WBF Philly Systems

[jdonn]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

[qwery_hi]

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).

If you don't have a strong option in your 1♣, then you have two "artificial" bids in your system, as opposed to SAYC which has only one. So obviously one artificial opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red doesn't apply.

[Cascade]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

 

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

 

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

 

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

 

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

 

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

 

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

[JanM]

I know I shouldn't get involved in these discussions, but somehow I forget. However:

 

1. I did not say and do not think that I was ignoring any regulation by not filing my WBF convention card in advance - what I said was that I did not believe my bidding system qualifies as a Red system so my convention card does not have to be filed in advance.

 

2. I did say that people who play Polish Club have consistently failed to recognize that the Systems Policy defines their system as Red.

 

3. I think that if the requirement that Red systems be filed in advance is to have any value, Red systems should be defined fairly narrowly (oops, there I am using "fairly" to mean "to a reasonable extent" not "in a fair manner;" I apologize if you don't understand me). I don't want to have to review 50 Polish Club convention cards to see if someone is playing a system for which I need to prepare in advance. It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

 

4. The language you quote about "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" systems being Green, and Red being a "catchall," does not appear in any regulation. It appears in the 70 page Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card. That document was Eric Kokish's attempt, a long time ago, to help people do a better job of completing the WBF Convention Card. It is distributed by the WBF, but is not a WBF regulation of any sort and it doesn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, it is so long that few people read it, and so far as I know it has not been updated since it was first written.

[mrdct]

The WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2002 (Adopted December 1994; amended October 1996, January 2000, August 2002, October 2007, October 2008 & September 2009) defines "natural" as:

a call or play that is not a convention [“special partnership understanding” as defined in Law 40B1(a)]

Law 40B1(a) defines "special partnership understanding" as:

A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

I would expect that a short 1♣ opening would be "readily understood and anticipated" by every man, woman and child playing at the World Bridge Series in Philadelphia so for the purposes of that event a short 1♣ opening ought to be considered a natural bid but it still comes down to the opinion of the Regulating Authority.

 

Quite bizaarely, the WBF Systems Policy does not actually define what "artificial" means, but I think it's implied that anything which is not "natural" is "artificial" on ordinary language principles.

 

The description of the "Red" system classification is quite confusing:

Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see ‘Blue’).

Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multimeaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet.

As per usual, the corresponding system regulations in Australia are far less ambiguous, defining Red Systems quite clearly as:

Red (Artificial) Systems

This category includes:

a. All systems employing artificial one-level openings that do not fall under the definition of Yellow (HUM) systems [see below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond (Blue) systems.

b. Any system in which the basic structure (other than the length of natural suit bids or the point range of openings) varies according to position and/or vulnerability.

In Australia a 1♣ opening that could be as short as 2 is an artificial one-level opening as it does not convey a "preparedness to play in the named denomination". However, we have a stated exception that "a 4432 shaped hand may be opened 1♣" amongst the definition of a Green System, so playing a short 1♣ will only make your system red if the bid includes 3442, 4342 or 3352 shapes (which is often the case for systems which roll all weak NT openings into the 1♣ bid).

[mich-b]

Perhaps , as bidding systems are developed, and trends change , so should the system classifications. Maybe all this debate can be easily solved by creating a new category (Orange?) , which means something like "natural , but all balanced hands out of the 1NT range are opened 1♣". Since this is getting popular, maybe the time has come for this to have it's own colour?

[paulg]

It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

It is my guess that the Systems Committee did not write the regulation in the Supplementary Conditions of Contest for Philly, but another arm of the WBF who had this (reasonable) expectation.

[Free]

The colour codes could be defined better for sure. Blue can be very artificial, but is usually considered in the same class as green.

 

Here in Belgium we also use the colour codes, but with slight nuances.

- Green is clearly defined: 5533/5542/4444 and 1-level openings are NF. I think 5443 is also considered green, since there's not a big difference anyway.

- A strong ♣/♦ system is blue only if the continuations are natural. This makes MOSCITO red for example.

- Yellow (HUM) is defined the same as WBF.

- All the rest is red.

 

With these rules it makes more sense to consider blue and green pretty much the same. Some openings may be different, but continuations are basic.

 

Remark: in Poland, any flavor of Polish club (multi-way 1♣ opening) is considered standard. Obviously they don't think it needs special attention. But on an international level it's considered artificial. I guess that's one of the reasons why it is specifically given as an example.

