USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

[Jeff Aker]

In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3^rd seat non-vulnerable, we want to ask the ITTC to consider what methods should be allowable in the USBCs. The ACBL C&C committee is undertaking a review and rewrite of all ACBL convention charts, which may impact this, but we thought it would be good to have a discussion of what we want the rules to be for USBF events. 

This discussion is about what you think USBF should allow. We now allow ACBL mid chart methods in Round Robin matches and in KO matches of fewer than 60 boards, and super chart methods in KO matches of 60 boards or longer. Item 1 under Opening Bids in the GCC allows 1C or 1D as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. In order to be natural, an opening bid in a minor must promise three or more cards.  Psyching artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto is specifically disallowed. Additionally, opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high card points are disallowed. The Midchart does not change those rules. The super chart provides that the 8 HCP rule does not apply opposite a passed hand, but presumably the 10 HCP requirement of opening 1m applies in all seats. 

To try to keep this discussion on topic, please discuss the following:

Should a pair whose 1m opening bid does not promise 3+ cards in the suit be allowed to open hands like the following 1m (if seat is relevant please

include that)?

A1098 xx xxx AJ109

Qxx Qxxx Qxxx Qxx

xxx xxxx xxx xxx

Axxx x x KQ109xxx

 

Please try to limit this phase of the systems discussion to the issue of 1m opening bids where the bid does not promise 3+ cards in the suit. We can move on to other issues later if you want to.

Jeff Aker

Chair, ITTC

 

 

 

 

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[Danny Sprung]

I'd clearly allow hand 4.  One could use the 'Rule of N' as an adjunct to strict HCP bright lines.  The UK does just that.  I would think hands that meet the rule of 18 would be fine opening bids.  I do believe we need bright lines in HCP or ' Rule of N' in order to keep the rules enforceable.

Danny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Kamil]

It seems to me there's something wrong with the fact that a 1H opener in 3rd seat promising 0-15 (basically) is allowed, and a 1D opener playing Precision is not allowed with the same 0-15.  That has to be addressed first. 

After that is decided, one can get to the more important issue of full disclosure.

The question of what hands should be allowed to open seems secondary.  No one is psyching in 1st or 2nd, so why worry about that? 

Personally I'd say anything goes in 3rd seat since it seems to me wise strategy to open xxx xxx xx xxxxx when your partner passes and your favorable.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

--

[george]

Hand #4 contains a rebid and most would open it in any system. The other three are not opening bids and should not be allowed, especially when "protected" by being known to be limited.

George

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Danny Sprung]

There is a difference between 1M and 1 of an ambiguous minor.  Opposite 1M, you could still have game.  It will be extremely unlikely to have game opposite 1m when the max is a bad 15, and the partner is limited to 9.  Picture a 3H overcall of 1D.  Responder will virtually never bid over the 1D/3H auction, but needs to be able to raise the major.

Danny

[Michael Kamil]

Danny -

Is the point to legislate risk to the "possibly" psyching side?  I would think they should be allowed to do whatever is best strategy there even if it allows psychic controls.....

As long as they disclose it.

I would strongly oppose George's view that this or that hand is not an opening bid (in 3rd seat). 

[Fred Gitelman]

On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:
> Danny -
>
> Is the point to legislate risk to the "possibly" psyching side? I
> would think they should be allowed to do whatever is best strategy
> there even if it allows psychic controls.....

Michael - with all due respect...

As I understand it (sorry if I am wrong), your use of the terms
psych/psychic/psyching here (and in your previous e-mail) does not jibe
with what your previous claim:

"the fact that a 1H opener in 3rd seat promising 0-15 (basically) is
allowed"

I always thought that "psych" referred to an action that was contrary to
partnership agreement. But if the 3rd seat opening "promises 0-15" then
opening the bidding with a hand that is closer to the lower end of this
range is not a "psych" - it is in accordance with partnership agreement.

So if a given bid is not a psych in the first place, any discussion of
"psyched controls" is taking us in the wrong direction - there has been
no psych so there can be no psychic control.

To me this is really about whether or not to allow a partnership to play
0-15 opening bids more or less by agreement. If players are allowed to
open 0-15 hands by agreement then of course their partners can play them
for 0-15.

I do not have solution to propose, but I think it is important that we
get the terminology right if we want to come up with a solution that is
both fair and sensible without wasting time and effort on various
irrelevant tangents.

[Michael Kamil]

I think you're right Fred....the use of the word psych was wrong.  If it's 0-15 by agreement, then it's not a psyche.  I don't know what to call it exactly....perhaps just an "agreement".

