Rebuilding the General Convention Chart

[DrTodd13]

I'll never understand why people take up a thinking man's game and then start asserting that they don't want to think anymore. Bad results should motivate you to develop good defenses to new methods. If the methods are inherently superior then you are going to get worse results when the opps get a chance to use it. That is bridge.

[awm]

I'll never understand why people take up a thinking man's game and then start asserting that they don't want to think anymore. Bad results should motivate you to develop good defenses to new methods. If the methods are inherently superior then you are going to get worse results when the opps get a chance to use it. That is bridge.

Having watched you play a lot of forcing pass on BBO, I think you'll have to agree that regardless of the technical merit of your methods, you win a lot of IMPs because your pickup opponents don't have a good defense, or aren't on the same page as to what their bids mean over your various calls.

 

Of course, you can argue that this is just "part of the game" and they should discuss more, but keep in mind you're often playing against a pair who just met two seconds ago and may not even share a common language. You've just bombarded them with a huge amount of information about your point count methods, general approach, etc. which they may not fully understand and which probably bears no resemblance to anything they've played against before. Is it really fair to expect them to be able to devise a sensible defense to this stuff?

 

Even in the context of an established partnership in a serious event, if it's pairs or the like you have two people come to your table, and you bombard them with about 3-4 minutes of pre-alerts in the context of a 15 minute round. Then they get to try and figure out defenses to this stuff. Even if they're quick about it, finishing the boards on time will be tough. And how likely are they to come up with a good defense on the spot? Even if they have some sort of "meta-defenses" it's quite possible that these don't cover the 1♥ fert, or that the defense they use against multi isn't really that good against 2♦ showing a 5cM/4cm combination.

 

I think it's fairly clear that playing methods which are very far removed from what people are familiar with is a huge advantage regardless of the technical merit of those methods when your opponents have very little time/ability/inclination to discuss and develop good defenses. Despite doing a good job of disclosing your bids when they come up, you've still got a substantial advantage here, one that isn't really in the spirit of the game. Full disclosure for really weird stuff has to be advance disclosure.

 

In principle I agree that methods which are legitimately superior on technical merit should be allowed in long events, and should eventually become sufficiently "familiar" as to become allowed in shorter events. But allowing people to play "whatever they like" in an event with short rounds is just giving a huge advantage to people who can make up technically inferior "weird stuff" that no one knows how to defend and that can't really be fully disclosed within the time allowed.

 

Developing new methods is part of bridge. Confusing your opponents because they can't understand your methods or have no idea how partner will take their calls over your methods is not part of bridge. Some restrictions are needed, especially for the shorter events, in order to enforce this.

[jtfanclub]

No, I think you are the one missing the point.  You spend a lot of time coming up with a version ofthe GCC which is MORE restrictive than the present GCC (no 5 card weak two bids? - they are NOT allowed to do this), in the name of making GCC event restricted to methods which are easy to defend, and easy to determine their legality

 

No, I have attempted to make the GCC *consistent*, only adding or subtracting things that were easy to explain and to defend. In doing so, I made weak 2s closer in regulation to weak 1s than I probably should have. Since we've already discussed that, and I've said I probably did it wrong, I don't know why you're bothering to repeat it. Because it is an attempt to make a consistent chart, some things are going to end up more restrictive, some less. That's generally what happens when you try to make something consistent. I'm sure I have lots of cases that ended up too permissive or too restrictive. It's easy enough to adjust. That is not the point of the exercise.

 

You are missing the point of your own thread.

 

Right. That must be it.

 

I spend two days writing a post, and some wise-ass decides that they can glance on it and use their psychic powers to determine WHY I spent so much time on the post. And when I point out that what they're doing has nothing to do with why I wrote the post or what I hoped to get out of it, they then insist that nope, I must have written the post in order to try to prevent their pet project.

 

Wonderful. Thanks.

[pbleighton]

I spend two days writing a post, and some wise-ass decides that they can glance on it and use their psychic powers to determine WHY I spent so much time on the post. And when I point out that what they're doing has nothing to do with why I wrote the post or what I hoped to get out of it, they then insist that nope, I must have written the post in order to try to prevent their pet project.

 

Wonderful. Thanks.