[jvage]

The Belgian colour-codes seems sensible. In Norway the codes were copied from WBF (before I became a member of the Laws Committee), making a system with 1♣-opening possibly with 4432 "Red" and no mention of follow-ups for strong 1♣/♦-systems ("Blue").

 

There are also no restrictions for the "catch-all"-bid in a strong 1♣/♦-system. We recently had a discussion about a system with a strong 1♦ opening where 1♣ is opened with long clubs OR long diamonds (no natural 2♣/♦) or balanced. As the regulations are written this would still be "Blue", the funny(?) consequence is that a system in which 1♣ can be opened with 4432 is (arguably) considered more artificial than a system where 1♣ can be opened "naturally" with 3370 :blink:

 

PS: We are discussing a revision of the Norwegian colour-codes. Currently a classification as "green", "blue" or "red" does not matter much in practice, since only HUM systems are restricted (only allowed for the top teams events where one must send system-notes to the opponents and seating restrictions may apply).

 

John

[Vampyr]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

But wouldn't that meaning likely be more clearly conveyed with "fairly straightforward and natural"? Plus there is the capitalised "NATURAL". I think that this makes it pretty clear that "straightforward" is modified by "fairly" and NATURAL is modified not at all.

[jdonn]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

 

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

 

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

 

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

 

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

 

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

 

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

Of course the word "fairly" implies judgment, so using ridiculous examples proves nothing and I would not consider them 'potholes' except for an unqualified driver.

[JoAnneM]

Want to avoid the frustration of all these rules? Come to the D20 Regional at beautiful Seaside, Oregon which is happening at the same time as Philadelphia - thank you very much ACBL (not). Oct 4-10 we would love to see you and all the great players who usually come.

[Cascade]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

 

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

 

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

 

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

 

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

 

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

 

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

Of course the word "fairly" implies judgment, so using ridiculous examples proves nothing and I would not consider them 'potholes' except for an unqualified driver.

I don't understand why my examples are ridiculous and yours is not.

[Cascade]

I know I shouldn't get involved in these discussions, but somehow I forget. However:

 

1. I did not say and do not think that I was ignoring any regulation by not filing my WBF convention card in advance - what I said was that I did not believe my bidding system qualifies as a Red system so my convention card does not have to be filed in advance.

 

2. I did say that people who play Polish Club have consistently failed to recognize that the Systems Policy defines their system as Red.

 

3. I think that if the requirement that Red systems be filed in advance is to have any value, Red systems should be defined fairly narrowly (oops, there I am using "fairly" to mean "to a reasonable extent" not "in a fair manner;" I apologize if you don't understand me). I don't want to have to review 50 Polish Club convention cards to see if someone is playing a system for which I need to prepare in advance. It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

 

4. The language you quote about "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" systems being Green, and Red being a "catchall," does not appear in any regulation. It appears in the 70 page Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card. That document was Eric Kokish's attempt, a long time ago, to help people do a better job of completing the WBF Convention Card. It is distributed by the WBF, but is not a WBF regulation of any sort and it doesn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, it is so long that few people read it, and so far as I know it has not been updated since it was first written.

In answer to your points:

 

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

 

You did say:

 

"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"

 

And it seems to me with your parenthetical use of "sensibly" that you approve of this action or rather rebellion by players.

 

I am sorry but I think that deliberately ignoring regulations is reprehensible.

 

The fact is that the regulators for Philadelphia have decreed that everything that is between GREEN and YELLOW needs to be filed in advance. The WBF have indicated that your short club is RED and therefore in that category.

 

Knowing that information I think a player would find it hard in good conscience to intend to turn up and play a RED system that they have not registered in advance.

 

2. Maybe they have I bet there are more short club players who have consistently failed to recognize that the System Policy defines their system as RED.

 

GREEN is natural. A short club is not natural. Repeating a mantra that it is or is fairly natural or just ignoring the regulations does not make it so.

 

3. They are defined as not NATURAL, not HUM.

 

I get the feeling that you don't really want to review any systems.

 

1♣ short is artificial, not natural I don't see why you think you should get some special allowance if you play that artificial method so that you do not have to follow the regulations.

 

Twisting the words and conveniently guessing the regulators motives do not change the fact that noone has registered to play a short club at the world championships. And therefore none should be allowed to play this RED system.

 

4. If the WBF refer to this document then they should make it clear that the information is unreliable if in fact it does not correspond with the official position.

 

It seems from the quote in the opening post that in fact it does as it has been advised that a short club is in fact a RED system.

[JanM]

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

I don't think it does - it says that a 2 card 1♣ opening bid is artificial, but falls into the same trap that many of the people posting to this thread do of thinking that an artificial BID = an artificial SYSTEM.