I do think there's something wrong with the rules of the game if one is not allowed to use what is (to me) an obviously winning strategy of making the opps life difficult, when you know they have game or slam and you know your risk is limited.

[Ulti...@aol.com]

Ronnie and I played that a 1M opening in 1st or 3rd position at F.V. either showed an opening bid or did not.  After an appeal, we were barred from doing so, and told that one is not allowed to open the bidding with a hand that contains by agreement less than 10 HCP in ACBL events. We were penalized 27 IMPs for psyching three times in 32 boards. If this is still the rule, you are not allowed to play 3rd seat openings show anything.

Is this still the rule? Maybe someone can find the ACBL rule and post it.

 

What constitutes an agreement in a partnership? From my experience, the third time a regular partner makes a bid that violates a previous agreement constitutes an agreement. That may not be a good definition.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Aker]

Mike,

 

Keep in mind that we’re trying to focus on a limited area. The relevant ACBL rules currently forbid opening 1c or 1d on fewer than 10 HCP if the partnership doesn’t promise at least 3 cards in the suit opened. The issue is whether the USBF should accept that, or have its own rule.

 

Jeff Aker

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[Michael Kamil]

Well I guess I'm saying we should have our own rule for 3rd seat (anything goes).  I would probably use the ACBL rule in other seats.

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Mike,

 

Keep in mind that we’re trying to focus on a limited area. The relevant ACBL rules currently forbid opening 1c or 1d on fewer than 10 HCP if the partnership doesn’t promise at least 3 cards in the suit opened. The issue is whether the USBF should accept that, or have its own rule.

 

Jeff Aker

 

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Fred Gitelman
Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

I think you're right Fred....the use of the word psych was wrong.  If it's 0-15 by agreement, then it's not a psyche.  I don't know what to call it exactly....perhaps just an "agreement".

 

I do think there's something wrong with the rules of the game if one is not allowed to use what is (to me) an obviously winning strategy of making the opps life difficult, when you know they have game or slam and you know your risk is limited.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Fred Gitelman <fr...@bridgebase.com> wrote:

On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:

Danny -

Is the point to legislate risk to the "possibly" psyching side?  I would think they should be allowed to do whatever is best strategy there even if it allows psychic controls.....

Michael - with all due respect...

As I understand it (sorry if I am wrong), your use of the terms psych/psychic/psyching here (and in your previous e-mail) does not jibe with what your previous claim:

"the fact that a 1H opener in 3rd seat promising 0-15 (basically) is allowed"

I always thought that "psych" referred to an action that was contrary to partnership agreement. But if the 3rd seat opening "promises 0-15" then opening the bidding with a hand that is closer to the lower end of this range is not a "psych" - it is in accordance with partnership agreement.

So if a given bid is not a psych in the first place, any discussion of "psyched controls" is taking us in the wrong direction - there has been no psych so there can be no psychic control.

To me this is really about whether or not to allow a partnership to play 0-15 opening bids more or less by agreement. If players are allowed to open 0-15 hands by agreement then of course their partners can play them for 0-15.

I do not have solution to propose, but I think it is important that we get the terminology right if we want to come up with a solution that is both fair and sensible without wasting time and effort on various irrelevant tangents.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Marty Harris]

Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  If we’re trying to select the team that has the best chance of winning a world championship, teams should compete under the same conditions as they’ll face in world championships.  Inventing our own rule, solely for USBF Trials events, makes no sense to me (even if the rule we’d adopt is more logical than ACBL’s or WBF’s rule).

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: Fred Gitelman; usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Well I guess I'm saying we should have our own rule for 3rd seat (anything goes).  I would probably use the ACBL rule in other seats.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Uday Ivatury]

> Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  

Not that I'm at risk of being impacted, but this seems simple, sensible, and cheap.

[Marty Fleisher]

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com> wrote:

> Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  

Not that I'm at risk of being impacted, but this seems simple, sensible, and cheap.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[mec...@aol.com]

What about say xx, KJ10 xx, xxx, xxx in 3rd seat. There are numerous reasons that make bidding Hearts a winning action. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com> wrote:

> Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  

Not that I'm at risk of being impacted, but this seems simple, sensible, and cheap.

[Marty Fleisher]

this opening is permitted in superchart events (so KO phase of the trials), but not in the teams in Poland.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, meckles via International Team Trials Committee <usbf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

What about say xx, KJ10 xx, xxx, xxx in 3rd seat. There are numerous reasons that make bidding Hearts a winning action. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com> wrote:

> Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  

Not that I'm at risk of being impacted, but this seems simple, sensible, and cheap.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeff Aker]

Marty,

 

Not necessarily. For example, there are differences in what written defenses are allowed at the table. In preparing for Chennai I spent a lot of time memorizing defenses in advance. I’m not sure that we want to force players to do that for the trials. Also, for example, some of our screen procedures are different. Once a team actually wins the right to play in the World Championships they have a captain to prepare them for the differences and (typically) a long lead time.