 

Two points:

 

1. You did, in fact spend a lot of time coming up with a GCC replacement which uses different concepts than the current GCC. You will not be able to duplicate what's legal/illegal without a lot of exceptions, which will defeat your purpose.

 

2. You know system regulation is a very hot topic. Stop whining about criticism.

 

Peter

[skjaeran]

The same goes for transfer openings. Why should a 1♠ opening showing some minimum number of hcp and 5+♠'s be allowed and a 1♥ (or 1m) opening showing the same be disallowed?

1. Because people are familiar with weak bids, and have a defense already built for it. Transfer openings do not have even that level of familiarity.

 

2. Because the ACBL has effectively banned transfer openings from its MIDCHART competitions. Asking why I banned them from the GENERAL chart is an exercise in futility. They think it's too complicated even for relatively high competitions, and regardless of whether I agree with them, that's good enough for me. As far as I know, nothing that is banned in MIDCHART is allowed in my GENERAL concept.

 

3. Because Transfer openings generally use Symmetric Relay systems, and Symmetric Relay has been banned for GCC by the ACBL.

1. But they do have a defense against a natural 1♠ opening, haven't they??? It can't be hard to just use the same defence (t/o double, natural overcalls) as against the 1♠ opening (if they don't want or are unable to do anything fancy). If the opening is 1♥ they've gained a bid they didn't have if the opening was 1♠. So they can attribute some meaning to the 1♠ cuebid. Or not.

 

2. I still fail to see why they've done so both from the Midchart AND General chart. But then I'm familiar with much more freedom, even if we've adopted the WBF System Policy in Norway, which took away a few possibilities. How anyone except beginners can find the transfer principle complicated is beyond me. Isn't it standard to play transfers in other positions? :blink:

 

3. I'm not familiar with Symmetric Relay, but expect them to be allowed at all levels here. Why are they banned in GCC byt the ACBL?

[awm]

Here's a counter-suggestion for an alternative to general chart. My goal here is not so much to "change what's allowed" as to make things simpler and more consistent. In some cases this does imply differences in what's legal, but there's no overarching attempt to "restrict conventions more" or "remove restrictions."

 

Definitions:

 

(1) An agreement is an assignment of a particular set of hands to a particular call. The expectation is that when this call is made, the hand held will be a member of that particular set. Agreements may be made explicitly or may be implicit based on partnership experience or general bridge knowledge. An agreement is said to guarantee at least some number of high card points or number of cards in a suit if all hands in the agreed set contain at least that number of high card points or cards in that suit.

 

(2) A deviation from an agreement involves making a call when the actual hand held is not a member of the agreed set. A minor deviation involves a hand with one high card point more or less than the agreed range, or one card more or less than the agreed number. In general minor deviations are allowed provided the bidder can give logical justification for believing the call appropriate -- typically this requires some positive or negative feature of the hand (to upgrade or downgrade high card strength) or a very strong or weak suit (to upgrade or downgrade suit length). A major deviation or psychic bid is a deviation by more than one high card point or one card, or for which no logical justification can be given. Psychic bids are normally allowed, but a pattern of frequent psychics (especially in the context of an established partnership) or of partner making allowances for a possible psychic can be regarded as an undisclosed agreement and thus subject to penalty.

 

(3) An opening bid is the first non-pass call of an auction. An overcall is the first non-pass bid by the bidder's side, after the opposing side has made an opening bid. A response is the second non-pass call of an auction in which partner has made an opening bid.

 

(4) A strong hand is a hand containing 15 or more high card points. An average hand is a hand containing 10 or more high card points. A weak hand is a hand containing less than 10 high card points. A bid is said to be weak if any weak hands are contained in the set of agreed hands for that bid. A bid is said to be strong if only strong hands are included in the set of agreed hands for that bid.

 

Opening Bids and Overcalls:

 

The following agreements about opening bids or overcalls are legal. Adding additional restrictions to the set of hands allowed (so that some hands are not permitted) does not effect the legality of an agreement.

 

(1) Any opening bid or overcall may be agreed as a strong bid, guaranteeing 15 or more high card points.

 

(2) Any opening bid or overcall at the two-level or above which, by agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed.

 

(3) Any opening bid or overcall at the one-level, which, by agreement, guarantees four or more cards in the suit named is allowed. However, opening bids (only) at the one-level must additionally guarantee 8 or more high card points.

