange. It could be a GF, waiting, but that is less useful. The modern treatment has been to assume a 1NT opening from partner, the "inferential precursor" to the 2♣ call. Thus, whereas the dealer opened 2♣, the auction is describes as follows:

 

%[1NT]-2♣-2♦.

 

This, stylistic devise is not well known to the average reader. Hence, the failure to publish. It is worse if the inferential precursor theory negates a prior pass:

 

P*/%[1NT]-2♣-2♦

 

You can also have two-way inferential precursors, postcursors, and existential cursories. All require different methods of description, a mess.