 

Jeff

[Jan Martel]

The ACBL rule is different for a natural opening bid (1M for everyone, 1m for some) than for a 1m bid that can be fewer than 3 cards. 

For a natural opening bid, a partnership may not have an agreement to open a 1 bid with fewer than 8 HCPs - under “disallowed” in the GCC & Midchart:

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

The same rule applies in the Superchart, but only to first and second position openings:

"Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP in first or second seat. (Not applicable to a psych.)”

Opening 1m which can have fewer than 3 cards in the suit is allowed under all charts, so long as it promises 10 HCPs. Under “Allowed:"

"ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points”

However, psyching an artificial bid is not allowed under any of the charts. Disallowed on all 3 includes:

"Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.”

That rule applies to all positions, not just first & second, which is why there is a difference, under the Super Chart, between having an agreement to open hands with fewer than 8 HCPs and having an agreement to open an artificial bid in 3rd seat with fewer than 10 HCPs. An opening 1m bid that does not promise a 3 card suit is artificial.

The WBF “rule" is because of the HUM definition, which includes:

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.” (average strength is defined as 10 HCPs, I think - the actual wording in the definitions is):

"Average Hand    a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values" 

“Weak     high card strength below that of an average hand”.

HUM methods are allowed in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup KO phases, subject to loss of seating rights. They are not allowed in any other WBF events. There’s disagreement about whether agreeing to open with fewer than 10 HCPs without having any of the other agreements that make a system HUM is really HUM - some people read the HUM definition very literally and say that to play any of the things listed there makes the bid part of a HUM system, others think that it is obvious that there needs to be more. No one has really looked at the WBF Systems Policy in about 35 years. The complete HUM definition is:

"HUM Systems 

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: 

a) A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities 

b) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. 

c) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. 

d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit 

e) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. 

EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Nik Demirev]

A1098 xx xxx AJ109

Qxx Qxxx Qxxx Qxx

xxx xxxx xxx xxx

Axxx x x KQ109xxx

HCP 4-3-2-1 is only a relevant measure. I use my own judgement. Hand 1 easily values for me to 10 hcp or more. I would allow it without prejudice.

Even though hand 3 is better than hand 2, both are a joke. Opening those hands can only qualify as a destructive method. However, I am a strong proponent for exploring strategies. This makes bridge more exciting and talked about and whenever opening such a hand works, it makes a fun dinner conversation. But there has to be a strict requirement for sufficient, succinct, and accurate disclosure: "3rd hand NON-VUL anything goes for us" and how they cope with it (never penalty after 3rd hand openers, etc)

Hand 4: definitely 1C opener or anything else that now or later can show a hand with opening 1bid strength.

And one additional note:
I find it very annoying when I sit at a table and have to listen for 5 minutes to the pre-alerts or certain pairs. Any methods are ok with me but there has to be a limit to the number of prealerts. I would say not more than 3 things at a time. And pairs with prealerts have to make extra effort to make it easy and clear to the opponents and keep them aware throughout the match of what they are doing.

Cheers,
Nik Demirev

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:26 AM Marty Fleisher <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com> wrote:

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com> wrote:

> Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  

Not that I'm at risk of being impacted, but this seems simple, sensible, and cheap.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nik Demirev

[Michael Kamil]

I'll stop saying this shortly, but I don't understand any legislation which limits an obviously intelligent strategy.  If I hold 0 points and my partner is known to have say 9 or less, I'd be knowingly doing myself a disservice NOT to open in 3rd seat favorable.  Crazy to me to have a rule disallowing this.  All of the "rules" Jan has laid out don't mean a thing to me - except that someone is screwing with the idea of playing the game to one's best advantage.  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Howard Weinstein]

While I think potentially matching the WBF rules in this area (for the non-Bermuda Bowl KO stage) makes a lot of sense, as has been suggested — this may be a moving target.   I am sure this will be addressed this year by the WBF system’s committee (Chip?, Eric K?), and what we decide perhaps could even suggest a reasonable template for what the WBF ultimately decides.  A possible approach is to make our recommendations, have the WBF try to act on them this winter, and depending upon what they decide, then adopt those guidelines.