 

(4) An opening bid or overcall of 1NT which guarantees a balanced hand (no singleton or void) and at least 8 hcp is allowed.

 

(5) An opening bid or overcall in notrump at the two-level or above which guarantees at least five cards in each of two known suits or which guarantees an undisclosed seven-card or longer suit headed by the AKQ or which guarantees a strong eight card suit with at most two possibilities for what the suit might be is allowed.

 

The following agreements are legal for overcalls. For opening bids, there is an additional requirement that the opening bid must guarantee an average hand or better if not conforming to (1-5) above.

 

(6) An opening bid or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in each of two known suits, with at least nine cards total between those suits is allowed. It is not necessary that the bid specify which of the two suits is longer.

 

(7) An opening bid or overcall which guarantees three or more cards in each of three known suits, with at least twelve cards total between those suits is allowed.

 

(8) An opening bid or overcall of 1♣ or 1♦ is allowed, with any agreed meaning.

 

The following agreements apply only to overcalls:

 

(9) Double may be assigned any agreed meaning, as may a bid of a suit which opener has bid or otherwise guaranteed four or more cards in.

 

(10) If the opponents open the bidding with a strong bid, or with a bid of 1NT or above, or with a bid that does not guarantee 3 or more cards in the suit named, then any agreements about the meaning of overcalls are permitted.

 

Any other agreement about opening bids or overcalls that does not fall into (1-10) above is disallowed.

 

Responses:

 

The following agreements for responses are legal. Other agreements are not allowed:

 

(1) Any response which guarantees three or more cards in the suit named is allowed.

 

(2) Any response in notrump which guarantees no voids and no singletons except possibly in a suit where opener has guaranteed four or more cards is allowed.

 

(3) Any response which guarantees a total of seven or more cards between opener and responder in a particular suit is allowed.

 

(4) Any response which guarantees the values required for game between opener and responder is allowed.

 

(5) A 1♦ response to 1♣ may be assigned any agreed set of hands.

 

(6) Any response of 1NT to an opening bid which denies the values required for game is allowed (this means that none of the agreed set of hands have sufficient values for game opposite a minimum opening bid). Such a response may be deemed forcing or non-forcing.

 

(7) Any agreement about responses to a strong opening bid, or an opening bid of 1NT or above is allowed.

 

Subsequent Calls:

 

Subsequent to the first two non-pass bids of the auction, any agreements which can be explained to an average player in under 30 seconds are allowed.

[pbleighton]

Adam, your changes are an improvement over the present GCC, IMO.

 

Two comments:

 

1. "there is an additional requirement that the opening bid must guarantee an average hand or better if not conforming to (1-5) above". You will need to define "average hand". Since you use 8hcp as the lower limit for 1 bids, use hcp as a consistent metric, and make it 10 (the current limit for artificial 1m bids).

 

2. Transfers, particualrly responses. They are not difficult to defend.

 

Peter

[awm]

Adam, your changes are an improvement over the present GCC, IMO.

 

Two comments:

 

1. "there is an additional requirement that the opening bid must guarantee an average hand or better if not conforming to (1-5) above". You will need to define "average hand". Since you use 8hcp as the lower limit for 1 bids, use hcp as a consistent metric, and make it 10 (the current limit for artificial 1m bids).

 

2. Transfers, particualrly responses. They are not difficult to defend.

 

Peter

1. I actually did this under (4) in definitions. It's defined exactly as you suggest.

 

2. While I personally have no problem with transfer responses, the current ACBL regulations do not allow them. I'm not trying to change regulations "in order to allow someone's pet methods" -- the only changes I'm really pushing for are the ones that seem to remedy an inconsistency or unclarity in the rules. Note that transfer advances of overcalls (and actually transfers after 1X-dbl) would be allowed by this set of rules though.

[pclayton]

I like Adam's approach better. Rewriting the cc should be secondary to rewriting the convention charts. My comments (take 'em or leave 'em) in red:

 

Here's a counter-suggestion for an alternative to general chart. My goal here is not so much to "change what's allowed" as to make things simpler and more consistent. In some cases this does imply differences in what's legal, but there's no overarching attempt to "restrict conventions more" or "remove restrictions."

