[Chris3875]

---

3♦was alerted. East asked about it and was told that a jump bid shows a void in the bid suit. East asked about the points and was told "he will have some points" !
4♣ and 5♣ were both Gerber. The director at this club is unhappy about this convention even though the bid was alerted and it is on their convention card. When she asked me I felt that they should be also saying that the bid can be made with as few as 2 points, but apart from that I cannot see any reason to take any further action. To me it seems a pretty stupid sort of bid. Any comments?

[barmar]

What do they say the damage was? Would they have bid the grand with a better explanation? East knows from his own hand that North can't have more than 6 HCP.

It seems to me that E/W did the damage to themselves. Why did East bother asking for kings if he wasn't planning on bidding 7 with all of them?

[Chris3875]

I agree with your comment about the damage (or lack, thereof).... I know at our table (it was a simultaneous event and we played the same boards Australia-wide) the bidding was simple -
1NT - 4C
4S - 5C
5H - 7NT
and a claim was made after the opening lead.

Amongst other things the Director is concerned about this bidding "style" at club level where there are some very inexperienced players, but I'm not sure we can (or should) be intefering with players' conventions - as long as they make a full disclosure.

[Chris3875]

Deleted

This post has been edited by Chris3875: 2011-November-21, 04:40

[RMB1]

Chris3875, on 2011-November-21, 04:34, said:

Amongst other things the Director is concerned about this bidding "style" at club level where there are some very inexperienced players, but I'm not sure we can (or should) be intefering with players' conventions - as long as they make a full disclosure.

Some posters from Australia extol the virtues of an "anything goes" approach to permitted argreements. The downside of such an approach is that inexperienced players at club level have to content with such conventions (and this bidding "style"). The club may or may not have the power to regulate conventions at club events (or in Australia-wide simultaneous events) depending on how such powers are delegated by the national bridge organisation.

That said, the EBU (regarded by some as regulation-heavy) permits all defences to 1NT at level 3 and so this convention would be permitted in most clubs.

[bluejak]

In most parts of the world, though I am not sure about Australia, clubs can make their own rules about what you are allowed to play. Assuming this is the case in Australia, then the club could ban this convention.

Nevertheless, Australia is the country that allows the most, and pooh-poohs the regulations elsewhere in the world, so you will be going pretty much against the Australian approach if you do.

Why do you want to ban this silly convention? Because it got one good board? You should see the rude remarks on RGB because it is alleged that the reason for not allowing the Kaplan inversion and the Multi at GCC in the ACBL is because a member of the Board of Directors got a bad result playing against these conventions. Of course it is not true - is it?

Just makes sure that they describe it correctly in future: shows a void, may be as weak as anything, and let them play it.

[Zelandakh]

Does anyone else feel that "shows a void" is almost certainly not full disclosure? I mean AKQJTx/AKQJTx/-/x fits the description but I strongly doubt the pair in question would bid 3D with this hand. Does it show the other 3 suits? Any 2 or 3 of the other suits? Can it be made with a 1-suiter? Minimum strength? Maximum strength? Without knowing the rest of their system I cannot begin to answer these questions. As an opponent I would not want to spend 5 minutes going through their entire 1NT defence just to know what this bid means - the information should be forthcoming immediately.

My advice to the "unhappy" TD would be to ask the pair in question to prepare full disclosure for the bid in future and to warn them that failure to do so will result in PPs being issued. However, on this hand I would not adjust. The interference does not seem to have caused any damage to E-W. Disallowing a convention because you do not like it is a slippery slope. By all means classify a game as "for beginners" and play at whatever level the regulating authority has presecribed appropriate for this, but taking away perfectly legal bids is inappropriate when they are fully explained. Just be sure to make clear that it is incumbant on those playing unusual methods to be able to explain them in full detail, including all negative inferences they create. The idea of playing unusual methods should not be to cause confusion and doubt in the opponents because they do not understand them!

[mycroft]

I can believe that the ABF allows clubs to regulate conventions, especially in a "new players" game; but their regulations I'm sure clearly make this call, no matter what the strength, legal absent such regulation (given what I know about what they *do* allow).