Before getting into specifics, we should be discussing overall philosophy.  There are lots of things barred by orgs, especially in non-long KO matches.  Some tactical calls where partner cannot realistically hang you have been barred (I think) — e.g. 1N very -weak - (P) - 2M on a short suit, i.e. actions which really can’t get one in trouble.  Some conventions which change the language of the bidding and are primarily destructive (2S weak preempt in any suit).    Ferts — which may the most akin to this discussion.  There are plenty of things allowed which are arguably more destructive than constructive — that much or most of its value is making it hard on the opponents — whether natural or artificial.

Even with full disclosure, lack of previous discussion on how to deal with these situations can create an unfair advantage. Even if fully disclosed, knowing frequency and other partnership style can create unfair advantage (not that this isn’t an issue in many areas).  Having to discuss or keep in mind the unique style of several dozen pairs whom may be faced for a half dozen boards is not completely fair and full disclosure at the time certainly helps but is not a panacea.     There has to be a line drawn — where that line is is arguable.

In BB KO matches, generally anything goes, including HUM systems, though with seeding right changes and some derivative restrictions on dealing with countermeasures.  While these matches are of comparable length as the trials KO matches, we do not allow nearly the extent which the WBF does — and don’t necessarily believe we should.  This requires captains and coaches and lots of prep to create anything resembling a level playing field.   Still, if our goal is to simulate WBF conditions, maybe a discussion of Brown sticker and HUM systems in the KO stage (or parts thereof) should be on the table.

I know I am all over the place on this, but some discussion of how we want to philosophically deal with this area before recommending specific guidelines makes more sense to me.

I do think there's something wrong with the rules of the game if one is not allowed to use what is (to me) an obviously winning strategy of making the opps life difficult, when you know they have game or slam and you knowyour risk is limited.

[Chris Compton]

The WBF rule should be considered, but not followed blindly. The last example is the USBF VP scale which we developed and instituted and which was then adopted by the WBF. Marty's view is overly simplistic. 

Chris 

[Chris Compton]

I am against dumbing down bridge, particularly as unopposed constructive bidding approaches perfection. I agree w Kamil and disagree with George. Third seat non vul is a time for very aggressive defensive actions. Also, please realize that standard players who play 14-16 NV 1NT and open all 11 NV are very similarly situated to Precision players when the bidding begins w 2 passes NV. I would require full disclosure, but NEVER make the game easier by disallowing methods which are correct from an equity point of view. In third seat NV it's the Wild West, fully disclosed. Let's play the best version of our game we can, not the easiest. 

Chris 

[Chris Compton]

Agree again. Michael's view is best for the long term growth of a game that is slowly being solved by humans. The idea that conventions dissuade people from playing bridge (Hamman's view, at least in the past), is simply wrong. People like treatments and conventions like heroin. 

Chris 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Robb Gordon]

I agree with Chris both philosophically and about being willing to "lead" the WBF and not just blindly follow them. However when the dust settles we should coordinate our conditions with theirs given that are events are for selecting representation to their events. ASAIK this has always been the philosophy of the ITTC.

Robb

[mark feldman]

Robb,

Are you also advocating that the minimum play requirement in our trials should be 1/3 of the boards?

[Robb Gordon]

That's a really good question.

My opinion would be no. Why? Because we are trying to recreate the playing conditions of the event, not the session requirements.

Since our ultimate objective is to send the "best" team I would want every player to carry his/her weight at least half the time.

[Chris Compton]

There is no unfair advantage created by the fact that some understand all (or, more clearly stated, understand more) bidding methods, tactic and strategies than others. Please don't tell me that we should help level  the playing field for those who play less bridge than those who play more bridge. Everyone's total number of hands played should directly allow them to profit by playing better than those who have played less total number of hands. 

Chris 

[Mike Passell]

I probably have opened more bad hands in third seat with clients than anyone else. I have taken my lumps and had great results randomly over the years . In expert partnerships knowing the tendancies of the partnership seems to be the question more than which hands qualify as an opening bid. No doubt full disclosure is in order rather than set rules .  Mike 

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Carmichael]

The C&C subcommittee has been talking about this issue some as well, currently with no resolution.  At its heart we have 2 contradictory things at play:  we want rules that disallow "purely destructive methods" (i.e., forcing pass) and yet we are faced with a situation where being fully destructive is tactically often correct.  I don't have a solution to offer beyond what was stated here already, but it seems to me that this contradiction seems to be handled first.  I agree philosophically with Michael and others that for top level competition the rules shouldn't be preventing good bridge.

For the purposes of charts and the like, one thing we discussed (but eventually decided to not explore further) was introducing a concept of "semi-natural" bids, i.e. minor suit 2+ bids.  We were talking about it specifically because of the existing 10+ HCP rule for artificial bids and noting the difference between opening a "could be short" club on example 1 vs. opening a truly artificial bid.  I could see there being reason to treat these category of bids differently, especially in 3rd seat.  