 

Definitions:

 

(1) An agreement is an assignment of a particular set of hands to a particular call. The expectation is that when this call is made, the hand held will be a member of that particular set. Agreements may be made explicitly or may be implicit based on partnership experience or general bridge knowledge. An agreement is said to guarantee at least some number of high card points or number of cards in a suit if all hands in the agreed set contain at least that number of high card points or cards in that suit. An agreement may also include the understanding whether or not a particular call is forcing.

 

(2) A deviation from an agreement involves making a call when the actual hand held is not a member of the agreed set. A minor deviation involves a hand with one high card point more or less than the agreed range, or one card more or less than the agreed number. In general minor deviations are allowed provided the bidder can give logical justification for believing the call appropriate -- typically this requires some positive or negative feature of the hand (to upgrade or downgrade high card strength), an anticipated problem with a rebid, or a very strong or weak suit (to upgrade or downgrade suit length). A major deviation or psychic bid is a deviation by more than one high card point or one card, or for which no logical justification can be given. Psychic bids are normally allowed, but a pattern of frequent psychics (especially in the context of an established partnership) or of partner making allowances for a possible psychic can be regarded as an undisclosed agreement and thus subject to penalty.

 

(3) An opening bid is the first non-pass call of an auction. An overcall is the first non-pass (including a double) bid by the bidder's side, after the opposing side has made an opening bid. A response is the second non-pass call of an auction in which partner has made an opening bid.

 

(4) A strong hand is a hand containing 15 or more high card points. An average hand is a hand containing 10 or more high card points (or more? "Average" should be exactly 10. Average "or more" is 10+ ). A weak hand is a hand containing less than 10 high card points. A bid is said to be weak if any weak hands are contained in the set of agreed hands for that bid. A bid is said to be strong if only strong hands are included in the set of agreed hands for that bid.

 

Opening Bids and Overcalls:

 

The following agreements about opening bids or overcalls are legal. Adding additional restrictions to the set of hands allowed (so that some hands are not permitted) does not effect the legality of an agreement.

 

(1) Any opening bid or overcall may be agreed as a strong bid, guaranteeing 15 or more high card points.

 

(2) Any opening bid or overcall at the two-level or above which, by agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed.

 

(3) Any opening bid or overcall at the one-level, which, by agreement, guarantees four or more cards in the suit named is allowed. However, opening bids (only) at the one-level must additionally guarantee 8 or more high card points.

 

(4) An opening bid or overcall of 1NT which guarantees a balanced hand (no singleton or void) and at least 8 hcp is allowed.

 

(5) An opening bid or overcall in notrump at the two-level or above which guarantees at least five cards in each of two known suits or which guarantees an undisclosed seven-card or longer suit headed by the AKQ or which guarantees a strong eight card suit (delete: with at most two possibilities for what the suit might be )is allowed.

 

The following agreements are legal for overcalls. For opening bids, there is an additional requirement that the opening bid must guarantee an average hand or better if not conforming to (1-5) above.

 

(6) An opening bid or overcall, which guarantees four or more cards in each of two known suits, with at least nine cards total between those suits is allowed. It is not necessary that the bid specify which of the two suits is longer.

 

(7) An opening bid or overcall or overcall in NTwhich guarantees three or more cards in each of three known suits, with at least twelve cards total between those suits is allowed.

 

(8) An opening bid or overcall of 1♣ or 1♦ is allowed, with any agreed meaning.

 

The following agreements apply only to overcalls:

 

(9) Double may be assigned any agreed meaning, as may a bid of a suit which opener has bid or otherwise guaranteed four or more cards in.

 

(Footnote: I've never thought this. I don't like the idea that a direct double can be a multi-way (weak or strong bid). But I'm editorializing

 

(10) If the opponents open the bidding with a strong bid, or with a bid of 1NT or above, or with a bid that does not guarantee 3 or more cards in the suit named, then any agreements about the meaning of overcalls are permitted.

 

Any other agreement about opening bids or overcalls that does not fall into (1-10) above is disallowed.

 

Responses:

 

The following agreements for responses are legal. Other agreements are not allowed:

 

(1) Any response which guarantees three or more cards in the suit named is allowed.

 

(2) Any response in notrump which guarantees no voids and no singletons except possibly in a suit where opener has guaranteed four or more cards is allowed.

