If I wrote the System Regulations...

[Mbodell]

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 think you are missing "this is my guess for our best spot, given what the auction has produced so far".

 

Maybe you don't think it should be allowed, but, for instance after partners natural 1nt which is doubled for penalty (or even with values with a major and longer minor) if you play 2♥ shows the majors but could be 5=4 or 4=5 or 4=4 or 5=3 or 3=5 or even 4=3 or 3=4 on occasion but you want to play either 2♥ or 2♠ under your rules you can't bid it. Partner has only promised 2 cards in each suit and even though you tend to often have 4+ in the suit bid you might only have 3. Much of the time you could expect to find an 8+ card major fit, but you aren't guaranteed it.

[minimonkey]

I really like amw's list. It says (to me) all constructive opening bids are allowed and defines constructive bids as those which show 10+HCP. I also think he nailed the problem with allowing unrestricted responces and came up with the nice solution of allowing any forcing bid.

 

The one point I would object to is

 

(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.

 

I would change this to

 

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

 

Seems weird to me to allow things like 2H=4+H 4+S but not allow 2D=4+H 4+S.

[helene_t]

AWM's list looks ok to me.

 

I note that we couldn't play the 1♦ negative response to a strong 1♣ opening as opener can pass it with a minimum with long diamonds. We would have to build in some "impossible negative" or such to make it forcing. (Of course we could agree to make it forcing just for the purpose of making it legal, but I think that's silly. I don't want to be in the position that I think passing 1♦ would be the best call but I can't do that because I would then establish an illegal implicit agreement).

[hrothgar]

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.

For what its worth, I like the structure that AWM has proposed.

 

There are a couple areas where I would quibble:

 

1. Its unclear to me whether HCPs should be enshrined in the regulations.

 

I understand the desire to have a simple / objective metric.

I understand that many people use HCPs.

 

However, I also think that there needs to be some room for judgment

 

I would prefer a situation that recognized that boundaries are fuzzy.

 

2. I would add the following allowed opening / overcall

 

"Any NT opening or overcall that shows a balanced hand"

 

I would define balanced as denying a singleton or a void.

 

I would add this so that folks who like mini NTs could gravitate towards whatever range they felt most comfortable with, be it 9-11 / 10-12 / 8+ - 12 / what have you.

[Cascade]

1. Its clear to me that HCP should not be enshrined in regulations

 

2. What is wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton?

[Cascade]

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

 

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

[TimG]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

[hrothgar]

2. What is wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton?

I have no objection to opening 1NT with a singleton

 

AWM's would allow 1NT openings with a singleton so long as the bid promised 10+ HCPs

[Free]

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

You don't allow modern precision systems where one will open 1♦ routinely on a 1=4=3=5 hand. Maybe you can start adding exceptions :D

 

I'm glad a 3-suited hand with short ♦ is allowed, since ♣ is the anchor suit.

 

I would add however, that if opener doesn't promisse a 4 card suit, overcaller shouldn't promisse a 4 card suit either. So

- over NT openings (balanced) everything goes

- over strong ♣ (15+) everything goes

- over combinations everything goes (for example polish club: bal/♣/strong => no anchor suit, so everything goes)

 

Responses shouldn't be regulated.

 

Otherwise I find this a very acceptable set of rules.

[Free]

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

 

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

Any opening (even 1-level) removes the ability of the opponents to play their system. If you open 1♦ I can't play my awesome 1♣ system anymore... Boo hoo!

[helene_t]

It's the strong pass that remove opps' ability to play their own system.

 

Over a strong pass, the requirements of an opening would be similar to that of an overcall. Maybe a 2♣ opening would be a WJO. Maybe we would play something else. Now if they play a 1♣ fert we can still play our system but if they play a higher fert we can never get to play our system (OK, maybe their 1♣ opening is defined in such a way that it makes sense to play system on).

 

Anyway, I don't think it's a particularly strong argument to disallow fert bids. At EBU level 4 you can play a 2♣ as showing 0-7 points with a 4-card in either diamonds, hearts or spades. And a few pairs actually do so. If that is allowed I don't see why a 1♦ fert shouldn't be allowed.

[hrothgar]

It's the strong pass that remove opps' ability to play their own system.

I have never bought into this line of argument

 

Any pair with any level of competence varies their opening requirements by seat.

