[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Aug 15 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Basic Methods

"Standard": 5 card majors, Strong Notrump = 41 pairs
"Precision": Strong Club and 5 card majors = 11 pairs
"Polish Club" = 6 pairs
"Carrot Club" = 2 pairs
"Blue Club" = 1 pair
F+N = 1 pair
5 card majors and weak Notrump = 1 pair
Dutch Doubleton = 2 pairs

2♦ Openings

Multi = 35 pairs
Weak 2 = 12 pairs
Ekrens = 6 pairs
Precision = 3 pairs
Long Diamonds or 2 suited = 2 pairs
Flannery = 2 pairs
6+ Hearts = 2 Pairs
Game Force = 1 Pair
F+N = 1 pair
5/5 in majors or strong = 1 pair

Richard, thanks for the breakdown here - some of questions:

1) Would you want to have Multi by Multi-just-weak, and Multi-with-strong-options?

2) Do all Ekrens have no strong options, so the "5/5 in majors or strong" is the only pair using the bid as two-way?

3) It may be interesting to do a breakdown of 2♥ openings - I can do this if you don't intend to.

4) Would you consider doing same thing for Venice Cup?


Also did you already edit the 2♦ numbers to reflect the LV use?

Folks are more than welcome to extend / double check this offering.

To me, Ekrens / Assumed fit type methods don't include any strong hand types. I found it interesting that one pair seemed to be using a 2♦ opening to show a weak two in hearts without any strong hand types. The main reason seemed to be that they wanted to use 2♥ to show 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2007, 05:34 AM, said:

The definition is as I stated above. It says that this is the 2002 regulations but they are on the page for the 2007 Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai.

If anyone cares, the BLML thread is archived at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ust/033825.html

I've already seen a couple posts that I found vaguely surprising.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

Hamway is under "Blue Club" which is how they describe their system on the convention card.

Actually they say "Strong Club - BLUE", where BLUE is the WBF system color ("Blue Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong"). I believe the system name was actually the Orange Club at one point in the Hamman-Wolff years.

[joshs]

JanM, on Aug 14 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

I agree that the WBF Systems Policy defines "natural" as "not conventional" - when I said that to me it seemed as if the 2+ non-forcing, no strong option, club was somewhere in between, I meant that I could see how some people could think it is natural and some could think it is conventional, and therefore the WBF Systems Committee might come down either way on whether Brown Sticker-like overcalls are permitted over it.
There's obviously a whole spectrum of possible 1♣ openings, with a 1♣ bid in a 4 card Major, bid Majors first, system being the most "natural" and a 1♣ opening in a Strong Club system being the most conventional. There are plenty of bids along that spectrum - 1♣ in a 5 card Major, longer minor system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamond system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, unbalanced diamond system, 1♣ in a Polish or Swedish system (forcing and includes strong hands but can also be minimum opening with clubs the longest suit). I've probably left some out.
I don't know where the line between "natural" and "conventional" should be drawn on that spectrum, although I've been told by someone who should know that the WBF draws it just before the Polish/Swedish club. At any rate, I've asked, with reference to Shanghai, so I guess I'll know the "official WBF policy" soon.
I don't think the Laws Commission is going to change the definition of "convention," not because it's a good one but because it's really not possible to write a good one.

Hey Jan,

Hmm, while I agree that there is lots of disagreement as whether to TREAT a "could be short" 1m opening bid as natural or conventional, I do not think there is much doubt that these are conventional according to the rules that have been quoted over and over again in this post....

So I can't understand your claim that these openings are somewhere in between. They may feel like they are something in between but they are not according to the laws. In fact, the existance of an "in between" is probably a bad feature in a set of rules...

As to your "more natural" claim, I don't even have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You seem to claim that natural is a measure of average suit length and thus a continuous measure (I am reading into the logic behind or claims, not quoting a stated methodology). I think natural is a binary measure (something is or isn't) according to a definition, and there is no such thing as more or less natural and the criteria certainly doesn't have to do with average suit length. The laws certainly treat natural and conventional as binary measures.

Please tell me which is more "natural":
a. 1H=4+H, either more hearts than anyother suit or 4 cards and no longer suit or 5+ cards and the same length in a minor, 10-20 points
b. 1H=6+H and 5+C, 10-20 points

I think b is conventional and a is not even though the heart length is much greater in b than in a.

