Forcing Pass Systems

[nige1]

We haven't polled all of the players about systems regulations, because the members of the Open, Women's & Senior International Team Trials Committees, who are mostly players in the Trials, had a strong opinion that we should use the ACBL rules about what to allow. At my suggestion, we did have an "anything that is allowed in the World Championships" policy in the Women's for a while (the Open committee rejected that suggestion), but no one actually played anything not allowed by the ACBL Superchart and life is easier for the Directors and Systems committees if we follow ACBL rules, so we changed.

Perhaps regulators should poll ordinary players, especially younger players: because some are keen to try out fresh ideas; and among them are future world-champions.

 

Is it a more useful exercise for regulators to poll established players, who've spend decades honing legacy systems? and to ask turkeys what they feel about Christmas? :)

[TimG]

Perhaps regulators should poll ordinary players, especially younger players

Make up your mind: ordinary players or younger players?

[hrothgar]

I have nowhere near the same level of experience with players from any other countries, but the experience I do have suggests:

 

- Most of the players from most countries seem to play relatively simple and natural bidding systems.

- Even at the highest levels you see a relatively small % of pairs pushing the envelope and playing whatever BS and HUM methods happen to be allowed at the time.

- As far as I call tell there are a not a lot of people out there lobbying the WBF to liberalize what is allowed.

Hi Fred:

 

If you'd like, I can find a quotes dating back to the days when Forcing Pass, BSCs and the like were first being introduced; the general theme of which is something like the following:

 

Oh *****....  All sorts of pairs are shifting over to using these weird new systems.  We really better clamp down on things.

 

The statistics that you site in which relatively few players are using weak opening systems / Brown Sticker Conventions reflect a modern reality in which these methods have been rather ruthlessly suppressed. This is a case where the buggy whip manufacturers did a great job protecting their ecosystem.

 

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

 

Its sort of like modern day North Americans saing "Native Americans? What Native Americans? I don't see any Native Americans around here"...

 

As to the purpose of this conversation: I'm not suffering under any kind of delusion that this thread is going to have any impact what so ever on face-to-face bridge. That boat set sail a long time ago.

 

What I take issue with is the attempt to whitewash the whole affair and reinterprete history....

[csdenmark]

The guys who defend HUMS say:

 

1. It is unfair to take the line where it is taken. There are many systems/ conventions allowed which are difficult to defend too, while others are forbidden which seem to be much less complicated. There are no convincing reasons to ban f.e. mosquito, but to allow other really difficult systems. We belive that this had been done, because the well known systems had been established or played by the members of the committee.

 

2.  To prepare a bidding system and and defensive bidding system is as much part of the game as it is to learn about finesses, endgames, squeezes and carding. Nobody whines if his opponent plays a double squeeze or an endgame. Even not when they could have counter this by a simple defensive play they failed to see.

But when they write a bad score cause they had no defence against multi or other bidding tools, they complain.

 

3.  The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest.

 

4. OF course the leading players want to defend their well known bidding systems, they have no need to allow something new which will muddy the water. The Hammanns, Gitelmans Hlgemos etc of  this world will outplay us mortals even more when they will always reach the same contract then we do or when they can use their much better judgement on the firm ground of "normal" bidding systems.

 

5. That there is no defence against a concept is no reason to forbid the concept. If it is undefendable, anybody should play it, but there is nothing undefendable.

 

 

So there cannot be a consensus as both sides are talking about and repeating different points in a different tone.

 

The facts are:

 

1.Whoever is on duty to allow or forbid HUMS has no interesst to allow them in the near future. Maybe they have some personal reasons to decide the way they do, maybe they do it for the future of the game. (Fred is sure about the later and who won't belive him?)

 

2. A little bid oversimplified: The line for HUM is taken between "Normal" and "unknown".

 

3. Most bridge players want their stuff to be allowed, but not much more. So multi is common here, it is allowed. It is not common in the US, so it is forbidden. Maybe this should not be the way the game should be played, but it is the way it is.