FWIW, our discussion on this issue predates what happened in Poland.  I can see it being even more important to address at a USBF issue at this time.

Tom

[Howard Weinstein]

Tom — speaking of which, last time we spoke re this area, you were treating a nebulous NF 1C (i.e. 2+) as artificial and allowing anything goes.  The WBF is no longer treating this as artificial.  What is the current ACBL stance over a Precision 1D which could be 2?  less than 2?  

The idea of being able to play anything over these (especially where 2+), moreover without providing written defenses, seems to me to be against the spirit of the game, especially when the superchart is not in effect. 

I used to play opening 2S with Ralph as a preempt in any suit in the trials — it was lots of fun and effective — but it was eventually banned.   One time we had a large lead and decided to go back to weak twos before the start of the penultimate set.  The opponents protested they did not have time to properly prepare for weak two-bids.  The director was not sympathetic to their protest.

[mark feldman]

I agree with Mike, Chris and others that the right rules in both the USBF and WBF should be to allow partnerships to bid as they wish (aside from HUM-type systems when in a Round Robin), as long as there is accurate full disclosure. 

It is much less clear however to allow specific styles in a Trials event if not allowed by the WBF.

-Mark

[Kit Woolsey]

Jeff wrote:

Mike,


Keep in mind that we're trying to focus on a limited area. The relevant ACBL rules currently forbid opening 1c or 1d on
fewer than 10 HCP if the partnership doesn't promise at least 3 cards in the suit opened. The issue is whether the USBF
should accept that, or have its own rule.


Jeff Ake

Is this really true? That such an opening bid is illegal? I didn't think the ACBL could call any bid illegal. It may
legislate partnership agreements, but not the bid itself. Or am I wrong?

I believe there is a distinction between an agreement and a bid. We might choose to say that having an agreement to always
(or ofen) psych on a yarb in third seat is an illegal agreement. But we can't say that making such a bid by itself is
illegal.

This is an important distinction, and from what I have seen from the comments this distinction is not being addressed
properly.

[Robb Gordon]

You may have an agreement to use 

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. (all charts)

However these are disallowed (boldface is mine):

Opening one-bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP (not applicable to a psych) (General and mid-chart) 

Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP in first or second seat. (Not applicable to a psych.)   (super-chart)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jeff Aker]

I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I believe that the laws give the regulating authority the right to regulate conventions (see Law 40). The ACBL says that in order for an opening bid of 1 of a minor to be natural it must promise at least 3 cards. The ACBL GCC allows such a call, but only if it delivers (not merely promises) a minimum of 10 high card points. Whether this is truly a " special partnership understanding" as described by Law 40 is debatable, I guess, but it's beyond doubt that the ACBL can designate a bid, say multi 2d, as illegal.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Kit Woolsey [mailto:kwoo...@fibs.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 3:37 PM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: Marty Harris; 'Michael Kamil'; 'Fred Gitelman'; usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

[Jeff Aker]

Robb,

 

These are two different things. The disallowed sections apply even to natural bids. Under the mid chart you can’t agree to open 1s (playing 5 card majors) with AK109xx xx xxx xx, but you can with any stray jack. However, the letter of the law says you still can’t open a could be short 1m unless you have at least 10 HCP, even in third seat. If my reading of this is correct, I suggest that it needs tweaking.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robb Gordon
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 3:46 PM
Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

You may have an agreement to use 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[Mike Passell]

Geoff Hampson suggested precision players could promise 3 diamonds in third seat to circumvent this rule. I do agree having a binding rule used by the ACBL USBF and Wbf would be great. Kaplan and Kay would thrive in this environment where everyone has to have it

Sent from my iPhone

[geoff hampson]

Do I correctly understand the current rules forbid opening a 2+ 1D on AJ10xx x KJ109xxx - ?

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[BPol...@aol.com]

We've all seen the problems with trying to legislate what's "legal" in the bidding.  Better is to focus on full disclosure.  Pairs that agree to be hyper-aggressive in 3rd seat, NV, must be required to alert 'could be anything' if they bid -or- pass, along with an advance pre-alert on any special methods to ensure not hanging 3rd seat openers..  There's one active pair that has a vast repertoire of initial announcements, which have to be largely ignored in order to play bridge -- that should be disallowed in anything but long KO matches.  It should be about not allowing HUMs to grant unfair advantages because of lack of disclosure, not about barring them unless the required countermeasures are overwhelming. 