 

A 2♠ opening in 3rd seat looks nothing like a second seat opening or a fourth seat opening.

 

Many pairs use completely different response structures over 3rd / 4th seats 1M openings that they do over 1st / 2nd.

[TimG]

If your opponents are using ferts (and a forcing pass), shouldn't you encourage them to open a fert? In first seat, I think it's right to pass with lots of good hands and invite the opponents into the auction.

 

I think the reason forcing passes are often prohibited is because of the randomness associated with the results after a fert, not because of the effectiveness of the fert.

[akhare]

I think the reason forcing passes are often prohibited is because of the randomness associated with the results after a fert, not because of the effectiveness of the fert.

Indeed -- one can even make the argument that a FP system with a 1♣ fert is actually a constructive system and that it should be allowed at almost all levels :D.

 

A 1♦ isn't as bad, but with a 1♥+ fert, we start getting into some really odd sequences...

[awm]

They also remove the ability of the opponents to play their system

I completely do not get this argument.

 

If you are in second seat why should you have a right to play the same methods you play in first seat? That is the advantage of being in first seat.

To elaborate on this, perhaps the point is that I don't think opening very bad balanced hands at a moderately high level is really bridge (by very bad, I mean like zero-counts; I have no problem with "mini notrumps" really). I doubt that it has much technical merit and I believe that a competent pair with a worked-out defense would get excellent results against such bids.

 

The problem is, that by using such an opening, you typically move the opponents from a situation where they have had a lot of discussion (bidding in second chair after a first-seat pass showing weakness) to a situation where they have had virtually no discussion (bidding in second chair after a first-seat 1♠ bid showing 0-5 points with no five-card suit). For this reason, and this reason only, the people bidding 1♠ on garbage are likely to do reasonably well in most events when this opening comes up (pairs events in particular, where there is no advance disclosure of methods and not much time for the opponents to discuss).

 

I don't see this as particularly desirable; essentially it's people gaining a big advantage from opponents unfamiliarity with their approach while playing a method which has little (in my view) actual merit against well-prepared opposition.

 

Sure, if people were allowed to play such methods, opponents would discuss somewhat and have some agreements, but it will never approach the level of familiarity with their own methods after a pass. And yes, you can argue this about virtually any opening... but again, I think there is a difference between constructive openings where we are trying to reach a good contract for our own side and would expect to get reasonable results even against very well-prepared opposition... versus openings like the "garbage 1♠" above, where it's only real upside seems to be the lack of preparation by opponents.

[CarlRitner]

That's one of the best explanations I've read on this subject. I favour minimal system regulations, zero being a very nice small number, but the wording here makes me think twice.

 

Unless we can get a new call - the destructive double. The penalty structure would escalate severely, something like the tax schedules here in the USA.

[awm]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

[billw55]

...

 

For this reason, and this reason only, the people bidding 1♠ on garbage are likely to do reasonably well in most events when this opening comes up (pairs events in particular, where there is no advance disclosure of methods and not much time for the opponents to discuss).

 

I don't see this as particularly desirable; essentially it's people gaining a big advantage from opponents unfamiliarity with their approach while playing a method which has little (in my view) actual merit against well-prepared opposition.

 

Sure, if people were allowed to play such methods, opponents would discuss somewhat and have some agreements, but it will never approach the level of familiarity with their own methods after a pass. And yes, you can argue this about virtually any opening... but again, I think there is a difference between constructive openings where we are trying to reach a good contract for our own side and would expect to get reasonable results even against very well-prepared opposition... versus openings like the "garbage 1♠" above, where it's only real upside seems to be the lack of preparation by opponents.

But if it was allowed, in time people would adapt and the advantage of opponents unpreparedness would evaporate, leaving the operators with nothing but the bad scores they deserve. Thus the problem would be self-correcting.

 

Why not let evolution take its course?

[rbforster]

essentially it's people gaining a big advantage from opponents unfamiliarity with their approach while playing a method which has little (in my view) actual merit against well-prepared opposition.

But if it was allowed, in time people would adapt and the advantage of opponents unpreparedness would evaporate, leaving the operators with nothing but the bad scores they deserve.

