Is it legal?

[JSilver]

Is it permissible for a partnership to vary its agreements depending on which member is bidding? For example, one member likes control-showing responses to 2C, while the other prefers 2D waiting. Can they legally agree to use a different method depending on which one opens?

[luis]

I really don't know :-) Might depend in the conditions of contest since you are playing 2 systems. Maybe this is the same as playing different systems in 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th position or depending on vulnerability.

 

Once in a team one of our pairs was formed by a very weak card player and a very strong one, the strong player opened 1nt with 15-17, the weak player wasn't allowed to bid NT in the auction and all his bids except 1c/1d were transfers. It worked out very well. :-)

Of course we did that only because we "badly" needed to win that particular match.... The other team got obfuscated but the director decided that the system was perfectly legal since transfer openings were ok and not being allowed to bid nt wasn't against any rule.

We did other dirty things in that match that I won't admit in a court :-)

[Laird]

Hi Luis

 

"We did other dirty things in that match that I won't admit in a court :-) "

 

I'm Shocked!...I could not believe that you would resort to underhand activites to win a bridge match. Surely every aspect of the bidding and play was alerted as needed.... Give us a clue.... go on:-)

 

Regarding the other interesting disclosure is it any different from playing weak and strong NT depending on seating/ vulnerability etc

 

Fascinated!

John

[luis]

I'm Shocked!...I could not believe that you would resort to underhand activites to win a bridge match. Surely every aspect of the bidding and play was alerted as needed.... Give us a clue.... go on:-)

Fascinated!

 

Well.... you asked....

It was in a Juniors south american championship and we had to win to get to the semi-finals, then both argentinian teams will be there ensuring a place in the finals and a place in the world championship. We were facing a team much stronger than us, no chance to win unless.... We quickly fielded our best pair in the open room and the combination of a good player and a very weak one in the other playing the "I can't play the hand system". Our captain dressed with fluorescent clothing and dumped a galon of perfume on him before sitting just next to our oppo in the open room....

 

I remember I opened 1h on AJx of hearts and 3343, pd bid a forcing NT and I passed.

Then we bid 1c!-2c!!! (inv); 3c!!!!-3n!!!!!!!; 4c all pass

opener: Axx, xx, xxx, Axxxx responder: x, xxxx, xx, JTxxxx

Then we send our two female players to offer some drinks to the open room opponents...

Then they called the director to protest because our captain was "too close to the table"

We played a simple 4h missing just two aces, our oppo lead an ace and then the other, my pd said "you can't play like an old lady, making 5" and put the cards on the board. :-)

We bid a slam after the informative 1s-6s sequence, they erred the lead, I erred the play, our captain send the girls back, they erred the discards, making 6.

We opened 1NT with 2 singletons and played 2NT down 1.

They called the director and asked how many psyches were allowed in a match, the director told us to be very careful, we said we weren't very sure of what was happening

They tried to psyche, failed badly and ended in 6N undoubled down 5 pd commented we could win 3 clubs but they psyched.

The we went for 2 more -800 in very funny auctions that only time will remember, now we called the director to say that we psyched again and see if the board can be canceled. No way and the director was getting very red.

My pd went down in a cold 1d contract! Captain asked for better lightning, play stopped for 5 minutes. We collected some funds for the bar :-)

We got booked 800 again (damned!)

After this 800 our captain had to send the girls back, and we were running out of cash but then after many "free" beers this hand appeared:

I opened a multi 2d with Jxxxxx, xx, xx, xx (vulnerable!)

Our captain fell off the chair (not a lie) and the director was called, he ruled the chair to be replaced and playing to proceed.

LHO bid 3c pd jumped to 4h RHO doubled, I corrected to 4s, LHO doubled. All pass.

My pd tabled: ?, AQTxxx, ?, KJxxx

I started to yell.... How can you .... with a void.... I will.....

LHO lead the diamond king

Then he showed his two remaining cards: AK of spades

I was fuming

I tried to ruff but couldn't because the lead was actually the hK!!!

hA, two spades (2-2) hQ dropping the J, 13 tricks.

Pd asked for a calculator.

Captain yelled +1390

I said: They will always wonder which minor suit slam made 7!

