If I wrote the System Regulations...

[awm]

Perhaps Akhare's defense is a good one, it's hard to say.

 

But there are certainly hand types where he is worse off after the transfer 1♦ opening. The bad situations include:

 

(1) I have a decent hand with long hearts in direct seat (Straube mentioned this).

(2) I have a takeout double and partner is happy to defend 1♥X, but is left guessing over 1♦X.

(3) I have a "power double" and partner wants to defend 1♦X if my hand includes some diamonds (or 1♥X all the time) but we do better in my suit if I have a strong one-suiter.

 

Perhaps he gains enough on other hand types by distinguishing the strength of his takeout double vs. power double to compensate.

 

However, the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening. We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid. In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

[straube]

However, the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening. We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid. In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

 

You've won your point as far as I'm concerned. I think that one could design a defense that approaches parity against a transfer 1D vs a natural 1D, but I'm not sure. I'm just not eager to have to develop such defenses...especially when the next pair plays a 2-under or 2-way opening. I think there's a place for regulation...at least for most events.

[Stephen Tu]

That's a good structure, but would you leave any provision for showing opener's suit? Adam is concerned that 1D will get passed out when he has a good heart suit.

 

You can show opener's suit later in the auction except in the case where the transfer gets passed out.

 

You can't have everything. There's no guarantee that 1d is better for them anyway if partner passes it out. Perhaps partner has good diamonds! Opener's 2nd suit could easily be clubs/or spades, not diamonds. Perhaps at other tables, they opened some other suit, partner's hand overcalled hearts, and went down because of the bad break.

 

Of course Adam's bad board scenario *can* happen. I'm just unconvinced that it's particularly frequent enough to be a significant factor, and I think it is going to be more than compensated for by the times they go down in 1d down multiple tricks when hearts was better all along. Opener can have lots of hearts just as well as 2nd hand having a stack.

 

In principle, having more room gives you more options, and you should be able to do better on average IMO, it's just that the auction is unfamiliar and it will take a while to develop proper judgment on when to let 1d-p-p-? go and when not to, people don't have experience at it, and it will take awhile to get it right.

 

IMO the "ban xfer opening because it's difficult" is really just = "ban the unfamiliar".

[jdonn]

You can't have everything.

I think that's the only point he is trying to make, and that thus it needn't be necessarily true that defending over a lower opening that shows the same hand is easier. I would like to say no one disagrees, but earlier in the thread someone said:

 

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

 

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

 

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

 

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

[Mbodell]

You can't have everything.

I think that's the only point he is trying to make, and that thus it needn't be necessarily true that defending over a lower opening that shows the same hand is easier.

I think my proviso that a cheaper bid be legal if partner isn't allowed to pass it until opponents bid or you reach that "natural allowed" level ought to be even easier to defend and allows constructive transfer opening bids.

[rbforster]

the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening.

Actually it is inherently easier to defend because there is more space to show more hand types, so any well constructed defense will be better over this 1♦ than over a normal 1♥. In Akare's example, you get both X and 1♥ to show different strength of takeout bids (say 1♥ with 9-14 and X with 15+), which is clearly a very valuable thing to add in competitive auctions so partner will know not to hang you.

 

We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid.

It's true that there's not an obvious way to way always be better off, under all possible distributions. That's not to say that you aren't better off however, because of the relative likelihoods of the hand types catered to in the defense. Which is more likely for you to have when they open showing 4+ hearts?

 

1) a strong unbalanced hand with hearts (unsuitable for NT), or

2) a marginal takeout double of hearts

 

Obviously the 1st one is much less likely, while the second is probably the "prototypical" hand to hold given their opening. So while it's true that the first one will lose out if, after passing, they pass 1♦ and further partner is unable to balance. But the second one loses out in standard when they open 1♥, you pass (being too weak to X), and then your side gets shut out of the auction.