 

Bill P

 

In a message dated 10/7/2016 4:20:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnpa...@sbcglobal.net writes:

Geoff Hampson suggested precision players could promise 3 diamonds in third seat to circumvent this rule. I do agree having a binding rule used by the ACBL USBF and Wbf would be great. Kaplan and Kay would thrive in this environment where everyone has to have it

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:
>
> I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I believe that the laws give the regulating authority the right to regulate conventions (see Law 40). The ACBL says that in order for an opening bid of 1 of a minor to be natural it must promise at least 3 cards. The ACBL GCC allows such a call, but only if it delivers (not merely promises) a minimum of 10 high card points. Whether this is truly a " special partnership understanding" as described by Law 40 is debatable, I guess, but it's beyond doubt that the ACBL can designate a bid, say multi 2d, as illegal.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kit Woolsey [mailto:kwoo...@fibs.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 3:37 PM
> To: Jeff Aker
> Cc: Marty Harris; 'Michael Kamil'; 'Fred Gitelman'; usbf...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>   Keep  in  mind  that we're trying to focus on a limited area. The relevant ACBL rules currently forbid opening 1c or 1d on
>   fewer  than  10  HCP if the partnership doesn't promise at least 3 cards in the suit opened. The issue is whether the USBF
>   should accept that, or have its own rule.
>
>
>   Jeff Ake
>
> Is this really true?  That such an opening bid is illegal?  I didn't think the ACBL could call any bid illegal.  It may legislate partnership agreements, but not the bid itself.  Or am I wrong?
>
> I believe there is a distinction between an agreement and a bid.  We might choose to say that having an agreement to always (or ofen)  psych on a yarb in third seat is an illegal agreement.  But we can't say that making such a bid by itself is illegal.
>
> This is an important distinction, and from what I have seen from the comments this distinction is not being addressed properly.
>
>
> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Robb Gordon]

I would be interested in having Tom Carmichael or one of the other C&C members respond to this.

I can tell you ACBL has a history of being draconian about stuff like this.

I remember back at the dawn of civilization a young Robb Gordon opened a weak 2 bid on AJT9xx and out. I received a penalty of the worse of average minus and my score. That penalty was automatic if you opened a weak 2 with fewer than 6 HCP.

[Mike Passell]

So Danny said he would allow number 4. So who decides what 9 point hands are allowed  so AKQxx xxxx xxxx. Isn't allowed  

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Danny]

Nothing wrong with 1 Spade there, Mike.  It is the 1m nebulous that currently has a bright line related to HCP.

Danny

[geoff hampson]

So, if Mike's hand was
xxxx
xxxx
AKQxx
-
Then it would not be a legal opener?

[Danny]

Not as I currently understand it, though at the beginning of the thread I suggested a rule of 18 as an alternative minimum requirement. 

Danny 

[mec...@aol.com]

What happened in Wroclaw was clearly ridiculous. Opening light in 3rd seat has been a part of bridge for ALL of the 45 years I have played. Back in the days of Roth-Stone bidding it was necessary due to protecting partner who needed a lot more to open.  It seems wrong to make it Illegal to tactically make a lead directing bid in 3rd seat.

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Brad Moss]

I don't think that following some amorphous "rule" designated by the WBF (which they will selectively enforce) makes any sense.

[Brad Moss]

Also joe and I play 1d in 3rd white promises 3, partly to allow us freedom to make lead directors on less then 10 hcp.  I believe overlegislating this is folly.

[Al Hollander]

My perception is that the problem highlighted by USA v Spain is actually a parlay of

 

·         Nebulous length

·         Non-forcing opener

·         Nebulous length

·         Specific vulnerability

·         Systemically built in ‘psychic control’ because maximum strength of opener + maximum strength of passed hand

o   I think this is key point that eliminates historical references to Roth-Stone and KS controlled psyches [not only because those psyches were somewhat defined]

·         No regulations that recognize 3^rd seat as needing adjusted verbiage

o   This opens up the path of discussing HUM rather than psyches/tactics

 

Disclosure is absolutely an issue, but I think those bullets must be considered rather than oversimplifying without the context.

We’re already hampered by governing bodies seeming to have made the non-bridge assumption that all seats and all vulnerabilities can be covered by one rule.

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad Moss
Sent: Friday 07 October 2016 15:31
To: mec...@aol.com
Cc: geoff hampson <gham...@gmail.com>; Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com>; Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net>; Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>; usbf...@googlegroups.com; Mike Passell <mnpa...@sbcglobal.net>; Fred Gitelman <fr...@bridgebase.com>; Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>; Kit Woolsey <kwoo...@fibs.com>
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Also joe and I play 1d in 3rd white promises 3, partly to allow us freedom to make lead directors on less then 10 hcp.  I believe overlegislating this is folly.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Mike Passell]

A rule of 18 and hope someone knows what that means in committee?

