Simple question, not about ruling

[peachy]

Two-system methods that are based on vulnerability or seat, are allowed (of course) but pre-alertable in ACBL. In the regulations where this is discussed, the following is also included:

 

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

 

Bolding was done by me.

 

This says it is "not legal" to vary your system etc. etc. Is it based on a Law and what does the law say? Or do you think the intended meaning is "not permitted in ACBL"?

 

There is no appropriate forum for this question as this does not involve a ruling, appeal, or change of regulation. I am just curious because I could not locate the relevant law (if one exists).

[pran]

Two-system methods that are based on vulnerability or seat, are allowed (of course) but pre-alertable in ACBL. In the regulations where this is discussed, the following is also included:

 

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

 

Bolding was done by me.

 

This says it is "not legal" to vary your system etc. etc. Is it based on a Law and what does the law say? Or do you think the intended meaning is "not permitted in ACBL"?

 

There is no appropriate forum for this question as this does not involve a ruling, appeal, or change of regulation. I am just curious because I could not locate the relevant law (if one exists).

Law 40B, and particularly L40B2a.

[campboy]

It's not permitted in the ACBL. Both are a matter of regulation, but asymmetric systems are illegal by default. Playing different systems against different opponents is permitted in the EBU, for example.

[blackshoe]

Note that the ACBL regulation is constrained by the last sentence of Law 40B2{a}: Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method. There are five pertinent "elections" in the back of the ACBL law book:

 

3. Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed in all ACBL sanctioned events.

4. Law 40B2(a): Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card.

a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament director. (A director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.)

b. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review its opponents’ convention card and alter its defenses against the opponents’ special understandings and preemptive bids. This must be announced to its opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these defensive alterations.

5. Law 40B2(b): Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL mid-chart and/or Superchart may be referred to by any player whenever it would be appropriate to refer to an opponent’s convention card.

6. Law 40B2©: in addition, a player is permitted to consult an opponent’s convention card at his RHO’s turn to call.

7. Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity.

[bluejak]

Two-system methods that are based on vulnerability or seat, are allowed (of course) but pre-alertable in ACBL. In the regulations where this is discussed, the following is also included:

Why "of course"? They are not allowed in many events in England and it does not seem at all obvious to me why they should be.

 

As others have explained the answer to your basic question is that the rules you cite are a matter of regulation so apply to the ACBL.

[Radrag]

Why "of course"?

Because it is one system. It is a system where length and strength depends on vulnerability and position.

[campboy]

Because it is one system. It is a system where length and strength depends on vulnerability and position.

The EBU regulation regards (say) playing 5-card majors, strong NT in some positions and 4-card majors, weak NT in others as one system for the reason you suggest, so this is permitted. Changing your basic system completely (say playing a natural system in some positions and a strong club in others) is regarded as two separate systems and not permitted in events with fewer than seven boards per round.

[mgoetze]

Why "of course"? They are not allowed in many events in England and it does not seem at all obvious to me why they should be.

 

Indeed in Germany there are similar prohibitions. There are also exemptions, allowing you to change for instance the range of a 1NT opener. I find the whole business rather unfortunate.

[blackshoe]

The EBU regulation regards (say) playing 5-card majors, strong NT in some positions and 4-card majors, weak NT in others as one system for the reason you suggest, so this is permitted. Changing your basic system completely (say playing a natural system in some positions and a strong club in others) is regarded as two separate systems and not permitted in events with fewer than seven boards per round.

 

Precision (at least without all the bells and whistles people tend to put on it) is just as much a natural system as "5 card majors". I have never understood why anyone would think that changing the strong opening bid from 2♣ to 1♣ should change a system from "natural" to "not natural".

 

That said, I agree that "of course" is not an appropriate phrase to apply to a regulation that allows so called "two card" systems.

[campboy]

I believe most people, including the WBF when defining their green category, use "natural system" as a shorthand for "system in which all 1-level openings* are natural". The EBU regulation I was referring to (OB 10a8) also makes it clear that the meaning of 2-level openers is not part of your "basic system" in their definition.

 

*and pass, I suppose

[bluejak]

Because it is one system. It is a system where length and strength depends on vulnerability and position.

Rubbish. If you play Blue Club in 3rd, Acol in 1st, forcing pass in 2nd and Beasley in 4th you are playing four systems. Whether that should be allowed is a matter of opinion, but saying of course it should be allowed because it is one system is bonkers.

 

Furthermore, if anyone were to think it obvious, then Acol against strong players and Blue Club against weak players would be just as much one system. It isn’t, of course.

[Vampyr]

Rubbish. If you play Blue Club in 3rd, Acol in 1st, forcing pass in 2nd and Beasley in 4th you are playing four systems. Whether that should be allowed is a matter of opinion, but saying of course it should be allowed because it is one system is bonkers.

 

It seems to me that this is one system and it would be difficult to ban it under a regulation that says you must play one system.

 

Furthermore, if anyone were to think it obvious, then Acol against strong players and Blue Club against weak players would be just as much one system. It isn’t, of course.

