WBF Philly Systems

[paulg]

Interestingly the system submission deadline for RED (artificial) systems has passed even though the entry deadline has not, so presumably no-one entering now will be playing a RED system.

 

The list of artificial systems on show is not daunting as there are only six. Apparently there is only going to be one Polish Club system on show in the entire event. Only two pairs are playing natural methods where 1♣ may be opened on a 2-card suit. I find this surprising as most of the top Italian, Dutch and Scandinavian experts who are not playing a strong club system do actually play a non-forcing 1♣ as showing 2+ clubs.

 

I spent some considerable time trying to get a ruling from the WBF on whether this short club system would be a GREEN or RED system. Finally I received an answer:

 

"I am told to ask you to have a look at the Systems Policy, a copy of which is attached, Paul.

 

"You will see there that a 1C opener that can be two cards is artificial. Artificial systems are Red category."

Unfortunately it appears that the WBF have not anyone else of this decision.

 

The decision to force people to pre-submit RED systems is contrary to the advice in its own System Policy, which suggests that it should be voluntary for Red, Green and Blue system. It also completely misses the point that BLUE (Strong Club/Diamond) systems can be extremely artificial but these pairs do not have to pre-submit the systems.

 

This is not a policy that gives a fair and equal chance for all competitors and I feel that it makes the WBF look amateurish and incompetent.

 

And it would have been so easy to be fair. Just make the system submission voluntary and publish the decisions of the WBF Systems Committee.

 

Paul

[Free]

I always thought that BLUE systems needed to have natural continuations. So I looked it up and it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

MOSCITO is BLUE w00t! :o But you can't change the meanings in 3rd and 4th seat though... :unsure:

[paulg]

I always thought that BLUE systems needed to have natural continuations. So I looked it up and it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

MOSCITO is BLUE w00t! :D But you can't change the meanings in 3rd and 4th seat though... :(

I did not think of MOSCITO, but did consider that preparing for something like Magic Diamond is more important than preparing for a short club system!

[helene_t]

While short club may seem vanilla, it is hard to formalize these rules so that they become both simple, coherent and in accordance with common sense. After all, a 2+ 1♣ opening doesn't have an anchor suit, is not forcing, and doesn't promise much strength. On what (simple) basis can one say that it's a vanilla method?

[paulg]

While short club may seem vanilla, it is hard to formalize these rules so that they become both simple, coherent and in accordance with common sense. After all, a 2+ 1♣ opening doesn't have an anchor suit, is not forcing, and doesn't promise much strength. On what (simple) basis can one say that it's a vanilla method?

I don't mind a short club being called Red.

 

However I note that it was different at the Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai, as Jan wrote on 21 August 2007 on these forums,

 

"Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1C opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted."

 

My real issues are that the WBF does not publish, or even give out, consistent information and this leads to different interpretations which is unfair, and secondly it should treat Red and Blue systems equally.

[NickRW]

While short club may seem vanilla, it is hard to formalize these rules so that they become both simple, coherent and in accordance with common sense. After all, a 2+ 1♣ opening doesn't have an anchor suit, is not forcing, and doesn't promise much strength. On what (simple) basis can one say that it's a vanilla method?

Well, I don't disagree - but if you're going to say that opening a 4=4=3=2 outside the NT range when playing 5cM with 1♣ is artificial, then I don't really see why opening 1♣ with (43)33 and 4=4=2=3 is a whole lot more natural. The dividing lines are really quite arbitrary. Just sayin'...

[JanM]

I agree with you that it didn't make sense to require advance submission of Red and not Blue systems. But I think the real problem is that the whole color classification hasn't worked. The Systems Policy defines Polish Club as Red, but the people who play it have NEVER known that - they don't put "Red" on their convention cards and they don't file the system when Red systems are supposed to be filed. And they're right - it isn't really very unusual these days. I think it was probably specifically defined in the Systems Policy because when that was originally written, playing Polish Club was unusual.

