[Vampyr]

cardsharp, on Sep 24 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

My interpretation is that you are fine with power doubles. Firstly the strength of the double means that it is not overly wide ranging; and secondly partner would be expected to remove the double most of the time.

What are power doubles?

[campboy]

I've heard this term used to describe doubles of opening 1suit which show 15+ and normally don't have shortage in the suit doubled (in conjunction with 1NT overcall for takeout).

[helene_t]

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

I wish there were two levels of competition.

• Standard system: Everybody plays the same methods as laid down by the organizers. You may delete conventions but may not modify them or add new ones)
  
  
  
• Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.

Basically agree except that I don't like the requirement of approved defense.

First, I assume that you don't need an approved defense against strong notrump openings, or a first-seat pass showing 0-11 points. You need some criteria, which means that the regulations wouldn't be simpler than outright system restrictions.

Second, if all the thousands of home-grown conventions played at clubs should get an approved defense, it would be necessary somehow to deter players from submitting too many defenses for approval. For example by taking a fee. Or by turning down defenses for no good reason (as in the ACBL midchart). So de facto the regulations would not be very liberal.

Third, there is in general no one-size-fits-all defense. For Aunt Esmaralda's Tuesday Afternoon Tea and Cardplay Club you need at most two lines of text, and it must be compatible with the stuff they generally play there (Fishbein, all jumps strong, 4♣ always Gerber), for the Bermuda Bowl you may need several pages and you can make reference to well-known concepts such as P/C, scrambling, forcing pass, etc. One could have defenses approved only for a specific event (but that would put an enormous burden on the organizers, especially for events that only occur once), or one could group clubs and events into levels like the five EBU levels (but the aim was simplicity ..... )

Fourth, I think that most pairs don't care for approved defenses. Either they make up their own on the fly, or they default to common sense and meta-agreements, or they struggle enough with their defense against simple overcalls of their 1NT opening, so thinking about a defense against inverted psycho-suction would not be rational.

[paulg]

bluejak, on Sep 24 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 24 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

Quote

The idea of being the same over Europe is another nonsense: it is running the SBU for the sake of 1% of its players: I think that in the first case authorities should consider the large majority - who think Berwick and Carlisle are foreign - not the small minority.  Of course, for major events that is different, but we are talking of an overall policy which is expected to be used in clubs.

I am sure it is the fact that the WBF alerting policy has proved so popular in the clubs throughout the country, with (I believe) no complaints received except from some southern visitors, that has encouraged the committee to look at further simplifications like this.

The view that several better Scottish players have said is that they do not like it because of the inherent unfairness in playing fancy doubles without warning opponents, but the majority of players like it because they can manage not to alert doubles at all and do not realise they are being disadvantaged.

I too share this concern, especially about doubles late in the auction but hopefully most of the better players are pre-alerting any unusual 'early' doubles.

bluejak, on Sep 24 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Similarly, where doubles are not the point, no-one knows what the policy means, so the poorer players are ok because no-one accuses them of getting it wrong, and when they get a bad board because of the alerting they do not realise.

Popularity should not be the prime aim of organisers.

The rest of the policy means that people are playing the same alerting rules that they have been using for years in Scotland, except with no alerts above 3NT.

Popularity is not the prime aim, but comprehension and acceptance are important components.

[bluejak]

You think anyone pre-alerts a double of 1NT as not being penalties, for example?

Personally, I think pre-alerting stinks. I have all sorts of things to think about when playing bridge, and having to remember opponents' methods because the alerting system is too bad to tell me what I need to know seems completely counter-productive.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Reading Bridge Club allows any method, provided you supply a written defence, and that never causes a problem.

It seems to me that if a young and enthusiastic pair turned up playing some sort of HUM then it would not go down that well at many of the clubs I play at. Indeed apoplexy can be generated in some opponents by playing a strong club against them. Level 3 was kept at the last EBU review for clubs to have an agreed standard if they wanted to restrict what people could play (It is no longer used in EBU tournaments)

Quote

•Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.

I have seen this tried in two clubs I've played in and it has failed on both occasions. People do not, in general, want to play against germ warfare. Maybe its a sign of an ageing bridge population. I think if the EBU tried it as an additional tournament it would also fail for much the same reason.

