What is wrong with the WBF Systems Policy?

[paulg]

I am not a member of the Scottish Laws & Ethics Committee, but I have been asked to comment as they start their deliberations on the next revision of the SBU Systems Policy. The current SBU policy is fairly relaxed and not unlike the English Level 4 regulations.

 

One proposal is to follow the Australian Bridge Federation and just adopt the WBF Systems Policy. Then almost all national competitions (except those with long matches), together with clubs and lesser events, would prohibit HUM and Brown Sticker Conventions.

 

Aside from ensuring that there is a 'simple system' option, does anyone foresee any major issues to moving to such a simple systems policy? In particular, are there destructive or confusing methods that would be permitted that are not HUM/BSC?

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[nigel_k]

<rant>

If you want teams that can play in WBF events with long matches and win them then it makes sense that your players have as much experience as possible with methods that they and their opponents can use in those matches. It would also be good to be consistent with what is played in Europe. So I'd allow brown sticker systems all the time. Two level openings such as Wilkosz are hard enough to play against without deliberately depriving your players of the opportunity to face them.

 

It's unfortunate that the definition of HUM includes some things that are relatively harmless as well as some that require genuine preparation. You could probably ban HUMs as hardly anyone plays them now anyway but it really should be ok to play a strong club with transfer openings and 1S as a catchall, similar to a precision 1D.

</rant>

 

To answer your actual question, you need to decide whether you care about things that are 'destructive' or things that are 'confusing' because they're not the same. Probably you are referring to things that require preparation because there is no obvious and near-optimal defence if undiscussed.

 

There aren't that many opening bids because the known suit rule means you can just double for takeout, though there can be problems when their suit may be only 4 cards and you want to bid it naturally. Anything above three spades is unregulated so eg 3NT showing a preempt in 4 of either minor, can be awkward if it catches people unprepared. There a different variations on this. Actions other than opening bids in this category are too numerous to mention, eg what is redouble of a support double or double of a mini-splinter?

[sfi]

One proposal is to follow the Australian Bridge Federation and just adopt the WBF Systems Policy. Then almost all national competitions (except those with long matches), together with clubs and lesser events, would prohibit HUM and Brown Sticker Conventions.

Brown sticker conventions are very rarely restricted here in open events, even at club levels. They cause very few problems once people are a bit familiar with them.

[helene_t]

I like the more comprehensive EBU rules better than WBF's rules. The definition of HUM is gibberish. Also I think it is practical for Scotland and England to have the same rules.

 

I partly disagree with Nigel w.r.t. BSC's. BSC's are banned in many semi-serious events in Europe. So for that reason, most European pairs don't play BSC's even when they are allowed. The reason why WJ2005 uses multi instead of Wilcosz is that Wilcosz is a BSC.

[sfi]

<rant>

It's unfortunate that the definition of HUM includes some things that are relatively harmless as well as some that require genuine preparation. You could probably ban HUMs as hardly anyone plays them now anyway but it really should be ok to play a strong club with transfer openings and 1S as a catchall, similar to a precision 1D.

</rant>

The system you describe is red, not yellow. Moscito, for example, uses these sorts of openings.

[helene_t]

I think Nigel is talking about a 1♠ opening including balanced hands in some range, like a Bulgarian precision 1♦. In Moscito, 1♠ shows 4+ diamonds so that is just a transfer opening.

[jeremy69]

If you want teams that can play in WBF events with long matches and win them then it makes sense that your players have as much experience as possible with methods that they and their opponents can use in those matches. It would also be good to be consistent with what is played in Europe.

 

First of all 99.9% of the bridge played is not going to be by players looking to play in the next European or Bermuda Bowl so designing a ssytem policy with that as th emain criterion is not a great idea IMO.

Second most events played in Europe organised by the EBL have significant restrictions on what can be played e.g. The European Open in June in San Remo. It was played behind screens with WBF rules and in both pairs and teams not only could you not play HUMS but you could not play some things allowed in England and Wales at Level 4(the most common tournament level).

 

I think you really only need to regulate what people open. Once the auction is underway there is very little germ warfare that is used or effective.

 

I favour minimal interference in what can be played and was very keen on getting all tournaments played at one level but there are things it is unreasonable to expect players to defend against a. in two board rounds and b. when they are playing a game for enjoyment and do not spend hours working out defences. At present one or two methods that are allowed do get some complaints, if they got none I'd feel the benchmark was in the wrong place.