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Mike Passell]

Sorry Danny my AKQxx was in a minor

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Danny <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Compton]

I feel a consensus to require 1) another surge of full disclosure; 2) to require more attention to system summary forms; and ,3) I also feel that this group is uninterested in prohibiting much, if anything, 3rd seat non vul. Comments? 

Chris 

[Mike Passell]

Full disclosure is mandatory. Maybe a new box on convention card with likely hood of light openers 

Sent from my iPhone

[Mike Passell]

Changing the ability to make life tough on the opponents would change bridge for the worse. This seems crazy.  good for the robots 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Chris Compton <chrisc...@mindspring.com> wrote:

[Fred Gitelman]

On 10/7/2016 8:30 PM, Chris Compton wrote:

I feel a consensus to require 1) another surge of full disclosure;

Hard to argue with that.

While we are on the subject, let's start disclosing "our 1st and 2nd seat 1D/1H/1S openings are 10-15, but they are effectively forcing since we never Pass (at least non-vul)."

2) to require more attention to system summary forms;

That can only be a good thing.

,3) I also feel that this group is uninterested in prohibiting much, if anything, 3rd seat non vul. Comments?

Probably what follows is not what you wanted to hear, but here are my comments...

I think the use of "3rd" and "non vul" in the above are functionally equivalent (ie completely arbitrary) to the use of "10" (or whatever it actually is) in existing rules that everyone seems to hate like:

"You can't systemically open the bidding with less than 10 HCPs" (or whatever the rule actually is).

I am guessing that the "10" (or whatever it is) in the above rule came into being because a bunch of really good players many years ago thought that constituted "just bridge" and, perhaps coincidentally, was closely in line with the style that these people wanted to be allowed to play.

Let's not make the same mistake again. IF (intentionally bolded and capitalized) Chris thinks people should be allowed to play this:

- third seat non-vul 1D/1H/1S are 0-15, 1NT is something roughly approximating whatever we think we can get away with as calling 14-16, and 1C is 16 plus

(and to Chris's credit, that those who play this way should actually disclose it)

then why not also allow, for example, the following? (I am just making this up - I am not suggesting it is smart or "just bridge"):

- second seat vul 1D/1H/1S are 0-11 and 1C is 12+

There are only 2 possible reasons that I can see not to allow this IF you allow the style+methods that Chris apparently wants to codify as officially legal:

1) Because many of our most successful players want to play what Chris advocates. They have had success with that approach. They don't play 0-11 second seat vul 1-bids and have no interest in doing so.

2) Because we are so arrogant that we think we know what constitutes "winning bridge" even though we have only tried a handful of the zillions of possible strategies and gazillions of possible counter-strategies. We think we should protect the ignorant masses from trying approaches that, in our great wisdom, cannot possibly work (which I would guess that at least some A-1 players of decades past would have thought if asked about the effectiveness of playing strong club plus 0-15 1D/1H/1S in third seat non-vul).

Neither of these would qualify as "good reasons" in my view.

If we want to go the direction that Chris suggests, let's at least be honest about what we are doing. His suggestion is just as arbitrary as the "10-point rule" (or whatever it is) that everyone seems to think is absurd. It is just an attempt to allow people like Chris to legally play the methods that they happen to want to play.

Maybe our mission should be to find a way to legalize the methods and style that our best players in 2016 want to play and have had success with, but that doesn't feel right to me.

(For the record I am not saying I believe in "anything goes" - I am just trying to point out what I think is the right way to think about what Chris is proposing).

[Chris Compton]

To be clear: I agree w Fred that I am cherry picking. But, I personally would allow FERTS, the Terrorist 2S; all of it. I just am politically jaded and don't want to be Don Quixote and waste my time with what I can not win. Fred is right, we will be reviewing new methods in ten years as they become close to mainstream.  

Chris 

--

[rj...@sbcglobal.net]

Many have made statements to the effect of "why would we want to make it easy on the opponents?"  or "shouldn't we have rules that conform to modern expert practice?"  or "it would be crazy not to open certain hands 3rd seat NV?"

There are 2 basic groups of discussion regarding 3rd seat:  (1) there should be no rules, you can do whatever you think best; and (2) a codification of what is and isn't legal in 3rd seat.  In both instances lots of people have pointed to the necessity of system notes and full disclosure.

I am not taking a position, but I think largely left out of the conversation is the fact that there are all sorts of rules contained in the various convention charts that prevent pairs from taking actions that they believe are in their best interests. System notes and full disclosure doesn't overcome those rules.  Therefore, if there are rules prohibiting 3rd seat from making bids that they believe would be in their interest to make, this is not a unique situation.  It is just the rules of the game.

