What is wrong with the WBF Systems Policy?

[jeremy69]

Reading Bridge Club allows any method, provided you supply a written defence, and that never causes a problem.

 

It seems to me that if a young and enthusiastic pair turned up playing some sort of HUM then it would not go down that well at many of the clubs I play at. Indeed apoplexy can be generated in some opponents by playing a strong club against them. Level 3 was kept at the last EBU review for clubs to have an agreed standard if they wanted to restrict what people could play (It is no longer used in EBU tournaments)

 

•Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.

 

I have seen this tried in two clubs I've played in and it has failed on both occasions. People do not, in general, want to play against germ warfare. Maybe its a sign of an ageing bridge population. I think if the EBU tried it as an additional tournament it would also fail for much the same reason.

 

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

 

Yes. I agree but so is protecting weaker players

[paulg]

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

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

 

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.

I think pre-alerts are important especially where the rounds are short. But I know that you have always disagreed ;)

[helene_t]

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

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

I think this is really weird.

 

If I fail to pre-alert some weird preempt which opps would have to discuss defense against, then I could understand it.

 

But there is no good reason to pre-alert an artificial dbl of 1NT. Opps don't need to prepare a defense against it. The only reason many of us pre-alert it is because we think that the silly rule that forbids us to alert it puts opps at a disadvantage.

 

But obviously the regulators do not agree with that. If they want us to disclose artificial dbls they would have made us alert them. They don't. So apparently they don't want us to disclose them (other than writing them on the CC and asking questions).

 

Anyway, I understand that the regulators have an unthankful task. Making rules that satisfy everyone is impossible.

[paulg]

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

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

I think this is really weird.

 

If I fail to pre-alert some weird preempt which opps would have to discuss defense against, then I could understand it.

 

But there is no good reason to pre-alert an artificial dbl of 1NT. Opps don't need to prepare a defense against it. The only reason many of us pre-alert it is because we think that the silly rule that forbids us to alert it puts opps at a disadvantage.

 

But obviously the regulators do not agree with that. If they want us to disclose artificial dbls they would have made us alert them. They don't. So apparently they don't want us to disclose them (other than writing them on the CC and asking questions).

Unlike England, as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

 

At the start of a round or match pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings, and strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as conveying unauthorised information.

 

This is the stage where you should draw opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have that might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Pay particular attention to unusual non-alertable conventional calls such as: unusual two-level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over opponents 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue-bids of opponent’s

suit, etc.

 

These should appear on your convention card, but should also be verbally described before the start of the round or match.

 

Highly unusual carding, for example leading low from doubletons, should also be described at this stage.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

[helene_t]

Unlike England, as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

But why don't they just make those unusual doubles alertable? Asking what an alerted double of 1NT means doesn't convey any UI.

[paulg]

Unlike England,  as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

But why don't they just make those unusual doubles alertable? Asking what an alerted double of 1NT means doesn't convey any UI.

Presumably because defining 'unusual' is too tough, which is also presumably why the WBF policy is as it is.

 

It seems that most authorities struggle with doubles.

[helene_t]

Giving it some more thought I think I might understand it. If we alert some non-unusual double because we think it is unusual, then it is an infraction. Pre-alerting such a double would not give any UI to partner and would not mislead opps so that would be less harmful.

 

It just sounds weird to give dbls a special status. People alert natural bids, forcing passes, and passes with semi-unusual negative inference in all kind of situations where they probably shouldn't but then again, "whenever in doubt, alert". I don't see why dbls deserve a special status.

[nige1]

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

[mycroft]

My .sig quote file for years had the following:

 

We have the information that they play SAYC, but on OKB this often means little more than the fact that the opponents can find the letters S, A, Y, and C on their keyboard.

Link to full post

 

It hasn't got better in the last 10 years. SAYC, online, is code for "5cM, 1NT/1M passable, with whatever gadgets we play because we think they're standard". I'd bet that 80+% of "SAYC" players would treat 1H-3C-X as negative, and that half of those that got it right, got it right only because they don't know what a negative double is. Half of them think 3NT is gambling. 1NT-3m is forcing (or to play). Systems are on after NT overcalls. Stolen bid doubles or Lebensohl. Keycard. Gerber/suits. Any artificial defence to their NT.