I am surprised that whatever policy you end up with it will bind clubs. In England they are free to do as they wish although relatively few do plough their own lonely furrow.

[paulg]

I don't think it's compulsory but clubs do seem to adopt the policies of the SBU.

 

Although Scotland has a much higher percentage of players hoping to play in international tournaments (perhaps as high as 1%), the majority of bridge is matchpoint pairs and I share Jeremy's concern here.

 

However banning BSCs from these events, and most of the others, does not seem to be a big problem to me. The number of BSCs being played in international competition is now really low.

 

And for Helene, I'm sure no-one in Scotland will mind the EBU adopting our policies. Of course, it would be helpful if we could agree on the same alerting policy too, but realistically this is unlikely to happen because there are real differences in our membership.

 

Thanks for the input,

 

Paul

[bluejak]

I have always failed to understand why policies, whether of alerting or permitted agreements, that are specifically designed for international standard events are seen as suitable for clubs and local events.

 

In general, how these things develop is a matter of history. Because Australia has developed over time with few restrictions nowadays people are very happy with that. But that does not mean that another jurisdiction where players in clubs and local events have tended not to play against the more esoteric shoudl be suddenly made to play against them.

 

The idea of being the same over Europe is another nonsense: it is running the SBU for the sake of 1% of its players: I think that in the first case authorities should consider the large majority - who think Berwick and Carlisle are foreign - not the small minority. Of course, for major events that is different, but we are talking of an overall policy which is expected to be used in clubs.

[paulg]

I have always failed to understand why policies, whether of alerting or permitted agreements, that are specifically designed for international standard events are seen as suitable for clubs and local events.

This is why I asked the question.

 

If you exclude HUMs and BSCs, I cannot see a big difference between the WBF Systems Policy and the current SBU or EBU policies and wanted to know if I'd missed anything significant.

 

In general, how these things develop is a matter of history.  Because Australia has developed over time with few restrictions nowadays people are very happy with that.  But that does not mean that another jurisdiction where players in clubs and local events have tended not to play against the more esoteric should be suddenly made to play against them.

 

The idea of being the same over Europe is another nonsense: it is running the SBU for the sake of 1% of its players: I think that in the first case authorities should consider the large majority - who think Berwick and Carlisle are foreign - not the small minority.  Of course, for major events that is different, but we are talking of an overall policy which is expected to be used in clubs.

I am sure it is the fact that the WBF alerting policy has proved so popular in the clubs throughout the country, with (I believe) no complaints received except from some southern visitors, that has encouraged the committee to look at further simplifications like this.

[helene_t]

Paul, are there any BSC's that are commonly played at Scottish clubs?

 

Do you have a link to the current Scottish system policies?

[paulg]

The current Scottish policy can be found at here (PDF).

 

An example of a BSC that is currently permitted would be a 2NT opener showing a pre-empt in either clubs or diamonds. This is also permitted at EBU Level 4.

 

Another example would be a Multi 2♦, where the weak options are either a weak two in hearts or a weak hand with spades and a minor.

 

These are not common in clubs, but are played by a small number of (tournament) players.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

Thanks Paul.

 

An opening 2♣ or any higher bid may have any number of strong meanings. In

addition, any such bid may have one weak meaning selected from

• 2♣ only: any three-suiter (4111, 5431, 5440)

• 2♦ only: one-suiter with a major suit

• 5+ cards in a specified suit

• Two-suiter, at least 54 shape, one suit specified

• Three-suiter (4441, 5431, 5440) with 3+ cards in a specified suit

• Any solid suit

Though more liberal than the BSC criteria, these rules do not seem to allow the two BSC's you mentioned.

 

Also, at level 4 it appears that power doubles and artificial 1♥/1♠ openings are not allowed, and maybe not canape openings that can be done on a 3-card suit either. Those would all be allowed if you change to the WBF systems policy.

 

If you change to the WBF systems policy, you will no longer be able to play:

- Some exotic 1♣ or 1♦ openings, unless the other minor is strong. However, the HUM definition is Giberish on this point so you would have to decide how you interpret it.

- Weak 2-bids showing a 3-suited hand with only 3 cards in a known suit.

- Overcalls denying four cards in the suit bid and not having an anchor suit.

- Fishbein overcalls against natural 1-level openings.

[paulg]

Thanks Paul.

