System card LAW

[Vampyr]

The point is though it's silly to ban describing your leads as 2nd or 4th if you actually lead 2nd and 4th (the Continental style), which is currently banned because the English persist in describing stuff that is 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th as 2nd or 4th.

 

 

It's a shame that the same descriptive phrase is used to describe two different systems of leads; but it's important to recognise local custom and practice. As David correctly (though confusingly) pointed out earlier, when you say "2nd and 4th" in England, English players will know what you mean. When you say it in Poland, the Poles will know what you mean. The problem arises when the speaker and the listener are from cultures who interpret the phrase differently -- but 99% of the time it is people playing against their own nationals and no problems arise. This would not be the case if "2nd and 4th" meant two different things within the EBU. This ban is entirely sensible.

 

People who play abroad, or who frequently play against foreigners should be aware of the potential misunderstanding. But these are a small majority of players, and generally more experienced to boot.

[mjj29]

So, as someone who has been trying to use '2nd and 4th' rather than 'standard leads' in order to be more helpful I'm now in a quandary given this discussion of how that is confusing. Obviously I can say "we lead 4th from an honour and second from bad suits", but is there a more concise term of art I _should_ be using which will be unambiguous to brits, poles and others alike?

[paulg]

I think standard should mean the default leads on the system card that is commonly used in the country - certainly the ACBL and the UK mark such a default. A foreigner should appreciate that they are in a different country and know to ask, as I'm sure they all would. In fact 'standard' is less confusing than '4th and 2nd' or, the real UK standard, 'we never lead fifth'.

 

Those who use WBF system cards are expected to look after themselves.

[nige1]

I think standard should mean the default leads on the system card that is commonly used in the country - certainly the ACBL and the UK mark such a default. A foreigner should appreciate that they are in a different country and know to ask, as I'm sure they all would. In fact 'standard' is less confusing than '4th and 2nd' or, the real UK standard, 'we never lead fifth'. Those who use WBF system cards are expected to look after themselves.

The EBU card defines what it means by "standard" leads" -- underlining the appropriate card from common holdings :)

Saving lots of time and trouble :)

[bluejak]

The point is though it's silly to ban describing your leads as 2nd or 4th if you actually lead 2nd and 4th (the Continental style), which is currently banned because the English persist in describing stuff that is 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th as 2nd or 4th.

The aim of describing your methods is to be helpful. It is not silly, it is commonsense to avoid using a name which know means something different in the country in which you are playing.

 

Suppose you play a Strong Club with 4-card majors. Is that Precision? No, of course not, and if you tell someone in England you play Precision you are misleading them. But in Portugal all Strong Club systems are called "Precision": over there Precision means you play Strong Club. So what do you want us to do? Tell the Portuguese to change the name? Tell the English to change the name? Or tell people if they use a name which is in common use in a country to use that name as per the common use?

 

So, as someone who has been trying to use '2nd and 4th' rather than 'standard leads' in order to be more helpful I'm now in a quandary given this discussion of how that is confusing. Obviously I can say "we lead 4th from an honour and second from bad suits", but is there a more concise term of art I _should_ be using which will be unambiguous to brits, poles and others alike?

Easy: in England, actually throughout the British Isles, use the term 2nd and 4th because it is understood. 4th and 2nd is better and is not misunderstood. But if you play abroad, do not use the term.

[Vampyr]

"we lead 4th from an honour and second from bad suits"

 

We say this and it doesn't seem to take too long.

[aguahombre]

Suppose you play a Strong Club with 4-card majors. Is that Precision? No, of course not, and if you tell someone in England you play Precision you are misleading them. But in Portugal all Strong Club systems are called "Precision": over there Precision means you play Strong Club. So what do you want us to do? Tell the Portuguese to change the name? Tell the English to change the name? Or tell people if they use a name which is in common use in a country to use that name as per the common use?

Easy answer, again: describe what the bids mean and stop naming. Then, you don't have to concern yourself about whether the opponents' concept of Precision or anything else is the same as yours.

[barmar]

Easy answer, again: describe what the bids mean and stop naming. Then, you don't have to concern yourself about whether the opponents' concept of Precision or anything else is the same as yours.

That's what you do when asked to describe a specific call. But you can't put all that detail in the "General Approach" section of the convention card, or when describing your system in general to the opponents at the beginning of a round.

[blackshoe]

That's what you do when asked to describe a specific call. But you can't put all that detail in the "General Approach" section of the convention card, or when describing your system in general to the opponents at the beginning of a round.

Perhaps what we should put in there is "5 card majors, forcing x♣, weak (or strong) NT" instead of "Standard American" or "2/1" or "Precision" or…

 

Of course, the guidance given by the ACBL suggests using system names, but maybe that should be changed.

[mgoetze]

"Standard American"

You definitely shouldn't use "Standard American", because while in America it means a system where 1♣ and 1♦ both promise 3 cards, in Germany it means a system where 1♦ promises 4 and 1♣ could be a doubleton!

 

 

Yes, this is ridiculous. But sadly true.

 

[blackshoe]

In North America it could be either.