I get the feeling that you don't really want to review any systems.

I don't have any idea where you get that idea - I spend hours before every World Championship reviewing systems. I don't do this in any official capacity (no one does), but to help my teams prepare for the WC. I don't need to review "vanilla" Polish Club systems to do that and it would take me unnecessary time to figure out that a filed convention card was in fact a normal Polish (or Short or in fact Strong) club system and didn't have anything that needed advance preparation, so I am happier not to have those cards filed. The purpose of advance filing of convention cards is to help the other teams or pairs prepare. That purpose is not served by over-filing. Of course it would be better if the filing requirements were described better. There are lots of things that could be improved. But given what we have, the players have acted sensibly.

[Cascade]

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

I don't think it does - it says that a 2 card 1♣ opening bid is artificial, but falls into the same trap that many of the people posting to this thread do of thinking that an artificial BID = an artificial SYSTEM.

The quote is:

 

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

 

This seems perfectly clear to me. The writer is 1. emphasing that a 1C opener that can be two is artificial. And I would suggest by the juxtaposition of the next sentence in the same paragraph is indicating that such systems are in fact RED. I would be very surprised to learn that something different was intended by this construction.

 

It really seems that you and others do not want to know that your favourite system is in fact artificial and are wanting to circumvent the regulations.

 

Indeed you have said that it is "sensible" to do so.

[Cascade]

Of course it would be better if the filing requirements were described better.

"It is a requirement that Red Sticker systems are pre-registered by email with

the WBF Systems Administrator for any event in which these are to be used

no later than 10th September 2010; "

 

Which part of this regulation is not well described?

 

It seems perfectly clear.

 

What you are doing is deliberately breaching the regulations.

[helene_t]

Wayne, you are being pedantic.

 

Of course a system in which a 1♣ opening can be as short as two and does not promise a strong hand is red. But it is obviously not the intention of the regulation that such vanilla systems have to be filed. No, I am not going to provide a formal definition of "vanilla". I suppose you know what I mean.

 

Is there a problem? Has anyone playing a system against which opps would need a special defense failed to file it?

[mrdct]

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

I don't think it does - it says that a 2 card 1♣ opening bid is artificial, but falls into the same trap that many of the people posting to this thread do of thinking that an artificial BID = an artificial SYSTEM.

The quote is:

 

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

 

This seems perfectly clear to me.

It's not clear to me for several reasons:

 

1. We have no idea who the author of the sentence is and, in particular, whether the sentence represents an official WBF position.

 

2. If the author had intended to convey the concept that a system with an artificial bid in it is an artificial system, he could quite easily have just said so, but he deliberately chose to separate the bid and system categorisations into two sentences.

 

3. The authoritative WBF System Policy has a convoluted example of what would qualify as a red system which only captures variable methods and systems employing multi-meaning bids in contestable auctions. If the intent had been to capture a short 1♣ opening, it surely would have said so. Accordingly, by omission it seems reasonable to assume that having a short 1♣ does not of itself make your system red.

[paulg]

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

I don't think it does - it says that a 2 card 1♣ opening bid is artificial, but falls into the same trap that many of the people posting to this thread do of thinking that an artificial BID = an artificial SYSTEM.

The quote is:

 

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

 

This seems perfectly clear to me.

It's not clear to me for several reasons:

 

1. We have no idea who the author of the sentence is and, in particular, whether the sentence represents an official WBF position.

 

2. If the author had intended to convey the concept that a system with an artificial bid in it is an artificial system, he could quite easily have just said so, but he deliberately chose to separate the bid and system categorisations into two sentences.

 

3. The authoritative WBF System Policy has a convoluted example of what would qualify as a red system which only captures variable methods and systems employing multi-meaning bids in contestable auctions. If the intent had been to capture a short 1♣ opening, it surely would have said so. Accordingly, by omission it seems reasonable to assume that having a short 1♣ does not of itself make your system red.

Having spent eight months repeatedly asking the WBF Systems Committee and then Anna Gudge the same question, this was the response that I finally received. It is disappointing that it came through the WBF Secretariat rather than directly from the Systems Committee, but I can only treat it as an official WBF position.

 

Given the fuss made in Shanghai over this issue, it would be easy to believe that the Systems Committee does not wish to establish a definitive position and is happy with the status quo that seems to exist.

 

Clearly if it were as obvious as Wayne believes, they could have answered the question directly in ten seconds.

[Cascade]

Wayne, you are being pedantic.

