[onoway]

ok. First of all I am not a qualified director, and that is made clear in the match setup. All we are trying to do is provide a venue for people who want to play in team matches to do so. However, we are trying to keep some semblance of reasonable bidding and play in order for everyone to enjoy the games. That said, we are very likely going to have at least one pair or team playing in the matches who are going to be using a modified form of sayc..I can't say exactly HOW modified because the system is on a spreadsheet and I don't have the software to open it.

I am concerned that this is going to lead to some questions. I would really like to have some idea if there is going to be a problem or not, and if so, what might be a reasonable way of handling it. The people in question have a good rep for alerting and explaining bids.

If somebody who IS a qualified person would have the time (and software) to glance over the spreadsheet (I have the link) and give me some feedback about any potential problems, if any, I would sleep better at night. We aren't planning on starting the matches for a little while yet.

[jtfanclub]

Feel free to email it to me at jtfanclub@yahoo.com

[DrTodd13]

First off, the suggestion that anything highly divergent from SAYC is "not reasonable bidding" is ridiculous and to many people almost offensive. The most unreasonable bidding I have ever seen has in fact come from SAYC players who learned SAYC at a skin deep level and then decide that's all they need to have fun and then get upset when anybody makes them think by exposing them to something they haven't seen before.

Second, there's software called OpenOffice (just google it) that is free that will probably allow you to view this spreadsheet assuming it is in some normal kind of format.

Third, a better word than "reasonable" for you would be "orthodox." You want to establish rules so that people don't have to think or learn anything new. That is fine...your tournament, your rules. However, before anyone could possibly answer the question as to whether the system in question is unorthodox, you first have to define orthodoxy. You do that by defining what the ACBL calls a convention chart. You can go to their website and download the three they define, the general convention chart, midchart, and superchart...in increasing levels of complexity. You probably want the general convention chart. You can start from that and add or remove as you see fit. I would suggest that you use the general convention chart unmodified because those who attempt to write their own from scratch or even to modify GCC tend to do a really terrible job. The ACBL have experts doing it and they still manage to create an inconsistent mess. If you want to carve out exceptions for this gadget or that gadget, you'll find it nearly impossible to write such regulations that exclude what you want to exclude and only those things you want to exclude. It is really tough.

[jtfanclub]

Wow, that was quite the vitrolic reply for what seemed to me to be a reasonable request.

In team games it's very common to require each pair to post their CCs so the opponents can look at them and the TD can see if there's anything problematic. If onoway doesn't feel qualified to look at it, why shouldn't she ask others?

[cherdano]

I think it is pretty weird to "look at a system to see whether there are any potential problems" without knowing the context. There aren't any objectively problematic agreements.
I think it is even more weird when someone who constantly shows a failure to understand basic bidding principles volunteers to so.

[jkdood]

Doesn't seem weird to me when JTFANCLUB is being engaged, helpful, and reasonable

[TylerE]

I think it is far more important in any case that the opposing team have access to the notes...

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Aug 21 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

I think it is pretty weird to "look at a system to see whether there are any potential problems" without knowing the context. There aren't any objectively problematic agreements.
I think it is even more weird when someone who constantly shows a failure to understand basic bidding principles volunteers to so.

I suspect I understand more about basic bidding principles than you seem to think. The fact that I tend to be 20 years behind the times doesn't hurt any here, because the alert procedures also tend to be 20 years behind the times.

Besides, I'm not suggesting that I evaluate the system to see how good it is. I'm suggesting that I can take a look at it and see if the explanations given for the calls are sufficient and necessary, and if I think any of it should be pre-alerted.

Nothing stopping you from doing this too, you know.

[onoway]

Quote

First off, the suggestion that anything highly divergent from SAYC is "not reasonable bidding" is ridiculous and to many people almost offensive. The most unreasonable bidding I have ever seen has in fact come from SAYC players who learned SAYC at a skin deep level and then decide that's all they need to have fun and then get upset when anybody makes them think by exposing them to something they haven't seen before.

Well, Todd, you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding the question. I want to know if there are likely to be problems, if so what the problems might likely be and what if anything I should do about them. To suggest such concerns are ridiculous and almost offensive is bizarre.

