ACBL Regulations
Raija D
My post was inspired by another thread here, and perhaps some past threads
as well.
It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments. And any time someone for
example on BBO comes across some bid, they would **in complete ignorance**
and often **never having played in ACBL events** or even planning to play
in them, say "that wouldn't be allowed in ACBL, they have stupid system
regulations*. It appears to be a worldwide sport nowadays to badmouth ACBL,
with popularity of BBO improving everybody's chances to engage in in it.
Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations' regulations
so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs at their
expense for a change. Or can somebody produce regulations that are
flawless, perfect, and which EVERYBODY IN THE BRIDGE PLAYING WORLD likes.
Gimme a break.
Also, if the ACBL regulations are *sooo bad* why don't the complainers play
where they live or play in the clubs or play on BBO or write or e-mail to
ACBL instead of ignorantly spreading nonsense , ill will, and false
information. The fact is the highest level ACBL tournaments are the best
bridge in the world, where competition is as high - or higher - than in
world champonships. That is why people from everywhere _want_ to go to
NABC's , have the unrestricted opportunity without prior qualification, to
play against past or present or future world champions from several
countries
Please don't think I like the regulations any better than the next guy, or
that I am in any way, shape, or form connected to or know about ACBL any
more than what is published on their web site. I am just hoping that the
critics would at least look at the regulations before they speak.
If you choose to respond here, please start a new thread if there are going
to be personal attacks or other off-topic subjects that are dear to your
heart.
Cheers,
Raija
Michael Angelo Ravera
I would vote for wholesale adoption of the WBF stickering system and
allowing everything that is Green, Blue, or Red Sticker in any event
not limited to those who are truely beginners (maybe restrict those to
Green and Blue).
Basically, the main types of bids that I feel should be restricted are
early auction 2-level and 3-level suit bids that could be weak and
show no known 4-card suit (except multi 2m, and where the weak option
has a known suit and the other options are strong), strong opening
passes and the "fert" bids that protect them, really light one-level
openers, required and protected psyches, and direct overcalls that
show two suits that could be 4-3.
What should be allowed is any opener or overcall that always promises
4 cards in a known suit or always promises 10 or more HCP.
vincit
This is what we have here in France (under the influence of the former
President who was French, a very good player and a man of influence),
it seems to me the WBF/EBU stickers system works very well. Some
people have made fun in another thread of psyches being prohibited in
one competition but in this situation players are learners
(novices)and it is only in this category where only novices are
allowed to play. I doubt very much anyone there would think of
psyching.
castigamatti
Beata ignoranza.
BR
Douglas Newlands
>
> My post was inspired by another thread here, and perhaps some past
> threads as well.
>
> It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments. And any time someone for
> example on BBO comes across some bid, they would **in complete
> ignorance** and often **never having played in ACBL events** or even
> planning to play in them, say "that wouldn't be allowed in ACBL, they
> have stupid system regulations*. It appears to be a worldwide sport
> nowadays to badmouth ACBL, with popularity of BBO improving everybody's
> chances to engage in in it.
Yes, certainly is but ACBL players do it and everyone else wants their
fair share of abuse.
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations'
> regulations so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs
> at their expense for a change. Or can somebody produce regulations that
> are flawless, perfect, and which EVERYBODY IN THE BRIDGE PLAYING WORLD
> likes. Gimme a break.
The Australian regs are at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html
They seem to be reasonably concise and easy to understand but that may
just be because I am used to them.
doug
Wayne
When a system that is WBF GREEN is unplayable in the ACBL then I think
there is something that is broken.
Wayne
Will in New Haven
> My post was inspired by another thread here, and perhaps some past threads
> as well.
>
> It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments. And any time someone for
> example on BBO comes across some bid, they would **in complete ignorance**
> and often **never having played in ACBL events** or even planning to play
> in them, say "that wouldn't be allowed in ACBL, they have stupid system
> regulations*. It appears to be a worldwide sport nowadays to badmouth ACBL,
> with popularity of BBO improving everybody's chances to engage in in it.
I play in ACBL events. I have a BBO account but (almost) never play
there. I don't think the ACBL regulations are very good. I'm not
saying they make the game unplayable or even bad, they have just the
slightest tinge of the nanny to them, although nothing like, say, the
Pattaya Bridge Club.
From what I have seen, there are restrictive regulations that I would
not like in European bridge but perhaps not as many. Australian rules
look good to me, from what I have seen of them. I am not talking about
Aussie Rules football, although I like that too.
>
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations' regulations
> so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs at their
> expense for a change. Or can somebody produce regulations that are
> flawless, perfect, and which EVERYBODY IN THE BRIDGE PLAYING WORLD likes.
> Gimme a break.
>
> Also, if the ACBL regulations are *sooo bad* why don't the complainers play
> where they live or play in the clubs or play on BBO or write or e-mail to
> ACBL instead of ignorantly spreading nonsense , ill will, and false
> information. The fact is the highest level ACBL tournaments are the best
> bridge in the world, where competition is as high - or higher - than in
> world champonships. That is why people from everywhere _want_ to go to
> NABC's , have the unrestricted opportunity without prior qualification, to
> play against past or present or future world champions from several
> countries
The level of competition is high. However, it is money that draws many
of the best players, not the level of competition or the amenities.
Still, it is the level of competition that draws ME, so you have a
point.
> Please don't think I like the regulations any better than the next guy, or
> that I am in any way, shape, or form connected to or know about ACBL any
> more than what is published on their web site. I am just hoping that the
> critics would at least look at the regulations before they speak.
>
> If you choose to respond here, please start a new thread if there are going
> to be personal attacks or other off-topic subjects that are dear to your
> heart
Obligitory Off-Topic: Ken Griffey Junior announced his retirement
while I was typing this.
--
Will in New Haven
Chris
wrote:
Learn to type faster before you ruin our national sport!
More seriously, I think the ACBL should loosen up its convention
charts, especially with regard to conventions common elsewhere (e.g.,
multi) and with regard to constructive calls. (If the goal was to
make bidding intelligible to the general public, we would ban Stayman
and Jacoby transfers. Since we clearly won't do that, why should we
keep it illegal to use a 2D response to 1S to show 5+ hearts in GCC
events?) But it should also get more serious about full disclosure
and providing appropriate defenses to unusual methods.
I actually think just about every bridge organization could be
indicted for some sort of inconsistency. I don't see why Wilkosz 2D
is any harder to defend against than weak-only Multi, for example.
Christopher Monsour
Raija D
"Wayne" <wjbu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f396e4a5-a653-407b...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Wayne
===
What system is that
Charles Brenner
> My post was inspired by another thread here, and perhaps some past threads
> as well.
>
> It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments. And any time someone for
> example on BBO comes across some bid, they would **in complete ignorance**
> and often **never having played in ACBL events** or even planning to play
> in them, say "that wouldn't be allowed in ACBL, they have stupid system
> regulations*. It appears to be a worldwide sport nowadays to badmouth ACBL,
> with popularity of BBO improving everybody's chances to engage in in it.
>
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations' regulations
> so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs at their
> expense for a change.
I don't have regs but will you settle for an anecdote?
I once played in Spain. Alternate rounds were non-smoking. However,
you won't be called to account for lighting up whenever you feel like
it.
I upgraded a hand to a 15-17 point NT opening and thereby learned that
such a judgment is strictly prohibited; summary ruling against us.
This was some 20 years ago. Things may have changed.
Charles
KWSchneider
From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
history].
Although I often complain about the ACBL rules because of their
unfathomable inconsistencies, there are aspects of them that are
indeed more open than some of the EBU's. Frankly, I simply learn the
rules, push the envelope within the allowable guidelines, and move
on.
But I will also add one important observation - the ACBL rules, in
general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
have no interest in changing the status quo.
Kurt
Stu G
It might be worth noting that these conventions and restrictions are
decided by the Competitions and Conventions Committee, which reports
to the ACBL Board of Directors. The C&C committee meets for 2 hours
on a Monday morning during NABCs. Bob Hamman, Jeff Meckstroff, and
Chip Martel are currently on the committee along with some other known
players, a national TD or two, and a few members of the Board.
So it isn't your 70 year old LM who is making the restrictions.
As for what these GMs get out of it - aside from having a big say in
how the game is played, they receive a one session free play during
the NABC. Like they serve on the committe just to get it!