 

Heh. I have a friend here who has developed his own version of Precision. His last name is D'errico. He calls his system "Derision Club". B-)

[Bbradley62]

You definitely shouldn't use "Standard American", because while in America it means a system where 1♣ and 1♦ both promise 3 cards, in Germany it means a system where 1♦ promises 4 and 1♣ could be a doubleton!

"General Approach" does not ask for a detailed description just a, um... general approach. Some people playing SA play 1m-2N=11-12 others play it as 13-15; doesn't mean they're not both playing Standard American. That's why we have the rest of the convention card to fill out and itemize details.

[mgoetze]

"General Approach" does not ask for a detailed description just a, um... general approach.

So what's general enough for you? Does it matter whether I play, say, 4- or 5-card majors, or is that a detail which should be hidden somewhere on the inside of the convention card? Well, if your American convention cards had insides, that is. ;)

[Bbradley62]

Once upon a time, "Standard American" meant four-card majors as Goren taught it in the 1950s-60s. It evolved to predominantly be five-card majors but it's hard to imagine that during the interim there was a a day when it suddenly became wrong to describe four-card majors that way.

 

Mostly what I've seen (when I used to play in the 1980s and 1990s) is that people wrote "Standard American with short club" or "Standard American with four-card majors" when they played those variants. Most of the people who did that were 80+ years old then, so I have no idea how common it is today.

 

Certainly, not everyone who writes "Precision" as their general approach plays exactly the same way, and as their opponent I'm perfectly happy to be simply told "we play Precision" and ask questions later, if necessary.

[blackshoe]

My usual at the table conversion with most of my partners might go like this:

 

Me: Partner, they're playing Precision. What defense should we play?

Partner: Huh?

Me: How about we double their 1♣ for the majors, and bid 1NT for the minors?

Partner: Okay

Opp: Can we play this hand please? We're behind.

[aguahombre]

My usual at the table conversion with most of my partners might go like this:

 

Me: Partner, they're playing Precision. What defense should we play?

Partner: Huh?

Me: How about we double their 1♣ for the majors, and bid 1NT for the minors?

Partner: Okay

Opp: Can we play this hand please? We're behind.

I do not find opponents who play an artificial system to be that way, ever..let alone "usually". They patiently answer any preliminary questions, and allow a reasonable time for us to prepare.

[blackshoe]

Well, perhaps that was a bit OTT. My main point is that most of the people I play with these days haven't thought at all about defenses against anything other than SA or 2/1, and not much of that.

 

We don't have many regular Precision partnerships around here. All of them are quite patient about this stuff. Now that I think about it, the pairs who bitch about being behind are usually playing SA. B-)

[TylerE]

You definitely shouldn't use "Standard American", because while in America it means a system where 1♣ and 1♦ both promise 3 cards, in Germany it means a system where 1♦ promises 4 and 1♣ could be a doubleton!

 

Even funnier, here in the US I've heard that referred to as "Italian" 2/1, although there is perhaps more truth in that as many of the Italian champions DID play such a system, after they abandoned blue club and the click.

[Zelandakh]

You definitely shouldn't use "Standard American", because while in America it means a system where 1♣ and 1♦ both promise 3 cards, in Germany it means a system where 1♦ promises 4 and 1♣ could be a doubleton!

Oh dear, is this really true? We have, or rather had since they have moved, one pair who described their system as Standard American in the local club. They did not alert their 1♣ opening. Sadly, this is about the only system played there that I thought I understood, the rest playing either some variant of Forum D or some pre-Forum D German bidding system which is (apparently) impossible to explain. Notice that even the pairs who say they play Forum D cannot ever tell me whether 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT denies a 4 card major or not. What use is a system card when noone even knows what basic bids mean?!

 

As for filling out a CC in a foreign language, I recommend everyone trying this before suggesting some universal standard. Having spent many hourse trying to create a CC in German for a simple system and ending up with some unintelligible nonsense, it would not be top of my recommendations for the general player base.

[nige1]

As for filling out a CC in a foreign language, I recommend everyone trying this before suggesting some universal standard. Having spent many hourse trying to create a CC in German for a simple system and ending up with some unintelligible nonsense, it would not be top of my recommendations for the general player base.

Is Zelandakh's argument against a universal standard? Many of the arguments advanced in this topic seem to favour a universal standard -- although some imply that the current WBF format could be simplified.

[blackshoe]

Is Zelandakh's argument against a universal standard? Many of the arguments advanced in this topic seem to favour a universal standard -- although some imply that the current WBF format could be simplified.

I have an idea! Let's ban all artificial calls. Everything must be natural. Simple, right? And if it's in the laws, it'll be universal. Unless of course the Lawmakers give RAs the choice to ignore it.

[Vampyr]

Many of the arguments advanced in this topic seem to favour a universal standard

 

All of them yours...

[campboy]

How do you expect to have a universal standard CC when we don't even have a universal standard blank piece of paper?

[mgoetze]

Notice that even the pairs who say they play Forum D cannot ever tell me whether 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT denies a 4 card major or not.

It probably does; Walsh is almost unheard-of in german clubs.

[aguahombre]

Notice that even the pairs who say they play Forum D cannot ever tell me whether 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT denies a 4 card major or not.

It probably does; Walsh is almost unheard-of in german clubs.

And they cannot tell Zelandakh whether it denies a major?