 

(3) Any response which guarantees a total of seven or more cards between opener and responder in a particular suit is allowed.

 

(4) Any response which guarantees the values required for game between opener and responder is allowed.

 

(5) A 1♦ response to 1♣ may be assigned any agreed set of hands.

 

(6) Any response of 1NT to an opening bid which denies the values required for game is allowed (this means that none of the agreed set of hands have sufficient values for game opposite a minimum opening bid). Such a response may be deemed forcing or non-forcing.

 

(7) Any agreement about responses to a strong opening bid, or an opening bid of 1NT or above is allowed.

 

(8) Any jump response to an opening bid may be assigned to any agreed set of hands.

 

Subsequent Calls:

 

Subsequent to the first two non-pass bids of the auction, any agreements which can be explained to an average player in under 30 seconds are allowed.

 

 

--------------------

 

Adam W. Meyerson

a.k.a. "Appeal Without Merit"

[awm]

(8) Any jump response to an opening bid may be assigned to any agreed set of hands.

Note that we've already allowed jumps which are natural, jumps which are raises, and jumps which are forcing to game.

 

This rule would allow for example transfer jumps (weak or strong in the suit transferred to), various other artificial methods (like 2♥ response to 1♦ showing either 10-12 balanced or a game-forcing diamond raise), and some kind of weird methods (2♥ response to 1m showing a weak hand with either major).

 

These are not currently general chart and the last of them probably isn't even super-chart. You can make a case for this stuff if you want, but I think allowing it is a pretty big change.

[DrTodd13]

Having watched you play a lot of forcing pass on BBO, I think you'll have to agree that regardless of the technical merit of your methods, you win a lot of IMPs because your pickup opponents don't have a good defense, or aren't on the same page as to what their bids mean over your various calls.

I think it is very seldom that opps get completely confused and end up somewhere stupid. I think there are a lot of stupid auctions that wind up in the right spot but getting there completely the wrong way. There's a lot of "I don't know what I'm doing or how strong partner is so I'll just bid game." Sometimes such games make for a great score for them. To me, this seems more common than where they stop short of game when they should clearly be in some game. Part of the difficulty is their lack of preparedness. Another part is the get-in-and-out nature of our system that takes room away and makes things generally more ambiguous as to strength.

 

Of course, you can argue that this is just "part of the game" and they should discuss more, but keep in mind you're often playing against a pair who just met two seconds ago and may not even share a common language. You've just bombarded them with a huge amount of information about your point count methods, general approach, etc. which they may not fully understand and which probably bears no resemblance to anything they've played against before. Is it really fair to expect them to be able to devise a sensible defense to this stuff?

Is woodson two-way NT still GCC legal? It was for a long time and basically no one ever played it. Is it fair to expect people to be prepared against woodson? Personally, I think you should be prepared for anything and everything. If something new crops up and gets good scores then more people will play it. The more it is played the more people will develop defenses against it. If you don't learn the defense because you're lazy and you continually get bad scores that is your fault...maybe bridge isn't your game...maybe train spotting would suit you more. In any case, one kind of defense may be popular in the US and a different one in Europe. We already have these stylistic differences that are exacerbated by language problems. Are we talking about how to restrict systems in BBO interworld events or about restrictions in a single country? If the latter then you can't argue the language problem. If the former then you'd have to determine a set of methods that are universally familiar and I'm not sure such a system exists.

 

I think it's fairly clear that playing methods which are very far removed from what people are familiar with is a huge advantage regardless of the technical merit of those methods when your opponents have very little time/ability/inclination to discuss and develop good defenses. Despite doing a good job of disclosing your bids when they come up, you've still got a substantial advantage here, one that isn't really in the spirit of the game. Full disclosure for really weird stuff has to be advance disclosure.

Weirdness is relative. Forcing pass and transfer openings aren't weird in some parts of the world. If they don't have the inclination to be prepared for any possible mapping of meaning=>bid then they deserve their bad scores.

 

In principle I agree that methods which are legitimately superior on technical merit should be allowed in long events, and should eventually become sufficiently "familiar" as to become allowed in shorter events. But allowing people to play "whatever they like" in an event with short rounds is just giving a huge advantage to people who can make up technically inferior "weird stuff" that no one knows how to defend and that can't really be fully disclosed within the time allowed.