 

An opening 2♣ or any higher bid may have any  number of strong meanings. In addition, any such bid may have one weak meaning selected from

• 2♣ only: any three-suiter (4111, 5431, 5440)

• 2♦ only: one-suiter with a major suit

• 5+ cards in a specified suit

• Two-suiter, at least 54 shape, one suit specified

• Three-suiter (4441, 5431, 5440) with 3+ cards in a specified suit

• Any solid suit

Though more liberal than the BSC criteria, these rules do not seem to allow the two BSC's you mentioned.

 

Also, at level 4 it appears that power doubles and artificial 1♥/1♠ openings are not allowed, and maybe not canape openings that can be done on a 3-card suit either. Those would all be allowed if you change to the WBF systems policy.

 

If you change to the WBF systems policy, you will no longer be able to play:

- Some exotic 1♣ or 1♦ openings, unless the other minor is strong. However, the HUM definition is Giberish on this point so you would have to decide how you interpret it.

- Weak 2-bids showing a 3-suited hand with only 3 cards in a known suit.

- Overcalls denying four cards in the suit bid and not having an anchor suit.

- Fishbein overcalls against natural 1-level openings.

You have quoted the Level 3 criteria (a level, like the EBU's, that has fallen into disuse).

 

The Level 4 criteria are:

 

An opening 2♣ or any higher bid may have up to three weak meanings, with at most one meaning selected from each of the following categories

• One-suiter, 5+ cards, either a specified suit or any suit other than the suit bid

• Two-suiter, at least 54, either one suit specified or both suits other than the suit bid

• Any three-suiter (4441, 5431, 5440)

In addition, the bids may include any number of strong types (16+ HCP or 8+ playing tricks).

 

Thanks for the examples of potential changes, it is useful to see these.

[helene_t]

Oh sorry, silly me. Yes you are right, it was level 3.

 

Still seems that artificial (or 3+?) major suit openings, and power doubles, are not allowed. I find this a little odd. Power doubles are not uncommon among club players in EBU-land and Netherlands. Maybe it is different in Scotland.

[mjj29]

If you exclude HUMs and BSCs, I cannot see a big difference between the WBF Systems Policy and the current SBU or EBU policies and wanted to know if I'd missed anything significant.

Well, EBU level 4 allows several BSCs (such as anchor-less preempts denying the suit bid, which I play or 2N showing either minor) and at least one HUM (the Stevenson spade, which I assume bluejak plays as he invented it). I also think that EBU level 4 allows transfer openings and a strong spade with no natural 2C or 2D intermediate bid, for which the 1C opening is a HUM.

 

I can't speak for the current scottish regulations.

 

[edit] Actually, maybe that's what you meant by "if you exclude HUMs and BSCs", in which case ignore this [/edit]

[paulg]

Oh sorry, silly me. Yes you are right, it was level 3.

 

Still seems that artificial (or 3+?) major suit openings, and power doubles, are not allowed. I find this a little odd. Power doubles are not uncommon among club players in EBU-land and Netherlands. Maybe it is different in Scotland.

Artificial major suit openings are not currently permitted.

 

My interpretation is that you are fine with power doubles. Firstly the strength of the double means that it is not overly wide ranging; and secondly partner would be expected to remove the double most of the time.

 

Paul

[bluejak]

The idea of being the same over Europe is another nonsense: it is running the SBU for the sake of 1% of its players: I think that in the first case authorities should consider the large majority - who think Berwick and Carlisle are foreign - not the small minority.  Of course, for major events that is different, but we are talking of an overall policy which is expected to be used in clubs.

I am sure it is the fact that the WBF alerting policy has proved so popular in the clubs throughout the country, with (I believe) no complaints received except from some southern visitors, that has encouraged the committee to look at further simplifications like this.

The view that several better Scottish players have said is that they do not like it because of the inherent unfairness in playing fancy doubles without warning opponents, but the majority of players like it because they can manage not to alert doubles at all and do not realise they are being disadvantaged.

 

Similarly, where doubles are not the point, no-one knows what the policy means, so the poorer players are ok because no-one accuses them of getting it wrong, and when they get a bad board because of the alerting they do not realise.

 

Popularity should not be the prime aim of organisers.

[nige1]

Reading Bridge Club allows any method, provided you supply a written defence, and that never causes a problem. In Edinburgh clubs, in my youth, a few partnerships played Roman, Neapolitan, Bulldog, Vienna, Nottingham, Kaplan Scheinwold, Goren, and other esoteric systems. We encountered no objections from the predominately Acol crowd :) perhaps because we had consistently terrible results :(

 

During decades of of teaching Bridge I found students clamour to be taught new conventions, even while still learning to follow suit :)

 

In my experience, it is administrators and officials, rather than ordinary players, who are most keen on stifling experimentation and innovation :(

 

I wish there were two levels of competition.