 

I totally disagree that this is one system. Also Full Disclosure might result in a BB@B penalty.

 

Anyway, what I would really like to know is the EBU's position. When is/isn't it legal to play, say, Strong Club when opponents are vulnerable, Acol otherwise?

[hrothgar]

Rubbish. If you play Blue Club in 3rd, Acol in 1st, forcing pass in 2nd and Beasley in 4th you are playing four systems. Whether that should be allowed is a matter of opinion, but saying of course it should be allowed because it is one system is bonkers.

 

David, this time around you're full of crap

 

Here's a simple example why...

 

Let's assume that I am using the following opening structure in first / second

 

Pass: 14+, any shape.

1C:8-13, 4+ hearts, possibly longer minor, possibly 4-4 majors.

1D: 8-13, 4+ spades, possibly longer minor.

1H: 0-8, any shape. Usually no 5-card suit except possibly clubs

1S: 9-13, balanced, no 4cM unless 4333.

1N: 9-13, 5+ diamonds, no 4cM. (Implies 6+ diamonds and/or 4 clubs).

2C: 9-13, 5+ clubs, no 4cM. (Implies 6+ clubs and/or 4 diamonds).

2D: 4-8 weak 2 in major or 20-21 balanced, MULTI

2H: 4-8 hearts + minor

2S: 4-8 spades + another suit

2N: 8-12, 5-5 or more in minors.

3N: 8-13, solid 7-card or 8-card minor.

 

In third/fourth the opening structure changes to

 

1C: 8-10 pts, 2+ controls, any shape.

1D: 0-7 pts, any shape.

1H: 11+ pts, 4+ spades except it denies 4045 and 4054 patterns.

1S: 11+ pts, 4+ diamonds, denies 4+ spades, except when 4045 or 4054!

1N: 11+ pts, 4+ hearts, denies spades or diamonds.

2C: 11-13 pts, balanced (4333, 4432, or 5332 with no 5-card major).

2D: 11+ pts, club 1-suiter, S1 scheme.

Others: 6-9 pts, good 6-card suit (7 if 3-level, 8 if 4-level).

 

Is this one system or two?

 

If you say that this constitutes two systems, please explain how you differentiate between a bidding system and a response to a forcing pass opening. (And before you claim this is unfair, you were the one who chose to use forcing pass as an example)

 

If you say that this is one system, please explain how your previous example (which included a forcing pass) constitutes four separate systems.

 

Personally, I think that the entire "one system" versus "two systems" is an inane semantic distinction. For example:

 

I'd argue that MOSCITO is a single system.

 

In first and second seat, MOSCITO is based on

 

Light, limited openings

Transfer openings and realy responses

Weak NT

A relatively weak strong club opening (15+ HCP)

 

In 3rd and 4th seat, MOSCITO uses

 

Soundish limited openings

NATURAL openings (no transfers) and no relays

Intermediate NT opening

A relatively sound strong club opening

 

The 3rd and 4th seat openings look NOTHING like the first and second seat openings, but this is a logical extension of the first/second seat structures. (Why play a system designed for relays in 3rd/4th when responder can't hold a hand which would want to make a relay?)

[mgoetze]

I believe most people, including the WBF when defining their green category, use "natural system" as a shorthand for "system in which all 1-level openings* are natural".

 

Insofar as a 1♣ opening on shapes such as 3=3=5=2 is natural.

 

Maybe by this definition, Fantoni-Nunes should be one of the few to mark their system as green, but I'm quite sure last time I looked they had red on their card.

[campboy]

Insofar as a 1♣ opening on shapes such as 3=3=5=2 is natural.

I've seen people mark their card as red because of that, and it would certainly follow from the definitions that they should.

[bluejak]

Of course a forcing pass system requires responses to a the opening pass to differ. Obviously that is one system, and quite irrelevant.

 

But if you play

 

1st: 1♠ shows 5+ spades, 11-15, with a strong 1♣

2nd: 1♠ shows 4+ spades, 11-20

3rd: 1♠ shows 5+ spades, 11-20, with a may be short 1♣

4th: 1♠ shows 5-4 in the minors, 9-13

 

that is four systems.

[Radrag]

Of course a forcing pass system requires responses to a the opening pass to differ. Obviously that is one system, and quite irrelevant.

 

But if you play

 

1st: 1♠ shows 5+ spades, 11-15, with a strong 1♣

2nd: 1♠ shows 4+ spades, 11-20

3rd: 1♠ shows 5+ spades, 11-20, with a may be short 1♣

4th: 1♠ shows 5-4 in the minors, 9-13

 

that is four systems.

Why?

 

What if you play a strong pass with variable fert.

 

V vs NV

P 13+

1C 0-7 any

1D 8-12 4+H

1H 8-12 4+S

1S 8-12 no M

 

V vs V

 

P 13+

1C 8-12 4+H

1D 0-7

1H 8-12 4+S

1S 8-12 no M

 

NV vs NV

 

P 13+

1C 8-12 4+H

1D 8-12 4+S

1H 0-7

1S 8-12 no M

 

NV vs V

 

P 13+

1C 8-12 4+H

1D 8-12 4+S

1H 8-12 no M

1S 0-7

 

How many systems would that be? Where do you draw the line?