In reply to rational and helpful responses, I am asking that cc's be posted and I am sure that these teams will do so. Does that mean anything is legal because it is in a cc?

The thing is, matches are made up with usually less than a day for teams to prepare for their specific match, as many teams will morph from week to week. We will have people of widely diverse abilities playing. I am expecting (hoping!) that the more adept will take everything in stride. Since I do know that a number of the bids are twisted from their " standard" meaning I am expecting some of the other players to feel " hard done by" even if cc's are posted and alerts made. When people feel unhappy they are apt to complain. If the fact that a cc is posted and alerts made means that all is legal, then there is likely to be no problem (for the directors). Is that the case?

[jillybean]

If I turned up to play a team match and found my opps playing an unusual system I’d feel hard done by too! We dont know how unusual a system it is but to be fair unless the system notes and defenses are available to the other teams ahead of time, it creates an unfair advantage. From the sounds of things these teams could be formed at the last minute and thus will only have basic agreements in place.

I think it will be setting you up for a lot of grumbles and players who wont return.

[Trinidad]

onoway, on Aug 22 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

If the fact that a cc is posted and alerts made means that all is legal, then there is likely to be no problem (for the directors). Is that the case?

That depends. It is your tournament, and you have to define -up front- what systems are allowed. Did you do that?

If you did, then the question is really "Can someone open a file that I can't read?" and then OpenOffice is likely able to work just fine. You could also ask if the players can convert their spreadsheet into something that you can read.

I would find it very understandable if you hadn't defined what systems are allowed. After all, you are just trying to organize some fun matches without having any directing certifications. That is perfectly fine and you are doing the players a favor. But then don't worry about things that are this complicated either. Most likely, this systems thing will never become an issue.

As an aside, if you didn't specify what systems are allowed, but still want to play a fair competition (following the bridge laws) then anything goes. And note that anything means anything, not just modified SAYC, but also the really weird stuff. You cannot start changing the rules halfway through the competition (or after the players have prepared their systems).

My suggestion:
Just let these people play their system. As you say yourself, they are ethical, alert properly, etc. (What makes you think that these guys would do something 'illegal' anyway?) Then, there are basically two possible outcomes:

- Everybody is having a good time. Do the same thing next time.

- Some people are having problems with these 'modified SAYC' players. Then decide, before the next event, what kind of event you want to run. If you want to run an event with only 'simple SAYC' then state that clearly when you are announcing the next event.

Either way, best of luck organizing these matches.

Rik

[Trinidad]

jillybean2, on Aug 22 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

If I turned up to play a team match and found my opps playing an unusual system I’d feel hard done by too! We dont know how unusual a system it is but to be fair unless the system notes and defenses are available to the other teams ahead of time, it creates an unfair advantage. From the sounds of things these teams could be formed at the last minute and thus will only have basic agreements in place.

I think it will be setting you up for a lot of grumbles and players who wont return.

They call their system 'Modified SAYC'. How unusual can it really be? Would you expect them to play a forcing pass system, strong diamond, two-way club, strong club, 4 card majors?

I don't think so. They will be playing five card majors, a strong 1NT opening, a strong and artificial 2♣ opening and a few conventions that they think are fun. Maybe they play Bergen raises or inverted minors and they may have some detailed agreements about bidding later in the auction (Checkback Stayman or something like that) or in competition (may be Lebensohl).

I find the idea that one would have to provide a written defense when playing 'Modified SAYC' amusing (and that is not a good thing).

Rik

[DrTodd13]

onoway, on Aug 22 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

Quote

First off, the suggestion that anything highly divergent from SAYC is "not reasonable bidding" is ridiculous and to many people almost offensive. The most unreasonable bidding I have ever seen has in fact come from SAYC players who learned SAYC at a skin deep level and then decide that's all they need to have fun and then get upset when anybody makes them think by exposing them to something they haven't seen before.

Well, Todd, you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding the question. I want to know if there are likely to be problems, if so what the problems might likely be and what if anything I should do about them. To suggest such concerns are ridiculous and almost offensive is bizarre.

In reply to rational and helpful responses, I am asking that cc's be posted and I am sure that these teams will do so. Does that mean anything is legal because it is in a cc?