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
vincit
Kurt
Here we under the auspices of the FFB we follow the stickers system
(your system is identified by a coloured sticker) and we have five
categories of competition
Only players of the same strength (depending of his number of PP
equivalent of ACBL master points) can play in a
designated category
In Category 5 for instance only novices and scholars (some being as
young as 10 years old) can participate
In this category the system is fixed (5-card Maj better minor or 4-
card diamond with a limited set of gadgets)
This category is meant to promote bridge. Psyches are not allowed
SHA/HUM systems, YELLOW sticker (includes pass forcing) are playable
and any unusual conventions are authorized in Category 1
The fact of the matter is that the top 100 are playing in category 1
So the key is to make a partition to level the field it also reduces
randomness for the selection and other competition it more or less
follows the category 1 rules
Now the characteristic of an "unusual convention" or of a SHA/HUM
system is clearly defined
For instance an opening of 1C either nat or strong is not even a RED
sticker (Artificial) it is playable everywhere the same for an opening
of 1C showing exactly 4S
The stickers :
GREEN = Natural
BLUE = Strong Club/Strong Diamond
RED = Artificial
YELLOW = HUM/SHA
For every category a sticker
I think is very motivating for a system designer as you can play your
own system the whole year playing in your category
The reference document can be found at
http://www.ffbridge.asso.fr/competitions/gc.php?m=6,49,129&args=129
Cheers
Henry Lockwood
> My post was inspired by another thread here, and perhaps some past threads
> as well.
>
> It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments. And any time someone for
> example on BBO comes across some bid, they would **in complete ignorance**
> and often **never having played in ACBL events** or even planning to play
> in them, say "that wouldn't be allowed in ACBL, they have stupid system
> regulations*. It appears to be a worldwide sport nowadays to badmouth ACBL,
> with popularity of BBO improving everybody's chances to engage in in it.
<snip>
> Cheers,
> Raija
You make several valid points here, Raija, but I suspect you're being
optimistic about human nature - we like to have something to look down
on, and why bother researching exactly what is deplorable about the
trendy whipping-boy of the hour? I know little about the ACBL regs,
but I'm aware that in many areas they're more restrictive than the EBU
ones - and in some areas less so. I know for sure I'd have to
redesign my system to play in the ACBL!
Added to which, since when did we take BBO seriously? ;-)
HenryL
Keith Giddings
> > > champonships. That is why people from everywhere want to go to
Just one thing you ought to make clear though is that category 5 aren't
only beginners, they may be very experienced club level players who
don't often play in tournaments. When we played in the fours
tournament this year the majority of players were 3 Promotion and there
were some very good players amongst them. As I'd never played in a
french tournament before this year, I was still 4 Promotion at the
start of the year (I've jumped quite a few places this year though :-)
) and I've been playing a long time and although I've no doubt that if
I play tournaments regularly (based on this years experience), I'd get
to second series, should I miss a year, I'd soon be back again at 3rd
series as you just cannot get enough expert points to stay in second
series.
There is a series of simultaneous tournaments for complete beginners
and second year players run by the Ecoles de Bridge. I think this is
probably where complete beginners tend to play their first tournaments
and these are classed as being below level 5.
Regards
Keith
stefan f.
Am 02.06.2010 20:13, schrieb Raija D:
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations'
> regulations so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more
> laughs at their expense for a change.
Germany
Whole document:
http://www.bridge-verband.de/picture/doc/7
or as wiki
http://www.bridge-verband.de/regelseite/doku.php?id=regelseite:to
Good laugh! :-)
ciao stefan
PS
System regulation can be summed up with: almost identical with the
WBF system policy.
One major deviation is that the WBF wording about HUM
http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp
2.2
3. "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be
made with values a king or more below average strength."
has been changed to the Rule of 18.
So we have
Cathegory HUM BS
A yes yes
B no yes
C no no
As far as I know there are only very very few Clubs (= I know 1)
that play under A. No other competition is played in A.
Nearly all Team tourneys are played under B. Several Clubs play
their pairs tourneys under B too.
C from beginners to national pairs tournaments.
Clubs are allowed to change these regulations.
Kenny McCormack
KWSchneider <question...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>But I will also add one important observation - the ACBL rules, in
>general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
>America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
>have no interest in changing the status quo.
You say that like it was a bad thing...
Seriously (but also sort of playing Devil's Advocate): Part of playing
bridge is being able to read your opponents actions (*). That is, you
assume that they are playing honestly (and rationally) and you assume,
for example, that bids and leads are normal (most of the time). Part of
what makes playing on BBO such an exercise in randomness is that the
bids and leads seem totally random (**).
Now, you can make all the standard arguments about this - and believe
me, I've heard them all - but the fact is that playing against random
stuff is not fun. It may be strictly/technically bridge, but it is not
fun. And, as hard as this may be to believe, _fun_ *is* supposed to be
the point of the game. In short, I think I am in agreement with the OP
on this one - that the rules do promote the style of the game that most
Americans (or USAans, if you need to be more politically correct [***])
want. And that's not a bad thing.
(*) Nitpickers might not like this particular phrasing, but I think
(hope) the meaning is clear.
(**) And I only said "seem" to stem the nitpicking...
(***) See threads over the last year or two in CLC about the term
"USAans" - talk about your angels on a pin...
--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
CLC in a nutshell.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations' regulations
> so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs at their
> expense for a change.
Feel free:
Player's handbook:
http://www.bridge.dk/lov/love07/n16.htm
TL's handbook:
http://www.bridge.dk/lov/love07/n23.htm
These are tournament regulations for Dansk Bridgeforbund (DBF).
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
David Stevenson
>From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
>I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
>the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
>history].
>
>Although I often complain about the ACBL rules because of their
>unfathomable inconsistencies, there are aspects of them that are
>indeed more open than some of the EBU's. Frankly, I simply learn the
>rules, push the envelope within the allowable guidelines, and move
>on.
Which ones are more open than the EBU's?
>But I will also add one important observation - the ACBL rules, in
>general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
>America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
>have no interest in changing the status quo.
My main worry is that I believe more competitions in the ACBL should
be MidChart. The lemmings do not tend to play in them so that should
not be the reason.
I am going to play in Orlando with my regular partner - first game
ever in North America with a regular partner after many years of coming
over. I do find it unfortunate that some of the things which are not
considered the stranger parts of the system may not be permitted.
For example:
9 to 12 1NT
2C showing a traditional 2C opening or a Weak Two in diamonds
Multi 2D [weak only]
2 M showing a weak hand with that suit and a lower ranking suit [5/4+].
I presume 2NT opening for the minors is permitted?
Is the following allowed:
1NT overcall as a weak distributional takeout, showing 2 or 3 of the
unbid suits?
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
EBL TD Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>Now, you can make all the standard arguments about this - and believe
>me, I've heard them all - but the fact is that playing against random
>stuff is not fun. It may be strictly/technically bridge, but it is not
>fun. And, as hard as this may be to believe, _fun_ *is* supposed to be
>the point of the game.
I think it great fun playing against strange things. Playing against
the same stuff is boring.
Raija D
"Henry Lockwood" <henry.l...@cantab.net> wrote in message
news:735a1490-7d1d-45d1...@k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Cheers,
> Raija
HenryL
====
Not BBO, that is just a venue for bridge, vugraph, and some great resources.
The people who gather there, with real names, even well known ones.
KWSchneider
No problem - both in GCC and MC...
>
> Is the following allowed:
>
> 1NT overcall as a weak distributional takeout, showing 2 or 3 of the
> unbid suits?
Yes - as defined below for both GCC and MC:
NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one
known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to
have
a known suit.) or
b) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three
suits.)
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Charles Brenner
14, and five clubs.
> How can judgment be prohibited?
I tried to make that point. However it turns out that spluttering in
English doesn't help. But eventually I understood that, at least to
the understanding of the director, there was an absolute rule that you
cannot deviate from your high card range.
Charles
KWSchneider
>
> Which ones are more open than the EBU's?
>
I seem to remember EBU restrictions on defenses to 1N openings that
are more onerous than ACBL - particularly the use of X for takeout [or
penalty?]. I could be wrong...
>
> Is the following allowed:
>
> 1NT overcall as a weak distributional takeout, showing 2 or 3 of the
> unbid suits?
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
derek
wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote
>
> >Now, you can make all the standard arguments about this - and believe
> >me, I've heard them all - but the fact is that playing against random
> >stuff is not fun. It may be strictly/technically bridge, but it is not
> >fun. And, as hard as this may be to believe, _fun_ *is* supposed to be
> >the point of the game.
