WBF Philly Systems

[helene_t]

This is not a problem in logic or mathematics, it is about the efficient running of a bridge contest.

This.

[mgoetze]

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.

Wow, I didn't know that Multi 2♦ is actually a natural bid!

 

Seriously, this whole area of offline bridge is patently ridiculous. The regulations refer to the "opinion of the Regulating Authority"? Really? So if the Regulating Authority happens to change its opinion your system may suddenly become illegal mid-tournament? Why bother to write down whether an ace or a king is higher, we could shorten that law to "the card which, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, is highest, wins the trick". People would still go on playing as if aces were always higher than kings, etc. - but if the president of the Bridge Federation happened to lose a finesse he could temporarily change his "opinion" to win it after all. Sound good?

[jdonn]

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.

I implied before you weren't being open minded, but actually I'm not so sure this is true (actually I still think it is but that's not what I mean to discuss at length in this post.) I think the problem in your case is that unless things are spelled out for you in 100% black and white you often don't see how things are obvious, even when they are obvious to virtually the rest of the world. I mean, you admitted that you don't see why it's ridiculous to claim that systems such as 1♥ showing clubs, or some bid showing no length in any particular suit, are "fairly natural". I would truly be embarassed to admit in a public forum failing to realize such a thing! If you can not see things that are as obvious as that, then I don't think any regulation will ever be spelled out specifically enough for you to be satisfied as to how everyone else is interpreting it.

[nige1]

"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."

IMO Systems-policy is nonsensical e.g.

• Allowing you to consult an unofficial home-grown written-defence to multi, during the hand!
  
• Classifying your system as red because you bid 1♣ on a doubleton!
  

I have some sympathy for law-makers because it is hard to formulate sensible systems-regulations. But not much sympathy because there are simple remedies e.g. Replace all the regulations with a a simple two-tier scheme:

• Standard system.
  
• Anything goes.
  

More pathetic is why we bridge-players put up with such daft regulations for so long. The reason seems to be that

• We are happy to defend a systems-regulation that coincides with our xenophobic interests.
  
• We only start wingeing when it cramps our own style.
  

IMO, players should present a united front against daft rules.

 

However, until the rules are changed, we must abide by them. We must not demean ourselves by trying to weasel out e.g. by claiming that the law-makers intend something different from what they write.

[the hog]

Nigel, that is one of the most sensible posts that I have read on systems and systems regulations. I really wish that everyone was logical enough to see things in those terms.

 

As far as "anything goes" is concerned, I have frequently advocated a two tier approach. Unfortunately even some professional players are against this. If you are getting paid to play bridge, you should be prepared to put in the hard yards to discuss defences to previously submitted conventions. After all, it is your occupation. No one restricts the amount of work people in other areas of work have to do, so why here? It seems that some want to have their cake and eat it as well.

[gerry]

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 am the leading (only) member of a new school that maintains as its guiding precept that majors are over-rated and we should focus on the minors.

 

Consequently the system we teach to juniors is based on 5 card minors better major. Everything else is vanilla. We actually prefer 5 card minors short spade but have run afoul of local system regulations.

 

Is it too late for my team to enter for Philly and demonstrate the superiority of 'minors first' at the table?

[Cascade]

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 am the leading (only) member of a new school that maintains as its guiding precept that majors are over-rated and we should focus on the minors.

 

Consequently the system we teach to juniors is based on 5 card minors better major. Everything else is vanilla. We actually prefer 5 card minors short spade but have run afoul of local system regulations.

 

Is it too late for my team to enter for Philly and demonstrate the superiority of 'minors first' at the table?

Seems "fairly natural" to me.

 

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

[the hog]

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 am the leading (only) member of a new school that maintains as its guiding precept that majors are over-rated and we should focus on the minors.

 

Consequently the system we teach to juniors is based on 5 card minors better major. Everything else is vanilla. We actually prefer 5 card minors short spade but have run afoul of local system regulations.

 

Is it too late for my team to enter for Philly and demonstrate the superiority of 'minors first' at the table?

Seems "fairly natural" to me.

 

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

No.

[blackshoe]

But no doubt someone will. Probably a TD or AC member somewhere.

[mrdct]

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

 

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

 

Every man and his dog would readily understand, anticipate and expect to play against "short club" systems, but the same could not be said about "short spade". As far as I can recall, I've never seen anyone playing a "short spade" system with the possible exception of an alcohol-fueled late-night speedball.

[helene_t]

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

No but so what? Why should the criterion be that artificial methods (like stayman and transfers) need to be filed while natural methods (like 4-card preempts) need not?

 

I was not arguing that a short club opening need not be filed because it is inherently obvious how to defend it. Just that everybody is accustomed to it so it is in nobody's interest to get it filed.

[the hog]

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

 

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

 

Every man and his dog would readily understand, anticipate and expect to play against "short club" systems, but the same could not be said about "short spade". As far as I can recall, I've never seen anyone playing a "short spade" system with the possible exception of an alcohol-fueled late-night speedball.