Quote

Popularity is not the prime aim, but comprehension and acceptance are important components.

Yes. I agree but so is protecting weaker players

[paulg]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

You think anyone pre-alerts a double of 1NT as not being penalties, for example?

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

Quote

Personally, I think pre-alerting stinks.  I have all sorts of things to think about when playing bridge, and having to remember opponents' methods because the alerting system is too bad to tell me what I need to know seems completely counter-productive.

I think pre-alerts are important especially where the rounds are short. But I know that you have always disagreed

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Sep 25 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

You think anyone pre-alerts a double of 1NT as not being penalties, for example?

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

I think this is really weird.

If I fail to pre-alert some weird preempt which opps would have to discuss defense against, then I could understand it.

But there is no good reason to pre-alert an artificial dbl of 1NT. Opps don't need to prepare a defense against it. The only reason many of us pre-alert it is because we think that the silly rule that forbids us to alert it puts opps at a disadvantage.

But obviously the regulators do not agree with that. If they want us to disclose artificial dbls they would have made us alert them. They don't. So apparently they don't want us to disclose them (other than writing them on the CC and asking questions).

Anyway, I understand that the regulators have an unthankful task. Making rules that satisfy everyone is impossible.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Sep 25 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 25 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

You think anyone pre-alerts a double of 1NT as not being penalties, for example?

Clearly they should (and it is explicitly mentioned in the alerting booklet) but I appreciate that not everyone does and that you suffered from this at Peebles. I'd have thought the lack of a pre-alert would have been grounds for an adjustment if you were damaged.

I think this is really weird.

If I fail to pre-alert some weird preempt which opps would have to discuss defense against, then I could understand it.

But there is no good reason to pre-alert an artificial dbl of 1NT. Opps don't need to prepare a defense against it. The only reason many of us pre-alert it is because we think that the silly rule that forbids us to alert it puts opps at a disadvantage.

But obviously the regulators do not agree with that. If they want us to disclose artificial dbls they would have made us alert them. They don't. So apparently they don't want us to disclose them (other than writing them on the CC and asking questions).

Unlike England, as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

Quote

At the start of a round or match pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings, and strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as conveying unauthorised information.

This is the stage where you should draw opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have that might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Pay particular attention to unusual non-alertable conventional calls such as: unusual two-level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over opponents 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue-bids of opponent’s
suit, etc.

These should appear on your convention card, but should also be verbally described before the start of the round or match.

Highly unusual carding, for example leading low from doubletons, should also be described at this stage.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Sep 25 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Unlike England, as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

But why don't they just make those unusual doubles alertable? Asking what an alerted double of 1NT means doesn't convey any UI.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Sep 25 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 25 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Unlike England,  as part of the alerting policy, at the start of each round pre-alerts are required and unusual doubles should be included. Pre-alerting is not an optional item so I don't really see it as particularly weird.

But why don't they just make those unusual doubles alertable? Asking what an alerted double of 1NT means doesn't convey any UI.

Presumably because defining 'unusual' is too tough, which is also presumably why the WBF policy is as it is.

It seems that most authorities struggle with doubles.

[helene_t]

Giving it some more thought I think I might understand it. If we alert some non-unusual double because we think it is unusual, then it is an infraction. Pre-alerting such a double would not give any UI to partner and would not mislead opps so that would be less harmful.

It just sounds weird to give dbls a special status. People alert natural bids, forcing passes, and passes with semi-unusual negative inference in all kind of situations where they probably shouldn't but then again, "whenever in doubt, alert". I don't see why dbls deserve a special status.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Sep 25 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

[mycroft]

My .sig quote file for years had the following:

Adam Beneschan, on rec.games.bridge, Dec 4 2000, said:

We have the information that they play SAYC, but on OKB this often means little more than the fact that the opponents can find the letters S, A, Y, and C on their keyboard.