>
> I think it great fun playing against strange things. Playing against
> the same stuff is boring.
I would agree with Kenny (!) that playing against _random_ stuff is
not fun. But playing against unusual _systems_ is, by definition, not
random. When I'm playing against an ACBL player playing an unusual
system, I often find it _is_ random, because they keep forgetting
their system, but that's not a good reason to ban people from using
them. I'd be happy to see all regionally-rated events played at
MidChart or above, and wouldn't argue against sectional events being
MidChart, either.
derek
> On Jun 2, 8:42 pm, vincit <counsellor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 juin, 02:49, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I once played in Spain. Alternate rounds were non-smoking. However,
> > > you won't be called to account for lighting up whenever you feel like
> > > it.
LOL.
> > > I upgraded a hand to a 15-17 point NT opening and thereby learned that
> > > such a judgment is strictly prohibited; summary ruling against us.
>
> > > This was some 20 years ago. Things may have changed.
Probably. Even in Europe, smoking is not allowed in many of the
places it used to be. Though I think they were smoking in the club I
played in in Lisbon 4 years ago.
> > How many HCP points did you have?
>
> 14, and five clubs.
>
> > How can judgment be prohibited?
>
> I tried to make that point. However it turns out that spluttering in
> English doesn't help.
:-) I suspect sputtering in Spanish would have been equally useless!
> But eventually I understood that, at least to
> the understanding of the director, there was an absolute rule that you
> cannot deviate from your high card range.
Seriously, these sorts of things happen everywhere. I bet I could
find clubs in the ACBL where a director would say the same - and I'm
certain it would happen at the Pattaya club, where I'd also be charged
with a psych. It could be a club rule, or it could be a poor director
- and it _was_ 20 years ago, and rules have definitely changed.
Kenny McCormack
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
>I would agree with Kenny (!) that playing against _random_ stuff is
>not fun. But playing against unusual _systems_ is, by definition, not
>random.
In theory, this is true. But in practice, the effect is the same.
In some sense, maybe I should have put the word "random" in "scare
quotes" in my previous post.
>When I'm playing against an ACBL player playing an unusual
>system, I often find it _is_ random, because they keep forgetting
>their system, but that's not a good reason to ban people from using
>them.
In practice, I think it is. As I wrote earlier, I've heard all the
arguments (implying that there was no need to go through them again).
>I'd be happy to see all regionally-rated events played at
>MidChart or above, and wouldn't argue against sectional events being
>MidChart, either.
Maybe so...
Adam Beneschan
> "Wayne" <wjburr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm guessing it involves Multi. That's the prime example of a
convention that is widely used everywhere else in the world but is
restricted here. I don't know the WBF regulations, but if I had to
take a wild guess I'd guess that this is the only convention that's
allowed by WBF Green but not by the GCC. I could be wrong. Maybe
someone else who knows both can answer.
-- Adam
Bob Richardson
> KWSchneider wrote
[snip]
> I am going to play in Orlando with my regular partner - first game
> ever in North America with a regular partner after many years of coming
> over. I do find it unfortunate that some of the things which are not
> considered the stranger parts of the system may not be permitted.
>
> For example:
> 2 M showing a weak hand with that suit and a lower ranking suit [5/4+].
2 M showing a weak hand with that suit and a lower ranking suit [5/4+]
is allowed IMO. This is merely a weak 2 bid. You must have at least 5
cards in the suit bid and I believe you must have at least 5 HCP.
Having an outside 4+ card suit is a "treatment". Yes, you should alert
this.
Raija D
"Bob Richardson" <bo...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:279617a5-0255-4fe1...@s6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
======
Would it not be better to read the regulation than to offer guesses as
advice.
GCC legal is:
OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the
suits
MC is less restictive.
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf
Carl Federl
that pretty much nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments." Below I
have copied some of the difference between the ACBL NABC+ and the
Australian Regulations.
The main differences appear to be that the ACBL does not allow the
Brown Sticker Exceptions in restricted events such as the Multi Two
Diamonds and Muiderberg. The ACBL also disallows conventions after a
very weak NT (less than 10 HCP) and after some pre-emptive openings.
Personally, I find the ACBL restrictions reasonable except for not
allowing the Brown Sticker Exceptions. I find it curious that the
ACBL allows defense conventional calls over a natural notrump opening
bids and overcalls but does not allow opening bids showing the same
distribution. Specifically, after a 1NT opening, 2H showing Hearts and
an unknown minor is allowed but opening 2 Hearts showing the same
distribution is not allowed.
References:
From the "Victor Champion Cup Bridge Festival" being held in Australia
starting on June 10th available at http://www.vba.asn.au/vcc2010/2010VCCBrochure.pdf,
the following regulations are defined:
ABF Tournament and System Regulations will be used during the
Championships.
Yellow Systems will be permitted in the Victor Champion Cup Swiss
Teams only, provided that they are received by the Tournament
Organiser on or before 7th June 2010.
For Restricted events, Yellow and Red systems and Brown Sticker
conventions and treatments will not be permitted.
For the ACBL, the convention chart is located at "http://www.acbl.org/
assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf", which references NABC+
events that are listed at http://www.acbl.org/play/nabcPlus.html
Comparing the ACBL regulations for NABC+ and the Australian Rules, I
found the following the ACBL does not allow the following:
1) After a natural notrump opening bids or a natural notrump overcall
with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater
than 5 HCP, disallowed are conventional responses, rebids or a
conventional defense to an opponent's conventional defense.
2) Conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of
more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four
cards
3) Opening one-bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer
than 8 HCP.
4) Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP
and which is not permitted by the General Convention.
5) Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each
defender’s first discard.
ACBL NABC+ does allow these conventions, which are otherwise
restricted:
6. A 4 level minor opening showing an unspecified major.
7. Opening two hearts showing at least 10 HCPs, 3 suits, short
diamonds.
8. Opening two spades showing at least 5 – 5 in the minors.
9. Transfer opening bids at the two level or higher showing a weak bid
in the suit being transferred to.
10. Opening two clubs bid showing a weak two diamond bid (5+ cards) or
a strong hand.
11. A 3 level opening bid showing an unknown solid suit.
12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a 4-
card minor.
13. Opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit.
14. A two heart opening showing 5 – 5 (or more) in the majors.
15. A 2NT opening bid showing an unspecified minor.
16. A two heart opening showing 5 – 4 in the majors.
17. Opening two diamonds showing a weak two-bid in an unspecified
major; may include additional strong meanings.
18. Opening two spades to show an unspecified minor.
19. A two club opening showing a limited hand with a major.
20. Opening one heart to show spades with 11 – 21 HCPs.
Wayne
We do not play a multi.
All of our openings from 1C through 7NT are offers to play with the
exception of:
2C and 2D both strong openings 18+ hcp
3NT which is a specific ace ask
4NT which shows both minors.
In addition all other suit openings show at least four cards in the
suit opened.
In case you have not yet guessed the problem is with a non-
conventional 1NT opening which the ACBL insists is 1. 10+ hcp (since
we play conventional follow-ups) and 2. does not routinely contain a
singleton. Our normal minimum opening is 10 hcp so we are not so much
affected by the first condition unless we upgrade a nice 9 hcp.
However we are happy to open 1NT with a singleton in a nearly balanced
hand that is otherwise difficult to rebid - 4=4=4=1, 1=4=4=4 as well
as hands with weak long suits - say (1-3)=4=5 with poor clubs etc.
Wayne
> The main differences appear to be that the ACBL does not allow the
> Brown Sticker Exceptions in restricted events such as the Multi Two
> Diamonds and Muiderberg. The ACBL also disallows conventions after a
> very weak NT (less than 10 HCP) and after some pre-emptive openings.
>
The ACBL also do not allow transfer openings at the one-level.
Wayne
Wayne
> On Jun 2, 2:13 pm, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
> I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
> the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
> history].
>
>
I think the Australian and New Zealand regulations pretty much follow
the WBF regulations. Although both countries seem to have tampered a
little with the wording.
Wayne
stefan f.
Am 04.06.2010 13:44, schrieb Carl Federl:
> The main differences appear to be that the ACBL does not allow
> the Brown Sticker Exceptions in restricted events such as the
> Multi Two Diamonds and Muiderberg.