 

In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

I strongly believe that it is definitely easier to defend, and furthermore that you would wish for them to open 1♦ transfer whenever they would have opened a "normal" 1♥ and expect to do considerably better on expectation in those auctions. Of course when they open 1♠ it will be harder, but it's harder when they open 1♠ regardless of what it means just because there's less space for the other side. Furthermore openings that tend to deny the suit bid (1♠ showing diamonds has <4 spades playing canape) are "almost forcing" and as such are easier to defend if you design your defense to give useful meanings to both initial and delayed actions (in the same way we ridicule transfer preempts).

 

Just because you can't "ignore the transfer" and get a defense that is in all ways better than the normal defense doesn't mean your defense isn't better.

[straube]

the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening.

 

Actually it is inherently easier to defend because there is more space to show more hand types, so any well constructed defense will be better over this 1♦ than over a normal 1♥. In Akare's example, you get both X and 1♥ to show different strength of takeout bids (say 1♥ with 9-14 and X with 15+), which is clearly a very valuable thing to add in competitive auctions so partner will know not to hang you.

 

But is it easier to defend an artificial diamond showing hearts or a one diamond bid showing diamonds?

[rbforster]

But is it easier to defend an artificial diamond showing hearts or a one diamond bid showing diamonds?

Easier to defend 1♦ showing hearts. Just suppose 1♦ was 100% forcing - now it's clearly easier to defend since you get to arrange both direct bids and delayed bids to show extra hand types. Now 1♦ showing hearts isn't 100% forcing, but passing 1♦ when it shows hearts and nothing about diamonds will often lead to a silly contract (and a poor score for them) so it's very close to forcing. On the other hand, 1♥ showing hearts is an easy pass with most weak hands, not just weak hands with long diamonds.

[Free]

Wether it's easier or more difficult to defend against is actually completely irrelevant imo. It's easier to defend against a strong 2M opening than against a weak 2M opening. Should you therefor disallow weak two's? Similar with various NT ranges.

 

Btw, you can play a simple defense against transfer openings (example 1♦ showing 4+♥):

Dbl = ♦

1♥ = takeout (as you'd bid 1♥(N)-X)

Other bids like opener started with 1♥(N)

 

Now, if your partner would pass the 1♥(N)-X, he can pass your 1♥ takeout. If they'd go down in 1♥, you'll make 1♥ (worst case is +80 instead of +200). You won't get the juicy penalty if they'd go -2 or more, but you can't really expect them to go -2 or more (transfer opening or not). They have a canapé opening, so if they don't have a decent ♥ fit they'll run to the other suit anyway!

 

Basically there's no real argument in banning transfer openings, canapé or not: you can have the irrelevant discussion if it's easier or more difficult to defend against, but it still has a constructive purpose and there's a 4 card suit known. If it's better to open in another suit, then it's just better and not a reason to ban it.

[paulg]

As I've mentioned previously, the most awkward system we come across in England is the Submarine Club, where 1♥ shows spades and 1♠ shows hearts. The prime issue is that we only see it for 8-12 boards a year and don't really develop any experience of defending it.

 

But I don't think it should be banned (unlike many!). It is disruptive, in the sense of unfamiliar, but not destructive in nature - I'm sure its advocates would say that it is technically superior and that is why it is effective.

 

As Free implies, unfamiliarity is not sufficient justification for banning a simple transfer opening. Unless you wish to ban ALL transfers :)

 

Paul

[helene_t]

I think it goes very far to ban transfer openings.

 

Despite AWM's valid concerns I think overall they are easier to defend than natural openings because

-you can agree to put some awkward hands in the direct cuebid

-you will get a second shot more often

-partner will often not be under pressure to bid over your double.

 

A better reason to ban them would be that they are unfamiliar so it may not be obvious to p what e.g. a direct cuebid means.