 

 

I see just two ways for the HUM lovers to get their stuff allowed:

1. Vote yourself into the committes at the WBF. Create the majority in the legalization committees.

2. Profe that it will be good for the game to allow this stuff- actracting new players, young players etc.

 

I doubt that any of this solutions will be reached during my lifetime, so we should take the last resort:

 

Build up a threat at BBF.  :)

Completely correct Roland. As always you are sober nailing the point - therefore your arguments will be forgotten. They are not interested.

 

3. The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest.

No - too many years have past. They need to admit their basic mistake appointing unqualified persons to handle this kind of matters. They have produced judicial catastrophes - and it all started 40 years ago.

 

They need to scratch their whole law complex and call for lawyers with knowledge of how to handle law-stuff.

 

They need to commit to try to excuse their mistakes actively promoting this kind of systems for at least 10 years.

 

They need to catch up with the world of information technology.

 

Build up a threat at BBF.

Several times I have asked if we have come any nearer to a break-away. Unfortunately it looks so that posting is interessant but to do something about it is something quite different. But I would love to see so!

[nige1]

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

I agree with Fred's implication. A regulation committee should poll all players' opinions. It should seriously analyse their views; but it need not treat any result as binding. Most players are apathetic. ignorant, and parochial about regulation. The purpose of the committee is to study the problem assiduously and to reach a well informed solution.

 

Making bridge more complicated will only make things worse.

IMO, in a mind-sport, the play should be complex and difficult; but the rules as simple and clear as possible.

 

Complex decisions in bidding, declarer-play and defence are the very nature of Bridge. They make Bridge challlenging and fun for players.

 

But Bridge has many over-sophisticated rules that really do make things worse for players. Many of these rules seem to be complication for the sake of complexity. They are not properly understood by players. Some seem to add no value to the game and could be dropped without affecting its nature. Arguably, most convention-prohibitions are among such rules.

[awm]

Perhaps the following should be clear-cut about regulation of methods:

 

(1) Which methods are allowed/disallowed should be stated in a clear way, with examples if possible. This information should be understandable to directors who need to rule on the matter, and to interested players who are considering playing non-standard methods.

 

(2) The legality of methods should not depend on the pair in question. It should not be the case that people on a particular committee can convince directors during an event that their own methods are legal (when similar methods would be banned for other pairs) or that their opponents methods are illegal (when similar methods would be allowed for other pairs).

 

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

 

(4) If certain methods are only allowed provided there is a reasonably good "suggested defense" then the criteria for what is a reasonably good suggested defense should be approximately the same for all such methods. It should not be the case that some methods are approved with a very terse suggested defense which leaves most subsequent developments undefined, whereas other methods are declared illegal because substantially more comprehensive defenses are deemed "not comprehensive enough."

 

(5) If a particular event is sold as a national or international championship, then methods which are essentially standard in a substantial part of the bridge-playing world must be permitted.

 

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

[TimG]

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

I'm not sure I quite agree with this one. In some parts of the world Multi would not require advance notice in order for the opponents to prepare a defense, in other parts of the world (ABCL, perhaps) the method is much less familiar and would require advance notice for the opponents to prepare a defense. If Multi is a bad example, I'm sure you can think of a more appropriate example, perhaps Australians and ferts.

 

In short, "easy to defend" and "hard to defend" are often a consequence of familiarity with a method and that is often related to local regulations.

[JanM]

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT.

Pretty much the same problems you have over a 1♣ that could be as short as two.

That's not true - so far as I know everyone who plays that 1♣ can be as short as 2 but is not a strong club, opens 1♣ with 2 clubs only on a balanced hand. Just like everyone else opens 1♣ with 3 only on a balanced hand. The 1♣ bidder won't have 6 hearts. That means that the opponents don't have to worry about stoppers in suits other than clubs. You can defend against 1♣ that might be 2 exactly as against a standard club except perhaps you'll want a natural club bid (which is also true against 1♣ that might be 3). On the other hand, when someone opens 2♥ that might have 6 spades, you need a way to explore both hearts and spades as places to play AND suits in which you might want stoppers.