 

Of course a system in which a 1♣ opening can be as short as two and does not promise a strong hand is red. But it is obviously not the intention of the regulation that such vanilla systems have to be filed. No, I am not going to provide a formal definition of "vanilla". I suppose you know what I mean.

 

Is there a problem? Has anyone playing a system against which opps would need a special defense failed to file it?

I do not know how this is obvious.

 

To me it would be obvious for all systems were treated the same. However give there is a system classification and RED systems have been singled out at least all RED systems should be treated the same.

 

Those playing your so called vanilla (but I think it is a poor choice of words as vanilla is a rich flavour) methods have often worked hard to get a regulated advantage. In the past short club has been decreed "natural" after the fact simple to prevent otherwise legal artificial defenses being played against it.

 

Jan advocates that ignoring the regulations is "sensible". This is a position that I find particularly offensive and odious. Essentially it is deliberately encouraging players to break the rules or at least supporting them in doing so.

 

I do not comprehend the phrase "would need a special defense". Who needs a special defense? There is nothing inherent in any system that says that an opponent will need a special defense. The boundaries between RED and GREEN and RED and YELLOW and around BLUE are arbitary. The regulations do not mention "special defense" they define system types and restrictions or requirements are placed on different categories. In a broad category like RED one person may think that some particular system requires a special defense whilst another does not. That does not alter the regulation. Perhaps someone "needs" a special defense against "short club". If they turn up without their special defense prepared how will they be compensated when someone is allowed to play this unregistered RED system? "We did not prepare our superduper defense against "short club" because we noted that noone had registered such a system".

 

Its obvious to me that the value of registering systems is that everyone is on an even ground and will know in advance that the systems they play against will be "natural" or "artificial" and of a type that they have been forewarned about.

 

If one pair registers a particular type of system I may think we will get by with our generic defense but if 100s of pair register a different sort of system then it is known that a defense to that system will be beneficial.

[nigel_k]

Jan advocates that ignoring the regulations is "sensible". This is a position that I find particularly offensive and odious. Essentially it is deliberately encouraging players to break the rules or at least supporting them in doing so.

I don't know Jan's exact position on this but surely there are situations where the correct interpretation of a set of rules is different from the literal interpretation. This is not a problem in logic or mathematics, it is about the efficient running of a bridge contest.

 

IMO this appears to be such a situation. Preferring an interpretation of the regulations other than the literal one is not the same as ignoring the regulations.

[mrdct]

Jan advocates that ignoring the regulations is "sensible". This is a position that I find particularly offensive and odious. Essentially it is deliberately encouraging players to break the rules or at least supporting them in doing so.

I think you are both misquoting Jan and taking her seriously out of context. Jan's original comment from which the "sensible" approach has been taken was:

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.

Without wanting to put words into Jan's mouth, I think she is quite rightly observing that there is a huge grey area between Green and Yellow which requires interpretation and judgement on the part of players to decide how to classify their systems. My interpretation of Jan's comment is that she considers it "sensible" to treat a system which isn't overtly Red and is pretty close to Green as Green.

 

Discounting the non-authoritative email sent to Paul, which doesn't directly say that having a short club makes your system Red anyway, one only needs to look at the WBF System Policy and its tie-in to the Law 40B1(a) concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" to conclude that having a short club does not of itself make a system Red.

[qwery_hi]

Jan advocates that ignoring the regulations is "sensible". This is a position that I find particularly offensive and odious. Essentially it is deliberately encouraging players to break the rules or at least supporting them in doing so.

I think you are both misquoting Jan and taking her seriously out of context. Jan's original comment from which the "sensible" approach has been taken was:

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.

Without wanting to put words into Jan's mouth, I think she is quite rightly observing that there is a huge grey area between Green and Yellow which requires interpretation and judgement on the part of players to decide how to classify their systems. My interpretation of Jan's comment is that she considers it "sensible" to treat a system which isn't overtly Red and is pretty close to Green as Green.

 

Discounting the non-authoritative email sent to Paul, which doesn't directly say that having a short club makes your system Red anyway, one only needs to look at the WBF System Policy and its tie-in to the Law 40B1(a) concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" to conclude that having a short club does not of itself make a system Red.

From this thread, the only person who has made a good faith effort to determine whether a short club system is RED or GREEN by asking the WBF is paul, and disregarding his communications with the WBF is the height of hubris. Its a shame that the WBF is not interested in issuing an authoritative statement regarding this.

[gordontd]

Wayne, you are being pedantic.

Bears in the woods come to mind :rolleyes: