[JanM]

It's interesting that with Brown Sticker bids allowed only in the KO phase of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, there are only 3 pairs in those two events who have chosen to play any BS bids. I don't know whether that's because of the additional effort required to play different systems in the RR and KO, or because the biggest gain from BS methods has always been in the RR where opponents had less opportunity to familiarize themselves with the methods and work out defenses. At any rate, for anyone who's interested, the following are the methods being used:

2♥ "multi" - weak with either 6+ hearts or 5+ spades (I wonder how many more spade hands than heart hands they'll have with this definition?). (Bermuda Bowl - Brink-Drijver - Netherlands)

(1m)-2♥ & 3♥ "multi" - weak with either hearts or spades (no differentiation on length for the overcall). (Bermuda Bowl - Brink-Drijver and DeWijs-Muller)

(1 ♣)-1♦ = Diamonds or both Majors (Brink-Drijver)
(1m)-1♥ = Spades or (4 hearts + minor) (Brink- Drijver and DeWijs-Muller)
(1m)-1♠ = Hearts or (4 spades + minor) (Brink-Drijver and DeWijs-Muller)
(1♣)-2♣ = Weak, clubs or diamonds (Brink-Drijver)
(1m)-2 ♠ = Intermediate, clubs or diamonds (Brink-Drijver)
(1m)-2NT = Weak, clubs or hearts (Brink-Drijver)

Most of these are only NV, and the Conditions of Contest allow only 3 BS conventions per pair, so they will probably not be playing all of them in Shanghai.

In the Venice Cup, Havas-Travers (Australia) have kept 2NT = Rank from Crash opening 2 bids.

[helene_t]

Brink-Drijver play Holo-Bolo against a 2+ 1♣ opening which is common here in the Netherlands. Against a 2+ 1♣ opening, any defense is allowed. So there is no extra memory needed, on the contrary they will not have to worry whether the opps 1♣ opening shows 2 or 3.

I would expect DeWijs-Muller to play Major Flash as well. They play it when nonvulnerable in teams. They used to play regular multi but since they changed to Precision they need 2♦ for other purposes.

You say that 3 pairs chose to play BSC but ou only mention 2. What crazy methods is the 3rd Dutch pair playing? Bakkeren-Bertens and Westra-Ramondt are both known to play relatively (for Dutch standards, that is) plain methods. Maybe Schollaard-Jacobs qualified this time? They play a Wilcox-like 2♦ opening.

[JanM]

helene_t, on Aug 14 2007, 01:24 AM, said:

You say that 3 pairs chose to play BSC but ou only mention 2.

The third pair is in the Venice Cup - Havas-Travers. Probably I wasn't clear that it was 3 pairs total in both events
The third Netherlands pair is Bakkeren-Bertens, who don't play any BS conventions.

It's an interesting question whether the various overcalls are BS if they are made over a 1♣ bid that can be only 2 cards but is not forcing. The BS overcall rules say they apply over a "natural" opening bid. Natural is defined as "a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)" and the Laws define a convention as a "call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high card strength or length (3 cards or more) there." Is a non-forcing 1 ♣ bid that might be made on a 2 card suit in certain balanced hands a "convention" under that definition? Since one of the pairs on "my" team (USA1) plays that sort of 1♣, I suspect I'll find out

[Gerben42]

The 3rd Dutch pair is Bakkeren - Bertens.

Quote

It's an interesting question whether the various overcalls are BS if they are made over a 1♣ bid that can be only 2 cards but is not forcing. The BS overcall rules say they apply over a "natural" opening bid. Natural is defined as "a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)" and the Laws define a convention as a "call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high card strength or length (3 cards or more) there." Is a non-forcing 1 ♣ bid that might be made on a 2 card suit in certain balanced hands a "convention" under that definition?

After this "short" 1♣ the Holo - Bolo bids described above are not Brown Sticker. The only exception to this rule was a period of about 3 years around 2000 in the Netherlands, where someone got the idea to "protect" the general bridge population against this kind of stuff (Zillions of simple club players play short ♣ in the Netherlands). This did not last long for some reason.

[the hog]

By the way Jan, that is Barbie Travis, not "Travers". Sister of Peter Gill ex Aust international and ex pd of Ron Klinger. Barbie used to play Regres when she played for Australia previously.

Hard to believe that (1C) 1D showing Ds or Ms is Brown sticker. Lols play this in Australia. This is a Polish convention called the Warsaw Diamond.

Wtf is "Holo bolo"? Can you pls explain Gerben or Helene?