I am not sure if there are different definitions about what is a
brown sticker convention around the world. But according to the WBF
and EBL definition Muiderberg isn't brown sticker.
ciao stefan
from
http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp
<quote>
The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown
Sticker':
a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:
i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below
average strength)
AND
ii)does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
</quote>
Muiderberg promises 5 cards in a known suit.
Jan Eric Larsson
> It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments.
I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
very
first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
if in a
minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
four
or more cards in that suit."
OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
three-card major openings. Why is a three-card minor natural, but not
a three-card major? Just because everyone is supposed to play SAYC.
> Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations' regulations
> so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more laughs at their
> expense for a change.
Sweden uses a "dot" system with the following rules:
o No dots for four card or longer openings
o One dot for any three-card opening with a balanced hand
o One extra dot if it is a major (higher, and harder to defend)
o Two dots for any three-card openng with an unbalanced hand
o Again ne extra dot for a major
o Three dots shorter/more artificial opening bids
o Two extra dots for 0-7 fert bids
o No dots for artifical bids stronger than 15 hcp
o Max one dot for a pointer ot a 4+ card suit
o Max two dots for a pointer to balanced
You add upp all dots for your opening bids. Any club is free to
announce any dot restriction, but there are three recommended
levels. Ordinary club game, max 7 dots, intermediate level max
10 dots, top level any number of dots. For example, the Swedish
teams finals have no restrictions, while a pairs final typically has
a 10 dot limit (only two boards per round, so a whole lot of work
to prepare for very little play).
Some clubs allow any level on ordinary club nights. Some clubs
have "standard only" competitions for beginners.
For example, 2D multi gets 3 dots, and a 0+ unbalanced 1C
also gets three dots. A 2N = 55 in minors gets 1 dot (pointer
to at least 1 suit). So typically you can play 5542 with multi
and a weka minors 2N in a standard club competition. *And*
you can play Roman, as long as you don't have too many
other conventional opening bids.
This keeps the conventions "in check" while allowing a reasonable
freedom.
Jan Eric Larsson
Adam Beneschan
> On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> > nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments.
>
> I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
> very
> first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
> if in a
> minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
> four
> or more cards in that suit."
>
> OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
> three-card major openings. Why is a three-card minor natural, but not
> a three-card major?
I'm not sure that they really ruled it out. Defining something as
"natural" is NOT equivalent to saying "anything that is not 'natural',
according to our definition, is conventional and is prohibited unless
this chart allows it". Rather, I think, defining something as
"natural" says "When we use the word 'natural' in this convention
chart, here's what we mean by it". It's an easy mistake to make, but
I think it's a mistake. (And it's possible that some ACBL directors
have made the same mistake, and prevented some players from playing a
method that should have been allowed.)
> Just because everyone is supposed to play SAYC.
This, I think, is the sort of thing Raija was complaining about. It's
one thing to criticize the ACBL's general approach to convention
regulation, or to their specific decisions about specific conventions,
or about the fact that the restrict certain conventions that are
widely used elsewhere in the world. But the notion that the ACBL does
this because they're trying to shoehorn everyone into one "standard"
system is complete, absolute, utter rubbish. SAYC isn't even very
popular in the ACBL. Most players I run into play 2/1 or some
variant. There are also plenty of big club players, and plenty of
weak notrumpers, and even some Polish clubbers, and some players with
their own experimental systems, and maybe even a few who still think
the Romex dynamic notrump is a good idea. I have not seen *any*
attempt by the ACBL to pressure all those players into giving up their
heretical systems and playing SAYC instead. So statements like
"everyone is supposed to play SAYC" are just garbage, with no basis in
reality.
-- Adam
derek
> On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
> very
> first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
> if in a
> minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
> four or more cards in that suit."
>
> OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
> three-card major openings.
Excuse me? Why would you consider opening on a 3-card major to be
"natural"? There's nothing explicitly illegal about opening a 3-card
major, but it _isn't_ natural - it's not showing your first choice of
suit to play.
> Why is a three-card minor natural, but not a three-card major?
Because Standard is 5-card majors, and if you bid _naturally_ you will
generally bid your 3-card minor when you're 4=4=3-2. The fact that 1M
is considered a natural bid if it shows four is a concession to the
fact that not everybody plays Standard.
> Just because everyone is supposed to play SAYC.
No. Nobody is expected to play SAYC, except on BBO. SAYC is NOT
"Standard American". SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is a
tightly limited system _based_ on Std. American. It was used
_briefly_ by the ACBL as a way to create a standardized environment
for I/N tournaments, but it never caught on.
KWSchneider
> On Jun 4, 8:32 am, Jan Eric Larsson <jane...@goalart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion that pretty much
> > > nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments.
>
> > I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
> > very
> > first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
> > if in a
> > minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
> > four
> > or more cards in that suit."
>
> > OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
> > three-card major openings. Why is a three-card minor natural, but not
> > a three-card major?
<snipped>
> I'm not sure that they really ruled it out. Defining something as
> "natural" is NOT equivalent to saying "anything that is not 'natural',
> according to our definition, is conventional and is prohibited unless
> this chart allows it". Rather, I think, defining something as
> "natural" says "When we use the word 'natural' in this convention
> chart, here's what we mean by it". It's an easy mistake to make, but
> I think it's a mistake. (And it's possible that some ACBL directors
> have made the same mistake, and prevented some players from playing a
> method that should have been allowed.)
>
"When we use the word 'natural' in this convention chart, here's what
we mean by it".
This is a crucial, crucial explanation of the definition of "natural"
and I appreciate Adam for wording this so eloquently. TOO MANY
directors and players latch onto this definition and apply it to
natural bids that are in fact natural based on the LAWS OF BRIDGE. A
"natural" bid in bridge is simply one that says I'm offering to play
there. And it can be as short as 3 cards in a major...
We play 1m-1M as 3+ in the major [we play a canape strong club
system]. This is perfectly ACBL GCC compliant [and has been ruled as
such by Flader and Beyes] - and yet it seems to conflict with the
"definition" of natural in the CC. This is because the definition
refers to the use of the word "natural" IN THE CONVENTION CARD.
Now - having said that - I don't understand why 3cM openings are not
allowed. They are not prohibited. Answer me that...
Kurt
>
> -- Adam
KWSchneider
> On Jun 4, 12:32 pm, Jan Eric Larsson <jane...@goalart.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
> > very
> > first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
> > if in a
> > minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
> > four or more cards in that suit."
>
> > OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
> > three-card major openings.
>
> Excuse me? Why would you consider opening on a 3-card major to be
> "natural"? There's nothing explicitly illegal about opening a 3-card
> major, but it _isn't_ natural - it's not showing your first choice of
> suit to play.
>
Can you carefully read what you've written above? A 3cm is natural but
a 3cM is not - only because you've decided [for whatever reason] that
you need a 5cM to open a major. What if I decided that I needed [for
the same arbitrary reasoning] a 5c minor to open 1m? Then I would
suggest that a 3cM is exactly "natural". And why can't it be my first
choice of suit to play, especially in MP, where the majors are so
crucial?
Read the LAWS OF BRIDGE and determine the definition of a natural bid
- this is the overriding document that dictates whether a bid is
natural or not. All the GCC does is define that "natural" in their
document means 3cm and 4cM.
Kurt
Will in New Haven
Years ago, when I had a partner who wanted to play Roman, we were told
that "extreme canape," where one might have open 1H or 1S on three
cards, _is_ allowed but the Roman concept that an opening bid of one
in a suit is forcing is not. There was also a problem, we were told,
with the Herbert Negative resonse to a one-bid and with the 1NT rebid
that showed length in the suit that partner bid as a negative but
denied substantial extra values.
But that was years ago and the convention card has changed since then
and so, probably, have the rules.
--
Will in New Haven
Adam Beneschan
"Forcing-ness" does not make a bid conventional, so at least from 1987
through 2007 organizations couldn't disallow a non-conventional bid
just on the basis of it being forcing. Since 2007, regulating
authorities have more leeway to regulate anything they deem a "Special
Partnership Understanding"; I haven't studied all the ramifications of
this. Also, the laws about what could or could not be regulated may
have changed in 1987 or 1975 or sometime before that. Most Herbert
negatives are still disallowed in GCC events, I think.
-- Adam
KWSchneider
wrote:
1C and 1D are not forcing in today's systems - so why does a 3cM need
to be forcing?
