Unauthorised vs Unusual

[pilowsky]

SCAMP isn't a strong pass system.

 

Really?

[Gilithin]

Really?

SCAMP is the vulnerable part (strong club, 1♦ opening shows spades). SPAM is presumably the Forcing Pass variant being used.

[blackshoe]

Well, that link is titled "spam and scamp system card", so yeah, those are the systems.

 

I like the layout of this card. Haven't had a chance to look for faults though. How close is it to the actual card in the ABF card regulation?

[sfi]

Really. Among other things "SC" = Strong Club and "SP" = Strong Pass in these systems. Plus I played it for several years.

[sfi]

How close is it to the actual card in the ABF card regulation?

Fairly close, although I don't think it's quite the latest layout and about half of the "normal" second page has been removed. If you're interested, you can find the template at http://www.abf.com.au/member-services/system-cards/abf-convention-card-pdf/. It's an editable PDF file which is designed to print one double-sided page.

[pilowsky]

Really. Among other things "SC" = Strong Club and "SP" = Strong Pass in these systems. Plus I played it for several years.

 

The link provided suggests that SP and SC are part of one system depending on vulnerability.

So the casual observer - I've only played against it once - might easily misname it.

In any event, I mentioned it to suggest that the hand was being played at a level higher than a local club where it is probably not permitted.

 

Are you saying that the two approaches are dissociable?

[sfi]

Are you saying that the two approaches are dissociable?

Yes, both scamp and spam are independently playable, although if you know one it’s pretty straightforward to pick up the other.. Scamp is allowed in most club games in Oz, since it’s a red system. The use of spam is more restricted, mostly to the major national events and probably not in all of those.

[blackshoe]

Symmetric Relay Featuring Scamp and Spam, Nick Hughes, Masterpoint Press, 2020 covers these systems. Hughes mentions that he and his partners play Scamp vulnerable and Spam not vulnerable. Also that the major difference between the two is swapping the meanings of Pass and 1♣. He goes on to suggest moving the "Fert" to 1♠ as the card shows.

 

Can't play Spam in North America. Well, not in ACBL sanctioned games.

[sfi]

You can’t play Scamp outside the Vanderbilt and similar events either, can you? The 1D and 1S openings were problematic a few years ago.

[blackshoe]

You can’t play Scamp outside the Vanderbilt and similar events either, can you? The 1D and 1S openings were problematic a few years ago.

Scamp is not legal under either Basic chart. As I read it, it's legal on both Open charts in segments of 6 or more boards.

[sfi]

Good news!

[mycroft]

But you will need to prepare, because you hit the dreaded "must provide" regulation:

 

These methods, based on #3 of the Opening Bids section of the Open Chart [...], require both a pre-alert and a written defense, including a separate copy of that defense for each opponent.

 

Official ACBL defenses must be provided when possible. In the event that a convention does not yet have an official ACBL defense, the pair must, before using it in an ACBL sanctioned game:

• Submit a full description of the convention and a proposed defense to the ACBL committee for approval. The defense must be provisionally approved
   
  A method is “provisionally approved” if an acknowledgement receipt was sent by the ACBL upon submission and either:
  
  1. the committee sends an email granting provisional approval; or
     
  2. it was submitted at least 30 days before the ACBL sanctioned event in which it is used and the committee has not rejected it;

  and

  [*]Provide the submitted defense to any opponents.

It is recommended that any new convention and written defense be posted online for public comment.

It's better than the old rules (where the C&CC could just ignore anything they wanted), but given history, the chance that any defence to "1♦ showing spades, NF, limited" will be ignored (and hence, "provisionally approved") is low. But if you get one, pass it to Hrothgar, maybe he can tweak it for "1♦ showing hearts".

[pilun]

Difficult to say without more information, which in two weeks has not arrived.

 

I do think that the "bid of a suit bid or shown" regulation is a problem, being both misguided (IMO) and misworded (whatever "or shown" was intended to mean. Were diamonds bid here? Were spades shown? Would neither be alertable?).

 

My slackness.

I posted on 3 May and got a response the next day from Pescetom. I waited a couple of weeks with no further replies. It seemed no interest so I didn't return until now.

 

"How would you rule?" admittedly doesn't cut it. There are questions to be asked that weren't. Don't know what the answers would have been and whether they would have been self-serving.

 

For instance, North could have been asked about partner's 3♦.

East-West wondered how North would decide that partner did not have ♦KQJxxxxx and out.

I suspect the answer might have been "I have no idea about 3♦. Whatever partner intended, I wasn't going to pass!"

 

The director asked two peers what they would do with North's cards and both said they would bid 4♣. The result was changed to 5♣ making 11 tricks. The assumption being either a spade lead or a correct guess in trumps. That seems a bit generous but weighted scores are messy.

 

The 1♦ opening was unusual but defenders have meta-agreements over short minors. For instance, if 1♣ is 2+, most have discussed whether 2NT is minors or reds. Perhaps this partnership didn't get that far. Another avenue that might have been pursued.

 

West's question about 2NT is a bit troubling. It's all very well to say that West has an absolute right to ask about the alerted bid. Indeed, it would be good to get a diamond lead against 5♣!

 

However, there is always the concern that such questions have the "unwanted" consequence of giving an opponent a UI problem. In some cases, that may even be the intent. A face-to-face issue.

 

Scamp is nearly ACBL-legal. 1♥ & 1♠ both show 4+ in the suit bid.

1♦ as a skip transfer seems less of an obstacle than a modern Precision 1♦.

If transfer responses to 1♣ are perfectly fine, it seems mean to hamstring suit openings.