 

The two system ban looks like a sloopy way of saying: You are not allowed to use different artificial meanings of the same opening bid.

[peachy]

This thread has derailed :)

[hrothgar]

Of course a forcing pass system requires responses to a the opening pass to differ. Obviously that is one system, and quite irrelevant.

 

As I mentioned, you were the one who brought forcing pass into the discussion.

 

If you prefer, do you consider the MOSCITO example I provided one system or two?

[blackshoe]

Yes the thread has derailed. :(

 

The OP quoted a part of the ACBL Alert regulation dealing with "Two-system" cards, and asked if it is based on a law. It is based on

Law 40B2{a}: The regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a system card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods. it may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made. Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method.*

 

* See Elections 3, 4, 5 and 6, pp. 136 and 137.

 

The elections were quoted upthread.

 

The OP also asked if perhaps the intended meaning of "not legal" in the regulation he quoted means "not legal in the ACBL" or "not legal everywhere". It is the former, because it is the ACBL regulation, not the law itself, that makes the specific actions cited illegal.

 

I note that the regulation puts the phrase "Two-system" in quotes, perhaps because even the ACBL doesn't actually consider the specification of different meanings for specific bids in specific circumstances to be multiple systems. I suspect what they really mean is that it takes more than one system card to describe all the agreements. There is, after all, not a lot of room on the ACBL card to describe even a single meaning for many bids, much less multiple meanings. Also, this interpretation would be consistent with The Bridge World's Glossary, which defines "system" as "the collection of partnership understandings about bidding." But if you want to know the ACBL's official position on the question, you'll have to ask them.

 

Anyway, I think this answers the OP. Perhaps we can let the thread die a natural death now. B-)

[bluejak]

The original questions asked were answered. Thread drift is not unreasonable.

 

:ph34r:

 

I just cannot see why when people really know what a basic system is there seems a crazy idea of getting two different systems and calling them one system. Why? What gain do you get apart from confusing the majority? Why should a pair who play Acol in one position and Precision in another be assumed to play one system?

 

Of course people who play one basic system play different things in different positions. That does not alter the fact that they play one basic system.

 

Also there will no doubt be borderline cases where it might or might not be called two systems. Fair enough. Quoting them proves nothing, any more than borderline decisions in other cases. The main point is that people who play different basic systems by position, vulnerability or opponent [a] play more than one system and may or may not be permitted to by their TO.

[mjj29]

Anyway, what I would really like to know is the EBU's position. When is/isn't it legal to play, say, Strong Club when opponents are vulnerable, Acol otherwise?

You can find it in the Orange Book, but the summary is: you may only play precisely two (not more) systems at different positions and vulnerabilities at events which are level 4 (or 5) and which have 7+ boards per round. In practice, this is all swiss or private teams events that the EBU run (since they only run level 4 events) other than the C flight swiss pairs at a couple of congresses and non of the other pairs or multiple teams events (since they have too few boards per round). For events organised by clubs or counties you should consult their conditions of contest.

 

Matt

[bluejak]

There is no appropriate forum for this question as this does not involve a ruling, appeal, or change of regulation. I am just curious because I could not locate the relevant law (if one exists).

The names of the forums are not exhaustive descriptions of their contents. We consider any aspect involved with Laws, Regulations and general Tournament Direction in Laws & Rulings and in Simple Rulings, excepting what the Laws & Regulations should be. We consider any aspect involved with Appeals Committees, whether running such or decisions made, in Appeal Committees. We consider any suggestions for change in Changing Laws & Regulations.

 

If it is to do Laws, Regulations, Tournament Direction and/or Appeals Committees in any way whatever we usually think it is on-topic in one of these four forums, and Ed or I will move it if we feel it is in the wrong one.

 

I consider your query on-topic here.

[barmar]

What is or is not a "system" is not something that can be answered definitively. It's similar to the problem biologists have delineating species and varieties; linguists have distinguishing languages, dialects, and creoles; etc. Humans like to categorize and label things, but most things don't fall into such neat categories, and subjectivity is often required.

 

I think the general concensus among bridge players is that a system is a collection of conventions and agreements that has a name, e.g. Precision, Standard American, 2/1, Polish Club, SAYC, etc. The ACBL convention card has a line at the top labeled "Basic Approach" where you're supposed to write a name like this. If your approach would require you to mention two names, then most would consider you to be playing two systems.

 

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from creating a system that's a mixture of Precision and SAYC, and then giving it a name of your own. But unless it gains some popularity outside your immediate circle of partners, everyone will probably consider it an ersatz system. It's like trying to make up your own words -- it's not really a part of the language unless a significant number of speakers know it.

[campboy]

I think it is unfortunate that the OB uses the word "systems" here. Acol and SAYC are certainly different systems, but they do not count as different "Basic systems" for the purpose of this regulation.