[mw64ahw]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-16, 03:36, said:

Not true, an opener at the 2 level is preemptive in that it cuts out a load of bids for the opponents. It can also be constructive (say you played 8-11).

We used to use 4 ranges over our multi

Slightly intrigued.
I can just about get 4 ranges out at or below 3N
2♦ -2N
3M R1
3♦ R2
3♣ R3 or R4 ♥
3N R4 ♠
With 8-11 as 2M your enquiry can be weaker, but uses up bids that could be otherwise employed; hence destructive even if the range is semantically constructive. MikeHs range is better as you can show the 14-16ish 6+carders at the 2-level rather than stretching.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2024-August-16, 03:27, said:

That would give a huge advantage to those who are bad at writing system notes.

Btw, those who believe in full disclosure should try the exercise of describing accurately what e.g. a 1♠ opening in 1st seat NV vs. V shows in their system, so that an opponent would be able to tell with absolute certainty whether a given hand is such a 1♠ opener or not.

Those who are bad at writing System Notes will be told by Director how to improve them (and not allowed to play their own version of the related convention until they do so).

I agree about the complexity of even a 1 level opening, but that's the point: your 1 level openings and follow ups are described in moderate detail on the System Card (at least in this country), but System Notes for conventions are only encouraged, up to a certain (in practice very high) level. Yet it's much easier and safer for you to guess about my non-alertable 1 level opening sequences than (say) my non-alertable control-bid sequences.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-August-16, 10:03, said:

Those who are bad at writing System Notes will be told by Director how to improve them (and not allowed to play their own version of the related convention until they do so).

I think you have a different experience of the Laws in Italy, than we do in North America.
You are not required to have a convention card here. The Laws say you do, but the reality is different.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-16, 10:20, said:

I think you have a different experience of the Laws in Italy, than we do in North America.
You are not required to have a convention card here. The Laws say you do, but the reality is different.

Even at the club level, my experience has been that you can call the director should neither opp have a completed CC. I wouldn’t do it if one of them had one, even though both should have one, but I see nothing wrong with getting the director to (gently with inexperienced players) explaining that a CC is mandatory,
.I would neither expect nor want a penalty…just education.

At higher levels, I’d be more insistent…but, again, not seeking nor expecting a penalty. However, if they are playing something exotic and have no CC, then I’d expect them to be told….’produce a CC or you’re not playing that gadget’. Fortunately, my experience has been that in high level bridge, disclosure is generally excellent….the only (frequent but not invariable) exception being that, for reasons that escape me, Polish pairs tend to be very, very bad at disclosure. Not all…those who play a lot in NA seem ok…so I suspect it’s partly language and mostly a tendency to think that polish club is so simple (‘everybody plays it at home’) that they don’t see the need to explain.

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2024-August-16, 11:01, said:

Even at the club level, my experience has been that you can call the director should neither opp have a completed CC. I wouldn’t do it if one of them had one, even though both should have one, but I see nothing wrong with getting the director to (gently with inexperienced players) explaining that a CC is mandatory,
.I would neither expect nor want a penalty…just education.

At higher levels, I’d be more insistent…but, again, not seeking nor expecting a penalty. However, if they are playing something exotic and have no CC, then I’d expect them to be told….’produce a CC or you’re not playing that gadget’. Fortunately, my experience has been that in high level bridge, disclosure is generally excellent….the only (frequent but not invariable) exception being that, for reasons that escape me, Polish pairs tend to be very, very bad at disclosure. Not all…those who play a lot in NA seem ok…so I suspect it’s partly language and mostly a tendency to think that polish club is so simple (‘everybody plays it at home’) that they don’t see the need to explain.

I agree, disclosure at the top levels is excellent, I wish I could play there more often.
I'm not clubbing baby seals at the local Club. I've ranted for years on this subject. There is no requirement to have a CC's at Sectionals + in BCD.

I stopped using a CC several years ago.

[jdiana]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-16, 12:27, said:

There is no requirement to have a CC's at Sectionals + in BCD.

I stopped using a CC several years ago.

Of course they are required. See p. 4 - https://web2.acbl.or.../AllGeneral.pdf

"Each member of a partnership must have a completed convention card available.
• Both cards of a partnership must be identical . . ."

I don't understand the refusal to provide a cc, although it seems very common among BBO players. I don't play much anymore but, when I played online a little bit, I was constantly annoyed by people who didn't have one. Besides, they're helpful for us (to have a way of reviewing our agreements between rounds, etc.) as well as providing required (and simply courteous) disclosure to our opponents.

Back when I played at the club, hardly anyone ever asked for, or looked at, our cc but everyone had them available. Maybe it was just something emphasized at our club. As an example, the very last class of our beginner lessons was an explanation of the rules and a walk-through where we all completed rudimentary cards.

[jillybean]

Yes, that is what the Laws say. In reality, in North America, many players don't have a CC and the Law is not enforced. C'est la vie.
Very happy to hear that your beginner lessons explained the rules and CC's

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-16, 12:27, said:

I agree, disclosure at the top levels is excellent, I wish I could play there more often.
I'm not clubbing baby seals at the local Club. I've ranted for years on this subject. There is no requirement to have a CC's at Sectionals + in BCD.

I stopped using a CC several years ago.

Disclosure gets better the higher you go, just as respect of the rules in general gets better the higher you go, in any sport.
People know the rules and are motivated to follow them, as this facilitates their success and gives it sense.

But yes, there is a widespread intolerance for the regulations that impose system cards, often contaging Directors and their superiors in a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.
I fully understand and share your frustration about this, but not your resignation: if disclosure of agreements is not worth fighting for, then what is, given the current basis of the game?
Either we give up on bidding (return to Whist) or we make agreements secret (Poker Bridge) or we respect and improve disclosure: anything else makes no sense IMO.

