[Gerben42]

I'm asking this in behalf of a friend, who is completely confused with the regulations. I've already constructed a "readable GCC" but I guess I need to do some work here too for the sake of the world of bridge.

But it doesn't help, this tourney will have to start without clear regulations.

Quote

Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following:

c) Two-suited weak two/three-bid openings which specify only one (or neither) of the suits held;

anchor suit must contain at least five cards B except that two of a major showing that suit and a minor is permitted – even if the major is only a four card suit.

What does that mean?

Two-suited weak two/three-bids openings which specify only one or neither of the suits held are not allowed, I got that.

Then it goes on about an "anchor suit" but didn't we just disallow that? And then 4M 5m is allowed, apparently, which we also disallowed before. So what is allowed?!

Bonus question: Disallowed g) says:

Quote

g) Any system, convention or treatment that would require a pre-alert (in ACBL parlance) and written suggested defenses.

which again disallows what was previously allowed by c), in particular 2M = 4M + 5m weak.

Quote

Disallowed are Transfer openings or transfer responses, except:

2) Transfer responses over a 1 Club opening bid, as long as a 1 Spades response promises at least invitational values

What is invitational exactly? Who decides? Do sequences after opponents double (an artificial bid) count?

My friend simply wants to know if he can play his system AND wants to adhere to the rules, but cannot figure out what they are. And although by now I've read many system regulations, they confuse me too.

[awm]

I think the implicit idea here is that there are natural bids and artificial bids. Natural bids show four or more cards in the suit opened, and are generally allowed. This includes things like 2M showing the suit opened and an additional minor.

The regulations are designed mostly to limit non-natural bids. This is stuff like 2♦ showing an unspecified two-suiter (not allowed) or 1♦ showing length in hearts (not allowed) or 2♦ showing both majors (allowed only if at least one particular "anchor" major is known to be 5+ cards).

Most of the confusion here (as with the ACBL charts) relates to the legality of natural bids.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on May 4 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

My friend simply wants to know if he can play his system AND wants to adhere to the rules, but cannot figure out what they are. And although by now I've read many system regulations, they confuse me too.

Welcome to bridge in North America...

Have fun trying to get any guidance what-so-ever describing what type of system, convention, or treatment requires a pre-alert.

As I recall, canape methods like Blue Club require a prealert (or at least they used to). I am more than a bit amused to see that Hamman has banned his own system...

[MFA]

http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/index...id=16&Itemid=39

I agree they seem rather fuzzy. Now, I'm not lucky enough to be in the entry list, but if I were to play this event with my regular partner it seems that we might as well insta-pulp all our precision notes and write Bridge World Standard with a big, fat marker on the convention card and pretend we'd never met before. Sad, ours is a completely constructive system and I don't understand why such paranoic regulations are necessary.

Let me just add to the confusion.

10:

Quote

(...)
Any method of leads against suit or notrump contracts is permitted, but the partnership may play only one structure of honor and low card leads against suit contracts. A different structure of leads may be played in defense of a notrump contract, but only one method is allowed.
(...)

Hmm. So no special leads in partner's suits, no rusinow against gambling 3NT (but that convention is perhaps not allowed in the first place), no leading K from AK on the 5+ level, etc etc.
Or have I misunderstood?

14:

Quote

In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed.
...
e) Artificial bids or sequences that require a lengthy explanations (are not authorized).

Ugh, this is a killer. I wouldn't dare to play just about anything nonstandard with these catch-all regulations.

14:

Quote

... Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized...

I wonder what that covers. I guess that normal preempts are not included, but what is? Preemptive raises? Very light overcalling style on the 1-lvl? Aggressive DONT?

[mycroft]

it does say pre-Alert and written defence. EHAA requires (several) prealerts, but none of them require written defence, so they should be okay. Nothing on the ACBL GCC requires a written defence, even the stuff that is pre-Alertable.

But I admit, that wording is vague.

As far as invitational - it's clear that 1C-1S "forcing NT, I'm going to place the contract" is out, as is 1C-1S "I have a standard 1NT bid". I would take invitational to be "game-going opposite a more-than-minimum" as opposed to "game-going opposite a maximum only". Of course, nothing else - including the "guide to completing the WBF CC" defines invitational (it has, however, an abbreviation for it - INV) so I don't think you can blame that one on the Cavendish people.

What I can't tell is if the "4M5m" exception is to the anchorsuit=5 only or to the "both-suits required" part as well, or whether it should read:

disallowed:
- two-suited bids where only one suit is known, if the anchor suit does not guarantee 5 cards, except that a 4(known)M-5m call is allowed.

I would request clarification of specifics from the Tournament Committee - and have hardcopies of the response in Vegas!