 

I guess the problem is that Red was supposed to be somewhere in between Green ("natural") and Yellow ("Highly Unusual"), but that's a lot of territory and players have (sensibly) decided that the part of that territory that's pretty close to Green shouldn't be treated in the same way as the part that's close to Yellow. My 1♣ opening can be a 2 card suit with a balanced hand; it didn't even occur to me to file my convention card in advance. I looked at the 6 cards that have been filed and none of them seemed to me to be systems that needed any advance preparation.

 

I don't know what the solution is - just ignoring the color classifications (which is mostly what people do) or trying to make more sense out of them.

 

Incidentally, if we're talking about WBF Systems stuff "pet peeves," mine is the people who don't understand the point of the "Special Bids that May Require Defense" section of the card. It constantly amazes me the things I see on the back of cards that aren't mentioned there.

[mycroft]

Well, as I pointed out many years ago (after other people pointed out the regs), the Polish system disclosure rules are effectively "WBF, but 1C clubs or weak NT or strong in an otherwise GREEN system is GREEN". And because it's so close to WBF rules, they don't notice. I mourn, however, that there is nobody involved in getting Polish teams to World Championships that doesn't vet the cards that are to be submitted, and *does* know the difference. Oh well.

[Cascade]

I guess the problem is that Red was supposed to be somewhere in between Green ("natural") and Yellow ("Highly Unusual"), but that's a lot of territory and players have (sensibly) decided that the part of that territory that's pretty close to Green shouldn't be treated in the same way as the part that's close to Yellow. My 1♣ opening can be a 2 card suit with a balanced hand; it didn't even occur to me to file my convention card in advance. I looked at the 6 cards that have been filed and none of them seemed to me to be systems that needed any advance preparation.

I would have thought that deliberately ignoring the regulations rather than being "(sensible)" was reprehensible.

 

It is a very convenient view to promulgate and endeavour to make popular that your pet method that is natural when in fact it is not natural but artificial - one could argue that there are not many agreements that are more artificial than one that allows you to open in your shortest suit.

 

In the past the WBF have been conned by these convenient arguments particularly in Shanghai when they wrongly ruled that a "short" 1♣ was 'natural' and disallowed opponents who had properly prepared Brown Sticker Defenses to the "short" 1♣ to play those defenses. My understanding is that at least for later tournaments that wayward ruling has been overturned. The ruling was wrong because it was contrary to their announced regulations.

 

I hope that the WBF follows through its regulations and does not allow players who have ignored the deadline for submission of Red systems including "short" 1♣ from playing those systems. This would be fitting punishment for their reprehensible behaviour of deliberately ignoring the regulations.

[JanM]

I hope that the WBF follows through its regulations and does not allow players who have ignored the deadline for submission of Red systems including "short" 1♣ from playing those systems. This would be fitting punishment for their reprehensible behaviour of deliberately ignoring the regulations.

What makes you think that a "short" 1♣ opening makes an entire system Red? Nowhere in the System Regulations does it say so. The definition of Red systems specifies that a 3-way 1♣ (natural or balanced or strong) makes a system Red, but those of us who don't include a strong club in our 1♣ opening aren't covered by that, and obviously one "artificial" opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red, else all systems would be Red (at least I have yet to see any system without at least one artificial opening bid).

[paulg]

In the past the WBF have been conned by these convenient arguments particularly in Shanghai when they wrongly ruled that a "short" 1♣ was 'natural' and disallowed opponents who had properly prepared Brown Sticker Defenses to the "short" 1♣ to play those defenses. My understanding is that at least for later tournaments that wayward ruling has been overturned. The ruling was wrong because it was contrary to their announced regulations.

 

I hope that the WBF follows through its regulations and does not allow players who have ignored the deadline for submission of Red systems including "short" 1♣ from playing those systems. This would be fitting punishment for their reprehensible behaviour of deliberately ignoring the regulations.