Link to full post

It hasn't got better in the last 10 years. SAYC, online, is code for "5cM, 1NT/1M passable, with whatever gadgets we play because we think they're standard". I'd bet that 80+% of "SAYC" players would treat 1H-3C-X as negative, and that half of those that got it right, got it right only because they don't know what a negative double is. Half of them think 3NT is gambling. 1NT-3m is forcing (or to play). Systems are on after NT overcalls. Stolen bid doubles or Lebensohl. Keycard. Gerber/suits. Any artificial defence to their NT.

There is "one area where choices are offered" - it is "the one area". I bet if you polled 100 "SAYC" players online, fewer than 5 would know what it was, and 2 of those would be surprised that there were no other options.

Not true? How many here checked me against the standard?

If everyone who played "SAYC" were forced to play SAYC, 95% of them would find another tournament. Even in Calgary, where there is a de facto "Calgary Standard 2/1 card", with a new partner, one takes 10-20 minutes to discuss the choices. If we forced them to play the standard (except once a year in the individual), they'd start another club or play at home.

The people who say "why should we have to play against all this weird stuff" usually have an unspoken "but don't take away our pet gadgets. After all, they're not weird". Please note, the current fad blowing through our intermediates is systems on after 1NT-X-p gets pulled (they are very surprised when yes, 2C asking for a major is Alertable). Makes perfect sense, it does.

[Mbodell]

A funny situation happened at a local pro-am game last year. The director was worried that some of the pros (anyone who is a life master counts as pro in this context) would force crazy conventions or systems on the ams. To protect this it was made an all SAYC tournament complete with everyone having the ACBL yellow card and being able to check their own card during the auction (or the opponents card as a memory aid). Everyone, pro and am alike, was pretty uncertain about what was and wasn't on the card.

[suprgrover]

nige1, on Sep 25 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

At our (ACBL) club, we have some freely available because it means that pick-up partnerships can have a filled-out card. I have to replenish the supply with another 100 every few months, so *someone* is using it here.

[helene_t]

nige1, on Sep 25 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 25 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

He didn't say that SAYC as a system is a failure.

It it SAYC-only tournaments that are a failure.

[bluejak]

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments.

Having a standard system card which can be altered is a very good idea, but one you are not allowed to alter annoys people at all levels who have some pet conventions.

[nige1]

nige1, on Sep 24 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I wish there were two levels of competition.

• Standard system: Everybody plays the same methods as laid down by the organizers. You may delete conventions but may not modify them or add new ones)
  
  
  
• Anything goes: Hums, Brown stickers, Encrypted calls and signals, the lot. Approved written defences. The defence (but not the convention) must be approved.

blackshoe, on Sep 25 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

The ACBL tried the "one system card, not modifiable" route (cf. Standard American Yellow Card) some years ago. It didn't go well.

nige1, on Sep 25 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

SAYC has some flaws but was a wonderful idea. It may not go well in America but, elsewhere, it flourishes. For example, here in Glasgow, schoolchildren are taught it and many pairs in local clubs play it, especially in pick-up partnerships. On the internet, it is widely played (eg on BBO).

helene_t, on Sep 26 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

He didn't say that SAYC as a system is a failure. It is SAYC-only tournaments that are a failure.

bluejak, on Sep 26 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

I have not run a Simple Systems tourney in England for some years but they were noticeable for a lot of arguments and unfriendliness over what was permitted, a problem almost unknown in other tournaments. Having a standard system card which can be altered is a very good idea, but one you are not allowed to alter annoys people at all levels who have some pet conventions.

Fair enough helene_t. Sorry, Blackshoe. But I wonder why? Bluejak says that people still argue over what's allowed. I would have thought that to be crystal-clear. Has anybody else had recent experience of "standard system" competitions? My experience is different from Bluejak's. Although I prefer variety in Bridge, I've played in many single-system individuals and a few "simple-system" pairs tournaments. We were allowed to delete conventions but not add or modify them. (I admit that we were also allowed to choose between strong Acol twos and Benjamin. And between strong no-trump and weak no-trump). They had lots of participants, who all seemed to enjoy them. I supposed them to be popular with beginners, with players allergic to new ideas, and with players who feel that Bridge is about judgement in bidding and play rather than bamboozling opponents with pre-prepared esoteric methods.