 

But I still think this goes too far. Almost all jurisdictions allow:

- destructive openings without an anchor suit (multi, mini-1NT)

- all kind of weird destructive actions over opps strong 1♣

- constructive openings which may or may not have length in the opening suit (mini-roman, neboulous minor suit openings)

- light 4-card major openings

- transfers in all kind of other situations

- transfer preempts

 

Given that those are allowed, it seems arbitrary to ban transfer openings. Transfer openings are constructive tools, they are easy to defend, and although unfamiliar they do build on familiar principles. A partnership who has a defense against T-Walsh could very quickly agree to play something analogous against transfer openings, and even without discussion they have a good chance of getting it right.

 

All that said, I think it is important that the charter is simple, and AWM's charter is simple and not unreasonable (assuming that one wants a level of restriction at approximately that level). It happens to follow from AWM's charter that transfer openings are only allowed if they promise a 5-card anchor suit or if they promise 10+ points. I could personally live with that.

[Fluffy]

One question about current regulations:

 

In my relay system I can ask about aces at a low level, then I ahve a relay about asking wich ones are them.

 

When 2 aces are shown the answers are same color, sange range and neither of the former.

 

The guy askign should know wich ones looking at the ace in his hand but one of the opponents won't. Is this encrypted bidding?, is it allowed?

[blackshoe]

No. Yes.

[shintaro]

:D

 

Tis just like Roman Blackwood using CRO and is not encrypted and fully permissible

 

:)

[mycroft]

What is not allowed is to have followups where, the next relay asks for kings up the line if partner has the red aces, but denial kings if partner has the black aces (and, presumably, relay+1 is the opposite case).

 

The classic (constructed) example is 2C-2S promising 5 spades to 2/top3. Now, 3C asks for H control if missing the A, D control if missing the K, or C control if missing the Q. Since the 2C bidder has the missing honour, everything's clear; since until dummy comes down, the opponents have a blind lead. It can be followed, of course with 4C being a cuebid for spades with the A, a diamond suit-set with the K, and a heart suit-set with the Q, and so on.

[helene_t]

I thought encrypted bidding was generally allowed. Which NBOs disallow them?

[akhare]

What is not allowed is to have followups where, the next relay asks for kings up the line if partner has the red aces, but denial kings if partner has the black aces (and, presumably, relay+1 is the opposite case).

BTW, if your opponents want to try out these methods, you should really encourage them :P.

 

RobF and I tried it out in a bidding room one day and it gave us a headache. Anything that causes the opponents to voluntarily sap their mental energy can only be good for our side B)...

[rbforster]

I thought encrypted bidding was generally allowed. Which NBOs disallow them?

It is, and per Akare's comment, it was certainly a headache for us but we didn't try it out that long.

 

In the ACBL, only encrypted carding is disallowed. Bidding is legal or not subject to whether the bids are legal per the relevant chart. To the extent they are artificial, they need to be allowed for that use (such as being game forcing, or starting with opener's rebid for example on GCC), but the possible encrypted meaning doesn't have any additional restriction.

[gerry]

However, the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening. We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid. In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

It seems to me that the argument that 1♦=♥ canape is not easier to defend than 1♥ natural canape comes down to the fact that the opening side has an extra place to play. Thus there is a trade-off in the utility of this extra step. Taken to extremes is a 3nt=♥ canape difficult to defend? Of course-if your object is to have a constructive auction, but the opening side has lost all the possible sensible places to play below 3nt which (i presume in this case) more than makes up for this difficulty.

[bluecalm]

I think banning transfer opening is really bad idea. We shouldn't base system regulations on what we are used to because it's the very best way to tame all progress.

 

I think what should be taken into account is how likely is given agreement encourage cheating (mainly non conscious one) and violating full disclosure rule.

I feel for example that alternative openings from strong pass systems like:

 

1♠ = 0-2♠ or 6+♠ 8-12hcp. Is big problem. Same goes for alternative 2suiters like:

 

2♥ = either 6♠ or 5-5minors (popular in Poland).