[hrothgar]

mycroft, on May 4 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

it does say pre-Alert and written defence. EHAA requires (several) prealerts, but none of them require written defence, so they should be okay. Nothing on the ACBL GCC requires a written defence, even the stuff that is pre-Alertable.

Good catch: The regulations does require Suggested Defense AND Prealert. From what I can tell, the "Prealert" clause looks to be non operational.

Here's the ACBL's description of methods reguiring prealertsL

Quote

Pre-Alerts (Alerts before hands are removed from the first board of a round or match segment):

Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).

Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.

Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé. SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.

Leading low from a doubleton

I think that it would have been easier to phrase the regulation as follows

All Superchart methods are banned
All Midchart methods that require a suggested defense are banned

Exception: A 2M opening that promises a weak hand with a known 4+ card major and a minor is permitted. (Its hard to tell if you need to explictly promise two known suits or whether you can have a known 4 card major and an un known minor)

[blackshoe]

Heh. "The Alert Procedure is mandatory". What alert procedure? Where is it defined? Are we talking about the ACBL procedure? Where do the Cavendish CoC say so?

This event's organizers should have hired a competent technical writer.

[fred]

blackshoe, on May 5 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

Heh. "The Alert Procedure is mandatory". What alert procedure? Where is it defined? Are we talking about the ACBL procedure? Where do the Cavendish CoC say so?

This event's organizers should have hired a competent technical writer.

It is not that big a deal.

All the players in this event are very strong and the play takes place behind screens. In these circumstances, people tell their screenmates what they think their screenmates need to know. If that is not sufficient you can always ask your screenmate to clarify.

I have played in almost every running of the Cavendish during the past 15 years or so. I don't recall ever hearing anyone call the TD and complain "he should have alerted". We are all big boys (and a few big girls).

Of course it couldn't hurt to make the CoCs regarding alerts crystal clear, but in practice it would not make any difference - nobody would read them, nobody would follow them, and nobody would complain about it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

fred, on May 4 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

in practice it would not make any difference - nobody would read them, nobody would follow them, and nobody would complain about it.

Heh. If it works, it works.

[Gerben42]

The point is about two things in the "Baltic Club" system.

1. 2♣ = weak 5 - 5 hand with ♥, 2♦ is weak 5-5 hand with ♠

Is this legal because the anchor suit is always 5 cards?

2. Transfer responses if 1♣ is doubled.

Does this count as "responses", or is it a defense to the artificial double?

Needless to say, these methods are legal in any club tournament I've ever played.

[cherdanno]

Gerben, I hope you or your friend (good luck to him!) are also trying to get official answers from the tournament directors about this.
I doubt transfers over the double are illegal, but what do i know...

[Mbodell]

Gerben42, on May 4 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

The point is about two things in the "Baltic Club" system.

1. 2♣ = weak 5 - 5 hand with ♥, 2♦ is weak 5-5 hand with ♠

Is this legal because the anchor suit is always 5 cards?

I'm pretty sure that is not legal by their rules. All two suited bids at the 2 or 3 level must show 2 known suits except 2M which is allowed to include an unknown minor and the major bid. What you've described doesn't fit because the second suit could be a major and because you are bidding 2m not 2M.

I believe the bit about the anchor suit is telling you that except for the 2M, the suit you bid must have 5 cards even when both suits are known. So if you play 2♦ is a weak hand with both red suits 5/4 either way then this would not be legal. But if you play 2♦ is a weak hand with both red suits and at least 5 diamonds and at least 4 hearts then it would be allowed.

[MFA]

Mbodell, on May 5 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

I believe the bit about the anchor suit is telling you that except for the 2M, the suit you bid must have 5 cards even when both suits are known.  So if you play 2♦ is a weak hand with both red suits 5/4 either way then this would not be legal.  But if you play 2♦ is a weak hand with both red suits and at least 5 diamonds and at least 4 hearts then it would be allowed.

That would not be my interpretation of the rules.

I think "anchor suit" is referring to any specific of the two suits being at least of five cards.

2♦ = 5+♦, 4+♥: OK
2♦ = 4+♦, 5+♥: Also OK, since ♥ is here an anchor suit of five cards length
2♦ = at least 5/4 in the reds either way: Not OK, no anchor suit of five cards.

[Tomi2]

why dont they disallow squeezes, endplays and things like that? its hard to explain within 10 sec. how a squeeze work and most average players will not be able to follow that concept

[blackshoe]

The Bridge World said:

Anchor suit: The guaranteed suit when a player has shown a two-suiter with only one suit specified.

When two suits are specified, there is no anchor suit.