However, I do agree that the 2007/8 rewrite of the LAWS OF BRIDGE make
things a lot murkier and give more power to the regulating
authorities. I've always wanted to experiment with "super-canape" [and
the negative implication of a non 1M opening] but in this bidding
climate, it makes no sense to tell the opps on your opening that you
lack 3cards in major. OTOH, it sure as hell plays havoc with their
defensive weaponry when I open 1S with exactly 3.
Kurt
Will in New Haven
It doesn't need to be by virtue of being possibly a three-bagger. In
Roman, however, it could be a monster with great length and strength
in another suit or a two-suiter monster. Big unbalanced hands had to
be really big to open 1C because it will result in an asking bid
auction. This hand
AKQ - X - AKQXXX - AJX was opened 1S by one of the players on the Blue
Team in a match. If it isn't forcing, you never get to show the nature
of your hand or the Diamonds. Roman is not a Big Club system and there
is no equivalent of 2C, strong artificial and forcing. Some 2C hands
get opened 1C but others get opened 1D, 1H or 1S.
--
Will in New Haven
> However, I do agree that the 2007/8 rewrite of the LAWS OF BRIDGE make
> things a lot murkier and give more power to the regulating
> authorities. I've always wanted to experiment with "super-canape" [and
> the negative implication of a non 1M opening] but in this bidding
> climate, it makes no sense to tell the opps on your opening that you
> lack 3cards in major. OTOH, it sure as hell plays havoc with their
> defensive weaponry when I open 1S with exactly 3.
>
> Kurt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
richard...@gmail.com
Or assumed fit preempts or anyone one of a variety of other methods.
Its important to note that the ACBL Midchart is (essentially) non-
operational in determining the legality of different methods.
The binding constraint is getting a suggested defense approved.
Raija D
"KWSchneider" <question...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:88d526ca-177c-40d4...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Kurt
The Laws have nothing to do with the definition of "natural". System
Regulations do. The Law 40B gives the RA (Regulating Authority, typically a
national organization such as the ACBL) the right to exercise their opinion
and issue regulations pretty much as the RA sees best.
You wouldn't like the WBF system policy definition of "natural" any better,
would you:
Natural - a call or play that is not a convention ['special partnership
understanding' as defined in Law 40B1(a)]
Or the Australian: system regulations:
Natural - a call or play that is not artificial or conventional.
The rub lies in that "artificial" and "conventional" are not defined...
I personally would just like to see the whining and general badmouthing and
ridicule of ACBL to stop. It serves no purpose other than create ill will.
The vocal minority should get the ball rolling and start working toward
change if that is what you want.
Raija
PS. I guess it needs repeating what I said when I first started this
thread - I am in no way, shape, or form connected to ACBL or knowledgeable
about it or its workings. Nor do I like all of the regulations any better
than the next guy. R.
Player
> In article <4542f5bd-5dcc-40a9-888e-f499eb6c2...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >But I will also add one important observation - the ACBL rules, in
> >general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
> >America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
> >have no interest in changing the status quo.
>
>
> Seriously (but also sort of playing Devil's Advocate): Part of playing
> bridge is being able to read your opponents actions (*). That is, you
> assume that they are playing honestly (and rationally) and you assume,
> for example, that bids and leads are normal (most of the time). Part of
> what makes playing on BBO such an exercise in randomness is that the
> bids and leads seem totally random (**).
>
> Now, you can make all the standard arguments about this - and believe
> me, I've heard them all - but the fact is that playing against random
> stuff is not fun. It may be strictly/technically bridge, but it is not
> fun. And, as hard as this may be to believe, _fun_ *is* supposed to be
> on this one - that the rules do promote the style of the game that most
> Americans (or USAans, if you need to be more politically correct [***])
> want. And that's not a bad thing.
>
> (*) Nitpickers might not like this particular phrasing, but I think
> (hope) the meaning is clear.
>
> (**) And I only said "seem" to stem the nitpicking...
>
> (***) See threads over the last year or two in CLC about the term
> "USAans" - talk about your angels on a pin...
>
> --
>
> > No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> > why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
>
> CLC in a nutshell.
Well, playing against random stuff may not be fun for YOU, but it
certainly is for ME.
Ron
stefan f.
Am 05.06.2010 07:31, schrieb Raija D:
> The Laws have nothing to do with the definition of "natural".
> System Regulations do.
Well if the RA base their definition of natural according to the
meaning of artificial and/or conventional as written in the Laws I
would say it has a lot to do with the Laws.
> You wouldn't like the WBF system policy definition of "natural"
> any better, would you: Natural - a call or play that is not a
> convention ['special partnership understanding' as defined in Law
> 40B1(a)]
>
> Or the Australian: system regulations: Natural - a call or play
> that is not artificial or conventional.
>
> The rub lies in that "artificial" and "conventional" are not
> defined...
There may be some confusion about this due of terminology out of two
different sets of the Law, but system regulations do not follow the
rythm of publication of the Laws. Anyway here we go:
Laws set of 1997
http://web2.acbl.org/laws/definitions.htm
*artificial* = no definition
*Convention* =
1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the
last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three
cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength
does not make a call a convention.
2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement
rather than inference.
Laws set 2007
http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/definitions.asp#7
*artificial* =
Is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being
in苯or衫a負ion taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a
pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if
it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.
*Convention* = no definiton
> I personally would just like to see the whining and general
> badmouthing and ridicule of ACBL to stop.
C'mon, your original statement:
"Why don't we get links to all the other national organizations'
regulations so we can peruse them as closely, so we can have more
laughs at their expense for a change."
was much better.
> It serves no purpose
> other than create ill will. The vocal minority should get the
> ball rolling and start working toward change if that is what you
> want.
Well to talk about is the best way to get the ball rolling.
ciao stefan
Michael Angelo Ravera
>
> >From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
> >I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
> >the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
> >history].
>
> >unfathomable inconsistencies, there are aspects of them that are
> >indeed more open than some of the EBU's. Frankly, I simply learn the
> >rules, push the envelope within the allowable guidelines, and move
> >on.
>
> Which ones are more open than the EBU's?
>
> >general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
> >America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
> >have no interest in changing the status quo.
>
> be MidChart. The lemmings do not tend to play in them so that should
> not be the reason.
>
> I am going to play in Orlando with my regular partner - first game
> ever in North America with a regular partner after many years of coming
> over. I do find it unfortunate that some of the things which are not
> considered the stranger parts of the system may not be permitted.
>
> For example:
>
> 2C showing a traditional 2C opening or a Weak Two in diamonds
> Multi 2D [weak only]
> 2 M showing a weak hand with that suit and a lower ranking suit [5/4+].
>
>
> Is the following allowed:
>
> 1NT overcall as a weak distributional takeout, showing 2 or 3 of the
> unbid suits?
>
A 1NT opener that shows a balanced 9-12 is legal, but you aren't
permitted to play play conventions afterwards (including conventional
escapes). You can make whatever agreements that you like about the
overall strength of the hand for particular bids (like 2-level
forcing and 3-level weak or vice-versa). Make it 10-12 and you can
play it and conventions even on the Baby Chart.
You can play what is frequently called "Multi-2C" at mid-chart, but
not GCC.
Weak only Multi-2D is permitted at mid-chart, but not the GCC.
Muiderberg 2M openers are permitted at mid-chart, but not GCC.
Unusual 2NT openers are permitted, but they must show at least 5-4
shape. I've heard it interpreted that you can't play conventions after
them with more than a 7 HCP range, if any part of the range might be
less than 10 HCP. This is allowed GCC. It might even be allowed on the
Baby Chart.
"Really Unusual No Trump" overcalls are fine if they show at least 3
cards in the other suits. Unlike takeout doubles, you don't get much
latitude for off shape stuff even with strong hands. This convention
might even be allowed on the Baby Chart.
David Collier
> KWSchneider wrote
>
> >From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
> >I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
> >the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
> >history].
>
> >Although I often complain about the ACBL rules because of their
> >unfathomable inconsistencies, there are aspects of them that are
> >indeed more open than some of the EBU's. Frankly, I simply learn the
> >rules, push the envelope within the allowable guidelines, and move
> >on.
>
> Which ones are more open than the EBU's?
Minor-suit openings are virtually unrestricted in the ACBL.
So for example if you want to play 1C as 14+ HCP any shape,
this is permitted by the GCC, but not allowed at *any* level in the
EBU.
richard...@gmail.com
> PS. I guess it needs repeating what I said when I first started this
> thread - I am in no way, shape, or form connected to ACBL or knowledgeable
> about it or its workings. Nor do I like all of the regulations any better
> than the next guy. R.
