Variable system: according to vuln or to seat ?

[Chamaco]

Hi all !

 

the Italian Bridge Federation allows to play in low-mid flight tourneys only two systems to the same couple.

 

That means that you can have one system, say, when vuln, and another when NV;

or, alternatively, you can play one system when passed hand (or just 3rd seat if u like) and another when unpassed hand.

 

But you cannot combine the criteria: combining vulnerability criterion with 1st/2nd seat vs 3rd seta criterion, you get 4 different systems (one at red unpassed hand, one at red, passed hand, one at green unpassed hand, one at green passed hand).

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

 

Now, as you probably know by now, I am starting a Precision system with my teammates with

• mini 1NT range (10-12)
  
• 1D 13-15 bal or < 16 unbal + diams
  
• 2C may have 5C+4M
  
• multi 2D = weak 2 major or 18-20 4441
  
• 2H = 4441/5440/5431 short in diams ( no 5cM)
  
• all strong hands (except 18-20 4441) go through 1C, so 2NT is free for other uses
  

Now I have some questions to experienced strongclubber friends :)

 

I would like to differentiate the system according to vulnerabilty or seat, but I cannot do both :( (restriction from the federation :D ).

 

a ) Points in favor of changing system according to vuln:

I'd feel much safer to use a variable NT range (10-12 green, 14-16 red)

 

b ) points in favor of changing system according to seat:

choosing a more preemptive style in 3rd seat, constructive in 1st and second seat.

I would love to play Bergen's "2-under" preempts (e.g. 2♠-> sound or wild preempt in ♣; 2NT -> sound or wild preempt in diams, and so forth), in 1st-2nd seat. This way I could prempt much more often i first-second seat without having a partner with a good hand guess if I opened with rubbish or with a good suit: he would have a relay step to ask the quality of the preempt.

On the other hand, in 3rd seat I would love to just bid the suit of the preempt without worrying of preempting pard ( he is a passed hand).

Also, I am bit worried of opening 10-12 NT in 3rd position, even at green.

 

SO, MY FRIENDS, HAVING TO PICK A SINGLE CRITERION, WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN SEAT AND VULNERABILITY AS A SINGLE CRITERION FOR HAVING A VARIABLE SYSTEM ? :)

[inquiry]

At matchpoints, I would choose to change the !NT based upon vulnerability. Down two even not doubled can be a matchpoint disaster. Not vulnerable, I would still stick with the mini-thing try to make life tough on opponents (and on us, of course, too).

 

At imps, I would change it based upon seat, regardless of vul. IF you are third seat and your partner could not open weak notrump or preempt, there is much less to be gained by opening a 10 point hand in third seat. In addition to the hand at best being evenly split based upon hcp (assuming your partner has 9 or so points), you tell them how to play the hand should they declearer. So a constructive 14-16 is best.

 

Good luck with it.

 

Ben

[Flame]

First i would make sure you understand this rule because it doesnt sound right to me, i mean a system that 1nt is 14-16 when vulnarable and 10-12 when non vul is imo one system and not two systems.

Now lets say you are right about the rules, i would not go by online one of the condition but i would make two systems based on both conditions, for example

system A open 1nt 10-12 , system B open 1nt 14-16

use system A in seats x and vul y

use system B on seats z and vul k

[Chamaco]

Now lets say you are right about the rules, i would not go by online one of the condition but i would make two systems based on both conditions, for example

system A open 1nt 10-12 , system B open 1nt 14-16

use system A in seats x and vul y

use system B on seats z and vul k

This is not possible, I spoke with more than one director.

So I need to choose either one or the other.

[Flame]

Now lets say you are right about the rules, i would not go by online one of the condition but i would make two systems based on both conditions, for example

system A open 1nt 10-12 , system B open 1nt 14-16

use system A in seats x and vul y

use system B on seats z and vul k

This is not possible, I spoke with more than one director.

So I need to choose either one or the other.

It can't be possible , maybe you didnt understand me.

Example -

1nt is 14-16 unless 1st or 2st sit non vulnarable.

No one can tell me that this rule is more then 2 systems. ( i believe its only one but sure not three)

[Free]

people can have different opinions about weither this is one system or 2 systems. However it's a fact that playing a different NT range changes some stuff about the rest of the system. Like playing weak NT in a natural system, you're allowed to bid at 2-level from 8HCP (not all 8 pointers ofcourse, but more than normal), since partner most of the time has 15-17 bal or 11-14 unbal. When playing precision the difference won't be very big however. Still I think you should trust your local directors and believe what they say about this.

 

as for chosing what to do, NV I'm used to play 4 different systems (each hand has some different stuff), V it's only 2 systems. It's however small changes (like preempts in 4th hand, what is that??). Imo, the Vulnerability is more important if you're planning to play mini-NT. V 3rd and 4th hand this is suicide, 1st and 2nd it depends. Also NV 4th hand it's not that great imo. I'd play NV 1-3 and V 1-2 mini-NT, other hands some stronger NT. In these seats you can change stuff to right? you're still only playing 2 systems, but they depend on vulnerability and position...

[Chamaco]

It can't be possible , maybe you didnt understand me.

Example -

1nt is 14-16 unless 1st or 2st sit non vulnarable.

