If I wrote the System Regulations...

[minimonkey]

When I first started lurking in these forums I was fairly attached to the idea that people should be able to play whatever systems they wanted, Forcing Pass, everything. However having read some of the discussions I became convinced that that was a bad move, even for people who like to tinker with systems. Why? Because Ferts ruin your ability to deploy your own fun gadgets whenever they are opened.

 

In any case I was wondering what rules I would write were I the one in charge of all that kind of stuff, so I gave it a go. My objective was to write as few rules as possible, allow experimentation, whilst still keeping what was allowed in the boundary of what most people seem to know and like.

 

This is what I came up with:

 

System regulations

 

All system regulations apply for the 1st round of the bidding, following that anything is allowed as all players have had the opportunity to speak. Doubles and redoubles are allowed to take any meaning at any time.

 

Opening Bids

 

Any Opening Bid is allowed if:

 

It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit

It shows 15+ HCP

It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength

 

Or any combination of the above

 

Overcalls

 

Any overcall is allowed if:

 

It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit

It shows 15+HCP

It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength

 

Or any combination of the above

 

Responses

 

Responses are allowed if:

 

They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit

They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit

They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences

They are Game Forcing

 

 

This list would make illegal: multi- pre-empts, precision 1D openers on (41)35 shapes and are probably subject to abuse in ways I haven’t thought of.

 

Anyone else got any opinions or a simple list of rules they would like to see implemented?

 

Frazer

[helene_t]

In practice I would vote for "anything goes" since I expect that any compromise that could be reached would be too complicated, too unclear, and miss the target.

 

If I were dictator of the World, though, the spirit of the regulations would be that as long as vanilla defense is reasonably adequate, it is allowed. I.e. there could be restrictions on major suit bids that have weak variants with 4+ in the suit bid, as well as weak variants with <4 in the suit bid. This is because it may not be immediately obvious to opps whether a double should show the suit bid or be t/o. So no light-opening system with 3+ major canape's, no major flash.

 

Not sure how far into the auction this should apply. The pass/correct response to multi is sorta similar and should maybe be allowed only in the second round of bidding and later, if it is a major suit and neither p has shown constructive values.

[MikeRJ]

I would certaianly prefer simple regulations along the lines of Frazer's suggestions to "anything goes".

 

The idea of system regulations that can be written on one side of a piece of paper wiithout using small font is certainly attractive (at least to me!).

 

I would support something simple like this at least for Pair's tournaments or events with short rounds. Most of us would have to give uo some of our toys, but as everyone would be in the same boat I don't think it would really be much of an issue.

 

Two changes I would make to Frazer's suggestions would be:

 

1. Strong openings defined as 15+ or in terms of rule of 24 (or 23, 25 whatever).

2. would want to allow enquiry type responses such as stayman, Ogust.

 

Mike

[paulg]

I don't see any reason to regulate responses.

[awm]

I'd go with the following:

 

Allowed openings/overcalls:

 

(1) Any opening or overcall which guarantees 10 or more high card points.

(2) Any opening or overcall which guarantees five or more cards in a known suit.

(3) Any opening or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in the suit bid.

(4) Any meaning for pass or double.

 

Allowed responses/advances:

 

(1) Any response/advance which shows four or more cards in a known suit.

(2) Any response/advance which shows a fit (7+ cards combined) in a known suit.

(3) Any response/advance in notrump, regardless of meaning.

(4) Any response/advance which is forcing one round (or further).

(5) Any meaning for pass, double, redouble.

 

Psychic actions which appear to violate these principles when the stated agreement is close to the boundary will be viewed as illegal agreements.

 

My view is that the main thing which needs restricting is bids which are not really attempts to reach a making contract (i.e. could be quite weak) and which also are quite vague about shape (don't show a known suit, don't show the suit bid necessarily, etc). These tend to be tough to defend and are also quite "randomizing" in terms of results. They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system and tend to obtain a lot of good results through "confusion" rather than technical merit. These include things like fert bids and 2♥ multi. The above approach legalizes almost all constructive methods, while banning the kind of stuff where opener bids a suit he doesn't have on a terrible hand and then responder passes and we see if their opponents can "guess right." I do think there is some slight need to regulate responses, because a 1♦ opening which is light and limited followed by a 2♥ response showing "very weak two in either major" is roughly as bad as a 2♥ opening showing "weak two in either major" to begin with. This also tends to prevent an "arms race" of weak (or possibly weak) multi-meaning bids which can be tough to disclose and tough to defend against without advance notice.

[gerry]

1. Partnerships may use any methods they choose.

 

2. Directors will take a Wolffesque approach to MI/ME, claimed psyches etc.

 

3. Repeat as necessary until it sinks in.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure what you mean by #2, especially as pertaining to "claimed psyches".

[gerry]

a 'strict' enforcement of Law 21B1b as in evidence of Mistaken bid needs to be strong else rule mistaken explanation - ie lean towards a 'convention disruption' attitude.

 

A cynical approach by directos to 'Claimed psyches' -if it is possible in a complex method that a player has simply forgotten his/her method and claims that their bid was a psyche

[blackshoe]

I would object - strongly - to any ruling that explicitly implies that a player lied. For example, a psych is deliberate, so if a player psychs, he knows damn well he did so, and if he didn't, he knows that too. So I don't like a ruling that says "you claim you psyched; I don't believe you." For myself, the first such ruling I get under such a policy will be the last, as I will simply stop playing the game.

[CSGibson]

If I wrote system regulations, then they would be...

1) worse than they are right now, in all likelihood, or based on the ones I know

2) less restrictive (multi and suction would be GCC legal, at the very least), but not totally unrestricted either.

3) including a statement saying that opps can ban one convention for everytime someone let's their cell phone ring, and that ban lasts the rest of the session.

[awm]

There's often some mild concern about methods which are slightly different from disclosed.

 

For example, suppose we play an artificial 1♣ opening showing 10+ hcp and certain shapes. Assume for the moment that such a 1♣ opening which showed 9+ hcp would be illegal, but 10+ is allowed. Now I open 1♣ with 9 hcp. It could be that I miscounted my points, or that I upgraded my hand, or that we "really" play 9+ hcp but disclose it as 10 to get around the regulations. It will probably be tough for a director to tell the difference. Whichever is the case, this basically circumvents the rules. It seems unlikely that my partnership will substantially suffer by a one point deviation from our "agreed" minimum (especially if partner has seen me upgrade hands or miscount points or randomly open 9-counts based on who the opponents are before and has some inkling it may happen).

 

Even if all methods were permitted, there is a potential disclosure problem here (like say I describe my 1NT opening as 15-17 but I upgrade so many 14s and even 13s that I actually have fewer than 15 hcp more often than I have 15-17).

 

Note that this problem doesn't exist for a "true" psych that is radically different from the disclosed method. If I open 1NT "15-17" on a four-count it's not actually a problem, and it's usually easy to tell if partner "fields" this kind of action.

[TylerE]

So, if I'm reading this right you're banning the standard american 1♣?

[TimG]

So, if I'm reading this right you're banning the standard american 1♣?

I think a standard 1♣, even a 1♣ that could be based upon a 2-card suit would qualify as a combination of:

Any Opening Bid is allowed if:

 

It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit

It shows 15+ HCP

It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength

 

Or any combination of the above

It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength or 4+ card in clubs.

[awm]

So, if I'm reading this right you're banning the standard american 1♣?

No. Frazer's approach allows combinations such that 1♣ is either "4+♣ or some balanced hands" would be okay.

 

My approach allows any opening which shows 10+ points, so a standard american 1♣ would be fine.

 

I suppose if your version of "standard" involves opening 1♣ on 9-counts there would be an issue in my approach. However, current regulations ban opening super-light also (although usually defined as <8 points for "natural" bids).

 

Some interesting things which are however banned in my rules:

 

(1) 2♦ multi.

(2) 1NT overcalls "for takeout" if not promising 10+ points.

(3) 1NT openings not promising 10+ points.

(4) Pass or correct responses at the first round of the auction.

(5) Defenses to opponents bid without an anchor suit or 10 hcp (i.e. suction, multi over opps NT).

[fred]

I would appoint awm as my successor and then resign :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[xcurt]

...

A nice feature of this is that the same rules apply to both opening and defensive bidding side.

 

Currently the ACBL regulations favor, in the sense of allowing a wider range of agreements, the side that opens the bidding.

[blackshoe]

To whom are we making these promises?

[peachy]

I would object - strongly - to any ruling that explicitly implies that a player lied. For example, a psych is deliberate, so if a player psychs, he knows damn well he did so, and if he didn't, he knows that too. So I don't like a ruling that says "you claim you psyched; I don't believe you." For myself, the first such ruling I get under such a policy will be the last, as I will simply stop playing the game.

I'm with blackshoe. However, perhaps gerry meant frequent upgrades which have transformed themselves through a pattern of occurrence into the implicit agreement and undisclosed method territory, in violation of laws and/or regulations on disclosure. It is a much bigger problem than many folks would like to believe.

 

I support curbing that sort of illegal action at the table. And in all reality, it would indeed be lying or at least deluding oneself into believing one has been truthful in disclosure.

[awm]

I think the point is that it shouldn't matter whether the player lied.

 

Too often, the onus is on the director to distinguish between a misbid, a lack of agreement, a concealed agreement, a psych, a "tactical" deviation, and so forth. Sure, he can ask the players, but this forces him to either occasionally decide that the players are lying, or always trust what they say and give a huge advantage to players who actually would lie to a director (and there are many).

