[Gerben42]

I have a strong opinion about the sequence where they give you exactly one step, as here.

1♥ showing ♠:

Dbl = I have a TO Dbl of 1♠, can be quite light.
1♠ = 4♥ and longer minor (1NT asks minor)
1NT = Natural
2 of new suit = Natural
2♠ = ♥ and a minor

Reasoning: You want to be in the same position as often as possible compared to the other table. The other table cannot overcall 1♥, so we don't either.

I also agree with "get back to natural ASAP". I discussed this with my partner when playing a pair who did the same thing to OVERCALLS:

(1m) 1♥ = ♠
(1m) 1♠ = ♥

I don't think it's that a great idea, but we had to deal with it.

[paulg]

mike777, on Feb 25 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

"If it were a HUM or BSC, then written defences would be permitted but it's not close to meeting the criteria for this."

Side note I will let you tell me what is "close" to HUM or BSC.  Please note close does not mean...HUM or BSC ...it means close.......

I trust you when you say this is not "close"


given that you basically tell us nonexeperts this is far from HUM or BSC we got an issue.

The criteria for HUM and BSC are provided in the WBF's System Policy.

The WBF is very liberal when it comes to opening bids that have (standard) opening values and show a specific suit. So switching the meaning of 1♥ and 1♠ openers does not make this something that the WBF believes that its competitors should be protected from.

How this creates an issue for you is unclear to me. Players in WBF tournaments are assumed to be of a standard that you can cope with such methods.

The EBU agrees with the WBF and almost all its tournaments permit this method. Naturally most of the competitors will be non-experts and they are expected to cope. Seems a sensible view to me.

The Scottish Bridge Union disagrees and it is not permitted. But this is perhaps because no-one has ever applied to use it.

The ACBL would not permit this method at GCC or Mid Chart. It is probably acceptable at Superchart (with written defence) given that Jan, wearing her unofficial hat, seems fairly relaxed about it.

Paul

[mike777]

"How this creates an issue for you is unclear to me. Players in WBF tournaments are assumed to be of a standard that you can cope with such methods."


I agree that this assumption is key. Reading books by World champions I think this assumption may be wrong but at the very least open to wide debate.

If I understand your post in ACBL land this requires alot more than UK land.

If so in UK land as a nonexpert I would go with my option two.

All I can add is that your assumed WBF standard may or may not be true: I do not debate it is assumed.

[JanM]

cardsharp, on Feb 25 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

The EBU agrees with the WBF and almost all its tournaments permit this method. Naturally most of the competitors will be non-experts and they are expected to cope. Seems a sensible view to me.

The Scottish Bridge Union disagrees and it is not permitted. But this is perhaps because no-one has ever applied to use it.

The ACBL would not permit this method at GCC or Mid Chart. It is probably acceptable at Superchart (with written defence) given that Jan, wearing her unofficial hat, seems fairly relaxed about it.

I agree that this is clearly allowed under WBF rules and is neither BS nor HUM so written defenses would not be allowed. That's one of my reasons for wanting to get "back to normal" as much as possible (although even when written defenses are allowed, we usually try to get back to normal if we can - a lot of bridge judgment has been developed over the years based on the sorts of hands and situations we've seen before, so players will usually have better judgment in familiar situations).

To be classified as BS by the WBF, essentially, the bid has to be weak and have no known suit. Since both of these bids are opening bids that have a known 4+ card suit, they are indeed not "close."

This would clearly be allowed under the ACBL Super Chart (essentially anything except "destructive only" methods are allowed, and although we can argue about what is "destructive only," I don't think anyone would claim this is), where the proponents would have to provide a recommended defense and the defenders could consult that defense or one of their choosing during the auction.

At the moment, this isn't allowed under the Midchart, because no one has asked for it to be approved and submitted an adequate description and defense. If it were approved, written defenses (either the approved one or one chosen by the opponents) would be allowed.

[straube]

Gerben42 said:

I have a strong opinion about the sequence where they give you exactly one step, as here.

1♥ showing ♠:

Dbl = I have a TO Dbl of 1♠, can be quite light.
1♠ = 4♥ and longer minor (1NT asks minor)
1NT = Natural
2 of new suit = Natural
2♠ = ♥ and a minor

Reasoning: You want to be in the same position as often as possible compared to the other table. The other table cannot overcall 1♥, so we don't either.

Were we talking matchpoints or teams here? I'm assuming matchpoints for sake of discussion.

It's hard to know what will happen at other tables. Our opponents' 1H can show 4 or 5 spades. If the other tables are playing 5-card majors, they will sometimes be opening 1m...or possibly even 1H natural (if at our table the opponents open 1H (spades) with 4S/5H).

If the other tables open 1m (in the instances where they have only four spades), then other people sitting our direction can overcall 1H. For us then, trying to be in the same position would mean showing hearts at the 1-level and using 2H as a weak two.

Now if we're playing teams, I don't understand as much the desire to try to get back into position. I think I'd just hope that our opening and defensive methods are better than the other teams'.

[FrancesHinden]

On the 'closeness' to BS or HUM methods: the opinion of the English regulators is that this type of method - where the opening bid absolutely promises one particular suit - is easier to defend against than 'nebulous' openings such as Polish Club, Percision 1D, or even a standard american 1m opening. Why is it harder to play against a 1S opening promising 5+ hearts, than it is to play against a 1C opening which might have clubs, might be balanced, or might be 16+ points with no clubs?

I think the best defensive methods depend on how many boards you are going to play against the method. If it's only a short set or two, as in the Camrose, you are best off staying within your comfort zone. Jan's suggestion of Astro-type overcalls may be a good theoretical idea, but if you aren't used to playing these you will forget the inference when you don't make one and/or get confused over what is natural, what is a cue bid etc. With that in mind, I have to play against these openings extremely rarely (they are usually team-mates), but if I do, I play

(1H) -
x = hearts, typically a 1-level overcall (5 hearts) or a good hand without a good suit which will act again
1S = take-out double of spades
1NT/2C/2D/2H = as over a 1S opening
2S = Michaels
3C+ as over a 1S opening

It might be theoretically better to double on the Michaels hands and use 2S as natural given the strict 4CM possible canape nature of the opening, but again that is less likely to be a 'comfortable' way to play.

I used to play double as take-out of spades and 1S as natural, but I've decided that in spite of the 4CM approach, you are still more likely to want to show hearts cheaply than spades cheaply.

Similarly:

(1S) -
x = take-out of hearts. This may include 5S.
2H = Michaels
2S = natural, may well be only a 5-card suit.

Whether you double or overcall 2S is the same decision as what to do over a 1S opening with five hearts.

If you were going to play a Bermuda Bowl final or something, then take the time to practise bidding a lot of hands and come up with the best, not the easiest, defence.



p.s. IMO the 1 major openings are not the hardest thing to defend against in their system. Have a think about the 2C opening and/or their defense to a short 1C opening....

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Feb 24 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

As we'll have a full record of every board they play those who are interested will be able to analyse how specific defences would, or would not, have succeeded.

Paul

As I think you already know, they play a lot on BBO anyway, sometimes even against people who've discussed a defence.