The thing is, matches are made up with usually less than a day for teams to prepare for their specific match, as many teams will morph from week to week. We will have people of widely diverse abilities playing. I am expecting (hoping!) that the more adept will take everything in stride. Since I do know that a number of the bids are twisted from their " standard" meaning I am expecting some of the other players to feel " hard done by" even if cc's are posted and alerts made. When people feel unhappy they are apt to complain. If the fact that a cc is posted and alerts made means that all is legal, then there is likely to be no problem (for the directors). Is that the case?

You started off your post talking about "reasonable bidding." When you use this term, you must think that there is also something that is unreasonable bidding. So, please define what unreasonable bidding is. You have to understand that once you make that definition, anybody here that plays what you call "unreasonable bidding" has a right to be offended. Whatever you will define as unreasonable has no doubt been commonplace in sundry times and places. Here is the difference. Somebody wants to join your league.

You can't play this system or that system or this set of conventions because:

Option A: They aren't "reasonable."
Option B: The other people in this league will get upset if they have to play against them.

Option B is totally fine to say and isn't offensive. Using option A is passing judgement on those systems and conventions. They may be perfectly logical and internally consistent yet you call them unreasonable because they are unusual or unfamiliar.

You should have asked "what systems and conventions should I ban to keep people happy" rather than passing judgement. I realize you probably didn't intend to do that but given your word choice that is what you did and I think it probably reveals your inner bias that anything besides SAYC is an attempt to gain from unfamiliarity.

To answer your question, if you allow things in your league outside GCC then some people will complain about having to deal with something they haven't had to deal with before. If you disallow things already allowed by the GCC then some people will complain that they can't use their favorite GCC-legal gadget.

I think you should listen closer to the answers you've been given by other people. You've been given all the answers you need for but you keep asking questions. The obligations to provide adequate disclosure are orthogonal to what systems or conventions are allowed. It is simple, you must define what systems and conventions you allow. If you don't, then by default everything is allowed. If you do nothing then everything is legal. If you create a convention card then only those things you say are legal are legal. Something on a CC that is not on your convention chart is not legal. Whatever option you go with there, people have an obligation to document their agreements on their CC and to alert properly.

[onoway]

Well, modified sayc was my term not theirs. because I understand it to have its roots (rather well buried!) in Goren. It is quite a bit more complicated than that. The very little I have seen looks to me like a cross between sayc and precision. Lots of artificial bids..

I don't want to limit the sorts of things people can play if it is reasonable to think that the play will be able to proceed with a decent chance of everyone being able to enjoy themselves and play to the best of their ability. Certainly there are no plans to deny teams the chance to play Precision or Acol, for example. Precision has enough variations, it seems, that perhaps it could be as difficult for the average /+ player to deal with that as anything new, so this may be looking for grief where none exists. I just don't know.

Also I very much doubt that they have anything organized in terms of a defense against it, they are still working on the system itself, to my understanding. Is this something they are responsible for? That seems a bit weird to me and would not have crossed my mind.

Jilly is expressing a reaction for sure some players will share.. On the other hand, if this would pass the the ACBL standards I would feel a lot more comfortable telling people to " live with it". With that in mind, I will take up jtfanclub on his kind offer to check it out. Perhaps a HEAD's UP when people go to register will be all that's needed to take care of any potential problem.

I appreciate the input, thank you all.

[jillybean]

Trinidad, on Aug 22 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 22 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

If I turned up to play a team match and found my opps playing an unusual system I’d feel hard done by too! We dont know how unusual a system it is but to be fair unless the system notes and defenses are available to the other teams ahead of time, it creates an unfair advantage. From the sounds of things these teams could be formed at the last minute and thus will only have basic agreements in place.

I think it will be setting you up for a lot of grumbles and players who wont return.

They call their system 'Modified SAYC'. How unusual can it really be? Would you expect them to play a forcing pass system, strong diamond, two-way club, strong club, 4 card majors?

I don't think so. They will be playing five card majors, a strong 1NT opening, a strong and artificial 2♣ opening and a few conventions that they think are fun. Maybe they play Bergen raises or inverted minors and they may have some detailed agreements about bidding later in the auction (Checkback Stayman or something like that) or in competition (may be Lebensohl).

I find the idea that one would have to provide a written defense when playing 'Modified SAYC' amusing (and that is not a good thing).