[Gerben42]

Holo - Bolo is a method against a short 1♣ that is popular among Dutch top players:

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...CardBSforms.pdf

on the last page. Apparently Sjoert & Bas want to play it also against 3+♣ opening bids. Overcalls that do not show 4 cards in a known suit over a NATURAL 1♣ are Brown Sticker conv. that is why they submit the form.

[the hog]

Thanks Gerben.

[hrothgar]

Not sure what I would read into the lack of Brown Sticker Conventions. Its certainly possible that teams are changing their methods based on system regulations. At the same time, I noticed that there seems to be a remarkable consolidation of methods at across the board. (For example, there isn't a single team using a 2♦ opening that shows a strong balanced hand with 18-19 HCPs) From the bidding system perspective, we seem to have a boring group of teams this time around.

Basic Methods

"Standard": 5 card majors, Strong Notrump = 41 pairs
"Precision": Strong Club and 5 card majors = 11 pairs
"Polish Club" = 6 pairs
"Carrot Club" = 2 pairs
"Blue Club" = 1 pair
F+N = 1 pair
5 card majors and weak Notrump = 1 pair
Dutch Doubleton = 2 pairs

2♦ Openings

Multi = 35 pairs
Weak 2 = 12 pairs
Ekrens = 6 pairs
Precision = 3 pairs
Long Diamonds or 2 suited = 2 pairs
Flannery = 2 pairs
6+ Hearts = 2 Pairs
Game Force = 1 Pair
F+N = 1 pair
5/5 in majors or strong = 1 pair

[Onno]

Quote

I would expect DeWijs-Muller to play Major Flash as well. They play it when nonvulnerable in teams. They used to play regular multi but since they changed to Precision they need 2♦ for other purposes.

Actually De Wijs-Muller play 2♦ Multi and 2♥ 3-suiter short in ♦. They have considered to switch to 2♦ 3-suiter and 2♥ Multi, but they don't like to change their system too much depending on the regulations.

Most of the Team Orange players think 2♥ Multi is a profitable weapon, even though the balance for Brink-Drijver (who kept score) over last year is like -30 or so. The negative balance had more to do with discipline than with the convention itself, however. All agree it is dangerous to open 2♥ Multi often on 5crd suits, since most accidents happen when you land in the wrong major.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

... For example, there isn't a single team using a 2♦ opening that shows a strong balanced hand with 18-19 HCPs ...

Did I misread this cc:

lauria-versace.pdf

2♦ = 18 to 20 balanced

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Aug 14 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

... For example, there isn't a single team using a 2♦ opening that shows a strong balanced hand with 18-19 HCPs ...

Did I misread this cc:

lauria-versace.pdf

2♦ = 18 to 20 balanced

URK

Sorry about that. I transposed Lauria and Versace's 2♣ and 2♦ openings

[JanM]

Gerben42, on Aug 14 2007, 02:03 AM, said:

After this "short" 1♣ the Holo - Bolo bids described above are not Brown Sticker. The only exception to this rule was a period of about 3 years around 2000 in the Netherlands, where someone got the idea to "protect" the general bridge population against this kind of stuff (Zillions of simple club players play short ♣ in the Netherlands). This did not last long for some reason.

I'm sure you'll understand if I ask for a ruling on this from someone other than you. The WBF rules are not clear on this point, turning on whether a 1♣ opening that is non-forcing, either long clubs or a balanced hand which may have 2 clubs, is "natural" or "conventional" - I think it's somewhere in between, and therefore these unusual overcalls might be considered BS or might not. That these methods are allowed in the Netherlands, where they're apparently moderately common, does not mean that they are necessarily allowed in WBF events.
By the way, I find it surprising that holo bolo is allowed in the Netherlands without advance notice. I'm pretty sophisticated, but when one of the Netherlands pairs made one of their ambiguous 1-level overcalls against me, I had no idea how to deal with it. I doubt your "zillions of simple club players" would do better.

[JanM]

The_Hog, on Aug 14 2007, 03:26 AM, said:

By the way Jan, that is Barbie Travis, not "Travers". Sister of Peter Gill ex Aust international and ex pd of Ron Klinger. Barbie used to play Regres when she played for Australia previously.

Hard to believe that (1C) 1D showing Ds or Ms is Brown sticker. Lols play this in Australia. This is a Polish convention called the Warsaw Diamond.

Wtf is "Holo bolo"? Can you pls explain Gerben or Helene?

Oops, sorry - I just skimmed through the Venice Cup convention cards, didn't really pay attention to the names .

I think "holo bolo" is the name given to the 1-level ambiguous overcalls that Brink-Drijver use over a semi-natural 1♣ opening. They are clearly Brown Sticker if used over a natural opening bid, because they are weak and do not promise length in a known suit.

