The Swedish system regulation rules

[Kungsgeten]

In Sweden we have this "dot system" which define what methods are

allowed in system construction. Since we've had some discussion

about the GCC on the forum, I thought some posters may be interested

of Sweden's regulations.

 

• Each opening bid gets a number of dots, from zero to seven
  
• The total number of dots allowed in the system depends on the level of the venue. There are 3 main levels: A, B and C. At C-level (most pair events except at the very highest level) 7 dots are allowed, at B-level (most team events, except those with very few boards; which are C-level) 10 dots are allowed and at A-level (nationals and some other big events) you can play whatever you want.
  
• Only opening bids get dots. Responses, overcalls etc. are not restricted in any way.
  

 

So, what determines the number of dots? The theory is that bids that

are hard to defend get more dots. How hard a bid is to defend

against usually depends on the level of artificiality. There's some

general guidelines though:

 

 

Natural bids

 

Natural bids always have 0 dots. Bids are considered natural if they

include at least 4 cards in the suit bid. The strength of the bid

doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if the bid includes, or may

include a longer suit or any other information. No trump bids are

considered natural if they show a balanced hand, regardless of

strength. Semi-balanced hand may also be included as long as the

hand is balanced about 80% of the time.

 

 

Strong bids

 

Bids which are strong (at least 15+ hcp) gets 0 dots. Information

about distribution doesn't matter. Game forcing opening bids also

get 0 dots (could be the case if playing a forcing pass system and

having a game forcing response which shows less than 15 hcp).

 

 

Pass

 

An initial pass can never get any dots, it doesn't matter what the

meaning of the pass is. Unless the pass is strong (15+ hcp) however,

the responses to the pass counts as opening bids and get dots as

normal opening bids.

 

 

Bidding 3NT or higher

 

Openings of 3NT or higher does not get any dots.

 

 

Suit pointers

 

If a bid always shows at least 4 cards in another suit, it counts as

a suit pointer and gets 1 dot. Examples are the Moscito one level

opening bids, Ekrens 2D, Flannery 2D, Precision 2D (shows 4+ clubs),

unusual 2NT etc.

 

 

Balanced pointers

 

If a bid always shows a balanced hand (may also be semibalanced),

but is not a NT bid, it gets 2 dots. Examples would be 1S showing

8--11 NT, or 1D showing 0--7 NT.

 

 

Natural or strong

 

If a bid is natural or strong (for instance 1C showing clubs or 15+ balanced) it gets 1 dot.

 

 

Suit pointer of strong

 

If a bid is a suit pointer or strong (for instance 2C showing weak

diamonds or a strong hand) it gets 2 dots.

 

 

2NT get a maximum of 2 dots

 

 

Openings in 4th hand does not get any dots

 

 

So, the above are rules that apply over the top of the rest of the

regulations. Here's the rules for non-natural bids, if they do not

qualify for the above:

 

 

3 card suits

 

If a suit bid can be a 3 card suit it gets 1 or 2 dots:

 

- One dot if the hand always is balanced if less than 4 cards, for

instance the 1m openings in Standard American.

- Two dots otherwise, for instance a 1D opening which may be (41)-3-5.

 

 

2 card suits

 

2 dots if the hand always is balanced if less than 4 cards, otherwise 3 dots.

 

 

Less than 2 cards in the suit

 

If the bid can contain less than 2 cards in the suit (or promise 2

cards but may be unbalanced if less than 4 cards, as explained

above), it gets 3 dots.

 

 

Unnatural one of a major

 

If the opening bid is one of a major it gets an extra dot. So

playing that 1H may be a 3 card suit if balanced get 2 dots instead

of one.

 

 

Weak opening bids

 

If the bid is unnatural and may have less than 8 hcp it gets 2 extra

dots if 1D and 3 extra dots if 1M.

[Trinidad]

I lived in Sweden when Daniel Auby developed this "dot system" (around 2000). I think he did a fantastic job. He managed to create a system regulation that:

• fit well to what the bridge public wanted to be allowed and forbidden
  
• was "coded" air tight
  
• was simple and elegant
  

I realize that some people here may think that it seems complicated, but it really isn't. At the time, I was a TD in Sweden and I had a simple flow sheet inside my law book to determined the "dots" on a bid. This flow sheet took less room than 1 page of the law book.

 

I think Sweden can be very proud of their system regulation.

 

Rik

[Kungsgeten]

What does the above mean?

