One system or two?

[campboy]

I was asked a question about interpreting the Orange Book tonight that I wasn't sure of the answer to, so I'd appreciate your views. Playing two different basic systems is only permitted in 7-board or longer rounds, and the OB says:

It is permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/or vulnerability. Examples of variations which do not constitute playing two Basic systems for the purpose of this regulation are:

(a) Playing a different range for certain bids (for example opening no trumps or preempts).

(b) Playing five card majors in some positions and four card majors in others.

© Playing different lengths for minor suit openings, as a consequence of the differences in (a) and/or (b).

(d) Playing different meanings for opening two-bids (for example playing Acol twos in 4th seat, weak twos otherwise).

The pair who asked play a form of Polish club, something like 1♣ = 10-13 balanced, 18+ any or 15+ with clubs. In 3rd seat they want to play a wide-ranging 1NT opening, which means that they would no longer need the weak balanced option and 1♣ would be unambigously strong. Does this constitute having two systems?

[TylerE]

Seems like this is clearly sanctioned by both points A and D. (And if 1♣ is 100% forcing, point A is sufficient.)

[mjj29]

I _think_ it probably doesn't count as two systems when you are just removing options from bids

[bluejak]

I believe it to be two systems. The basic difference is that the type of approach is different between an either/or club and a strong club. [d] is irrelevant, and while [a] applies to the 1NT, it does not apply to the 1♣.

[Poky]

I believe it to be two systems. The basic difference is that the type of approach is different between an either/or club and a strong club. [d] is irrelevant, and while [a] applies to the 1NT, it does not apply to the 1♣.

I cannot agree.

 

Occasionally I play a system called Eight-Eleven where all 8-11 hands are opened on first two positions naturally (by 1♥ through 2♣ calls). Consecuently, a pass in first two positions shows the range of 0-7.

By the logic of the system "openings" in 3rd/4th postition are per force different:

> 1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ is natural, up to 17 HCP (with pasrtner's 0-7 there's no big danger of losing a game).

> 1NT is no more 8-11 but 15-17 balanced.

This is because bids on late positions should be hardly seen as pure openings but more like responses to partner's pass which shows a pretty weak hand.

 

I cannot see any logic proclaiming this concept as "two" systems instead of "one" well designed (and logical) system.

[awm]

It seems like they are just varying their notrump range. To give another example, suppose we play polish club with variable NT.

 

(1) If we are vulnerable, 1NT is 15-17. 1♣ is 12-14 balanced, 15+ with clubs, or 18+ any.

(2) If we are not vulnerable, 1NT is 12-14. 1♣ is 15-17 balanced, 15+ with clubs, or 18+ any.

 

All we've done is switch the 12-14 and 15-17 NT ranges, so we play different NT range at different vulnerability. That's explicitly allowed by the regulation. Yet it does seem to have the side effect that when we are NV, 1♣ is "always strong." Then again, I can't see another way to play polish club with variable NT, can you?

[bluejak]

I cannot agree.

 

Occasionally I play a system called Eight-Eleven where all 8-11 hands are opened on first two positions naturally (by 1♥ through 2♣ calls). Consecuently, a pass in first two positions shows the range of 0-7.

By the logic of the system "openings" in 3rd/4th postition are per force different:

> 1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ is natural, up to 17 HCP (with pasrtner's 0-7 there's no big danger of losing a game).

> 1NT is no more 8-11 but 15-17 balanced.

This is because bids on late positions should be hardly seen as pure openings but more like responses to partner's pass which shows a pretty weak hand.

 

I cannot see any logic proclaiming this concept as "two" systems instead of "one" well designed (and logical) system.

They are opening bids. Trying to mess things up with funny logic does not alter that.

 

It seems like they are just varying their notrump range. To give another example, suppose we play polish club with variable NT.

 

(1) If we are vulnerable, 1NT is 15-17. 1♣ is 12-14 balanced, 15+ with clubs, or 18+ any.

(2) If we are not vulnerable, 1NT is 12-14. 1♣ is 15-17 balanced, 15+ with clubs, or 18+ any.

 

All we've done is switch the 12-14 and 15-17 NT ranges, so we play different NT range at different vulnerability. That's explicitly allowed by the regulation. Yet it does seem to have the side effect that when we are NV, 1♣ is "always strong." Then again, I can't see another way to play polish club with variable NT, can you?

In which case it is not Polish Club, is it?

[RMB1]

I would rule it was two systems.

 

But what if they played 1C = 10-12 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 13-15 (in first/second)

and 1C = 13-15 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 10-12 (in third); is that two systems?

 

Or 1C = 10-13 BAL or "16+", 1NT = 14-16 (in first/second) and 1NT = 12-14 BAL,

1C = 15-17 BAL or "16+" (as one pair have been advised to disclose);

is that two systems?

 

[sorry, I see awm has already made the same point.]

Edited February 18, 2011 by RMB1

[Mbodell]

What if they played that 1♣ is still 10-13 balanced, 18+ any, or 15+ clubs (and that means their continuations are the same as they were in other seats) but their 1nt bid is 10-15 balanced. Now they have 2 bids that show the same shape/strength and can choose which one to bid as they like as a matter of style. This surely wouldn't be two systems, even if it was very rare that the 1♣ was chosen with a balanced hand?

 

Now they probably want to be more efficient and change the responses to 1♣ too. That still feels like the same basic system to me, but I'm not an EBU player or regulator and am not even that sure why the two system rule needs to be in effect. Changing things by seat and/or vulnerability seems fine to me.

[bluejak]

These sort of regulations are based on being fair to opponents. Different regulators see the details differently: for example, while two systems seems easy to you for your average club players to deal with, an opening 2♠ showing spades and a minor you make MidChart while we believe it so simple it is Level 2, ie playable at Novice level.

[mjj29]

I would rule it was two systems.

 

But what if they played 1C = 10-12 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 13-15 (in first/second)

and 1C = 13-15 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 10-12 (in third); is that two systems?

 

Or 1C = 10-13 BAL or "16+", 1NT = 14-16 (in first/second) and 1NT = 12-14 BAL,

1C = 15-17 BAL or "16+" (as one pair have been advised to disclose);

is that two systems?

 

[sorry, I see awm has already made the same point.]

Well, I certainly play 1C=12-15 bal or 10-15 unbal no 5 card major in some seats, 1C=11-13 bal or 10-15 unbal no 5CM in others and 1C=10-15 unbal no 5CM in yet others. The other option in the bid isn't 'strong', but it is still artificial (could have 0 clubs). Noone has questioned that being more than one basic system, it's just a consequence of a varible (9-11/9-15/12-15/14-16) 1NT opening.

 

Matt

[campboy]

Thanks all for your comments, I'll be seeing the pair tomorrow so will pass them on.