 

I feel that pair using those methods will have hard time explaining everything to the opponents. They will often not realize how many agreements they have there and opponents should be entitled to know exactly how given hands would usually react to such opening. Other thing is that without screens there is just too much room for UI to be passed around.

 

This is why I would allow only openings which has "simple meanings". For example this set of rules sounds reasonable to me:

 

Allowed:

a)any opening which promises 4+ cards in known suit

b)any opening which promises continuous hcp range and contains balance distribution in at least 2hcp range.

 

So with this rules:

-multi would be illegal

-polish club/precision/scandi club etc. would all be legal (1♦ from precision contains balanced shape)

-alternative 2suiters would be illegal

-most existing forcing pass systems would be illegal (because most of them contain openings with alternative meanings) but forcing pass in principle wouldn't be illegal as you could try to construct system like:

PASS = 13+

1♦ = 0-7any

1♣ = 8-12 without 5card major

1♥/1♠ = 5+cards etc.

-2♣/2♦/2♥ promising majors 4+-4+ would of course be all legal

-transfer preempts would be legal

 

I feel that those are very reasonable and acceptable for most system designers as well as "traditional" players.

 

EDIT:

 

I just realized that openings which says something about shortness in given suit wouldn't be legal in most cases; maybe a) should be rewritten as : "any opening which promises continuous length in given suit";

[Free]

~snip~

I just realized that openings which says something about shortness in given suit wouldn't be legal in most cases; maybe a) should be rewritten as : "any opening which promises continuous length in given suit";

I know people playing 1M openings as either 4 (canapé) or 6+ cards. It's easy to rebid (always natural and longest suit) and I'm not sure why this is a problem, but you don't allow this. Obviously "0-2 or 6+" is more difficult to handle. You could make exceptions based on the difference in suit length, or the minimum suit length, but then you'd be making rules to allow and ban specific methods.

 

Banning systems because of non-continuous suit length or HCP range is imo not the way to go, because you're getting too precise.

[helene_t]

Try to make a pair playing stone-age Acol (or SAYC, or Culbertson) explain exactly what their (say) 1♣-opening shows. Of course it is not like "12+points, 4+ (or 3+) clubs". Plenty of hands that satisfy that criterion would not open 1♣, either because another suit is longer, because they have to cater to a rebid problem, because another suit is equally long and takes preference according to some complex criterion, because the hand is within the range of a 1NT or 2NT opening, or because the hand is too strong.

 

So if the criterion was "only simple systems allowed", the consequence might well be that "natural" systems would be banned and we would all play easy-to-formalize stuff like for example Moscito.

 

Most people suck at explaining their methods. This is true regardless of what methods they play. If methods that are inherently difficult to disclose should be banned, I think natural systems would have to be banned. I am not arguing that, though. If a pair can't explain their methods if they play the X-system but can if they play the Y-system, then that particular pair will have to play the Y-system in order to avoid MI issues. For other pairs it may be different.

[bluecalm]

Acol 1♣ contain balanced hand with at least 2hcp range :(

 

I know people playing 1M openings as either 4 (canapé) or 6+ cards. It's easy to rebid (always natural and longest suit) and I'm not sure why this is a problem, but you don't allow this. Obviously "0-2 or 6+" is more difficult to handle. You could make exceptions based on the difference in suit length, or the minimum suit length, but then you'd be making rules to allow and ban specific methods.

 

Well, right. Intuitively it should be legal.

 

My only beef is only with alternative meanings of opening. It's not that they are difficult to defend (if so, let's be it) but they will in practice produce violations of full disclosure rule as well as giving UI's all the time.

Maybe there are better ways to formulate the rules. I think my initial 2 were quite clear and good. No doubt there are better solutions though.