[TimG]

It seems to me that designing a system or method that is difficult for the opponents to defend against is a good thing from a design standpoint. I think this has, to a degree, been lost in the discussion (or maybe people do not agree).

 

A simple example is a Polish type club. A strong 1C is vulnerable to aggressive interference, opponents of a strong club believe a loss in some accuracy is more than made up for in the trouble they cause the big clubbers. But, when a weak hand type is added to the 1C opening, the opponents have to either give up their aggression against the strong club or give up their accuracy against the weak club; they can't have it both ways. (Probably someone will tell me they can have it both ways, but surely that takes much more advance preparation.)

 

To me it is good design that makes this two-way 1C difficult for the opponents to defend optimally. This is sort of like a method that shows unknown suits or a two-suited call where one of the suits could be 4 cards -- these methods cause the opponents to be unable to decide whether bids in (potential) enemy suits should be artificial or natural. Opponents can pick artificial and give up playing in that suit or natural and give up a cue-bid (or stopper showing bid). This sounds like good system design.

 

It sounds to me like some people are arguing against some unusual methods because even if they had a complete description and understanding of the method, a defense would be difficult to devise and use.

 

I realize that primarily destructive methods are banned by Law (or at least I seem to think that is the case). You might decide that a 2H opening showing a preempt in either major is primarily destructive. I think it would be a good idea to start by defining "primarily destructive" for regulation purposes.

 

We might find that a majority of people believe a weak opening that is based on an unknown single long suit is destructive if the long suit could be in the suit opened. We might disagree, but at least there would be a well defined framework in place upon which decisions could be based rather than what sometimes seems to be a "I know it when I see it" approach.

[fred]

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

I don't know if "all the Poles" (or any of the Poles for that matter) have suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D) or not.

 

I believe there are 10s (if not 100s) of 1000s of Poles who play bridge. I have no idea how many of them once played Multi or how many have recently stopped doing so. I also find it hard to believe that you know this.

 

I would guess that, at the most, 50 Poles come to play in the ACBL Nationals on a regular basis. These are the only Poles I encounter with any regularity and, to the best of my knowledge, the big ACBL pairs events are the only major international pairs tournaments in which Multi 2D is not allowed. I would guess that the majority of these 50 or so Poles come to ACBL tournaments, not because of the great pairs events, but because they want to (or are being paid to) play in events like the Spingold or Vanderbilt where I believe Multi 2D is allowed.

 

I am guessing that even if such Poles were not allowed to play Multi in ACBL pairs tournaments and if such Poles really thought Multi was a wonderful convention, that they would continue to play that convention in other tournaments.

 

I know that I personally played Multi 2D for many years and stopped playing it, not because of systems restrictions, but because I came to believe that this convention sucks (mostly because my opponents learned how to defend against it).

 

Maybe "all the Poles" have come the believe the same thing?

 

Maybe they decided to play "Polish 2-bids" instead? Wouldn't that be strange?

 

What I take issue with is the attempt to whitewash the whole affair and reinterprete history....

 

What I take issue with is your attitude that you KNOW exactly what motivates people to do things, exactly how history should be interpretted, and that you make statements about ALL Poles that I find hard to imagine you are in a position to make.

 

If you look carefully you will see that, throughout this thread (and many others to which I have contributed), I tend to frequently use terms like "I guess", "I believe" and "in my opinion".

 

You might find that people pay more attention to your guesses, beliefs, and opinions if you stop expressing them as if they were FACTS.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

Obviously, your entire post was designed to point out that someone who wants to be diabolical can play ridiculous methods in GCC events.

I'm bad at reading tone online, but did you intend "ridiculous" and "diabolical" like you think they ought to be illegal, or like you think they're bad methods for those who play them (or both)?

I meant that these are bad methods that you were only proposing in order to show that it is possible to "get around" the GCC if you want to.

(1♣ 16+) - 2♥(multi) - (?)

