[BunnyGo]

Hi all.

So we Q'd for the KO portion of the flight B GNT. The team we are playing tomorrow has one pair that says they play a "modified fantunes system". In particular they say:

1C has many meanings, most of them strong. Transfer responses to 1C
1D, 1H, 1S are sound and forcing
1N is weak
2C is 5+
2D is "flannery like" with 5/4 in the majors either way
2H/2S is 6 card sound preempt or 5 card with a 4 card minor

None of us have played against such a system before. Any help with a defense we can learn by tomorrow at 1 would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ben

[semeai]

What is/are the weak meaning(s) for 1C?

The GNT Conditions of Contest state that the Midchart may be allowed at the district level for open and A flights if it's in the district's CoC. Transfer responses to 1C are still Midchart, I think, unless their 1C bid is only strong, ie 15+.

See here: http://www.acbl.org/...her-GNT_CoC.pdf

Possibly that was last year's CoC

That said, still a good question what the defenses should be. I'll try a follow-up post later.

[BunnyGo]

semeai, on 2011-July-20, 23:11, said:

What is/are the weak meaning(s) for 1C?

The GNT Conditions of Contest state that the Midchart may be allowed at the district level for open and A flights if it's in the district's CoC. Transfer responses to 1C are still Midchart, I think, unless their 1C bid is only strong, ie 15+.

See here: http://www.acbl.org/...her-GNT_CoC.pdf

Possibly that was last year's CoC

That said, still a good question what the defenses should be. I'll try a follow-up post later.

Any assistance with a reference that states that this transfer response structure is midchart would be appreciated.

[semeai]

BridgeMatters has some fairly simple defenses listed at http://www.bridgemat...defences05.html and see also http://www.bridgemat...countervex.html for general discussion of "passable value showing" and "passable takeout doubles" and more.

bridgematters said:

Alternative Defence to Polish Club

Double of 1C or non-suit showing bid is Passable Value Showing

Doubles of suit showing bids are Passable Takeout Doubles

1NT over 1C is takeout of Cs, forcing to 2D

2C over 1C is natural

2D over 1C shows 5-5+ in majors

Rest as over natural 1C opening (including 2NT for Hs & Ds)

If opponents bid a suit that is not clubs, this becomes cuebid suit, not clubs

and

bridgematters said:

Defence to 2D weak with both majors

Direct Double is Passable Value Showing Double

Doubles of major suit bids are Passable Takeout Doubles.

3C is natural overcall in clubs, or takeout double of Ds with 0-1 Ds (so has Cs).

Natural bidding including bids of majors – in reply new suits below game forcing.

Neither of these is exactly what you're up against, but they're pretty similar.

2NT is not listed over 2D. Probably given that your opponents' 2D shows some strength means both minors makes sense, and double with the 16-18 hands and use Lebensohl to sort it out, though you could just keep 2NT natural.

[semeai]

BunnyGo, on 2011-July-20, 23:37, said:

Any assistance with a reference that states that this transfer response structure is midchart would be appreciated.

See the General Convention Chart which doesn't mention it: http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf (and specifically disallows any methods not allowed)

(Note that any responses are allowed if the bid is "strong" i.e. shows 15+.)

See also the Competition and Conventions Committee website. The most recent committee minutes to mention transfer responses to 1C are the summer 2009 ones. There, item 5d is "Transfer responses to natural 1C as GCC. Motion not seconded."

[semeai]

Sorry, you're at nationals now. I'm a bit dense. It's possible Midchart is allowed, but the various sources conflict. Various materials say Midchart may be allowed if flight A or if the lowest average masterpoints of a team is 1500 (in some places it says 1000). Anyways, you should ask of course, but also be prepared.

[gnasher]

For a single match, this should be sufficient:

If 1♣ contains any minimum openings, pretend that it's natural. That includes playing

1♣ 1♥ pass 2♣    and    1♣ dbl pass 2♣

as cue-bids.

After any transfer response, play:
Double shows the suit bid
Bidding a suit they've promised shows a takeout double of that suit
If their transfer shows a balanced hand, bidding notrumps is natural

Presumably you already know how to defend against their other opening bids.