 

Well, the strangest bids usually get 3 dots, except if they're 1M and/or if they're weak (less than 8 hcp). Some examples:

 

1C

 

• 4+ suit = 0 dots
  
• 3 card suit in a "better minor" system, such as Standard American = 1 dot
  
• Short club (may be 2 clubs if balanced) = 2 dots
  
• May be 3 cards and unbalanced = 2 dots
  
• Strong club = 0 dots
  
• Polish club/Swedish club = 3 dots
  
• Fert = 3 dots
  
• "Transfer" = 1 dot
  
• Short club, but at least 15 hcp if balanced = 1 dot
  

 

1D

 

• 4+ suit = 0 dots
  
• Better minor = 1 dot
  
• "Transfer" = 1 dot
  
• Nebulous ala Precision or similar = 3 dots (but if promising at least 2 and always balanced if less than 4, then 2 dots)
  
• Strong = 0 dots
  
• Fert = 5 dots (3 cause it doesn't promise any length, 2 because it is weak and diamonds)
  

 

1M

 

• 4+ suit = 0 dots, canapé or not does not matter
  
• "Better major" = 2 dots (1 normally, but 1 extra because it is a bid of one of a major)
  
• "Multi" (for instance showing an unbalanced hand with one of the minors) = 4 dots (normally 3, but one extra because its one of a major)
  
• Transfer = 1 dot (the 1 extra does not apply, since the suit pointer rule takes precedence)
  
• Fert = 7 dots (3 + 1 because of major + 3 because weak and a major)
  

 

1NT

 

• Balanced = 0 dots. Also 0 dots if it may contain 4441, 5422, 6322 or even other shapes occasionally. Strength doesn't matter.
  
• Dynamic NT ala Romex = 0 dots since it is strong
  

 

2C

 

• Strong or weak diamonds = 2 dots, its strong or a suit pointer
  
• Strong or weak diamonds or weak spades = 3 dots
  
• Three-suited = 1 dot if it promises a specific 4 card suit, 0 dots if if promises 4 clubs. Else: 3 dots
  
• 4+ suit, 0-7 hcp = 0 dots, its natural :)
  
• Weak with 4 spades and another suit = 1 dot, its a suit pointer
  

 

2D

 

• Multi = 3 dots
  
• Ekrens = 1 dot
  
• 4 diamonds and a 4 card major = 0 dots
  
• Unbalanced with 3 duamonds and any other distribution = 2 dots
  

 

2H

 

• Multi (weak with hearts or spades) = 3 dots
  
• Ekrens = 0 dots
  
• Flannery = 0 dots
  
• Precision three-suiter = 0 dots (if promising 4 hearts)
  
• 5+ diamonds and a 4 card major = 1 dot (suit pointer)
  
• Muiderberg/Velociraptor/Weak = 0 dots
  

 

2S

 

• 3-level preempt in any suit = 3 dots
  
• Minors = 1 dot
  

 

2NT

 

• Minors = 1 dot
  
• 8-11 balanced with a 5 card minor = 0 dots, its natural since its balanced
  
• Minors or majors = 2 dots (would normally be 3 dots, but 2NT can be max 2 dots)
  

 

3C

 

• Weak with diamonds or weak with 5-5 majors = 3 dots
  
• Weak with diamonds or strong with 5-5 majors = 2 dots (strong or suit pointer)
  
• Minors = 0 dots
  
• Verdi = 1 dot
  

 

I think the examples above give a good view of the rules. As you see it is easy to calculate the number of dots of your bid and there's little ambiguity.

[mgoetze]

Since we've had some discussion

about the GCC on the forum, I thought some posters may be interested

of Sweden's regulations.

The GCC is great to talk about because:

• It is horrible.
  
• Lots of people are affected by it.
  
• The intent of the competition committee is not reflected in the wording of the regulation.
  
• Tournament directors often rule in a way that is consistent neither with the wording of the regulation nor with the intent of the committee.
  
• It is horrible.
  

 

The Swedish regulations, as far as I can tell, share none of these advantages, so your assumption that people would be interested in them seems far-fetched.

[Kungsgeten]

Some examples of systems:

 

Standard American (2 dots)

 

1m = 1 dot each

 

Standard American with multi (5 dots)

 

1m = 1 dot each

2D = 3 dots

 

Standard American with multi and 2C as strong or diamonds (7 dots; max for most events)

 

1m = 1 dot each

2C = 2 dots

2D = 3 dots

 

Precision (4 dots)

 

1D = 3 dots

2D = 1 dot (suit pointer, promises at least 4 clubs)

 

Polish club (7 dots)

 

1C = 3 dots

2D = 3 dots (both multi and wikloscz get 3 dots)

2NT minors = 1 dot

 

Moscito (3 dots)

 

1D/H/S = 1 dot each

 

Natural strong pass (0 dots)

 

Pass = 15+ hcp (0 dots since pass never get dots)

1 of a suit = 4+ suit, 8-14 hcp (0 dots since natural)

1NT = 8-11 bal (0 dots)

2 of a suit = 4+ suit, 0-7 hcp (0 dots since natural)

[helene_t]

Interesting. I thought the Swedish system was very liberal but in fact many Dutch pairs who play many weird (though not HUM or BSC) openings may find that they can't play in most Swedish events.