From my perspective, the complaints about the ACBL have less to do
with specific set of conventions that is / is not permitted than the
(lack of) process that surrounds the conventions regulations system.
The ACBL fails miserably across multiple dimensions.
First and foremost, for years the ACBL has demonstrated that it is
completely incapable of describing the existing set of convention
regulations to its membership. If you'd like, I can point to a pair
of email threads, one from Mike Flader and one from Rick Beye. Each
was asked whether a 2S opening that promises
5+ Spades
4+ cards in either minor
~ 6 – 10 HCPS
was legal at the GCC level or the Midchart level.
The two worthies produced completely contradictory explanations. I
can point to multiple such instances whether senior level regulators
in the ACBL seem completely incapable of generating logical,
repeatable, and consistent rulings. The failure mode is very.
The ACBL had never been capable of publishing intelligible system
regulations. There is no official mechanism to communicate this
information to Tournament Directors or the membership. Rather, we
have a series of contradictory announcements promoted through the
Bulletin or random websites or duplicate decisions, yada yada yada.
Other jurisdictions, most notably the EBU seem to have their act
together. Take a look at the White Book and the Orange Book, then try
to figure out what legal in an ACBL tournament. (Try hard not to puke
in disgust)
Second: The ACBL system for approving new conventions is laughable.
The Competition and Conventions Committee hasn't been able to approve
a suggested in defense in years. The “processes” that this group
follows are best described as “Byzantine”. Here, once again, I'd be
happy to share some choice emails that were accidentally forwarded
that show how the process actually works.
As to your suggestion that the vocal minority should start working
towards change...
What do you suggest? The existing committee is incompetent to the
core. They've been screwing things up for the better part of the
decade. At the same time, they seem completely unwilling to step
aside and let anyone else address the core issues.
No, ifs, ands, or buts... “Working towards change” means breaking the
back of the existing Competitions and Conventions Committee. The only
practical way to do so involves large scale lawsuits directed against
both the ACBL and the committee members.
Raija D
"stefan f." <fi...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:86ubg6...@mid.individual.net...
> Hello,
>
> Am 05.06.2010 07:31, schrieb Raija D:
>
>> The Laws have nothing to do with the definition of "natural".
>> System Regulations do.
>
> Well if the RA base their definition of natural according to the meaning
> of artificial and/or conventional as written in the Laws I would say it
> has a lot to do with the Laws.
>
>> You wouldn't like the WBF system policy definition of "natural"
>> any better, would you: Natural - a call or play that is not a
>> convention ['special partnership understanding' as defined in Law
>> 40B1(a)]
>>
>> Or the Australian: system regulations: Natural - a call or play
>> that is not artificial or conventional.
>>
>> The rub lies in that "artificial" and "conventional" are not
>> defined...
>
> There may be some confusion about this due of terminology out of two
> different sets of the Law, but system regulations do not follow the rythm
> of publication of the Laws.
> Well to talk about is the best way to get the ball rolling.
>
> ciao stefan
============
Hi Stefan,
Please note that in the current 2008 laws, the definition you quote has BEEN
REMOVED and there was some disuccion prior to the 2008 edition. I used to
follow it at the time.
What the 1997 laws saiy, is of course obsolete. Bridge laws are like any
other "laws": new one supersedes the old and the old becomes obsolete. It
would be way MORE confusing if two or more editions of laws were valid at
the same time. At least we are spared from that :)
Cheers,
Raija
Raija D
"David Collier" <col...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ea58ca42-5581-4bb6-8b76-
K Schneider asked:
> Which ones are more open than the EBU's?
David Collier responded:
Minor-suit openings are virtually unrestricted in the ACBL.
So for example if you want to play 1C as 14+ HCP any shape,
this is permitted by the GCC, but not allowed at *any* level in the
EBU.
===========
This illustrates my point, assuming David's comment is true about EBU (I
know it is true about ACBL).
The ACBL gets bad rap, whether justified or based on facts or not. Much of
the remarks flying around are not based on
a) fact or b) actually knowing what the regulations are.
Raija
Raija D
"richard...@hotmail.com" <richard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3856575-9939-4f2d...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
[Richard wrote]
From my perspective, the complaints about the ACBL have less to do
with specific set of conventions that is / is not permitted than the
(lack of) process that surrounds the conventions regulations system.
The ACBL fails miserably across multiple dimensions.
==========
For specific issues or even more general ones, you can contact the Committee
or the ACBL Tournament Department manager Butch Campbell. The members of
the committee are shown here.
http://www.acbl.org/about/competitionConvention.html
Raija
PS. Repeating again: I am in no way, shape, or form connected to ACBL or
more knowledgeable about it or its workings than any other member. Nor do I
richard...@gmail.com
> For specific issues or even more general ones, you can contact the Committee
> or the ACBL Tournament Department manager Butch Campbell. The members of
> the committee are shown here.http://www.acbl.org/about/competitionConvention.html
>
> Raija
Thanks for the constructive suggestions. I will simply note in
passing that I have had more than my fair share of dealings with the
committee in question...
David Stevenson
>Raija D posted: "It is amazing how it seems to be a worldwide opinion
>that pretty much nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments." Below I
>have copied some of the difference between the ACBL NABC+ and the
>Australian Regulations.
>
>The main differences appear to be that the ACBL does not allow the
>Brown Sticker Exceptions in restricted events such as the Multi Two
>Diamonds and Muiderberg. The ACBL also disallows conventions after a
>very weak NT (less than 10 HCP) and after some pre-emptive openings.
>
>Personally, I find the ACBL restrictions reasonable except for not
>allowing the Brown Sticker Exceptions. I find it curious that the
>ACBL allows defense conventional calls over a natural notrump opening
>bids and overcalls but does not allow opening bids showing the same
>distribution. Specifically, after a 1NT opening, 2H showing Hearts and
>an unknown minor is allowed but opening 2 Hearts showing the same
>distribution is not allowed.
Muiderberg is not Brown sticker, exception or otherwise, and is so
simple it is allowed in novice bridge in England. That is a very
strange agreement to disallow.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
EBL TD Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>On Jun 4, 12:32�pm, Jan Eric Larsson <jane...@goalart.com> wrote:
>> On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> I for one really think the Convention Chart is highly prejudiced. The
>> very
>> first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
>> if in a
>> minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
>> four or more cards in that suit."
>>
>> OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
>> three-card major openings.
>
>Excuse me? Why would you consider opening on a 3-card major to be
>"natural"? There's nothing explicitly illegal about opening a 3-card
>major, but it _isn't_ natural - it's not showing your first choice of
>suit to play.
>
>> Why is a three-card minor natural, but not a three-card major?
>
>Because Standard is 5-card majors, and if you bid _naturally_ you will
>generally bid your 3-card minor when you're 4=4=3-2. The fact that 1M
>is considered a natural bid if it shows four is a concession to the
>fact that not everybody plays Standard.
It may be common: it may be normal: but why on earth do you consider
three card minors natural? Natural is bidding your longest suit first.
I do not think your arguments hold water as a reason for disallowing
three-card majors. I think they were just disliked so banned.
David Stevenson
>On Jun 3, 9:22 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> KWSchneider wrote
>>
>> >From my limited worldwide knowledge of the various bridge federations,
>> >I believe that the Australian [or perhaps the New Zealand] rules are
>> >the least restrictive [perhaps a testament to each country's
>> >history].
>>
>> >Although I often complain about the ACBL rules because of their
>> >unfathomable inconsistencies, there are aspects of them that are
>> >indeed more open than some of the EBU's. Frankly, I simply learn the
>> >rules, push the envelope within the allowable guidelines, and move
>> >on.
>>
>>
>> >general, represent the bulk of the playing population here in North
>> >America; a boring, unimaginative, unyielding slice of lemmings who
>> >have no interest in changing the status quo.
>>
>> My main worry is that I believe more competitions in the ACBL should
>> be MidChart. The lemmings do not tend to play in them so that should
>> not be the reason.
>>
>> I am going to play in Orlando with my regular partner - first game
>> ever in North America with a regular partner after many years of coming
>> over. I do find it unfortunate that some of the things which are not
>> considered the stranger parts of the system may not be permitted.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 9 to 12 1NT
>> 2C showing a traditional 2C opening or a Weak Two in diamonds
>> Multi 2D [weak only]
>> 2 M showing a weak hand with that suit and a lower ranking suit [5/4+].