[BunnyGo]

semeai, on 2011-July-21, 00:45, said:

Sorry, you're at nationals now. I'm a bit dense. It's possible Midchart is allowed, but the various sources conflict. Various materials say Midchart may be allowed if flight A or if the lowest average masterpoints of a team is 1500 (in some places it says 1000). Anyways, you should ask of course, but also be prepared.

True, but no one on my team has more than 600 masterpoints, let alone a team average of 1000 (or 1500).

Quote

The ACBL MidChart is authorized for use in:

*all NABC+ events.
*all unrestricted Flight A regional-rated knockout events conducted at an NABC.
*any bracket of a bracketed knockout event at an NABC which contains no team with a bracket designator (average masterpoints for the entire team or the top two players) of less than 1000 masterpoints.

In all other events conducted at an NABC, only conventions on the ACBL General Convention Chart are authorized.

[hrothgar]

(Unless said transfer promise game forcing values) transfer responses to a nebulous club opening that systemically contains hand types that don't promise 15+ HCP is not permitted at the GCC level.

This is perfectly legitimate for Midchart, however, I'd be shocked if the flight B GNTs are a Midchart event.

You should contact the powers that be about this ASAP (This doesn't just impact you but also whomever your opponents are competing against today)

It also seems to be good form to give you opponents some advanced warning that your trying to get their system barred so that they can

1. Petition the powers that be
2. Figure out what they are playing tomorrow

[BunnyGo]

semeai, on 2011-July-20, 23:11, said:

What is/are the weak meaning(s) for 1C?

It seems that the "weak" meaning is a sound opening (14+ HCP) with 5+ clubs.

[hrothgar]

BunnyGo, on 2011-July-21, 07:28, said:

It seems that the "weak" meaning is a sound opening (14+ HCP) with 5+ clubs.

This changes things dramatically.

Players are allowed to upgrade and down grade slight (except where mini NT openings are concerned)

In this case, their system is perfectly fine.
I wouldn't bother worrying much about the 1♣ opening (treat it like any other strong club)

You'll want an agreement in place regarding the transfer advances to the 1♣ opening.
In particular, decide what X, a cue bid bid of the suit that they are showing, and 1NT denote...

I'd use 1NT to show a two suiter in the other two suits (assume that the club opening shows clubs)
Use the cue bid as a takeout bid in advancer's suit
Use double as a raptor type bid (4 cards in the other major with a longer minor)

[BunnyGo]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 07:49, said:

This changes things dramatically.

Players are allowed to upgrade and down grade slight (except where mini NT openings are concerned)

In this case, their system is perfectly fine.
I wouldn't bother worrying much about the 1♣ opening (treat it like any other strong club)

You'll want an agreement in place regarding the transfer advances to the 1♣ opening.
In particular, decide what X, a cue bid bid of the suit that they are showing, and 1NT denote...

I'd use 1NT to show a two suiter in the other two suits (assume that the club opening shows clubs)
Use the cue bid as a takeout bid in advancer's suit
Use double as a raptor type bid (4 cards in the other major with a longer minor)

Ok, thank you. Sorry that I had not provided all the necessary details to this point. I'll ask the directors just to be sure, but I understand now the situation.

Thank you for your suggested defenses as well.

[wyman]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 07:49, said:

This changes things dramatically.

Players are allowed to upgrade and down grade slight (except where mini NT openings are concerned)

In this case, their system is perfectly fine.

Is it still a "slight upgrade" if they systemically open all 14 point hands with 5+ clubs? What about all 14s and the occasional 13? What about... ?

[hrothgar]

wyman, on 2011-July-21, 08:51, said:

Is it still a "slight upgrade" if they systemically open all 14 point hands with 5+ clubs? What about all 14s and the occasional 13? What about... ?

The Laws and ACBL regulations both permit players to exercise judgement rather than ridgely binding them to arbitrary and inaccurate hand evaluation system.
If you think this is wrong, go talk to Memphis.