[fred]

Tomi2, on May 5 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

why dont they disallow squeezes, endplays and things like that? its hard to explain within 10 sec. how a squeeze work and most average players will not be able to follow that concept

I am not involved in organizing the Cavendish and I can't speak for those who are, but I believe there are 2 primary reasons why the systems restrictions they have decided to impose are relatively severe:

1) The amount of money involved makes the Cavendish rather unique as far as bridge tournaments go. The money factor also has the potential to make the event more interesting for members of the general public (ie casual bridge players or interested non-bridge players). If the general public might be interested, various forms of mass media and corporate sponsors might become interested as well.

I strongly suspect that the organizers believe that keeping the bidding relatively simple will make their tournament more attractive to the general public (and thus to the media and to potential corporate sponsors). These things would be good for both bridge and for the Cavendish itself.

To me this makes a great deal of sense.

2) As far as I can tell, many of the regular players in the Cavendish prefer it this way. I certainly believe that liberal systems regulations in pairs events make such events less enjoyable and make the results of such events more random. I think that one of the reasons why so many excellent players enjoy the Cavendish so much is because of the unusual (for a pairs event) high premium on skill inherant to that event. No doubt some of these players believe that something would be lost in this regard if the systems restrictions were to be opened up.

Of course I have not done a scientific study so I can't say for sure that those who agree with me represent a majority (or how big a majority), but I get the distinct impression that most of the regular players are more or less content with where the organizers have decided to draw the systems regulation line. Over the years I have heard very few complaints from the players themselves. Those rare players that do complain always seem willing to adapt and to play year after year despite the rules.

If I am right about most of the players agreeing with my position, then I believe the organizers deserve a "well done" for giving most of the players the kind of event they want to play in.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[FrancesHinden]

I (along with many others I imagine) have no theoretical problem with restrictive systems regulations. It's just that I don't understand them. Of course, this doesn't matter because I'm not playing, either. But I sympathise with Gerben's friend.

I've recently started playing transfer responses to 1C. We play a very simple method: 1D shows hearts, 1H shows spades, 1S shows diamonds and 1NT still shows clubs (as it did before). All (except 1NT which is NF and limited) of any strength. If I wanted to make these slightly easier to defend against, I'd demand that they had a minimum responding strength e.g. 6+ HCP (roughly...) as part of what makes them tough to play against is the fact that you can respond very light indeed.

However, serious question: how do I play a sensible set of transfer responses if 1S has to guarantee 'invitational' values (which I'll call 11+ HCP for the sake of defininteness)? What do I do with a normal 1D response? If I play 1NT as either minor less than 11 points I'm now playing a system that (IMO) is harder to defend against than the much simpler 1S = 4+ diamonds....

[fred]

FrancesHinden, on May 5 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

It's just that I don't understand them.  Of course, this doesn't matter because I'm not playing, either.  But I sympathise with Gerben's friend.

I don't understand them either (not that I have tried very hard) and it doesn't matter to me either (because my system is rather vanilla).

I also sympathize with Gerben's friend, but he can always e-mail the tournament organizers and ask them to clarify whatever he is not sure about.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Quote

Of course I have not done a scientific study so I can't say for sure that those who agree with me represent a majority (or how big a majority), but I get the distinct impression that most of the regular players are more or less content with where the organizers have decided to draw the systems regulation line. Over the years I have heard very few complaints from the players themselves. Those rare players that do complain always seem willing to adapt and to play year after year despite the rules.

Could it be that those who complain about the regulations still want to play in this unique event but realize correctly that complaining does not help and just keep quiet? This is in my opinion much more likely than that they are really willing to adapt.

My issue is not that the rules are too restrictive (although that is also my opinion, but not relevant to me since I will never play the tournament), but that they are unreadable and include phrases that would allow a TD to abuse the rules by disallowing a convention he doesn't like (or if a certain pair that he doesn't like plays convention X) and allow a similar convention he likes.

I'm not saying that the TD will do that, but perhaps some future TD will. It's not okay to write rules like that. So no "well done" from me, sorry.

CONCLUSION:

System regulations should be understandable to the players, and should not allow different rulings depending on who is interpreting the rules.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on May 5 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

how do I play a sensible set of transfer responses if 1S has to guarantee 'invitational' values (which I'll call 11+ HCP for the sake of defininteness)?  What do I do with a normal 1D response?

Pass: 0-5 any
1♦: 6+ points, 4+ hearts
1♥: 6+ points, 4+ spades
1♠: 11+points, no 4-card major, balanced or (31)(54)
1NT: 6-10 points, no 4-card major, balanced or (31)(54)
2♣: 6+ points, 6+ diamonds
2♥: 6+ points, 5+/5+ minors
2NT: 11+ points, 6+ clubs
3♣: 6-10 points, 6+ clubs