>>
>> I presume 2NT opening for the minors is permitted?
>
>
>>
>> Is the following allowed:
>>
>> 1NT overcall as a weak distributional takeout, showing 2 or 3 of the
>> unbid suits?
>
>
>NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
>a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one
>known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to
>have
>a known suit.) or
>b) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three
>suits.)
Oh dear: a known suit. Hmmmm.
KWSchneider
> "David Collier" <col3...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Raija - please check the original unsnipped post of mine. I did not
ask which ones are more open than the EBU - I actually said that there
were some that were more open. David Stevenson asked the question in
response to my post. Please be careful when cutting and attributing
quotes to a specific poster.
Kurt
KWSchneider
> EBL TD Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Sorry about that - it is the ACBL after all...
Kurt
Raija D
Kurt
=====
Sorry Kurt. I did misquote, my error.
Raija
Kieran Dyke
Kurt
It's about time the ACBL did away with the scourge of 1NT openings which
show 15-17 points and no anchor suit. Far too difficult to defend against.
Tiggrr
Michael Angelo Ravera
> "KWSchneider" <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<QUOTE>
A natural call is one that is either a genuine offer to play in the
denomination named (or, in the case of pass, double, or redouble, the
last denomination named) or shows length or high cards therein. A
general understanding as to the strength of the hand does not make an
otherwise natural call into an artificial call.
</QUOTE>
That is almost a direct quote from somewhere. I forget whether it is
the Laws of Bridge or a WBF or ACBL publication.
As I said earlier, I'd be in favor of allowing any opening bid that
always promises one of the following:
1) 10 HCP
2) 4 or more cards in a known suit
3) 4 or more cards in a known suit when it might be less than 10 HCP,
but 13 or more HCP otherwise
In addition I would allow a 2m opener that showed 4 or more cards in
one or both majors with or without alternative meanings that promise
13 or more HCP.
Natural 1-level Openers that promise 8 or more HCP should also be
allowed.
Yeah, I might like to see pre-alerts (and possibly defenses) for
people who play any of the following:
1) 1-level openers which might be less than 10 HCP
2) weak 2-level and higher bids that promise only 4 cards in their
known suit
3) a possibly weak 2m opener that doesn't promise a known suit
but they'd still get to play them
BTW: has anyone published (or wants to offer) a viable defense for
weak-strong suction 2-level openers (The kind of which would be legal
red sticker).
They would be something like:
2C: Strong diamonds or weak hearts and a minor
2D: Strong hearts or weak majors
2H: Strong spades or weak spades and a minor
2S: Strong balanced or weak minors
2NT: Strong clubs
Another variant:
2C: Strong clubs or weak diamonds and a major
2D: Strong diamonds or weak hearts and another
2H: Strong hearts or weak spades and clubs
2S: Strong spades or weak minors
2NT: Strong balanced
Have fun.
You can fiddle the bids a bit, if you like (and propose
Ron Johnson
>
> BTW: has anyone published (or wants to offer) a viable defense for
> weak-strong suction 2-level openers (The kind of which would be legal
> red sticker).
Sounds like you're talking about something similar to a Rubin 2.
Given that they've featured in a few world championship matches
you could probably dig something out.
Most simply, assume they've got the weak option and take action
accordingly.
(I believe this is what France used in 1980. I believe two US pairs
were using
Rubin Twos) You have two potential
takeout actions so you could in theory use something like
double=general
strength and bidding their "known" suit is takeout. And potentially
based in part on shape.
Gordon Bower's come up with a decent starting point at:
http://taigabridge.com/articles/darkarts/oppopen/oppopen.htm
Adam Beneschan
> Personally, I find the ACBL restrictions reasonable except for not
> allowing the Brown Sticker Exceptions. I find it curious that the
> ACBL allows defense conventional calls over a natural notrump opening
> bids and overcalls but does not allow opening bids showing the same
> distribution. Specifically, after a 1NT opening, 2H showing Hearts and
> an unknown minor is allowed but opening 2 Hearts showing the same
> distribution is not allowed.
This doesn't strike me as curious at all. The theory, I think, is
that it's easier to recover from an opponent's bid showing something
exotic if you already know your partner has 15-17 HCP and you know a
lot about his distribution. For one thing, if you don't know what
else to do, you can just whack them.
Whether this holds up in practice, I don't know. (I do know that the
ACBL used to allow all conventional defenses to natural notrump, but
later decided to put some restrictions on them, so apparently someone
felt that certain conventional defenses were too difficult for some
players to handle.) But in any event, it makes perfect sense to me
that the problem of dealing with this sort of bid when your partner
has already shown strength and limited his hand would be VERY
different than the problem of dealing with it when you know nothing
about partner's hand, and it makes perfect sense that someone would
judge the second problem to be significantly more difficult than the
first. I don't see why you think of this as "curious".
-- Adam
Fred.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Juni, 20:13, "Raija D" <musti...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > nothing is allowed in the ACBL tournaments.
>
> > very
> > first definition is: "An opening bid or response is considered natural
> > if in a
> > minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major shows
> > four
> > or more cards in that suit."
>
> > OK, here ACBL ruled out Roman Club and all other systems that use
> > a three-card major?
>
> I'm not sure that they really ruled it out. Defining something as
> "natural" is NOT equivalent to saying "anything that is not 'natural',
> according to our definition, is conventional and is prohibited unless
> this chart allows it". Rather, I think, defining something as
> "natural" says "When we use the word 'natural' in this convention
> chart, here's what we mean by it". It's an easy mistake to make, but
> I think it's a mistake. (And it's possible that some ACBL directors
> have made the same mistake, and prevented some players from playing a
> method that should have been allowed.)
>
>
> This, I think, is the sort of thing Raija was complaining about. It's
> one thing to criticize the ACBL's general approach to convention
> regulation, or to their specific decisions about specific conventions,
> or about the fact that the restrict certain conventions that are
> widely used elsewhere in the world. But the notion that the ACBL does
> this because they're trying to shoehorn everyone into one "standard"
> system is complete, absolute, utter rubbish. SAYC isn't even very
> popular in the ACBL. Most players I run into play 2/1 or some
> variant. There are also plenty of big club players, and plenty of
> weak notrumpers, and even some Polish clubbers, and some players with
> their own experimental systems, and maybe even a few who still think
> the Romex dynamic notrump is a good idea. I have not seen *any*
> attempt by the ACBL to pressure all those players into giving up their
> heretical systems and playing SAYC instead. So statements like
> "everyone is supposed to play SAYC" are just garbage, with no basis in
> reality.
>
> -- Adam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I find it interesting that the ACBL-GCC defines which bids considered
natural without actually saying what this has to do with the
convention chart. While experience and context tell us otherwise, we
might read the GCC as disallowing natural openings and responses since
they are not specifically allowed on the chart.
If you see a pair opening all 15+ hands 1c, all 10-14 point hands 1d,
and only preempting with 2-suiters you'll know what happened :-)
Fred.
Frances
David, you usually know the EBU regulations so well.....
That's been permitted for a while in the EBU in the spring 4s and the
premier league.
As from August this year, it's also permitted in Crockfords, the
Tollemache and a few other events I can't remember off hand.
I do agree that's a long way from "virtually unrestricted"
pgmer6809
OTOH, it sure as hell plays havoc with their
> defensive weaponry when I open 1S with exactly 3.
>
> Kurt
try to regulate and disallow certain systems.
Bridge is a game of incomplete information, and of deduction.
If you turn it into a random guessing game, you are affecting the type
of game that is being played.
Sort of like using a tennis racket with two sets of strings, or a cork
bat in american baseball. It alters the integrity of the game.
The ruling authorities are trying (for the most part) to preserve the
integrity of the game when they ban or restrict certain systems.
Hence the general prohibition on systems that are 'primarily designed
to destroy the opponents methods'.
Now as to where to draw the line, I have no idea. I am not an expert,
so I could not say whether a 3cMajor opening system is 'primarily
destructive' or whether it has certain technical merits of its own.
pgmer6809
KWSchneider
The problem I have with the "nebulous" ACBL 1m openings [ie AKxx AQxx
xxx xx] played by the majority of SA and 2/1 practitioners is that
there is absolutely no intent to play there - which is contradictory
to the LAWS [spirit] of BRIDGE and frankly difficult to defend against
[how often has a 1m opening prevented you from leading the suit?]. In
fact, I play that a 1C opening in SA or 2/1 is artificial and my
overcalls reflect that.