 

With Shogi I play:

1C: balanced or 4414. Two dots.

1NT: 5+ clubs. One dot.

2♣: diamonds or strong. Two dots.

2♦: both majors or strong. Two dots.

2NT: Both minors or strong. Two dots.

 

So nine dots. We could take the weak option out of the 2NT opening, that would make it seven.

[helene_t]

Moscito (3 dots)

 

1D/H/S = 1 dot each

Don't the major suit openings get one dot extra each for being artificial 1M openings, in addition to being suit pointers? That would make the total 1+2+2=5. If you also play multi it would be eight dots then.

 

Edit: Oh I see you explained this, that the suit transfer rule takes precendence.

[Cyberyeti]

Some examples of systems:

 

 

Precision (4 dots)

 

1D = 3 dots

2D = 1 dot (suit pointer, promises at least 4 clubs)

 

 

depends on your version of precision, Reese precision, the diamond is 2+ cards and only short when balanced so only 2 dots.

 

Often if you allow a 1+ or 0+ diamond you don't play the old style precision 2♦.

 

I play real diamond precision, so only the 1 dot for 2♦.

 

Teh version of Acol I play is no dots :)

[hrothgar]

Don't the major suit openings get one dot extra each for being artificial 1M openings, in addition to being suit pointers? That would make the total 1+2+2=5. If you also play multi it would be eight dots then.

 

For the version of MOSCITO that I play, I think that you have

 

1 dot for the strong club

1 dot for 1♦ = 4+ hearts

3 dots for 1♥ = 4+ spades

3 dots for 1♠ = 4+ diamonds

2 dots for 2NT = bad three level preempt in either minor

 

= 10 dots

[nige1]

For the version of MOSCITO that I play, I think that you have

1 dot for the strong club

1 dot for 1♦ = 4+ hearts

3 dots for 1♥ = 4+ spades

3 dots for 1♠ = 4+ diamonds

2 dots for 2NT = bad three level preempt in either minor

= 10 dots

Helene_t points out that Kungsgeten says that the "precedence" of the pointer-rule reduces the dot-rating of a moscito 1M from 4 to 1.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm interested that Sweden doesn't consider (4+ card) canape bids as worth any dots, whereas in the UK, they're regulated separately (or were when I last checked).

[helene_t]

I'm interested that Sweden doesn't consider (4+ card) canape bids as worth any dots, whereas in the UK, they're regulated separately (or were when I last checked).

Any restrictions on canape in the UK? Any natural openings are allowed, I thought.

[RMB1]

I'm interested that Sweden doesn't consider (4+ card) canapé bids as worth any dots, whereas in the UK, they're regulated separately (or were when I last checked).

I think they are regulated separately for reasons of presentation:

longest-suit opening 1m are included in "general purpose" openings (which exclude major suit canapé);

but canapé 1m have more restrictions on what they can be mixed with.

[Cyberyeti]

I think they are regulated separately for reasons of presentation:

longest-suit opening 1m are included in "general purpose" openings (which exclude major suit canapé);

but canapé 1m have more restrictions on what they can be mixed with.

 

Yup I played a system which was fine before the wording was changed as it allowed hands with 4m5M31 to be freely canape'd then the wording was changed from natural to "as the longest suit". Also single suited in the other minor couldn't be combined with minor suit canape after the changes.

[MickyB]

2D multi having as many dots as 2H multi seems questionable.

 

If your short diamond shows diamonds or balanced but "balanced" can mean (42)25, is this 2 dots or 3 dots?

[TylerE]

Also, 2H Flannery = 0 dots, and the usual 2D Flannery is 1?

 

The 2D variety is muuuch easier to defend against as direct seat will get a 2nd crack at it 99%+ of the time, whereas 2H can be passed with quite a bit of frequency, and usually on the hands where the defending side is most likely to have a good spot (e.g. 3rd hand is weakish)

[akwoo]

Also, 2H Flannery = 0 dots, and the usual 2D Flannery is 1?

 

The 2D variety is muuuch easier to defend against as direct seat will get a 2nd crack at it 99%+ of the time, whereas 2H can be passed with quite a bit of frequency, and usually on the hands where the defending side is most likely to have a good spot (e.g. 3rd hand is weakish)

 

If I'm playing with a novice partner who has never seen Flannery before, I don't have to explain how to defend against 2H Flannery. I do need to spend 15 seconds explaining how to defend against 2D Flannery.