But ask yourself "why", Dave and the answer you will most likely come up with is because of lack of exposure. Technically there is no difference.

[mrdct]

You are missing my point Ron. In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

 

Where you and I learnt our bridge, opening a suit with less than four cards would've been unequivocally un-natural and it would've been most improper for a pair playing "better minor" not to at least pre-alert their alien methods or go a step futher and alert whenever these strange 1♣ and 1♦ openings crop up as any self-respecting bridge player at that place and time would not in their wildest imaginations expect to come across someone opening a suit with less than four cards in it.

[the hog]

You are missing my point Ron. In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

 

Where you and I learnt our bridge, opening a suit with less than four cards would've been unequivocally un-natural and it would've been most improper for a pair playing "better minor" not to at least pre-alert their alien methods or go a step futher and alert whenever these strange 1♣ and 1♦ openings crop up as any self-respecting bridge player at that place and time would not in their wildest imaginations expect to come across someone opening a suit with less than four cards in it.

Showing our age.

Good luck in Philly btw.

[helene_t]

You are missing my point Ron.  In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

I don't think so.

 

If we try to re-engineer the philosophy underlying the policy of treating 3-card major suit openings as unnatural, 3-card minor suit openings as natural and 2-card minor suit openings usually, but with the exception of some regulations like those that applied in Beijing, as unnatural, then I think it boils down "it is natural if an adequate defense would be to treat it as natural". If opps play 3-card majors we need to consider methods to reach a contract in "their" suit while not losing too much of the cuebids' utility. The same is not true for 3-card minors (unless they play canape, maybe, but then again I am not sure if regulators would consider 3-card minors canape to be "natural").

 

Of course, the word "natural", in folk language, often means "what I am used to", i.e. if you announce that you play "natural", opps will assume you play the same notrump range and jump overcall strength as they learned when they took bridge classes. I have heard some players calling Blackwood "natural", as opposed to the alien quanty. But I don't think that is the usage of the word "natural" in regulations. (One of my pet peeves is the expression "natural leads and carding", what the heck does that mean).

 

Anyway, this thread is about filing of systems. I don't know why we are discussing the semantics of "natural".

[Cascade]

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

 

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

And that makes it less natural how?

 

Other posters in this thread have argued that 'short club' is 'fairly natural'.

 

By symmetry the same argument must be valid for a 'short spade'.

 

They have used this 'fairly natural' argument to suggest that the regulations do not apply to them.

 

The argument that a short spade is not readily understood and anticipated is weak.

 

1. Such agreements need to be designated as 'Special Partnership Understandings'. As far as I am aware such a bid has not been so designated.

 

2. If 1♣ short is understood then it seems that 1♠ short would be just as easily understood.

 

3. If 1♠ short is not anticipated then that can be easily solved by making an announcement in advance that such a method is being played. Now clearly it will be anticipated.

 

It is plainly not fair when the regulations are manipulated to favour certain players methods.

 

I am increasingly of the opinion when these sort of twisting of the regulations are used to allow a certain type of method that the only fair system regulation is no regulation at all.

 

Anything else necessarily gives some players an unfair advantage.

[helene_t]

I am increasingly of the opinion when these sort of twisting of the regulations are used to allow a certain type of method that the only fair system regulation is no regulation at all.

Yeah, but I can think of better arguments for getting rid of the system regulations. After all, how many people play 3-card majors? And of those who do, how many have serious issues with the fact that opps are allowed to play any defense against it?

 

A bigger problem is that strong-club players are handicapped in the same way, but even that isn't much of a problem in practice. Most opps play vanilla defense against our strong club and those who play crazy defenses are (on average) just as likely to harm themselves as they are to harm us.

[mrdct]

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

 

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

And that makes it less natural how?

By regulation. A key part of the test of whether or not something is natural is whether or not it is readily understood and anticipated. A "short spade" would not satisfy that test but a "short club" would (in most places).

 

The Laws, in fact, go a little bit further with the definition of natural by tying it in to the "opinion of the regulating authority". Some regulating authorities do better than others in having a sensible and tight set of regulations defining the concept of natural.

[nige1]

Duplicate sorry :(

[nige1]

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.

"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."

The Laws, in fact, go a little bit further with the definition of natural by tying it in to the "opinion of the regulating authority".  Some regulating authorities do better than others in having a sensible and tight set of regulations defining the concept of natural.

The WBF aims to devolve legal responsibilities (even in such basic matters) to local regulators and directors. This leads to an incoherent Tower of Babel and prevents a level international playing field. But this debate (like the debate on consulting unofficial written-defences to Multi at the table) is academic. The rule that Cardsharp quotes would inconvenience so many ACBL members who did not submit their systems early that the WBF is bound to change the Coc or to turn a blind eye :(