Exactly. I'm sure all the same arguments were made against "weak twos" back in the day when everyone played strong twos - destructive (clearly), ill-prepared opponents (since it's new), "rolling the dice and randomizing" (preempts work), etc. 30+ years later everyone plays it and it's an accepted part of the game. Honestly I think just playing penalty doubles against weird weak openings is probably a pretty decent start.

[nige1]

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?

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.

If we must have system regulations then I agree with

• minimonkey and awm: they should be simple and easy to understand.
  
• awm: we should enforce them rigorously and objectively.
  

The EBU had a series of restrictive regulations (e.g. about strength of openings and responses to multi). A few players were handicapped by complying with these rules. Much later, we found out that, in practice, directors tempered the letter of the law with subjective judgment. This illustrates how complex subjective rules create the impression of unfairness.

[TimG]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

Well, you can always overcall 1♥ when they open 1♦ and you have hearts. Everything else can be the same as if they had opened 1♥. You have more room to describe your hearts after the transfer opening than after the natural opening. True: there is less chance that you will end up defending 1♥.

 

I realize a line must be drawn somewhere and it is not really my intention to argue the merits of transfer openings or the ease with which they may be defended. My point is more along the lines of even with the regulations you present, it would seen that there would be a need for multiple charts -- surely things like multi and transfer openings that could be based upon a 4-card suit should be allowed in some events -- and I wonder what the other charts would be and what criteria should be used to decide which is in effect.

[Gerben42]

Well I would not really change the rules, you get too much opposition. But I would rephrase them so that they are clear and unambiguous. Whatever happened to the project of rephrasing the GCC...

[awm]

Multi 2♦ is an interesting case. It should be allowed in serious competition for legacy/popularity reasons, but at the same time it's hard to write a sensible set of regulations which permits multi while disallowing other arguably similar conventions (2♥ multi, 2♦ wilkosz).

 

I suspect that when multi first became popular, it was treated as a forcing bid. This is because the early practitioners typically had strong options (often a very big balanced hand) and thus did not really produce the auction 2♦ multi - (pass) - pass. This version of "forcing multi" is arguably a lot easier to defend than the currently popular weak-only variety. I suspect that many of the "weak only multi" players do not produce the auction 2♦-pass-pass often for stylistic reasons; perhaps they should bid this way more. In any case, the "passable multi" seems very much in the style of things I'd prefer to disallow (i.e. artificial passable openings on very bad hands, in suits that opener need not hold).

 

Basically I see two solutions to this:

 

(1) Allow multi in serious events by giving it a special exception. Explain that this is for legacy reasons, and does not generalize to sanctioning other "similar" methods.

 

(2) Create a blanket rule allowing forcing openings or overcalls, while banning "psychic" passes of such openings if opener's LHO passes.

 

I'd tend to favor the second approach. Obviously this does restrict the multi in some way, but the style it is prohibiting (passing of the multi in uncontested auctions) is not currently popular and arguably makes the method much harder to defend against.

[Mbodell]

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

 

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

 

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

 

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

 

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I think you can get around this with a relatively simple rule:

 

If bid A is legal, then all bids cheaper than A are legal providing they:

 

1. Show the same thing as bid A

 

2. Are strictly forcing through A if the opponents pass

 

Basically you allow any "constructive" system. If a natural weak 2♠ is legal then I should be able to open 1♦ showing a natural weak 2♠ as long as partner and I are required to bid if opponents pass until we reach 2♠. This can't be harder to defend against than a 2♠ bid because in the worst case defense you pretend they opened 2♠, and in the "normal" case you take advantage of the extra room.

 

If the pair in question uses the room between, in my example 1♦ and 2♠, to determine they only want to play 2♠ (lower level ogust or something), then I'd argue they are being constructive.

 

In this model you can safely pass the 1♦ transfer canape openings because you don't need to worry they will play 1♦.

[straube]

I think a lot of the decisions we're trying to make about allowing certain methods and excluding others would go away if we increased the penalty for undertricks.

 

Instead of banning bids that take up space and reveal nothing useful, make it more expensive to try to do so. Like putting a tax on smoking.

 

Sure, I like having different vulnerabilities (though it adds complexity for new players) but we might be better off with vulnerable and "super"-vulnerable. Maybe the undertricks would start at 100 and 150. Maybe not so much.

 

This change in the risk/reward ratio would decrease competitive (interference) bidding and lead to more constructive auctions.