 

We won 24-7

[pbleighton]

Luis - you are showing off ;)

[JRG]

I remember having a discussion on this topic a few years ago. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information but I'll check with a WBF director (Chief Director for the Carribean & Central America region) that I know.

 

I seem to remember quite clearly that the varying conventions by which partner is bidding is illegal in ACBL land. As I said, I'll check WBF rules.

 

John

[JSilver]

 

Once in a team one of our pairs was formed by a very weak card player and a very strong one, the strong player opened 1nt with 15-17, the weak player wasn't allowed to bid NT in the auction and all his bids except 1c/1d were transfers. It worked out very well. :-)

 

I'm pretty sure that I've read, probably in the ACBL Bulletin, that varying your no trump openers according to which partner is bidding is prohibited. I speculate that it's considered unsporting for the very reason you were using it, i.e. it systemically gives the partners an unequal burden in declaring hands.

 

I was wondering, however, if any such variation in methods is illegal. The example I suggested has no systemic effect on who declares; it merely allows each partner to use his preferred method.

[Felix]

Here in Italy it's clearly stated by the rules that both partners have to play the same system, so it would be illegal

 

Felix

[mycroft]

Law 40E.1 specifically allows sponsoring organizations the right to require both members of a pair to play the same system ("must not restrict style or judgement, only method"). I would be surprised if any of the NCBOs haven't exercised that requirement.

 

I know the ACBL has: in http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm , it says:

 

"Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card."

 

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at anything in bridge - so if your NCBO allows asymmetric systems, go for it! (thinks. BBO seems to allow it. Hmmm.)

 

Michael.

[JSilver]

The wording seems a bit vague. I think it could be construed to mean that methods can vary as long as he convention card explains them. But that's probably not what was intended. Anyway, thanks for the most authoritative answer available.

[JRG]

Here is the response I got from John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director, Central American and Caribbeasn Bridge Federation:

 

Under Law 40 (Partnership Agreements), subsection E (Convention Card), paragraph 1 says:

"The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)."

 

Under the rights given the Zonal organization, the CACBF has opted to make it a requirement that both members employ the same system.

[dan.gerstman]

it is not legal in the acbl

[PoorMe]

Since I seem to miss something, I would be more than pleased to be straightemed out on the matter.If 2 partners are able to fill out an identical convention card and they both stick to it without deviating, tell me if they are not playing the same identical system or method.As such I fail to see how the matter of saying they would be playing 2 different systems arise at all. As an example. Let's say a partnership clearly states and alerts and explains that they play one convention as a defence against strong NT and another defence against weak NT and further complicate it if you wish to say they play a certain thing in th direct seat and another in the passout seat. Are they playing more than one system? I say NO. they are both playing one and the same system. In like manner, ( NOT that I agree that I like the method, and if I were a director, I would ask my sponsoring org to outlaw it.), what they claim to be playing once it is clearly stated is another item in their system or method. In other words, I am saying that a system or method does have several facets or items in it, To me what they are playing is just another item in their method or system. I am sorry, but I still cant see that as playing more than one system .

[JRG]

Since I seem to miss something, I would be more than pleased to be straightemed out on the matter.If 2 partners are able to fill out an identical convention card and they both stick to it without deviating, tell me if they are not playing the same identical system or method.As such I fail to see how the matter of saying they would be playing 2 different systems arise at all. As an example. Let's say a partnership clearly states and alerts and explains that they play one convention as a defence against strong NT and another defence against weak NT and further complicate it if you wish to say they play a certain thing in th direct seat and another in the passout seat. Are they playing more than one system? I say NO. they are both playing one and the same system. In like manner, ( NOT that I agree that I like the method, and if I were a director, I would ask my sponsoring org to outlaw it.), what they claim to be playing once it is clearly stated is another item in their system or method. In other words, I am saying that a system or method does have several facets or items in it, To me what they are playing is just another item in their method or system. I am sorry, but I still cant see that as playing more than one system .

 

There is nothing wrong with what you say. You can vary conventions according to seat or vulnerability, etc. What you cannot do is something like the following (assuming you are sitting North-South):

 

When North opens 1NT, then South plays Jacoby transfers; when South opens 1NT, you play natural suit bids (i.e. no transfers). This done with the objective of getting North to play more of the hands. The other example was North is the only member of the partnership allowed to bid NT (for the same reason).