 

or maybe

 

(1♣ 16+) - 1♠(0-8 any shape) - (?)    (See bridge bulletin 12/08 pg 15, the Poles in Bejiing played this vs Meckwell)

 

Any defense is allowed to a conventional club (including a "diabolical" 2♥ multi overcall or the 1♠ "fert"), but maybe you think precision players just get what they deserve when people interfere over their strong club on crap, especially crap with very poor disclosure about tendencies and alternatives?  Perhaps we should ban conventional interference there because it's routinely abused and used by players with very bad (almost unethical) disclosure much of the time.  I mean I don't want to impugn the Polish team (since their actual disclosure maybe have been better than related in the Bulletin), but do they really never overcall a strong club with any other call besides 1♠ when holding 0-8 points?  As an often strong clubber myself, I'd selfishly benefit from having all such crazy defenses to my strong club banned - it'd be less for me to prepare for, but is it's still the wrong approach and I admit it.

 

I think the problem with those bids (which are also allowed against my basically natural 1♣ that might have only 2 clubs because 1♦ promises 4 and a shaped hand) is exactly what you've pointed out - they are rarely adequately described. Because they aren't "Brown Sticker" many people don't think that they have an obligation to describe them fully (they're wrong of course, but when you're reviewing 60+ convention cards, it's often hard to notice and object to things like that - I don't think that Eric Kokish, Meckwell's coach, did before Beijing for instance).

 

The statement that a 3 card suit is "natural" was intended to apply only to bids at the 1-level.

You tell me why a natural weak 2M is legal with a 6 card suit and I'll tell you why my 3+ 2m bid is legal. How do you know what was intended by the definitions of natural? If they were "clearly" meant to apply only to 1-level bids, you think maybe they might have actually said that?

 

I'm not the expert on international bridge law and the ZAs, but I thought it was beyond the scope of the ACBL to regulate natural bidding if one read the laws carefully. Since the GCC specifically says 3+ minors are natural, with no reference to 1 level or 2 level etc, I think the only reasonable interpretation is that all natural bids are allowed. After all, otherwise there's no explicit rule allowing one to open a natural SAYC 1♥ or a standard weak 2♥ for example unless it's because they are natural under the given definitions.

 

Perhaps next time I run into someone questioning my 2♣ bids on 3 cards, I'll ask them to prove why their SAYC 1M and 2M bids are legal and hassle them since "disallow unless specifically allowed" is the rule, right?

 

If anyone actually tried to play 2 bids with 3 card suits, the rule would either be interpreted not to apply or it would be re-written.

This is a pretty telling response - basically it's legal but if you play it the "establishment" will ban it (just like those Midchart weak twos on 4/4 two-suiters, right?). Not that I'm disagreeing with you - we've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence about the way the C&C committee operates in practice and what their biases are. Someone on the committee must like opening 5 card weak twos in 3rd position, or frankly I'm surprised they haven't banned those yet either.

Once again, you're deliberately exaggerating to try to make a point and your hyperbole makes me respond with things like diabolical and ridiculous. The "natural" 3 card minor would be interpreted to mean at the 1 level because that's what was intended, not because the "establishment" wants to ban something they don't happen to like. You know that a 3 card weak 2 bid is in a completely different universe from a 5 card weak 2 bid. You probably know that the drafters of the GCC (who admittedly didn't do a very good job, but there was a lot of ground to cover) could have limited the "3 card minors are natural" definition to "at the one level." You probably even know that that would be the appropriate thing to do. So you're just deliberately setting up a straw man. I don't know why, but I don't find it productive.

[TimG]

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

[hrothgar]

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Wilkosz 2♦ traditionally showed the following

 

1. A two suited hand with two 5+ card suits

2. 5+ cards in at least one major

3. Approximately 7-11 HCPs

[csdenmark]

Perhaps the following should be clear-cut about regulation of methods:

 

(1) Which methods are allowed/disallowed should be stated in a clear way, with examples if possible. This information should be understandable to directors who need to rule on the matter, and to interested players who are considering playing non-standard methods.