I would be more sympathetic to this view if the WBF Systems Committee had responded promptly to my question as to whether a short club system were red or green. Instead it took them six months NOT to answer my question and only numerous requests to Anna Gudge generated the OP quote from an unnamed committee member.

 

And who knows whether the Shanghai ruling is still in place?

[paulg]

I hope that the WBF follows through its regulations and does not allow players who have ignored the deadline for submission of Red systems including "short" 1♣ from playing those systems. This would be fitting punishment for their reprehensible behaviour of deliberately ignoring the regulations.

What makes you think that a "short" 1♣ opening makes an entire system Red? Nowhere in the System Regulations does it say so. The definition of Red systems specifies that a 3-way 1♣ (natural or balanced or strong) makes a system Red, but those of us who don't include a strong club in our 1♣ opening aren't covered by that, and obviously one "artificial" opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red, else all systems would be Red (at least I have yet to see any system without at least one artificial opening bid).

I specifically asked this question and received the answer from Anna Gudge that I stated in the opening post.

 

"I am told to ask you to have a look at the Systems Policy, a copy of which is attached, Paul.

"You will see there that a 1C opener that can be two cards is artificial. Artificial systems are Red category."

 

I agree it is not very sensible nor helpful, but this is the response from the WBF Secretariat.

 

I would also note that the three-way system mentioned in the policy is an example, not a definition. The definition is artificial.

[blackshoe]

…at least I have yet to see any system without at least one artificial opening bid.

EHAA?

 

Okay, I doubt that's played at this level. :)

[Cascade]

I hope that the WBF follows through its regulations and does not allow players who have ignored the deadline for submission of Red systems including "short" 1♣ from playing those systems. This would be fitting punishment for their reprehensible behaviour of deliberately ignoring the regulations.

What makes you think that a "short" 1♣ opening makes an entire system Red? Nowhere in the System Regulations does it say so. The definition of Red systems specifies that a 3-way 1♣ (natural or balanced or strong) makes a system Red, but those of us who don't include a strong club in our 1♣ opening aren't covered by that, and obviously one "artificial" opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red, else all systems would be Red (at least I have yet to see any system without at least one artificial opening bid).

What makes you think that playing an artificial one-level opening in a suit means that you can call your system GREEN.

 

A check mark is required. I will think you will find that the default is RED that is certainly what I have been told in the past when i have enquired.

[Cascade]

Further this is what is written in the Guide to Completion of the WBF system card.

 

"2.1. SYSTEM CATEGORY

Indicate the nature of your system by designating a colour as described in the WBF Systems Policy (to which you should now refer).

Unless your system is obviously HIGHLY UNUSUAL (Yellow) or obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL (Green) or employs an always-STRONG CLUB (Blue), you might have some trouble with this one. The catchall classification for everything else is RED (artificial). "

 

Since you have an obviously artifical 1♣ opener I think it is disingenuous to suggest that your system is "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

 

The fact that your pet method is commonly played does not make it "NATURAL". "NATURAL" is defined in the regulations and a short 1♣ does not meet the definition. Therefore it cannot possibly be thought of as "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

 

The artificiality in a short 1♣ is comparable to the artificiality in a multi-2♦ in that you deprive the opponents of a cue-bid (or alternatively a natural bid in some suit if as many do over 1♣ they maintain club bids in many auctions as cue-bids).

 

In fact by a straightforward reading of the system regulation the short club bid meets the definition of HUM - it shows shortage - 2-cards or fewer - or length - 3 or more - in clubs. It maybe that this is not the intention but it illustrates the level of artificiality in the method.

 

Someone will complain and say that two cards exactly is not "two cards or fewer" and therefore not shortage. However suppose I introduce an opening bid that shows specifically a void in spades - is that a shortage. Why yes of course you say but no by the same argument it is precisely zero cards not 'two cards or fewer'. It is a much simpler reading to interpret the definition as meaning 'two cards or fewer or any subset of that'. This matches much better with what is generally understood as shortage - afterall we call it a "short" 1♣.