[JanM]

joshs, on Aug 15 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

Please tell me which is more "natural":
a. 1H=4+H,  either more hearts than anyother suit or 4 cards and no longer suit or 5+ cards and the same length in a minor, 10-20 points
b. 1H=6+H and 5+C, 10-20 points

I think b is  conventional and a is not even though the heart length is much greater in b than in a.

That example is another good reason why "natural" and "conventional" aren't really opposites. And also perhaps to some extent explains my problem with calling a 1♣ bid that includes balanced hands with 2+ clubs "conventional." I guess I think of "conventional" as whether the bid carries meaning about another suit. When I open 1♣, even though I don't promise more than 2 clubs, neither do I give my partner any specific information about any other suit. So looking at the (admittedly very flawed) definition of "conventional" as carrying a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination, or length or strength in the named suit, it's hard for me to view the 1♣ bid as meeting that definition - unless somehow carrying the meaning that one has an opening bid is information about suits other than clubs - I suppose it is, but then are all opening bids "conventional."

And to be honest, I think my main feeling here is that there's a difference between being "natural" for purposes of whether artificial overcalls are allowed and being "natural" for other purposes (whatever they might be - obviously I haven't thought this out very completely). I just have a difficult time understanding why BSC bids should be allowed if 1♣ promises 3 but not if 1♣ might be 2. I'm not sure whether I would feel differently if "natural" were being used for another reason (is it? if so, what?).

One of the posts in the thread Richard linked to suggested that a Precision 2♣ bid is conventional. I don't see why that would be so - after all, it carries no meaning other than about clubs. So perhaps I just don't really understand the meaning of "conventional" (and thus, for WBF purposes, "natural").

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 15 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

I agree that the WBF Systems Policy defines "natural" as "not conventional" - when I said that to me it seemed as if the 2+ non-forcing, no strong option, club was somewhere in between, I meant that I could see how some people could think it is natural and some could think it is conventional, and therefore the WBF Systems Committee might come down either way on whether Brown Sticker-like overcalls are permitted over it.
There's obviously a whole spectrum of possible 1♣ openings, with a 1♣ bid in a 4 card Major, bid Majors first, system being the most "natural" and a 1♣ opening in a Strong Club system being the most conventional. There are plenty of bids along that spectrum - 1♣ in a 5 card Major, longer minor system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamond system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, unbalanced diamond system, 1♣ in a Polish or Swedish system (forcing and includes strong hands but can also be minimum opening with clubs the longest suit). I've probably left some out.
I don't know where the line between "natural" and "conventional" should be drawn on that spectrum, although I've been told by someone who should know that the WBF draws it just before the Polish/Swedish club. At any rate, I've asked, with reference to Shanghai, so I guess I'll know the "official WBF policy" soon.
I don't think the Laws Commission is going to change the definition of "convention," not because it's a good one but because it's really not possible to write a good one.

One thing is certain the WBF regulation is symmetrical with respect to suits.

So if you think a short club - longest suit or some range of balanced - might be natural then presumably you would argue that a short spade using a similar criteria might be natural.

[glen]

Some additional BB numbers:

Pairs playing Multi with a strong option: 16
Pairs playing Multi without a strong option: 19
Pairs playing variable NT ranges: 14
Pairs playing Natural with 3+♣s for 1♣: 29
Pairs playing Natural with 2+♣s for 1♣: 10
Pairs playing 1♣ as natural or balanced: 7
Pairs playing 2♥ as natural (weak, constructive, intermediate): 33
Pairs playing 2♥ as ♥+other or ♥+minor: 15
Pairs playing 2♥ as weak majors: 8 (not including pair playing 2♥ as Flannery 11-15 or 5-5 majors weak)
Pairs playing 2♥ as short ♦s: 6

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 16 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

One thing is certain the WBF regulation is symmetrical with respect to suits.

So if you think a short club - longest suit or some range of balanced - might be natural then presumably you would argue that a short spade using a similar criteria might be natural.

From my perspective, the more interesting (aka more perverse) example is the following:

One of the top Italian pairs used to play a 2♠ opening where 2♠ showed either

a classic weak two bid in Spades (6+ Spades, ~ 6-9 HCP) OR
a balanced hand with ~8-10 HCP

If a 1♣ that shows 2+ clubs or a balanced hand is not convention, what about this 2♠ opening?