[cherdano]

Richard, I don't trust your list quite yet What is the difference between Standard and Dutch Doubleton? Surely many more than 2 pairs play 1♣ as 2+, either all balanced hands outside NT range, or with all 4432 hands (so 1D is 4+)? Where did you put Hamway precision? (Your list looks like there are no 4-card major at all, is that right otherwise?)

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Aug 14 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

By the way Jan, that is Barbie Travis, not "Travers". Sister of Peter Gill ex Aust international and ex pd of Ron Klinger. Barbie used to play Regres when she played for Australia previously.

Peter Gill played on the Australian team in the PABF in Indonesia in June 2007 so he is more of a current international than ex.

That Australian team finished second in the PABF ahead of Japan, Indonesia and Chinese Taipei that qualified for the Bowl through that event (PABF) and were very close to China who won but did not need to qualify as the host nation. The Australian team in Bandung Indonesia finished 1 IMP behind the Australian team that are to contest the Bowl in their trials earlier in the year.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Not sure what I would read into the lack of Brown Sticker Conventions. Its certainly possible that teams are changing their methods based on system regulations.

One pair that I know who 'always' play a Brown Sticker convention have apparently given it up for the Bowl. I had a discussion with one member of the partnership in which he used the words 'system regulations' and 'nonsense' in the same sentence.

It is just too difficult to expect players to two different systems and especially so when that is expected in one event.

The WBF system regulations state that for Category One events (The Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup): "For such events all classifications of systems will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure...". However they override this regulation in the conditions of contest removing the Brown Sticker and HUM methods from the round-robin. This clearly will have an affect on who will choose to play Brown Sticker methods in the finals.

LOLs play these methods in some parts of the world as Ron has pointed out but World Champions need protection from them.

Why state that 'all' systems will be permitted and then impose restrictions. We might as well call these events the "Restricted World Championships'.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Aug 14 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

Richard, I don't trust your list quite yet What is the difference between Standard and Dutch Doubleton? Surely many more than 2 pairs play 1♣ as 2+, either all balanced hands outside NT range, or with all 4432 hands (so 1D is 4+)? Where did you put Hamway precision? (Your list looks like there are no 4-card major at all, is that right otherwise?)

Hamway is under "Blue Club" which is how they describe their system on the convention card.

[mycroft]

Jan, don't trust me either, as all I do is read, but:

from the WBF systems policy:
Natural a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)

From the Laws:
Convention:
A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

Now, I think you would get arguments that bidding your shortest suit with an 18-count is a meaning other than willingness to play in that suit (yeah, you and I will, if we have to, but we aren't exactly "willing") and definitely does not show high-card strength or length.

So I think we're down to willing. And if we are, then is 1D in a Precision context "natural"? I think you have to agree that that is "natural" if majors by 5, diamonds by 4 is.

Now, how about 1D in a "majors 5, 2C 6, 2D not three-suited" context, where it could be 4-4-0-5? Sure, I'll play 1D if everyone passes, but I don't like it.

One think I know for certain, however, is that it is not - at least in the WBF, the ACBL is deliberately vague about it - "somewhere in between" natural and conventional - the WBF definition of Natural explicitly divides the world, and there is no middle ground.

I also know that the Law definition of conventional is inadequate, and how difficult it is to even try to come up with something that doesn't require "I know it when I see it" rulings for the borderline cases.

And in reference to the "zillions of players" - many choose not to play a system that is as vulnerable to conventional pre-emption as 1C natural or big balanced. Some do, and eat their losses - probably many don't even know about them. Some have decided, as I have with my Precision 1C opener, that the gains of the rest of my system outweigh the losses from playing such an unweildy opener.

Please note that I do agree that this is such a common systemic agreement that it behooves all ZOs to make a specific ruling for it that is justifiable with the rest of its regulations, and publicise it in those same regulations. I note at least two ZOs with ambiguous policies at the moment...

Michael.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 15 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

The WBF rules are not clear on this point, turning on whether a 1♣ opening that is non-forcing, either long clubs or a balanced hand which may have 2 clubs, is "natural" or "conventional" - I think it's somewhere in between, and therefore these unusual overcalls might be considered BS or might not.

The WBF regulations are very clear that natural is the opposite of conventional. There is no "in between".

I would hope that an opening bid that could be made in one's shortest suit is conventional. I actually think it meets the definition of HUM - either short in clubs or long in clubs - but some how this definition gets twisted to exclude a "short" artificial 1♣ opening.