FWIW, I think its admirable that the opponents are providing accurate disclosure.
(I'd hate to implement a regulatory system that incentivices people to lie about their agreements)

[wyman]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 09:15, said:

The Laws and ACBL regulations both permit players to exercise judgement rather than ridgely binding them to arbitrary and inaccurate hand evaluation system.
If you think this is wrong, go talk to Memphis.

So, can partner and I systemically open all 7 counts that contain a doubleton in 3rd seat? The shortness, in my judgment, makes these hands an 8 count. Can I agree with partner, a priori, that AQxxx/xx/xxxx/xx is a 3rd seat opener?

I'm asking a serious question, so I'm a little put off by your "go talk to Memphis."

[semeai]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 09:15, said:

go talk to Memphis.

You mean Horn Lake, Mississippi.

[PrecisionL]

wyman, on 2011-July-21, 09:25, said:

So, can partner and I systemically open all 7 counts that contain a doubleton in 3rd seat? The shortness, in my judgment, makes these hands an 8 count. Can I agree with partner, a priori, that AQxxx/xx/xxxx/xx is a 3rd seat opener?

I'm asking a serious question, so I'm a little put off by your "go talk to Memphis."

No, from GCC:

DISALLOWED

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

[wyman]

PrecisionL, on 2011-July-21, 09:38, said:

No, from GCC:

DISALLOWED

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

Yes, I know. But I'm asking where the line is drawn between judgment and being rigid about "arbitrary and inaccurate hand evaluation" systems.

(edit: in the context of transfer responses to 1C showing 14+ with clubs or 16+ any ).

[hrothgar]

wyman, on 2011-July-21, 09:25, said:

So, can partner and I systemically open all 7 counts that contain a doubleton in 3rd seat? The shortness, in my judgment, makes these hands an 8 count. Can I agree with partner, a priori, that AQxxx/xx/xxxx/xx is a 3rd seat opener?

I'm asking a serious question, so I'm a little put off by your "go talk to Memphis."

Here's a serious answer: Why would you think that anyone on this mailing list is in a definitive position to provide you with the correct answer?
If you want a real answe, you'll need to submit it to real authorities.
I recommend doing so multiple times, since there is no guaruntee that the right hand knows what the left is doing.

Here's another serious answer. Back before there was dirt, TimG and I were playing a light opening system.
We have a systemic agreement that Major suit openings promised 8+ HCPs, however, players were allowed to use judgement and open appropriate seven counts.

One of these hands came up, we pointed this out to the opponents and recommended that they call the TD if they felt damaged.
The opponents did, the TD came to the table. I announced that I had systemically opened a seven count with malicious forethought.
The director (Sol Weinstein) told us all to grow up and left.

[wyman]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 10:04, said:

Here's a serious answer: Why would you think that anyone on this mailing list is in a definitive position to provide you with the correct answer?
If you want a real answe, you'll need to submit it to real authorities.
I recommend doing so multiple times, since there is no guaruntee that the right hand knows what the left is doing.

Here's another serious answer. Back before there was dirt, TimG and I were playing a light opening system.
We have a systemic agreement that Major suit openings promised 8+ HCPs, however, players were allowed to use judgement and open appropriate seven counts.

One of these hands came up, we pointed this out to the opponents and recommended that they call the TD if they felt damaged.
The opponents did, the TD came to the table. I announced that I had systemically opened a seven count with malicious forethought.
The director (Sol Weinstein) told us all to grow up and left.

Re: (1). Because I'm less experienced than most on the board, because there are many directors on the board, and because I suspect that I'm not the first person on the board to ask the question. Moreover, people tend to speak authoritatively about these matters (in particular, you stated that their system was "perfectly fine", and I was trying to understand why).

Re: (2). Your answer is in contradiction with PrecisionL. And this is exactly my point. We can disagree about the appropriate call or lead or line of play. But there should be a clear-cut answer to whether things are allowed or disallowed. I don't understand how to play a game where the rules are unclear. Or, as in this case, where the rules are spelled out exactly, but where there's a de facto agreement (not known to everyone, mind you, only to the initiated) to ignore them, because we think they are stupid.