(Please note, I don't have the slightest desire to play said opening)

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2007, 06:12 AM, said:

From my perspective, the more interesting (aka more perverse) example is the following:

One of the top Italian pairs used to play a 2♠ opening where 2♠ showed either

a classic weak two bid in Spades (6+ Spades, ~ 6-9 HCP) OR
a balanced hand with ~8-10 HCP

If a 1♣ that shows 2+ clubs or a balanced hand is not convention, what about this 2♠ opening?

(Please note, I don't have the slightest desire to play said opening)

Well, your proposed 2♠ bid falls under the definition of BS, and I'd certainly be willing to allow BS overcalls of a BS opening bid . Maybe where all of this is getting us is that deciding whether to allow BS overcalls shouldn't turn on whether the opening bid is "conventional" or not?

[JanM]

officeglen, on Aug 16 2007, 06:11 AM, said:

Some additional BB numbers:

Pairs playing Multi with a strong option: 16
Pairs playing Multi without a strong option: 19
Pairs playing variable NT ranges: 14
Pairs playing Natural with 3+♣s for 1♣: 29
Pairs playing Natural with 2+♣s for 1♣:  10
Pairs playing 1♣ as natural or balanced: 7
Pairs playing 2♥ as natural (weak, constructive, intermediate): 33
Pairs playing 2♥ as ♥+other or ♥+minor: 15
Pairs playing 2♥ as weak majors: 8 (not including pair playing 2♥ as Flannery 11-15 or 5-5 majors weak)
Pairs playing 2♥ as short ♦s: 6

Gee, if you're going to do my work for me , did you make a list of which pairs are playing what?

Seriously, how did you differentiate between Natural with 2+ clubs and 1♣ clubs or balanced? And when you counted "variable NT" did you include minor variations (a lot of people play 14-16 and 15-17 depending on position and vul, ditto 11-14 and 12-14 - I wouldn't call those "variable").

What about 2♦ as both Majors? That's also a fairly popular method.

Another area that always interests me is jump overcalls - how many are playing ambiguous 2-suited jump overcalls (Michaels over a Major) and how many prefer to use an extra bid to avoid ambiguity.

Jan, going back to the salt mines (reading and summarizing the convention cards)

[glen]

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Gee, if you're going to do my work for me  , did you make a list of which pairs are playing what?

Yes I did short summaries, for the Canuck team. Then, over time I add details and style notes to them. Am doing same thing for Venice Cup.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Seriously, how did you differentiate between Natural with 2+ clubs and 1♣ clubs or balanced?

If the 1♦ opening still handled balanced, but with 4+♦s then it was natural with 2+ clubs (usually 4-4-3-2 exactly opening 1♣). If 1♣ handled a complete or almost complete balanced range, then it was "♣s or balanced" (these did not include Polish Club openings which is a different class).

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

And when you counted "variable NT" did you include minor variations (a lot of people play 14-16 and 15-17 depending on position and vul, ditto 11-14 and 12-14 - I wouldn't call those "variable").

The small upgrades/downgrades were not counted - so Meckwell 14-16/15-17 is not variable.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

What about 2♦ as both Majors? That's also a fairly popular method.

Richard did a count, posted above (the breakdown of the 2♦ openings) - I did my own counts too.

JanM, on Aug 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Another area that always interests me is jump overcalls - how many are playing ambiguous 2-suited jump overcalls (Michaels over a Major) and how many prefer to use an extra bid to avoid ambiguity.

Did not do this.

--- ---

Venice Cup Metrics:

38 Five Card Majors
9 Five Card Majors + 1♣ can be 2
2 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+
5 Four card majors (not big club)
8 Big Club with five card majors
2 Big Club with four card majors
1 Big Club with transfer openings (Moscito)
18 playing a weak or mini NT at least part of the time
11 With variable NTs
13 Multi with strong option
19 Multi just weak
2 2♦ as 11-15 short ♦
17 2♦ as natural, weak or intermediate
9 2♦ as big hand
2 2♦ as ♥ or big
1 2♦ as ♦+♣
1 2♦ as Flannery
1 2♦ as 4-4-4-1 15-18
33 2♥ as natural, weak or constructive
24 2♥ as H+minor or H+any
3 2♥ as Majors
1 2♥ as short ♦s
9 2NT as minors

[JanM]

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them. He further ruled that DeWijs-Muller, who play BS overcalls of 1♥, 1♠, 2♥ and 3♥ over 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids could play them all, because:

"The one level major suit overcall of one of a minor is one B/S convention, the 2 heart and 3 heart overcalls of one of a minor are also B/S . That is three in all so the card is acceptable for the K O stages. In my opinion the conventions etc are properly explained and the proposed defences are satisfactory."

Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted.

I don't know whether this will be the final word on either question.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them.

Out of curiousity, can anyone point to a statement in the Conditions of Contest establishing a limit on the number of BSC's that a pair can use?

I'm looking at the WBF Systems Policy right now
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfin...temsallowed.asp

I don't see anything that supports Wignall's ruling - and I certainly don't believe that the Chair of the System's Committee (nor the WBF Executive Committee) should be permitted to pull these types of policies out of their ass.

For what its worth, the announcement is available at:

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007...hai/default.asp

My reading suggests that Wignall doesn't necessarily agree with this decision.

[awm]

JanM, on Aug 20 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted.

I think this is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Am I correct in interpreting this that your 1♣ (2+, not forcing) is "natural" whereas Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ showing exactly the same possible distributions is "conventional" simply because theirs is forcing and unlimited?

I can't believe that an opening bid which could be openers shortest suit can be viewed as non-conventional simply because it's not forcing. Heck, if you play 1♣ "natural or balanced" you could be opening on a two-card club suit in preference to a five card diamond suit (3352). How is this natural? How does it suggest playing in clubs (other than because, well, it's not forcing)?

Ask yourself honestly, at whatever time in the past you were regularly playing 1♣ showing 3+ (or 4+), would it really have occurred to you that opening 1♣ which could show any balanced hand is a natural bid? Do you think 1♦ precision is a natural bid? How about 1♦ matchpoint precision? I can't see any reason these bids should be treated differently from 1♣.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Aug 20 2007, 06:11 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 21 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them.

Out of curiousity, can anyone point to a statement in the Conditions of Contest establishing a limit on the number of BSC's that a pair can use?

I'm looking at the WBF Systems Policy right now
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfin...temsallowed.asp

I don't see anything that supports Wignall's ruling - and I certainly don't believe that the Chair of the System's Committee (nor the WBF Executive Committee) should be permitted to pull these types of policies out of his ass.

For what its worth, the announcement is available at:

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007...hai/default.asp

My reading suggests that Wignall doesn't necessarily agree with this decision.

http://www.ecatsbrid...ents/files/2007 Championships Shanghai/2007 Supplemental Regulations.pdf
page 16.

(Sorry don't know how to make a link to an URL with spaces, you have to copy-paste-above, clicking doesn't work.)

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Aug 20 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

(Sorry don't know how to make a link to an URL with spaces, you have to copy-paste-above, clicking doesn't work.)

http://www.tinyurl.com is how

I went ahead and just piggy-backed off your efforts:

http://tinyurl.com/246gyp

[the hog]

Why don't they call these the "Restricted Championships", or better the "Joke Championships"?

[han]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

or better the "Joke Championships"?

Perhaps because many of the best players in the world will be competing and take this very seriously?

[han]

awm, on Aug 20 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 20 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted.

I think this is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Am I correct in interpreting this that your 1♣ (2+, not forcing) is "natural" whereas Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ showing exactly the same possible distributions is "conventional" simply because theirs is forcing and unlimited?

I can't believe that an opening bid which could be openers shortest suit can be viewed as non-conventional simply because it's not forcing. Heck, if you play 1♣ "natural or balanced" you could be opening on a two-card club suit in preference to a five card diamond suit (3352). How is this natural? How does it suggest playing in clubs (other than because, well, it's not forcing)?

Ask yourself honestly, at whatever time in the past you were regularly playing 1♣ showing 3+ (or 4+), would it really have occurred to you that opening 1♣ which could show any balanced hand is a natural bid? Do you think 1♦ precision is a natural bid? How about 1♦ matchpoint precision? I can't see any reason these bids should be treated differently from 1♣.

Agree with all this, this stinks.

[the hog]

Hannie, on Aug 21 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

or better the "Joke Championships"?

Perhaps because many of the best players in the world will be competing and take this very seriously?

Not because of who is competing, but because of unreasonable and patently unfair system restrictions. Imagine a tennis tournament where players are forced to serve underarm and you get the drift.

Of course the players take it seriously if they want to be regarded as the best in the world- at present they have no alternative in an unrestricted event, do they?