[jdonn]

Since you have an obviously artifical 1♣ opener I think it is disingenuous to suggest that your system is "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

I disagree. A bid that is one card in minimum length of one bid from being part of a system that is "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" (does it really say 'NATURAL' or merely 'natural'? I feel like I'm being shouted at when I read words completely in uppercase letters) is arguably also "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

 

It is fairly easy to see both sides of that argument (the regulation does say "fairly" after all) and I don't think the insinuation that someone who disagrees with you is being disingenuous is fair.

 

I also think your comparison to multi is unfair. That someone may or may not want a natural club bid over a 2+ 1♣ opening as opposed to a 3+ 1♣ opening has nothing to do with the definition of either 1♣ or the system as natural or artificial. It has to do with the different minimum lengths required, but the cutoff betwen natural and artificial is arbitrary and meaningless in that context. After all you are more likely to want a natural diamond bid over a 3+ 1♦ opening than a 4+ 1♦ opening but they are both defined as natural and treated the same by the regulations.

[Cascade]

Since you have an obviously artifical 1♣ opener I think it is disingenuous to suggest that your system is "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

I disagree. A bid that is one card in minimum length of one bid from being part of a system that is "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" (does it really say 'NATURAL' or merely 'natural'? I feel like I'm being shouted at when I read words completely in uppercase letters) is arguably also "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL".

 

It is fairly easy to see both sides of that argument (the regulation does say "fairly" after all) and I don't think the insinuation that someone who disagrees with you is being disingenuous is fair.

 

I also think your comparison to multi is unfair. That someone may or may not want a natural club bid over a 2+ 1♣ opening as opposed to a 3+ 1♣ opening has nothing to do with the definition of either 1♣ or the system as natural or artificial. It has to do with the different minimum lengths required, but the cutoff betwen natural and artificial is arbitrary and meaningless in that context. After all you are more likely to want a natural diamond bid over a 3+ 1♦ opening than a 4+ 1♦ opening but they are both defined as natural and treated the same by the regulations.

I cut and paste so yes "NATURAL" not "natural" or similar.

 

I think it is disingenuous to argue that something that is 'obviously not natural' is 'obviously fairly straightforward natural'.

 

1. It is not "obvious"

 

2. It is not "fair"

 

3. It is not "straightforward" - maybe in some senses it is close to straightforward

 

4. It is not "natural".

 

Jan has already suggested in this thread that it is "sensible" to ignore the regulations. It certainly seems to me that she is arguing that she wants to continue to ignore the regulations in this situation to her benefit. I would call that disingenuous and self-serving.

 

It is not a position that I would be proud to argue.

[jdonn]

You keep meaning different things by "it" or other pronouns. For example when you say

 

I think it is disingenuous to argue that something that is 'obviously not natural' is 'obviously fairly straightforward natural'."

then no one has made that claim, because though 1♣ is "obviously not natural", the system including 1♣ may or may not be "obviously fairly straightforward natural".

 

Even if 1♣ promises 3+ they may play a strong and artificial 2♣ opening, but I would argue such a bid doesn't prevent a system from being 'obviously fairly straightforward natural'. So having 1 (or X) artificial bid(s) in a system doesn't automatically make the system artificial.

 

I also dispute this characterization:

 

1. It is not "obvious"

 

2. It is not "fair"

 

3. It is not "straightforward" - maybe in some senses it is close to straightforward

 

4. It is not "natural".

Separating the words in that way changes the meaning of the phrase. For example, whether something is "fair" has nothing to do with whether it is "fairly ____". That was actually quite a ridiculous thing to say, it's like if I argue manure is "hardly delicious" and you disagree because manure is not "hard".

 

After all I could argue 1♣ showing 2+ is

 

1. 'Obviously straightforward' since it's easy to explain and relatively common in many circles, and

 

2. 'Fairly natural' since it's 1 card away from being natural.