[awm]

Most systems have aspects which are difficult to disclose. It's easy to give examples:

 

"Standard" 1♦ opening. What's the notrump range and how light do you open balanced hands? When (if ever) do you open 1♦ with 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors vs. 1♣? Could you have a longer club suit, and if so how do you decide between opening 1♦ or 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors? How much do you upgrade for shape on unbalanced hands (i.e. could this be a nine-count with seven diamonds)? Could you have a five-card major, and if so does this place additional restrictions on strength/suit quality? Might you choose to open a very strong four-card major rather than a weak diamond suit? How frequently do you open 1NT with a stiff honor vs. opening 1♦ on the same point range?

 

Moscito 1♦ opening (showing 4+ hearts). Could you have a longer spade suit, and if so when? Can you hold a balanced hand for this bid, and if so how do you decide between 1♦ vs. 1NT when in range? When would you open 1♦ with a four-card heart suit and six-card minor vs. opening 1♠ or 2♣? Do you always open hands at the bottom of your stated point range, or is it suit quality and/or distribution and/or vulnerability dependent? If you have a hand that potentially qualifies for both a bottom-of-the-range 1♦ opening and also for a preempt in hearts (depending on your preemptive openings) how do you decide which opening to make? How aggressively do you upgrade shapely hands with less than 15 "high card points" into the 1♣ opening (if at all)?

 

Basically, these disclosure issues exist regardless of system. Sometimes the more "standard" systems require less disclosure because they are more familiar, but this also creates a risk that opponents fail to ask because they think they know the style when they don't. My experience is that most players are very bad at disclosing this kind of information when asked a general question like "explain the bidding" but that good players normally will answer when asked specific questions. Obviously it might be nice if people didn't require so much specific prompting (and thus I could ask these things with less risk of UI to partner). However, I don't think this is really a reason to ban one system rather than another (as bluecalm suggested), or to substantially change the disclosure rules so that people don't have to answer these questions (as Dirk suggested).

 

In principle there might be systems which are just hard to disclose. The typical example is a system where the various openings show one of a large number of distinct possibilities that are hard to keep straight/deal with. However, I don't think any of the systems commonly played today (including the strong pass ones) really have this issue -- a good general idea of the opening can normally be imparted quite quickly (and the above questions can be answered if asked).

[mgoetze]

Most systems have aspects which are difficult to disclose. It's easy to give examples:

 

"Standard" 1♦ opening. What's the notrump range and how light do you open balanced hands? When (if ever) do you open 1♦ with 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors vs. 1♣? Could you have a longer club suit, and if so how do you decide between opening 1♦ or 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors? How much do you upgrade for shape on unbalanced hands (i.e. could this be a nine-count with seven diamonds)? Could you have a five-card major, and if so does this place additional restrictions on strength/suit quality? Might you choose to open a very strong four-card major rather than a weak diamond suit? How frequently do you open 1NT with a stiff honor vs. opening 1♦ on the same point range?

 

Moscito 1♦ opening (showing 4+ hearts). Could you have a longer spade suit, and if so when? Can you hold a balanced hand for this bid, and if so how do you decide between 1♦ vs. 1NT when in range? When would you open 1♦ with a four-card heart suit and six-card minor vs. opening 1♠ or 2♣? Do you always open hands at the bottom of your stated point range, or is it suit quality and/or distribution and/or vulnerability dependent? If you have a hand that potentially qualifies for both a bottom-of-the-range 1♦ opening and also for a preempt in hearts (depending on your preemptive openings) how do you decide which opening to make? How aggressively do you upgrade shapely hands with less than 15 "high card points" into the 1♣ opening (if at all)?

Right, but here's the funny bit: experienced Moscito players can and will answer all these questions and in fact will probably answer a few of them without prompting (e.g. may contain a 5-card minor but not a 6-card minor is probably pretty standard disclosure).

 

Most experienced "Standard" players will look at you as if you were a demented child if you asked them these questions.

 

So, which players are more ethical, and what system is "better for the game"?