 

(2) The legality of methods should not depend on the pair in question. It should not be the case that people on a particular committee can convince directors during an event that their own methods are legal (when similar methods would be banned for other pairs) or that their opponents methods are illegal (when similar methods would be allowed for other pairs).

 

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

 

(4) If certain methods are only allowed provided there is a reasonably good "suggested defense" then the criteria for what is a reasonably good suggested defense should be approximately the same for all such methods. It should not be the case that some methods are approved with a very terse suggested defense which leaves most subsequent developments undefined, whereas other methods are declared illegal because substantially more comprehensive defenses are deemed "not comprehensive enough."

 

(5) If a particular event is sold as a national or international championship, then methods which are essentially standard in a substantial part of the bridge-playing world must be permitted.

 

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

 

You know why Adam? It is because it is based on principle of reversed proof.

 

That is a judicial very doubtful method because there is no protection for culpa.

 

Normally that principle is only used when life is serious threatened, f. ex. protection against cancer diseases. Then the standard is to create positive lists.

 

In bridge organizations they had no idea what they were doing as they started. Now nobody has courage to 'speak up against Roma'.

 

To that it comes they have all the time been violating basic principles for democracy. They have probably no knowledge of that either.

[JanM]

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

[csdenmark]

Wilkosz convention:

 

http://bridgefiles.net/Conv/Wilkosz.htm

[helene_t]

Richard is obviously correct, I am surprised there can be any discussion on this. From the introduction to Jassem's 2005 book:

The many-time American champion Jill Meyers in the widely-distributed magazine “ACBL Bulletin” when polled on the most useful bridge convention, offered not Blackwood or splinters, but “Polish Two-suiters” – 2♥ and 2♠ openings to show 5-5 hands, the “natural” version of the Wilkosz convention adopted by Polish internationals (due to conventional restrictions).

[DrTodd13]

No, Wilkosz cannot include both minors. It must have at least one major. Polish standard from the year 2000 (wj2000) included Wilkosz for 2♦ but Polish standard from the year 2005 (wj2005) switched to regular Multi 2♦. Think of it as published updates to SAYC. People wanting to play Polish club with little discussion can agree to the latest published WJ version. So, I have no personal experience but I suspect that most Polish club players switched away from Wilkosz soon after the 2005 edition was published.

 

On a separate issue, poll most bridge players and I think they would wish that their system would dominate their opponents' and deprive them of cue-bids as much as possible. They might not like the complexity or lack of familiarity of a system that would actually accomplish this but the increase in aggressiveness in "normal" systems adds to their dominant behavior. So, I say "so what" to whines that a system is dominant or lacks cue-bids. I say good for them.

[Gerardo]

Fred, Tim:

 

Wilkosz shows a weak hand, 5-5, at least one major.

 

Fred:

 

Current version of "standard" Polish Club (wj2005, designed by person/committee) uses Multi 2♦ (only weak in a major) + 2 ♥ as 5♥-5 other and 2♠ as 5♠-5 minor.

 

Previous version (wj2000, designed by poll) uses Wikosz 2♦ + "normal" 2M (6+).

 

Quote from end of introduction of WJ2005 book, english version:

 

WJ05 has ambitions to become popular and accepted outside of Poland. Treatments not sanctioned in international tournaments (such as the Wilkosz 2♦ opening) or undesirable for natural bidders (such as e.g. the complicated definition of the WJ2000 1♦ opening**) have been swapped out for methods easier to adopt ("Polish Two-suiters" and the 4-card 1♦ opening, respectively)

 

** either

1. 
    
    
   
2. 12-17 with 5+ ♦.
    
   
3. 12-17 with any 4441 with 4♦.
    
   
4. 12-14 with 4♦ and 5♣.
   

 

Even Matula's book (english version, 1994) have the same set of 2-level openings as an alternative in an Appendix named "A new approach to two-level openings", which starts

 

The WBF system policies introduced in 1988, soon adopted by the European Bridge League and national contract bridge organizations through Europe, made it impossible for Polish players to use their favored structure of two-level openings in many European tournaments

.

 

So, this particular change seems to be regulations driven.