 

But that also changes the meaning of the phrase (and is not relevant anyway since again, we should be discussing the system including the bid rather than the bid itself).

 

Frankly I don't even know what "straightforward natural" means since straightforward and natural have two different meanings. So it's easy to see how people could disagree about such a thing (again, all the more when it says "fairly") and I still think you should have more of an open mind about different viewpoints here.

[awm]

It seems reasonable to believe that there is a difference between a "natural bid" and a "natural system." The opening 1♣ which "could be as short as two" is clearly not a natural bid by any reasonable definition of the term. Of course, one might want to treat it as natural when designing a defense... but then again one might not.

 

However, "natural systems" often include some non-natural bids. For example, an artificial and strong 2♣ opening is certainly not a natural bid. A lot of people playing green ("natural") systems include such a 2♣ opening as well as possibly an artificial 2♦ opening. What makes the system "natural" is a tendency to (usually) open with a call in the longest suit with only occasional exceptions. It seems to me that choosing to open 1♣ on 4432 hands, or even on 4342/3442 hands, does not change the fact that the vast majority of times we're opening the longest suit. This modification doesn't seem sufficient to change a green system into red.

 

Similarly, I think there's a difference between blue systems like precision (where there is a strong and artificial 1♣, but hands in the 11-14 hcp range are usually opened in the longest suit except for a few balanced hands being lumped into 1♦) and systems like Moscito (which I really think should be classed as red) where virtually all openings are artificial.

[Cascade]

Why does "fairly" not convey the same meaning as "fair". It is the most prominent meaning in my dictionary.

 

Sure there are other less formal interpretations but these are some of things I found in the dictionary for "fairly":

 

in a fair manner; justly or honestly; impartially; properly; legitimately; clearly; distinctly.

 

I would have thought that the meaning of a phrase comes from the words that are used.

 

I really don't see why it is not so that "obviously" means it needs to be obvious, "fairly" means it needs to be fair, "straightforward" means it needs to be straightforward and "natural" means it needs to be natural. In combination it needs all meet all of those qualifications to apply.

 

I have an open mind.

 

However over a long period of time certain sections of the bridge community have fought to impose restrictions on other members of the community. So much so that some players have been not allowed to to play and discouraged from developing their preferred methods. Or only allowed to play those methods with onerous restrictions placed on them and their teams.

 

When those same sort of restrictions are imposed on the protagonists it is interesting to observe their reactions.

 

Jan's suggestion that it is sensible to ignore the regulations is close to the worst of it. To me this is tantamount to cheating - deliberately ignoring the rules.

 

If by open my mind you mean that I should consider that it is acceptable to advocate deliberately ignoring the rules then I am afraid I cannot accept your position or that which Jan advocates.

[jdonn]

Why does "fairly" not convey the same meaning as "fair". It is the most prominent meaning in my dictionary.

 

Sure there are other less formal interpretations but these are some of things I found in the dictionary for "fairly":

 

in a fair manner; justly or honestly; impartially; properly; legitimately; clearly; distinctly.

You are playing games with words. There are many definitions that don't describe how the worst being used in the quoted regulation, and none of them have anything to do with this discussion. The definition that is obviously intended here is the one I see in the dictionary as "moderately; tolerably" such as "a fairly heavy rain".

 

I would have thought that the meaning of a phrase comes from the words that are used.

Also the form, order, and combination of the words. "Clearly overweight" does not mean "clear as well as overweight". "Obviously fairly straightforward natural" certainly does not mean "obvious and fair and straightforward and natural" (what would it even mean for a bridge system to be "obvious" or "fair"?) It means "It is obvious the system is fairly straightforward and it is obvious the system is fairly natural."

 

I happen to think that Jan's system, from what I know of it, fits that. Obviously it is fairly straightforward, since you generally open in your longest suit or notrump on some ranges of balanced hands and it's very similar to systems that are commonly played in many places in the world. And obviously it is fairly natural since I believe all but 2 opening bids are natural (or does she play multi as well?) and of the 2 artificial opening bids, one is merely one card in minimum length from being natural.