[jillybean]

To be clear, I am very rarely playing sanctioned games now. This is primarily due to personal circumstances but I definitely have a distaste for the ACBL.
If or when I go back I will have a CC in my pocket/purse or sitting on it.

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2024-August-14, 09:45, said:

This is one reason we play 2M is 9+-13. Otherwise, 2S for me. No aces, 10 hcp, doesn’t suit my 1S style and the notion of passing makes me laugh. Why on earth would I want to let the opps have a free ride? Sure, it’s a heavy 2S but that’s why one needs ogust as opposed to ‘feature’ or ’stiff’ asking responses. If I show a good hand with a good suit, isn’t that what I have?

Back to bridge without the rules restrictions.

Back in January 2023, you were playing Multi 2♦ weak 2M 5-10, and 2M 6M 10-13, is your 2D (when you can play Multi) now 5-8 or do you still have the judgement overlap?

[mycroft]

 mikeh, on 2024-August-16, 11:01, said:

...in high level bridge, disclosure is generally excellent….the only (frequent but not invariable) exception being that, for reasons that escape me, Polish pairs tend to be very, very bad at disclosure. Not all…those who play a lot in NA seem ok…so I suspect it’s partly language and mostly a tendency to think that polish club is so simple (‘everybody plays it at home’) that they don’t see the need to explain.

I am strongly agreeing with this, but explaining it slightly differently:

• In Poland for some reason they use the WBF colour code, but with "1♣ multi-meaning" as GREEN and not RED. Because it's "natural" as in "everybody plays it that way", I guess. They're allowed to do that, but for years, they would come to WBF events with their "Green" system...which put them on the back foot for "well-crafted CCs" before they even got to the explanations.
  
• "everybody plays it at home" - that's the "standard" loophole. I got one this week from a sometimes-pro player, who got the 2♣ Precision explanation of "11-15, 6+ clubs" and was quite indignant that they didn't explain that it might have a 4 card major. I asked him if he explained his 1♣ opener as "could have a 4 card major" - which of course he doesn't, nobody does. Nobody would even think this is something to think about - because that's "standard". So "11-21, 3+" or "clubs or balanced" or ... is considered "excellent disclosure" because all the needed information is in it. Unless your standard is Polish Club!
  
  I repeatedly point out that people who play unusual systems are held to a higher standard of disclosure. This is not because they have a different obligation than people who play the One True Bidding System; it's that the standard players don't get called on their "not quite full"s and their "oh yeah, that, of course"s - the other standard players "fill in the blanks" and don't even notice how bad the disclosure really is.
  
  The problem is that Poles, who have spent their life playing (and describing) "normal, standard bidding" in Poland, who leave for the first time, have got lazy the way we all playing standard have got lazy - and need to have the "yeah, have to be more careful/detailed here, you can't assume they'll just 'get it' like back home" flag raised. The more they play in North America, the more they play in WBF events, the more they understand.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-16, 15:39, said:

Back to bridge without the rules.

Back in January 2023, you were playing Multi 2♦ weak 2M 5-10, and 2M 6M 10-13, is your 2D (when you can play Multi) now 5-8 or do you still have the judgement overlap?

In my current main partnership, which formed in 1996 or so and ended in 2000 but reformed, with entirely different methods, shortly before Covid, we have (no exaggeration) changed at least one part of the method after every single event…often after each session. The changes are usually tweaks to gadgets rather than a huge revision. One of the changes has been to lower the minimum for 2M slightly…to a good 9 count whereas before it was a good 10 count. 2D is now 5-9.

Imo it’s foolish to use hcp as the only criterion for defining ranges of bids. But the ACBL requires that we disclose such things (and I agree wholeheartedly with encouraging full disclosure), so in ACBLand we have overlaps, which most would understand…plus even with the overlaps, we (depending on the bid in question) may add that ‘he’s been known to upgrade’.

On our WBF CC we actually write ‘frequent upgrades, rare downgrades’…which we copied from a Meckwell CC from the 2000 BB.

Also, our system notes contain the same explicit statement in the introduction.

Edit: I’m not sure what you mean by bridge without the rules. Bridge would be unplayable without rules. We pride ourselves on following the rules (which is ironic because we didn’t, for several tournaments…playing multi illegally, but based on the advice of the TD that it was legal).

[jillybean]

I apologize for my bad choice of words. I meant back to bridge, no restrictions, no limitations, no rules on what I can play.

[Cyberyeti]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-August-16, 06:01, said:

Slightly intrigued.
I can just about get 4 ranges out at or below 3N
2♦ -2N
3M R1
3♦ R2
3♣ R3 or R4 ♥
3N R4 ♠
With 8-11 as 2M your enquiry can be weaker, but uses up bids that could be otherwise employed; hence destructive even if the range is semantically constructive. MikeHs range is better as you can show the 14-16ish 6+carders at the 2-level rather than stretching.

Over a weak 2 is simple, this is what we use over a multi where the suit is ambiguous too and so is length. (1 is weakest, 4 strongest)

2N-3♣ = ♥ 1,2,4
2N-3[♦ = ♠ 1,2,4
2N-3M = that major 3
2N-3N = AKQxxx either major

Over 3m, next suit up asks, 3 of known major = 1, 4 of known major = 2 with 6, 3N = 2 with 5, anything else is feature on a type 4
3 of the known major signs off opposite 1 or 2 and opener bids again with 4

[Swammerdam]

I would never open 1-level 1st- or 2nd-chair with a minimum and only one Quick Trick, so that is out. And I won't open a 6-bagger at the 3-level, especially if I have quite a bit of high-card strength, so that is out.

So Two Spades is the bid. The range of my Two-Bids depends on vulnerability, but this hand qualifies in any case.