That said, as Zelendakh says, their explanation, while obvious to *me*, is clearly in need of clarification, especially if they play in a "newer player" field - the fact that it's a three-suiter, [and void in [suit]] is not something the opponents should have to work out on their own.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 08:20, said:

In most parts of the world, though I am not sure about Australia, clubs can make their own rules about what you are allowed to play. Assuming this is the case in Australia, then the club could ban this convention.

That is indeed the case in Australia, so if the club in question wanted to put in place tighter system restrictions they are free to do so. The more common approach is that most clubs simply adopt the ABF System Regulations which have pretty much the same system classification regime as the WBF and disallow yellow (HUM) systems and in some cases BS conventions, and require adequate disclosure both at the pre-alert stage and during the auction and play. I don't think this particular convention would satisfy the definition of a BS convention under ABF or WBF rules, so the only way a club that didn't want these sorts of methods in play would be to ban them on a convention-by-convention basis which would be quite cumbersome.

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 08:20, said:

Nevertheless, Australia is the country that allows the most, and pooh-poohs the regulations elsewhere in the world, so you will be going pretty much against the Australian approach if you do.

Do you have any data to back up that comment? Australia's system regulations pretty much mirror the WBF regulations and it's only really the system regulations in a couple of NBOs that I ever see criticised by my countrymen.

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 08:20, said:

Just makes sure that they describe it correctly in future: shows a void, may be as weak as anything, and let them play it.

I fully agree with that. The best way to regulate unusual conventions is to come down hard on people who don't disclose their methods properly.

As an aside, I played in this event with my 14 year-old daughter at the local senior citizens club and our auction went 1NT(me):6NT(her) and she was very proud as it was the first time she had bid a slam! Believe it not, 6NT+1 was actual worth 52.3% on the board!

[mrdct]

Question for the world: In what jurisdictions and/or sub-levels within those jurisdictions would this 3♦ overcall against 1NT be illegal? I thought in most place you were fairly free to have any defence you want against a 1NT opening.

[blackshoe]

It's legal at all levels (even on the "Limited" Chart for games where the players have less than 20 masterpoints) in the ACBL.

[Mbodell]

I'm a little surprised everyone in Australia (posting in this thread at least) is opening the W hand 1nt. I'm surprised there aren't more weak nt players and/or players who count points and don't downgrade an 18 count (unless maybe 16-18 is a popular range?). QJ-tight is obviously bad, but you do have a T, a 9, and two good quality 4 card suits. Assuming the range of 1nt is 15-17, then it makes sense that the E player assumes that partner probably has 15 and that 6nt is the point based limit.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-November-21, 15:21, said:

Do you have any data to back up that comment? Australia's system regulations pretty much mirror the WBF regulations and it's only really the system regulations in a couple of NBOs that I ever see criticised by my countrymen.

What do you mean by data? What do you expect?

I have been posting laws-related stuff on a variety of internet forums for fifteen years or more: I have been answering queries from around the world: I have been answering queries sent in to magazines and websites: I have been involved in mailing lists and newsgroups: I discuss matters by email with people from everywhere: I have directed in Australia and been involved in a lot of discussion while I was there. What do you expect me to do, show you everything I have read, seen and heard?

There are a number of countries that do not use WBF system regulations, certainly far more than a couple. Australians have tended to feel that theirs is the right way, and to say so vocally. Maybe they are right, maybe not, but I don't see how you can argue that they have said it.

What do you think, I have made up all this correspondence/posting/discussion/and so on up?

So what "data" do you expect?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 18:54, said:

So what "data" do you expect?

Your comment was "Australia is the country which allows the most". Putting the ACBL and EBU to one side, Australia's system regulations are not significantly different to any other NBO's that I'm aware of, but I would be pleased if you could provide some examples if you think that isn't the case. Contrary to the popular belief that club players all over Australia are having to deal with forcing pass and moscito everytime they turn up at a club duplicate, the use of yellow systems is quite heavily restricted to a handful of national events and late stages of a few major state events and it's not uncommon for individual clubs and convenors of minor events (we call them congresses) to impose rules such as "no transfer openings", "no twerb", etc. Australia certainly has a lot of advocates for system freedom who no doubt make their views well heard in the various forums, but that doesn't mean the ABF has an "anything goes" approach to system regulation.