 

But you could reasonably disagree with me on one or both of those points and I probably wouldn't believe you were being disingenuous.

 

I really don't see why it is not so that "obviously" means it needs to be obvious, "fairly" means it needs to be fair, "straightforward" means it needs to be straightforward and "natural" means it needs to be natural. In combination it needs all meet all of those qualifications to apply.

That is completely wrong. Go back to my example.

 

For manure to be "hardly delicious" would you argue that manure must be hard and manure must be delicious?

[Cascade]

It seems to me that choosing to open 1♣ on 4432 hands, or even on 4342/3442 hands, does not change the fact that the vast majority of times we're opening the longest suit. This modification doesn't seem sufficient to change a green system into red.

That is a convenient view if your preferred methods includes a 1♣ could be short opening and you want to avoid restrictions and advanced disclosure of your methods.

 

However the WBF system regulations make it clear that one bid - their example is some sort of Polish club - can make a system RED. There is nothing in those regulations to suggest that an artificial Standard American short club would not also make the system RED.

 

Why should Standard American be protected and Standard Polish be not protected?

 

Opening all 4333, 4432 and 4333 outside a 15-17 range with 1♣ means that in excess of 15% of your 1-level suit openings are not in your longest suit.

 

Maybe you consider that a vast majority. However that seems a significant inconvenience to me. I have no problem with inconveniencing the opponents by your methods but claiming that you open not in your longest suit 15% of the time and then still claiming your system is natural seems way off to me.

[blackshoe]

When I first read the phrase, I took "fairly" to mean "to an acceptable extent". I still take it that way. So I agree with Josh on that.

 

I have often wondered why systems with a natural 1♣ opening and an artificial 2♣ opening are considered "natural", while systems with an artificial 1♣ opening and a natural 2♣ opening are considered "artificial". It seems an artificial distinction to me. :P

 

Of course, in this case we have a system with an artificial 1♣ opening and an artificial 2♣ opening. So it's not the same as either of the above. I suppose that in order to cover all the bases, the regulators might want to define a "natural system" as (for example) one in which all one level openings are natural. But they haven't done so. So we don't really know what they mean by "artificial system" or "natural system", do we? Well, there's the experience of what I mentioned in my previous paragraph, but is that really good enough when we're talking about regulations?

 

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

[jdonn]

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

Just to be clear in case you are referring to my comments, yes 1♣ showing 2+ clubs absolutely is artificial by definition. I'm not arguing that close to natural is just as good as natural. I'm arguing that 1 card away from natural is "fairly natural". After all, I would reasonably assume "fairly natural" doesn't mean the same thing as "natural" (else why say "fairly" at all?)

[Cascade]

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

Just to be clear in case you are referring to my comments, yes 1♣ showing 2+ clubs absolutely is artificial by definition. I'm not arguing that close to natural is just as good as natural. I'm arguing that 1 card away from natural is "fairly natural". After all, I would reasonably assume "fairly natural" doesn't mean the same thing as "natural" (else why say "fairly" at all?)

The regulation doesn't say "fairly natural".

 

It says "fairly straightforward NATURAL".

 

While it is clear that "fairly" qualifies "straightforward" it is not clear that is qualifies "NATURAL" especially when you read "fairly" in the way you are suggesting.

 

When I see "fairly straightforward" I think that it is reasonable and fair and simple method. Possible natural methods that might not be "fairly straightforward" would be Canape or maybe something with split ranges. Perhaps we need something more extreme.

 

"obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" seems to be made up of the components

 

1. It must be natural

 

2. It must be "fairly straightforward"

 

3. It must be obviously so

 

That is "fairly NATURAL" and "fairly straightforward NATURAL" would mean quite different things to me - using Josh's interpretation of "fairly".

 

Curiously I think in practice "fairly straightforward" would mean pretty much the same thing whether you think of "fairly" as meaning close to or meaning "fair".