No one can tell me that this rule is more then 2 systems. ( i believe its only one but sure not three)

Let me put it this way:

spoke with moe than one director of those "low/mid flight" tourneys.

 

They all stated that "I have to choose between variable system according to vul or variable seat".

 

Now, maybe you are right and they are wrong, but frankly I do not care: even if they were wrong, trying to discuss with a TD (especially when the average of TD's thinks alike) means to look for trouble: I I just adapt to the situations, regardless of whether this is the correct interpretation or not.

 

I'd rather choose a more limted system than I could rather than exploit all the possible features but being constantly penalized by TDs who think (wrongly?) that I cannot do it.

 

Commonsense or resignation ? I don't care, I just take that assumption and design the system according to that. :D

[Flame]

This is what i find best to suit you wishes, if you arent sure this is legal show this proposal to a director or maybe sent it to your bridge federation.

System A [NV and (1st or 2nd sit)]

-----------

1NT = 10-12

2sp+ 2 under premptive

1c/1d/1h/1s/2c/2d as you descibed above.

 

System B [vul or 3rd or 4th sit]

-----------

1NT = 14-16

2sp+ simple weak premtives.

1c/1d/1h/1s/2c/2d as you descibed above.

[inquiry]

This is what i find best to suit you wishes, if you arent sure this is legal show this proposal to a director or maybe sent it to your bridge federation.

System A [NV and (1st or 2nd sit)]

-----------

1NT = 10-12

2sp+ 2 under premptive

1c/1d/1h/1s/2c/2d as you descibed above.

 

System B [vul or 3rd or 4th sit]

-----------

1NT = 14-16

2sp+ simple weak premtives.

1c/1d/1h/1s/2c/2d as you descibed above.

I believe the reason for banning multiple systems is too keep from confusing opponents. A simple, weak nt nv, strong vul, or weak nt in first and second, strong in third/fourth is very easily remembered, very easily explained BY YOUR OPPONENTS. The restriction on only two changes is to prevent confusion by your opponents... it has nothing to do with the difficulty of the systems. So you matrix is four conditions the opponents have to watch out for...

 

Are you vul and what seat you are in.... here is a comparison of your (FLAME's) concept and the rules as stated by Chamaco..

 

Chamaco's rule.... opponent goes....

 

Are they vul? Yes --> system one, no--> system two.

 

Flames' they have to ask,

 

Are they vul? --> yes, then system one

Are they NV? --> if yes, then

Are the 1st/2nd seat --> yes, then System two

--> no system one

 

Now such a system is not taxing on anyway. And if a tourment is played where Acol. sayc, precision, romex, polish club, 2/1 GF, ultimate club are all allowed, your opponents should be prepared for each, but they will not allow you to switch between these based upon variety of vul/seat positions either. The reason why is no to reduce stress and memorization on your part, but to prevent you opponents from having to deal with all the variations you do jumping around a lot.

 

From a theoretical standpoint, I don't see why you can't do so if you want, but I understand at least why this is not allowed.

 

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Change NT range by vul.

Can begin intelectual conversation with TD, about you play not 3 but 2.71 system, and sure not 3.14 system :lol: . It is typical for grey people to produce lot of grey garbage and throw it on heads of innocent players :blink:

Misho

[Trpltrbl]

Just go play in higher level events, then you won't have these problems. :unsure:

 

Mike :)

[EarlPurple]

It sounds to me like you have just 2 systems, which is allowed. One of your systems uses a 10-12 NT and the other system uses a 14-16 NT.

 

If you decided to use a 12-14 NT non-vulnerable in 3rd or 4th seat then it might be a problem because you would be introducing a 3rd "system".

[mikestar]

Amusing that in this area ACBL is more permissive than IBF. Varying the NT range is not considered a new system by the ACBL--they example cited in the ACBL's documents is strong club non-vulnerable and 2/1 vulnerable.

[luke warm]

it sounds like most of your problems revolve around how you feel about the weak/mini nt at certain vulnerabilities or in certain seats... now what ben said about matchpoints/imps is generally correct, but i just don't think the mini is punished as much as some do, even at matchpoints, even vulnerable, even in 3rd seat... it requires good escape mechanisms, which aren't hard to come by

 

so if you can somehow *force* yourself :unsure: to play the mini at all vulnerabilities in all seats (except 4th), i think your problem is solved

[Chamaco]

but i just don't think the mini is punished as much as some do, even at matchpoints, even vulnerable, even in 3rd seat...

The point is that I just think that 10-12 3rd seat does not pay off regardless of the vulnerability.

 

Mini NT is great when LHO does not know the strength of your pard (e.g. he has not passed); in that case, he risks a big penalty to overcall with shaded values.

 

Instead, if pard has passed and you open a miniNT, 4th seat knows a lot:

 

1- ur pard did not open a miniNT: if he is balanced, he has at most a bad 10

2- ur pard did not preempt

3- the "premptive " nature of 1NT does not even offers the advantage of lead direction.

 

Therefore:

a ) Risk of overcalling is greatly reduced

b ) At matchpoints they can try to trap you in a doubled partscore (rare enough, but quite a serious optionn when pard has passed and they do not see game)

c ) if/when they buy the hand, they can play almost double dummy

 

I would say that, all in all, commonsense screams prudence if you are balanced in 3rd seat