Rik

Laugh all you like and I hope you’re right but I have no idea what ‘modified sayc’ could include. The OP says players have widely diverse playing abilities and some teams will be formed on the fly. Put these players against a practiced team playing an unusual system and its not going to be fun.

Its one thing to ensure things are GCC legal but this sounds more like a fun match and keeping the majority of players happy could be more important. With that in mind it would be a good thing to provide defense against precision openings too. If some players already know it they will ignore it, if they don’t they will appreciate the information and feel more on an even playing field.

(when I said unusual system, I was meaning unusual/unknown to a basic sayc player rather than an official classification)

[Mbodell]

jillybean2, on Aug 22 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Put these players against a practiced team playing an unusual system and its not going to be fun.

Its one thing to ensure things are GCC legal but this sounds more like a fun match and keeping the majority of players happy could be more important.  With that in mind it would be a good thing to provide defense against precision openings too. If some players already know it they will ignore it, if they don’t they will appreciate the information and feel more on an even playing field.

While that may be a practical approach, I think one must be very careful how one phrases that. Because after all a less experienced person playing in a pick up partnership against a well established partnership playing *anything* will be at a disadvantage. The key is the established partnership part, not what the partnership plays. Also, precision is *not* an unusual system. Even the ACBL, not known as a permissive bridge body, uses language like:

Quote

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1♣ or 2♣.

So the common methods are 4 or 5 card majors, weak or strong NT, and 1♣ precision or 2♣ SA method.

In a pick up partnership what would you expect a 2♥ call to mean over a strong nt, a weak nt, or a strong 2♣ and would you propose to provide defenses to all of that? If not, why would you propose to give the defense to the precision openings?

So sure maybe something that says assume capp over strong nt, nat over weak nt, mathe over 1♣, and nat over 2♣ if undiscussed would help some of the players, but the singling out of precision makes me uncomfortable in the same way that the acting like psyching is illegal or acting like calling the director is confrontational does. I think it sends a hurtful subtextual message.

At the end of the day whoever is running a tournament is free to do what they want, but I certainly empathize with those who were concerned in this thread.

[NickRW]

onoway, on Aug 22 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

I don't want to limit the sorts of things people can play if it is reasonable to think that the play will be able to proceed with a decent chance of everyone being able to enjoy themselves and play to the best of their ability. Certainly there are no plans to deny teams the chance to play Precision or Acol, for example.

Well, quite.

If there is a query over what whether something is acceptable or not (as indeed there seems to be), I suggest that, as other posters have suggested, it is up to you as organiser to specify what is acceptable. Then the onus is on the teams to conform to that.

The ACBL have several "charts". Much criticised on these forums, but at least they are a standard. The EBU has something called the orange book - freely downloadable (just google orange book EBU) - that has three levels defined similar to the American one. I dare say other national regulating authorities also do. Pick one and go with it.

Nick

[jtfanclub]

I like Precision to be pre-alerted, since it affects unalerted bids. Also lets opps agree on their NT defense.

Defense to Precision is very simple...bid over 1♣ and 1♦ like normal, except that I prefer 2 of the suit to be natural, not Michaels. But then, I prefer that anyways. 2♣ should be treated as a weak(ish) 2 and defended accordingly.

Sure, you can play IDAC or Mathe. But you won't gain enough for them to be worth learning if you don't play against Precision regularly.

It's Polish club that really needs a pre-alert, so that the opps can discuss whether they want to play 2♣ as Splinter or natural, and X as 3-suited or majors.

[onoway]

This is most helpful. Thanks. Perhaps we need to ask teams (and pairs, since that will help pairs find likeminded pairs to form teams) to identify the system they are playing when they register. Then anyone who cares to, can see what they might be playing against and prepare..so it will be a learning curve for some but they won't be blindsided.
Perhaps it would be helpful to have links to defenses against the less familiar systems or treatments which will be used. So the next question which comes up is, does anyone have a link for defending against a system using canape bids? This IS going to come up.

[TylerE]

jtfanclub, on Aug 22 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

Bid over 1♣ and 1♦ like normal, except that I prefer 2 of the suit to be natural, not Michaels.  But then, I prefer that anyways.  2♣ should be treated as a weak(ish) 2 and defended accordingly.

LOL. Can I play money bridge against you?