To me, the purity of the game is important and all these restrictions designed to protect people who don't want to think are antithetical to the game. I'd rather play 20 interesting hands where I really had to think about what to do than 28 hands where everyone is on automatic pilot bidding like robots.

 

Developing new methods is part of bridge. Confusing your opponents because they can't understand your methods or have no idea how partner will take their calls over your methods is not part of bridge. Some restrictions are needed, especially for the shorter events, in order to enforce this.

IMO, people don't want these restrictions because of poor results. They want restrictions because they don't like unfamiliarity. Unfamiliarity may lead to poor results but when they look back on the night many will think to themselves, "I didn't enjoy myself because of all the unusual bidding." I don't think they'll be fretting over a 40% game.

 

I think people tend to view opening up regulations as allowing an endless tidal wave of new stuff to bombard people such that you'd constantly be encountering completely new stuff every time you sat down to play. I tend to think that the amount of true novelty invented per year is pretty low. I think the evidence from other countries that have little restriction even at the club level indicates that people are capable of coping.

[TimG]

1. But they do have a defense against a natural 1♠ opening, haven't they??? It can't be hard to just use the same defence (t/o double, natural overcalls) as against the 1♠ opening (if they don't want or are unable to do anything fancy). If the opening is 1♥ they've gained a bid they didn't have if the opening was 1♠. So they can attribute some meaning to the 1♠ cuebid. Or not.

You really would think that to be the case, wouldn't you? You will find that there is a defense to a 1♥ opening bid which shows spades (and is in every other regard the same as a standard 1♠ opening bid) in the ACBL's Defense Database.

 

Note that the description of the method had to contain responses -- saying "same as standard" or some such was not sufficient. The description also had to describe how we cope with interference. The description of the method is nearly as long as the suggested defense.

 

Two other things may be of interest:

 

1) This was approved only for events with 12 board or longer segments; and

2) In order for the method to be approved, the 1♥ opening had to be forcing.

[pclayton]

(8) Any jump response to an opening bid may be assigned to any agreed set of hands.

Note that we've already allowed jumps which are natural, jumps which are raises, and jumps which are forcing to game.

 

This rule would allow for example transfer jumps (weak or strong in the suit transferred to), various other artificial methods (like 2♥ response to 1♦ showing either 10-12 balanced or a game-forcing diamond raise), and some kind of weird methods (2♥ response to 1m showing a weak hand with either major).

 

These are not currently general chart and the last of them probably isn't even super-chart. You can make a case for this stuff if you want, but I think allowing it is a pretty big change.

I think a lot of this exercise, whether anyone wants to admit to it or not, is being able to logically codify some of our own treatments into the charts.

 

The only multi-way jump shift I play is 1 minor - 2♠ which shows the balanced 11-12 or a limit raise in the minor. It seems pretty innocuous, and I think its mid-chart currently. I got the idea from some east coast pairs.

[Cascade]

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread).

 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit". Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

[rbforster]

Not that the GCC is a model of clarity, but several things mentioned above are legal under the GCC in my opinion.

 

At the 2 level, (weak balanced openings are) illegal because 4 card suit openings are illegal. 

Natural openings (defined as 3+ for minors or 4+ for majors) at the 2 level and higher are not the ACBL's jurisdiction to regulate. Natural bids are always allowed, subject only to the rule of needing 8+ points at the 1 level. Conventional responses and defenses may be restricted however.

 

Symmetric Relay has been banned for GCC by the ACBL.

After a 1-of-a-suit opening, GCC bans relay systems defined as when the first relay asking bid is made by either opener or responder on their first bid. Symmetric Relay or any other relay methods can be used GCC as long as the first asking bid begins with or after opener's first rebid.

 

I will point out that full relay systems are allowed after strong openings in your suggested rules, and under Adam's either after a strong opening or if they promise GF values. I haven't played against non-GF relay methods to comment on their issues (since the ACBL doesn't let anyone play them), but both of you seem to allow them after strong openings.

[Cascade]

Natural openings (defined as 3+ for minors or 4+ for majors) at the 2 level and higher are not the ACBL's jurisdiction to regulate. Natural bids are always allowed, subject only to the rule of needing 8+ points at the 1 level. Conventional responses and defenses may be restricted however.