[helene_t]

I think these rules are vastly superior to WBF(BSC/HUM), ACBL and EBU rules. Not only are they both simple (unlike EBU) and clear (unlike WBF and ACBL), they also give room for innovation while at the same time protect pairs against systems that contain dozens of difficult to defend conventions. Something you can't say about ACBL and WBF that allow a bunch of arbitrary stuff like nebulous minor suit openings, multi and mini-roman.

 

Of course one could always argue about the details. The crazy system we taught to beginners in the Looier club in Amsterdam has:

1♣: normally 4+ clubs but can be 2 or 3 if specifically 5(332) and 15-18 points. 1 dot

2♣: diamonds or strong. 2 dots

2♦: hearts or strong. 2 dots

2♥: spades or strong. 2 dots

2♠: clubs or strong. 2 dots

3♣: diamonds. 1 dot

3♦: hearts. 1 dot

3♥: spades. 1 dot

3♠: gambling. 3 dots

Total: 14 dots, yet it is not difficult to defend since you just need a generic defence against transfer preempts.

 

On the other hand, 2♥ defined as a preempt with four spades and a canape-suit which may or may not be hearts is somewhat difficult to defend but gets only one dot. Then again, EBU and WBF don't have issues with it either.

 

By the way, how many dots do I get for playing 1NT as any weak one-suiter?

[mikestar13]

A fantasy of mine is that ACBL would adopt something like this (though surely more restrictive, given the current GCC)--it is clear and easy to apply!

 

I am curious to note that no dots are awarded for direct seat defensive bids--what was the reasoning behind that? Both ACBL and WBF regulate them. (ACBL regulates the second call of each partnership, except for convention balancing calls: (1x)-P-(P)-?, which is IMHO, going way too far.)

[helene_t]

Regulating overcalls would become very complex. Suppose for example that a pair plays different methods against weak nt and strong nt, or that the dot rules are more liberal for defence against weak nt. And similar for 2+ 3+ and 4+ minor suit openings. And does raptor against both 1h and 1s count as one or two conventions?

 

Suppose opps play different systems in different seats/vulnerabilities. That would pretty much force us to play different defences depending on seat, vulnerability and which opening bid they made.

 

Regulating responses is a bit more feasible/sensible but in many systems it is so that responder is captain so their agreements about the meaning of a responses is a lot less stringent than the meaning of an opening bid. For example, Stayman or a forcing 1NT, or, for some pairs even a 1♥ response to a precision 1♦ opening, only ostensibly "shows" something but can be used with all kind of weak hands that hope to get to a better result by bidding than by passing.

[akwoo]

A fantasy of mine is that ACBL would adopt something like this (though surely more restrictive, given the current GCC)--it is clear and easy to apply!

 

Sure. In addition to the assignment of dots in the Swedish system, add 3 dots to all forcing 1 level bids, 2 dots to 1N openings allowing fewer than 14hcp, and 1 dot for every non-natural direct overcall (excepting cue bids and 2N overcalls). (For overcalls, count the maximum available over any single opening bid by opponent.)

 

Allow at most 3 dots.

 

Takes out any playable strong club system and most weak and mini NTs, both of which get significant whining among local players.

[glen]

A fantasy of mine is that ACBL would adopt something like this...

that would require them to connect the dots, too hard

[helene_t]

What about defence against strong or otherwise strange passes? Suppose our normal first seat system is seven dots and opps play a pass that shows a weak hand with diamonds or a strong hand. We would like to play a strong diamond system in second seat then. Can we do that?

[helene_t]

Also, 2H Flannery = 0 dots, and the usual 2D Flannery is 1?

 

The 2D variety is muuuch easier to defend against as direct seat will get a 2nd crack at it 99%+ of the time, whereas 2H can be passed with quite a bit of frequency, and usually on the hands where the defending side is most likely to have a good spot (e.g. 3rd hand is weakish)

 

 

If I'm playing with a novice partner who has never seen Flannery before, I don't have to explain how to defend against 2H Flannery. I do need to spend 15 seconds explaining how to defend against 2D Flannery.

Exactly. It's not about how effective a defence PhilKing or KenRexford would be able to construct, it's about how much time typical club or tournament players need to discuss a defence.

[steve2005]

its a bit confusing without having the flow chart available. did I read right an artificial strong 2♣ is 1 dot but an artificial strong 1♣ is 0 dot? seems unfair if true. but I guess 1 dot doesn't matter.

 

Giving standard American 1 minor openings 1 dot is funny too.