• Standard system: Everybody plays the same methods as laid down by the organizers. You may delete conventions but may not modify them or add new ones)
  
• Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.
  

[NickRW]

You have quoted the Level 3 criteria (a level, like the EBU's, that has fallen into disuse).

Can't speak for Scotland of course, but from what I've seen of English practice, level 3 may well have fallen into disuse by the EBU, but it has not fallen into disuse by clubs.

 

(When I say level 3 is used by clubs - I mean that most have no formal policy - but in practice, multi 2, though not necessarily common, is seen often enough - but some of the more esoteric stuff that level 4 permits would be commented upon probably adversely by quite a few).

 

Nick

[Vampyr]

My interpretation is that you are fine with power doubles. Firstly the strength of the double means that it is not overly wide ranging; and secondly partner would be expected to remove the double most of the time.

What are power doubles?

[campboy]

I've heard this term used to describe doubles of opening 1suit which show 15+ and normally don't have shortage in the suit doubled (in conjunction with 1NT overcall for takeout).

[helene_t]

I wish there were two levels of competition.

• 
   
   
  
• Standard system: Everybody plays the same methods as laid down by the organizers. You may delete conventions but may not modify them or add new ones)
   
   
  
• Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.
   
   
  

Basically agree except that I don't like the requirement of approved defense.

 

First, I assume that you don't need an approved defense against strong notrump openings, or a first-seat pass showing 0-11 points. You need some criteria, which means that the regulations wouldn't be simpler than outright system restrictions.

 

Second, if all the thousands of home-grown conventions played at clubs should get an approved defense, it would be necessary somehow to deter players from submitting too many defenses for approval. For example by taking a fee. Or by turning down defenses for no good reason (as in the ACBL midchart). So de facto the regulations would not be very liberal.

 

Third, there is in general no one-size-fits-all defense. For Aunt Esmaralda's Tuesday Afternoon Tea and Cardplay Club you need at most two lines of text, and it must be compatible with the stuff they generally play there (Fishbein, all jumps strong, 4♣ always Gerber), for the Bermuda Bowl you may need several pages and you can make reference to well-known concepts such as P/C, scrambling, forcing pass, etc. One could have defenses approved only for a specific event (but that would put an enormous burden on the organizers, especially for events that only occur once), or one could group clubs and events into levels like the five EBU levels (but the aim was simplicity ..... )

 

Fourth, I think that most pairs don't care for approved defenses. Either they make up their own on the fly, or they default to common sense and meta-agreements, or they struggle enough with their defense against simple overcalls of their 1NT opening, so thinking about a defense against inverted psycho-suction would not be rational.

[paulg]

The idea of being the same over Europe is another nonsense: it is running the SBU for the sake of 1% of its players: I think that in the first case authorities should consider the large majority - who think Berwick and Carlisle are foreign - not the small minority.  Of course, for major events that is different, but we are talking of an overall policy which is expected to be used in clubs.

I am sure it is the fact that the WBF alerting policy has proved so popular in the clubs throughout the country, with (I believe) no complaints received except from some southern visitors, that has encouraged the committee to look at further simplifications like this.

The view that several better Scottish players have said is that they do not like it because of the inherent unfairness in playing fancy doubles without warning opponents, but the majority of players like it because they can manage not to alert doubles at all and do not realise they are being disadvantaged.

I too share this concern, especially about doubles late in the auction but hopefully most of the better players are pre-alerting any unusual 'early' doubles.

 

Similarly, where doubles are not the point, no-one knows what the policy means, so the poorer players are ok because no-one accuses them of getting it wrong, and when they get a bad board because of the alerting they do not realise.

 

Popularity should not be the prime aim of organisers.

The rest of the policy means that people are playing the same alerting rules that they have been using for years in Scotland, except with no alerts above 3NT.

 

Popularity is not the prime aim, but comprehension and acceptance are important components.

[bluejak]

You think anyone pre-alerts a double of 1NT as not being penalties, for example?

 

Personally, I think pre-alerting stinks. I have all sorts of things to think about when playing bridge, and having to remember opponents' methods because the alerting system is too bad to tell me what I need to know seems completely counter-productive.