[hrothgar]

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

I don't know if "all the Poles" (or any of the Poles for that matter) have suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D) or not.

 

I believe there are 10s (if not 100s) of 1000s of Poles who play bridge. I have no idea how many of them once played Multi or how many have recently stopped doing so. I also find it hard to believe that you know this.

 

I would guess that, at the most, 50 Poles come to play in the ACBL Nationals on a regular basis. These are the only Poles I encounter with any regularity and, to the best of my knowledge, the big ACBL pairs events are the only major international pairs tournaments in which Multi 2D is not allowed. I would guess that the majority of these 50 or so Poles come to ACBL tournaments, not because of the great pairs events, but because they want to (or are being paid to) play in events like the Spingold or Vanderbilt where I believe Multi 2D is allowed.

 

I am guessing that even if such Poles were not allowed to play Multi in ACBL pairs tournaments and if such Poles really thought Multi was a wonderful convention, that they would continue to play that convention in other tournaments.

 

I know that I personally played Multi 2D for many years and stopped playing it, not because of systems restrictions, but because I came to believe that this convention sucks (mostly because my opponents learned how to defend against it).

 

Maybe "all the Poles" have come the believe the same thing?

 

Maybe they decided to play "Polish 2-bids" instead? Wouldn't that be strange?

Fred, you really might want to get better informed about these issues before making posts like this one. (In particular, a working knowledge regarding the definition of a Wilkosz 2♦ is probably a good starting point)

 

20 odd years ago, the following opening structure was pretty popular in Poland

 

2♦ = Wilkosz

 

Two suited hand

At least 5+ / 5+ in the two primary suits

At least one 5+ card major

Approximately 7 - 11 HCP

 

2♥ = normal weak two

2♠ = normal weak two

 

The Wilkosz 2♦ opening fell a-foul of WBF system regulation. A number of the Poles gravitated over to a new opening structure that used

 

2♦ = multi

 

2♥ =

 

Two suited hand

5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another suit

Approximately 7-11 HCP

 

2♠ =

 

Two suited hand

5+ Spades and 5+ cards a minor

Approximately 7-11 HCP

 

(Or more simply put, the Polish Two bids that you reference)

 

This little tidbet of data is discussed quite explictely in Matula's Book on Polish Club. I don't happen to have a copy of this at work. However, I suspect that someone on this list has a copy hand is can check what it says on the chapeter dealing with the Wilkosz 2♦ opening. (I can't recall whether Matula recommend that 2♥ as Hearts and a minor versus Hearts and another suit)

 

I found this section to be one of the more interesting in the book. As a result, when I've seen discussion about Wilkosz on rec.games.bridge and the Bridge Laws Mailing List I check and see whether his claims match those that I've seen from other posters. Low and Behold, they seem to stand up. However, I reocgnize that you might want some more direct evidence, so I sent a post off to Bridge Laws a couple minutes back asking if any of the Polish Directors would be willing to comment whether they've noticed a change the frequency of the Wilkosz 2D in Poland and whether or not they attribute this to WBF system regulations.

[fred]

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Thanks.

 

Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but:

 

1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks

 

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

2♦ showing both majors is not a BSC so you can play it "everywhere".

Wilkosz is a BSC so you can play it "nowhere".

[csdenmark]

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Thanks.

 

Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but:

 

1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks

 

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

Baliciki-Zmudzinski - the name of the convention is "Multi Balickiego".

 

http://www.bridge-forum.pl/multi.php

 

http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-83.jpg

http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-84.jpg

[TimG]

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

2♦ showing both majors is not a BSC so you can play it "everywhere".

Wilkosz is a BSC so you can play it "nowhere".

I was confused about the definition of Wilkosz, but I am more confident of this one: a weak two suited opening at the two-level must promise at least 5-4 in the two suits to be ACBL legal.

 

From the GCC Allowed: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

 

Nothing on the mid-chart changes this. (Though anyone can attempt to get the method and defense approved.)

[Cascade]

I agree with all Fred points from page 1 to 37.

I am only up to page six so I have got lots of good stuff still to read :D