[bluejak]

You still do not answer the question: what data do you expect?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-22, 06:26, said:

You still do not answer the question: what data do you expect?

Some examples of NBOs other than the ACBL and EBU that have more restrictive system regulations than Australia would be a good start as I'm not aware of any.

If you are interested in preparing something more quantitative I guess you could come up with the list of a few treatments which are prohibited in the ACBL and/or EBU and then have a look at the prevailing system regulations in NBOs with, say, >10,000 members of which I believe there are 13 and see which NBOs allow those things in low-level (club duplicates), mid-level (multi-session tournaments/congresses) and high-level (national champioinships) competition. It's a little bit difficult obviously as not all NBO's regulate systems for events other than national events, but it ought to be possible to get a feel for which bridge jurisdictions have more system freedom.

The point I am challenging is the assertion that Australia has the most lax system regulations in the world as I've not seen evidence other than anecdotal comments in forums. In a 200km radius of where I live on the NSW/VIC border, I'm not allowed to play transfer responses to 1♣ in about a quarter of the congresses I like to play in, although my local senior citizens centre is OK with any system (including transfers) provided everything is pre-alerted properly and there are no HUM (yellow) fetures or brown sticker conventions.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-November-22, 18:57, said:

In a 200km radius of where I live on the NSW/VIC border, I'm not allowed to play transfer responses to 1♣ in about a quarter of the congresses I like to play in,

Yes, what really matters is when different levels of regulation are permitted. In England I think that transfer responses to 1♣ are allowed at all congresses, with the possible exception of congresses for novices. The ACBL Super Chart is only a little more restrictive than EBU's Level 4; but the latter is used almost all the time and the former rarely.

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-22, 19:42, said:

Yes, what really matters is when different levels of regulation are permitted. In England I think that transfer responses to 1♣ are allowed at all congresses, with the possible exception of congresses for novices. The ACBL Super Chart is only a little more restrictive than EBU's Level 4; but the latter is used almost all the time and the former rarely.

Well there you have it, Australia has more restrictive regulations for the use of transfer responses than the EBU!

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 18:54, said:

What do you mean by data? What do you expect?

I have been posting laws-related stuff on a variety of internet forums for fifteen years or more: I have been answering queries from around the world: I have been answering queries sent in to magazines and websites: I have been involved in mailing lists and newsgroups: I discuss matters by email with people from everywhere: I have directed in Australia and been involved in a lot of discussion while I was there. What do you expect me to do, show you everything I have read, seen and heard?

There are a number of countries that do not use WBF system regulations, certainly far more than a couple. Australians have tended to feel that theirs is the right way, and to say so vocally. Maybe they are right, maybe not, but I don't see how you can argue that they have said it.

What do you think, I have made up all this correspondence/posting/discussion/and so on up?

So what "data" do you expect?

I know that you have been directing in Sweden. While you were there (around 2000 or so), you and I have been discussing (among other things) the Swedish systems policy at the time (to be honest, I don't know whether they have changed it now, maybe someone from Sweden can confirm).

That Swedish systems policy* is/was much more lenient than that of the WBF. I have always felt that this Swedish policy was fair and did justice to the senior's club as well as the system freaks.

Rik

*The Swedish policy assigned points to opening bids (I think between 1♣ and 2NT) based on their meanings: The harder a bid is to defend against, the more points the bid gets. There are categories of competitions and for each competition there is a limit on the total number of points a system may have. This means that in high level competitions in long matches you could play a forcing pass in a system that was otherwise fairly natural. Or you could play a standard approach with a couple of "mean" conventions (e.g. Wilkosz + 2♥ as Multi + ...). On the other hand, in low level competitions with 2 boards per round very little is permitted.