Technically not 8+ but not a King or more below average.

 

There is nothing in the laws that enshrines high card points as the basis on which to measure average.

[rbforster]

... the rule of needing 8+ points at the 1 level.

Technically not 8+ but not a King or more below average. There is nothing in the laws that enshrines high card points as the basis on which to measure average.

True enough regarding other point count systems, hence I introduce to you...

 

Rob's Fearless (Over)Bidding Point Count System

After a bunch of drunken statistics calculations, I have concluded that rather than High Card Points or Zar Points or Binky Points, we should have King Points as follows:

 

a King - 10 points!

Not a King- no points!

 

This shares the nice properties that the deck still has 40 points, and that an average hand has 10 points (for its one King). It further has the property that a hand "a King or more below average strength" is a zero point hand. Watch out for our "light" one level openers that may have only 3 hcp, but full values in terms of King Points. Also watch out for our heavy passes, which have many other face cards but no Kings. These we might have to open at the 2 level since they are "weak" :).

 

now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of set theory and logic...

[skjaeran]

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread).

 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit". Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

 

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

 

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

 

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

[Cascade]

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

 

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

 

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

 

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

Often an exception is made for a short minor opening.

 

Shortage is defined as 2 or fewer. Exactly two certainly fits in that category. Or would you argue that a bid that showed exactly one club did not show shortage?

[paulg]

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

Bocchi-Duboin play a Short Club that is non-forcing with 2+♣. Their CC for Warsaw (Euro 2006) was marked as GREEN.

 

I guess the argument is that 1♣ shows clubs or a balanced hand.

 

Under this 'strict' interpretation of the HUM definitions, is not the standard 1NT opener a HUM? After all, it shows either 2 clubs or 3+ clubs?

 

And some people permit opening 1NT with a singleton, so it is 1-2 clubs or 3+ clubs!

[foo]

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade:

 

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range

(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

AND

b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

 

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

 

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.

Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

 

EDIT: it may be a more effective disincentive to change "b" above to

"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

[Cascade]

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade:

 

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range

(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

AND

b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

 

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

 

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.

Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

I'm not sure how this is based on any suggestion that I made.

[foo]

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

 

Some methods at some levels are deemed too disruptive. So...

 

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to

"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

[helene_t]

Adam's suggestion is very clear.

 

Sounds as if one couldn't play Short Club, or Strong Club with a nebulous diamond. Or did I miss something? I don't think that's desirable although I can see the bad logic of defining certain 1♦ either as blue or brown depending on the meaning of 1♣ (as the WBF definitions have it, as I understand them).

 

How is it now? Can one play Precision with nebulous diamond under GCC? Can one play 5542? 5551 (Vienna)?

[foo]

Adam's suggestion is very clear.

 

Sounds as if one couldn't play Short Club, or Strong Club with a nebulous diamond. Or did I miss something? I don't think that's desirable although I can see the bad logic of defining certain 1♦ either as blue or brown depending on the meaning of 1♣ (as the WBF definitions have it, as I understand them).

 

How is it now? Can one play Precision with nebulous diamond under GCC? Can one play 5542? 5551 (Vienna)?

After reading all these recent threads on this and similar topics, I'm beginning to think that any set of regulations based on allowing or disallowing any methods using HCP or suit length or having "n" cards in a suit is likely going to either

a= end up being "gamed" or

b= being perceived as arbitrary by some group.

 

Cascade has in effect suggested what IMHO is a whole new approach, and possibly a better one, to the issue.

 

What makes a method Constructive or Destructive is how much it helps you get to the right spot rather than how much it is based on scoring well by making it difficult or impossible for the opponents to evaluate their own cards.

 

That means the best way to regulate such methods is to see to it that there is a scoring disincentive for using methods that randomize board results by too much rather than playing whatever is defined as Bridge.

 

This IMHO, is much better than the current regulatory morass:

a= it's objective. No accusations or worries about politics leading to certain decisions.

b= it puts the focus of the primary goal of the game: getting good scores.

c= any hierto unknown method can be tested by a TD on the spot at a tourney just by asking someone with the correct math background to do the calculation.

d= it's "fair" in the sense that it can be tuned to represent the majority views of the playing membership being regulated.

e= it's a "meta-rule" that simplifies the approval process for new methods enormously.