 

There is "one area where choices are offered" - it is "the one area". I bet if you polled 100 "SAYC" players online, fewer than 5 would know what it was, and 2 of those would be surprised that there were no other options.

 

Not true? How many here checked me against the standard?

 

If everyone who played "SAYC" were forced to play SAYC, 95% of them would find another tournament. Even in Calgary, where there is a de facto "Calgary Standard 2/1 card", with a new partner, one takes 10-20 minutes to discuss the choices. If we forced them to play the standard (except once a year in the individual), they'd start another club or play at home.

 

The people who say "why should we have to play against all this weird stuff" usually have an unspoken "but don't take away our pet gadgets. After all, they're not weird". Please note, the current fad blowing through our intermediates is systems on after 1NT-X-p gets pulled (they are very surprised when yes, 2C asking for a major is Alertable). Makes perfect sense, it does.

[Mbodell]

A funny situation happened at a local pro-am game last year. The director was worried that some of the pros (anyone who is a life master counts as pro in this context) would force crazy conventions or systems on the ams. To protect this it was made an all SAYC tournament complete with everyone having the ACBL yellow card and being able to check their own card during the auction (or the opponents card as a memory aid). Everyone, pro and am alike, was pretty uncertain about what was and wasn't on the card.

[suprgrover]

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

At our (ACBL) club, we have some freely available because it means that pick-up partnerships can have a filled-out card. I have to replenish the supply with another 100 every few months, so *someone* is using it here.

[helene_t]

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

He didn't say that SAYC as a system is a failure.

 

It it SAYC-only tournaments that are a failure.

[bluejak]

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments.

 

Having a standard system card which can be altered is a very good idea, but one you are not allowed to alter annoys people at all levels who have some pet conventions.

[nige1]

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.
   
   
  

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

He didn't say that SAYC as a system is a failure. It is SAYC-only tournaments that are a failure.

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments. Having a standard system card which can be altered is a very good idea, but one you are not allowed to alter annoys people at all levels who have some pet conventions.

Fair enough helene_t. Sorry, Blackshoe. But I wonder why? Bluejak says that people still argue over what's allowed. I would have thought that to be crystal-clear. Has anybody else had recent experience of "standard system" competitions? My experience is different from Bluejak's. Although I prefer variety in Bridge, I've played in many single-system individuals and a few "simple-system" pairs tournaments. We were allowed to delete conventions but not add or modify them. (I admit that we were also allowed to choose between strong Acol twos and Benjamin. And between strong no-trump and weak no-trump). They had lots of participants, who all seemed to enjoy them. I supposed them to be popular with beginners, with players allergic to new ideas, and with players who feel that Bridge is about judgement in bidding and play rather than bamboozling opponents with pre-prepared esoteric methods.

[jallerton]

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments.

Where have you been since August 2006?

 

In EBU Level 4 events (used for most tournaments in England) there are arguments whenever someone opens 2♣ Benjamin or similar light and one of their opponents has heard of the Rule of 25/Extended Rule of 25/Modified Extended Rule of 25!

[jeremy69]

Having a standard system card which can be altered is a very good idea, but one you are not allowed to alter annoys people at all levels who have some pet conventions.

 

Couldn't agree more. My club has copies of a "Young Chelsea standard" card at the front door which casual partnerships can use but they are free to add what they want to this. It is designed to speed up the process of agreeing and is also used for things like the annual club individual where it must be played "as is"

 

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments.

 

The local county newcomer pairs this year featured several emails (determined not unfriendly) as to whether x was allowed and if not why not. In England until the last review(in 2006) of what could be played there were also arguments about which level a congress was being played at, indeed you could find that Saturday and Sunday were at different levels so the scope for argument was substantial. I'm glad to say that this, at least, has now gone away at the cost of some who think one or two things now allowed are a bit much.

[bluejak]

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments.

Where have you been since August 2006?

 

In EBU Level 4 events (used for most tournaments in England) there are arguments whenever someone opens 2♣ Benjamin or similar light and one of their opponents has heard of the Rule of 25/Extended Rule of 25/Modified Extended Rule of 25!

Directing.

 

How many director calls do you expect per section because of the arguments over two openings? One per day? In Simple Systems it was nearer fifteen or twenty per day.