 

With this being the case, it'd be nice if the laws were designed to minimize the effect here by treating misbids, psychs, "tactical" bids, and misunderstandings/nonagreements identically to the degree possible. For this reason I like the EBU approach of "fielded misbids" rather than the ACBL approach where fielded "frequent forgets" are seemingly rub of the green whereas a "fielded psych" is a cause for adjustment (and possible ethical investigation).

[Dirk Kuijt]

I'm on record (to thunderous silence), and will repeat here the idea that the current rules about disclosure are unworkable. It it *impossible* to adequately explain the partnership agreements. Therefore, if we are going to put everyone on a level playing field the only alternative that works is *no* explanations.

 

The corollary to that is: no limitation on systems, otherwise, there is some (implicit and inadequate) explanation.

 

This is consistent, if not popular.

 

(I am aware that this is inconsistent with the current laws, which I regard as impossible to enforce fairly.)

[blackshoe]

There is no easy answer, but I think it's dangerous to try to find a "one size fits all" solution.

 

One reason we have directors is so that they can use their judgment in such cases.

[awm]

I'm on record (to thunderous silence), and will repeat here the idea that the current rules about disclosure are unworkable. It it *impossible* to adequately explain the partnership agreements.

I'm not sure why you say this, nor do I think many agree with you on this point.

 

For the most part I find that I receive very good disclosure from my opponents. Occasionally there is the problem of transmitting UI to partner by asking, and sometimes I encounter a pair that is particularly poor at disclosing their methods, but for the most part the disclosure system works fine.

 

Perhaps you are concerned about disclosure of "style" type things, but in most cases partner is not aware of this. For example, you will not get info about exactly what criteria I use to determine whether to preempt or not on a borderline hand... but the thing is that we truly have no agreement about this and partner doesn't know either. You'll get what general rules we have.

[Mbodell]

If I wrote the system regulations then I'd allow anything subject only to proper disclosure and would not ever have "written defenses" provided - at least at the highest level.

 

People can work on meta-agreements and don't need to have the perfect defense to every possible meaning of every possible sequence.

 

If you are doing rules like awm's though, I think I'd want a rule that I can make any bid that is a genuine offer to play in the given strain at the given level.

[awm]

If you are doing rules like awm's though, I think I'd want a rule that I can make any bid that is a genuine offer to play in the given strain at the given level.

I disagree with this one.

 

The issue is that there are three kinds of "to play" bids. They are:

 

(1) I want to play this contract because I have a reasonable expectation of making it.

(2) I want to play this contract because I expect that, even if doubled and going down, I will often obtain a good duplicate score here.

(3) I want to play this contract undoubled because I think the opponents can make something. However, I have no expectation to make this contract nor that playing this contract doubled will be any good. In fact I probably intend to run to an alternative "safer" contract if doubled.

 

The first two kinds of "to play" bids are very reasonable and should be protected. However, in a suit contract it's hard to imagine how bidding a suit where you have less than four cards and the partnership could easily have less than seven cards fits into these categories. Why would you have any expectation to make when you launch into a three-card suit that partner has never promised? Why would it be a good score ever, unless you are somehow "stealing" from the opponents? For a notrump contract, I've already allowed any notrump bid opposite a partner who has acted, and any notrump bid that shows 10+ points. What hand exactly expects to make "some number of notrump" reasonably often but has less than 10 points, opposite a partner who could have nothing at all? Maybe some sort of "gambling notrump" but that's borderline 10 points anyway.

 

I suspect that "to play" calls which do not already fall under my legal categories are "type three" to play calls. These are basically poorly disclosed fert bids, like when I open 2♠ "to play" with garbage and a long suit hoping that opponents pass it out, then if they somehow find a double I run to my suit. This is even worse than a 2♠ opening which shows a lousy hand with any suit, because at least the latter is actually disclosed as such instead of "to play." I don't see any reason these calls should be permitted.

 

Of course, none of this is applicable to psychs.

[EricK]

If I were making the rules I would try to differentiate between calls which show two or more different hand types and calls which do not.

 

So OK by default would be:

-Calls which show a continuous length range in one or more known suits (eg covered by this rule would be things like ">=3"; "<5"; "between 4 and 6";" 4+ in both majors"; but not covered would be something like "<2 or >5" or "5♥ and a 4 card minor")

-Calls which show a continuous point range (eg 16+; <7; 12-14; but not "<7 or >16"

-Calls which show a balanced hand

-Calls which ask for information of the above type (so eg Stayman is allowed because the responses from 2♠ downwards show 4-5♠; 4-5♥; 2-3♠ & 2-3♥ all of which are allowed)

 

And anything which could be made by joining these together by "And" but not "Or" (thus preventing multiple meaings bids like ">16points or <4 spades" from creeping in).

 

That's not to say that multiple hand type bids would not be allowed - they would be sanctioned on a case by case basis - just that single hand type bids wouldn't be disallowed.