Since I can't change the 1m openings, it should only be fair that the
1M openings are treated exactly the same way. I have written
documentation from the ACBL that a 1M response to a 1m opening with
ONLY 3cards is LEGAL since it is a TREATMENT. This supports Adam's and
my position that the GCC "natural" stipulation of 4+cards for openings
and responses relates only to that definition within the context of
the GCC. And all that means is that a 3cM opening is not defined as
"natural" within the GCC. It doesn't mean that it is illegal.
Still, I ask you why should minor suits be treated/labeled any
differently than major suits in the GCC? The ONLY reason is to appease
5card majorites. Consequently the ACBL is designing their bridge rules
and conventions around an existing bidding system - not the other way
around.
Kurt
richard...@gmail.com
> I have written documentation from the ACBL that a 1M response to a 1m opening with
> ONLY 3cards is LEGAL since it is a TREATMENT.
I have written documentation from the ACBL that make many interesting
claims....
Most of said claims contradict one another.
> Still, I ask you why should minor suits be treated/labeled any
> differently than major suits in the GCC? The ONLY reason is to appease
> 5card majorites.
Some would postulate that "The ACBL can't find its ass with both
hands" is an equally valid hypothesis
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity": Heinlein / Hanlon / Whomever
Carl
> Still, I ask you why should minor suits be treated/labeled any
> differently than major suits in the GCC? The ONLY reason is to appease
> 5card majorites. Consequently the ACBL is designing their bridge rules
> and conventions around an existing bidding system - not the other way
> around.
>
> Kurt
A casual glance at the ACBL convention card and charts tell you League
documentation in general is based on Modern Standard American, 5-Card
Majors. Strong Club is of course permitted and in some cases endorsed,
but there's no card for it - you have to sort of cut, paste and
shoehorn it onto the SA card.
So, your last statement is of course true.
henry...@yahoo.com
The problem I have with the "nebulous" ACBL 1m openings [ie AKxx AQxx
xxx xx] played by the majority of SA and 2/1 practitioners is that
there is absolutely no intent to play there - which is contradictory
to the LAWS [spirit] of BRIDGE and frankly difficult to defend
against
[how often has a 1m opening prevented you from leading the suit?]. In
fact, I play that a 1C opening in SA or 2/1 is artificial and my
overcalls reflect that.
**************
Kurt,
I don't understand your claim about opening 1d with
AKxx
AQxx
xxx
xx
reflects "absolutely no intent to play there." That 1d opening bid
shows diamonds, which you have, and if partner gave you a weak single
raise (SA) or a weak inverted raise you'd certainly choose to play
there.
To me, this is vastly different from the (much older) South American
system, played in the 1967 Bermuda Bowl, where 1M showed 5+ long, 1c
denied a 4M, and 1d promised a 4M. But the SA 1d opening bid doesn't
promise or deny any holdings in the majors and, depending on style,
could even conceal a 5M, e.g.
x
AQJxx
AKJxxx
x
if that hand was deemed strong enough for a reverse, which I think it
obviously is.
Now, I suppose that a theoretical argument could be made if one
followed the Woolsey (?) style whereby a 1m opening bid DENIES a 5M
(all hands with 5M are opened in the major, even
65432
--
A
AKQJTxx
which revives an old idea of Geoffrey Mott-Smith if my memory is
correct. But in that case, a classical weak2d opening bid is also
artificial because it denies a side 4M, and I don't think the ACBL is
going to go in that direction.
Anyway, if you could clarify what you mean, I'd be grateful.
Henrysun909
Michael Angelo Ravera
... and it is VERY difficult properly to disclose either a strong 1D
or Monster or Multi 2D system using the ACBL CC. Even documenting
responses to 1m when one of them is strong and the other is natural is
difficult.
Sure, in the "General Approach"section you can mark Other _1D_ or _2D_
in the forcing opening section, but, despite its being the first place
that *I* look on someone's card and the fact that we prealert anybody
who hasn't played against us 50 times (since basicaly any artificial
strong bids openers other than 1C or 2C require a prealert), someone
always claims ambush.
The ACBL doesn't stop us from playing the system. In fact, the GCC
seems to have been specifcially written with strong 1D and 2D systems
in mind, but the convention card doesn't make it easy on us or our
opponents. For a recent Top-Flight ACBL event, I basically had to
create a suplemental sheet for our responses to 1C and to 1D. The WBF
card would have made it much easier since I would have put the
announcements about 1C and 1D in the "System Summary" section
KWSchneider
wrote:
<snipped>
> I don't understand your claim about opening 1d with
>
> AKxx
> AQxx
> xxx
> xx
>
> reflects "absolutely no intent to play there." That 1d opening bid
> shows diamonds, which you have, and if partner gave you a weak single
> raise (SA) or a weak inverted raise you'd certainly choose to play
> there.
>
If you are suggesting that a 1D opening on the above hand shows an
intent to play there, then I would suggest that opening 1S on AKQ KJ
xxxx xxxx is an even stronger indication of intent to play THERE. My
point is that up until the advent of 5cM, you bid your "best" suit -
that meant longest/and or strongest. In my original posted hand, xxx
is a far cry from your longest and strongest and is, in fact, YOUR 3RD
ranked suit [by a longshot]. It is arguably almost an artificial bid
in this auction and opposite Jxx Kxx xx KJxxx would likely preclude
the opponents from leading diamonds against 1N.
The ACBL has simply mutated their allowable conventions around 5card
majors - which as I said before is the tail wagging the dog.
David Stevenson
><snip>
>OTOH, it sure as hell plays havoc with their
>> defensive weaponry when I open 1S with exactly 3.
>>
>> Kurt
>I think this is the gist of the reason the ACBL (and other bodies?)
>try to regulate and disallow certain systems.
>Bridge is a game of incomplete information, and of deduction.
>If you turn it into a random guessing game, you are affecting the type
>of game that is being played.
>Sort of like using a tennis racket with two sets of strings, or a cork
>bat in american baseball. It alters the integrity of the game.
>
>The ruling authorities are trying (for the most part) to preserve the
>integrity of the game when they ban or restrict certain systems.
>
>Hence the general prohibition on systems that are 'primarily designed
>to destroy the opponents methods'.
There is no doubt whatever that that is the main reason for pre-empts.
If the ACBL actually meant their regulation then the first thing to
outlaw is weak threes.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Kenny McCormack
David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
> There is no doubt whatever that that is the main reason for pre-empts.
>If the ACBL actually meant their regulation then the first thing to
>outlaw is weak threes.
I think that's true - and if they were invented today, they'd be banned.
But they are, of course, grandfathered in.
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
Michael Angelo Ravera
wrote:
> In article <lY9uWTEHy4FMF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <webjak...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > There is no doubt whatever that that is the main reason for pre-empts.
> >If the ACBL actually meant their regulation then the first thing to
> >outlaw is weak threes.
>
> I think that's true - and if they were invented today, they'd be banned.
>
> But they are, of course, grandfathered in.
>
> --
> Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
> comp.lang.c...
Not necessarily so. The kind of bid that is "PRIMARILY designed to
destroy opponents methods" are things like random 2S openers in third
seat and frivolous (or semiautomatic) 7NT bids in the first seat. The
idea is that you aren't making any effort to determine your own best
contract (whether constructive or sacrifice), but rather just to make
it IMPOSSIBLE for opponents to find theirs. It's sort of a scorched
earth policy.
Weak 3-bids that show a particular 5-card or longer suit or a known
suit with 4 or more cards and an unknown suit or 4 or more cards are
at least superficial efforts to find your own best sacrifice. Banning
natural 3-level bids promising 5 or more cards (or 4 or more cards, if
you are really racy) would be an effort to police thought. Neither the
ACBL or any other regulating authority has any interest in that.
Banning a 2-level bid with no known suit except in high-level
competition (yeah, yeah, except for the ubiquitous Multi-2m) seems
normal to us in the Anglophonic northern hemisphere, but smacks of
"thought policing" to the Poles.
Techniques that give too great of an advantage to those using them
have been banned or restricted in other sports (vis the soccer
offsides rule). Techniques that make no effort to win, but make an
effort to cripple opponents are banned in virtually every sport (even
professional wrestling make a pretense of banning such techniques).