Bob Katz 

[Danny Sprung]

Kit and others:

Yes, the ACBL and other NBOs can make limitations on Conventional bids. An obvious example which we all 'know' is that you can't psych a Strong 2 Clubs.  No exceptions. 

The ACBL also has bright line limit on the mini NT.  If you allow less than 10 HCP, you can't play any conventions over it.  That rule disallows upgrades.

Speaking of upgrades, I know we all want to be able to use our judgement, but once you allow judgement, the above example of the mini NT will soon have all kinds of 9 point hands in it.  Then someone will look at a good 8, etc. If we are going to have a rule, it needs to be easy to use by the players and directors.

One attempt to account for distribution is to use the rule of N (HCP+2 longest suits) to allow good shapely hands to upgrade.

 A possible adjunct to allow for lead directors like Jeff's KJTxx makes sense to me as well.  That might be trickier to enumerate though.  Any thoughts on how to allow for lead directors without letting someone 'lead direct' with AQ or JTxx might be useful.

Backing up for 1 second, many of you know CC is attempting to rewrite the Convention Charts.   Right now we have a rough draft of what we are calling the 'Regional Chart'.  It is meant to approximate the old MidChart.  This chart and the 'National Chart' will be the relevant ones for the USBF should they choose to adopt one or both charts for its trials.

We have not come up with any 'rules' for 3d seat openings for the Regional Chart.  This will be the subject of our next conference call.

 The National Chart has not been started, but will likely be similar to the Regional Chart with a few more permissions.  

For what it is worth we need to be mindful of what will be accepted by the ACBL board. The current working version of the Regional Chart is more permissive than the old midchart, but we can't even be sure that will get past the CC and then the board too.  

Danny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Compton]

Ok, once again, I know I can not win this battle of psyching 2C, and it is unimportant to me; but to be clear, I do not understand (I accept the rule, tho) why you can not psyche a strong forcing opening bid. Also, the ACBL tech file contains the following example of an acceptable opening 2C: AKQxxx J109xxx X ---. Absurd!  Fred is right that we will fight this battle eventually, but not now.  It is an evolving process. 

Chris 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Howard Weinstein]

It would seem that allowing anything goes in third chair could lead to 1N being 0-13 hcp at favorable (if sounder openers, then adjust down to 11 or 12 on the upper range) — essentially a fert bid.  It is a very slippery slope downhill from semi-random 3rd chair openers in suits (not intending to apply this discussion to actual lead directing openers, like my 3rd chair 2S on KJTx,xx,xx, JTxxx in Wroclaw).

All ACBL charts have as disallowed  “1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.”   One could make the argument that this should disallow preempts e.g., and it is a specious, overly generalized proscription which needs tailoring.

Theoretically, anything and everything should be allowed given the opponents can be fully prepared, and the WBF allows pretty much anything goes during the BB KO stage (BB also covering Venice Cup), classified as a HUM or brown sticker, and seems to survive it.  Obviously, many (including me) disagree on some of their standards for a HUM classification.   

We essentially have to have our own version of the SALT talks.  Depending upon the level and length of the event allowing more things (or everything) makes sense, for shorter encounters it would create complete and total chaos.

We should be trying to more closely emulate the WBF conditions, both to better determine which team(s) will be most competitive at the BB, as well as getting practice against unusual methods.  Consequently, we should probably consider brown sticker and HUM systems once we reach 128 board matches in the trials for BB years. This presumably should be excluded in Olympiad years, since they are not allowed for that event (the WBF not allowing everything in Olympiad vs. BB years makes a lot of sense).

While I would hate playing in the trials against HUMs and the ilk, I really think allowing them should be seriously considered.  All WBF seeding considerations should be in place, and we should make those playing these methods jump over some extremely high bars on disclosure (frequency, negative inferences, responding styles, etc) and preparation of suggested defenses (including comprehensiveness, philosophy, ease of following).   Obviously all defenses of any kind would be available to the opponents to consult at the table.

I don’t even mind charging a higher entry fee, proceeds going to the USBF or another charity, for imposing the considerable time obligations on a System’s Committee which would be required to approve the suggested defense and disclosures.   I would also only allow one additional shot at the disclosure and suggested defenses being up to snuff before saying too bad — you can’t play them. A poor first submission would not even allow a second shot.  I would also put a high disciplinary bar on abuse of those stated methods.

As several have pointed out, just saying something is bridge and therefore should be allowed is very arbitrary.  For shorter matches, we need arbitrary rules (though looser than now), even if those may seem overly restrictive to many.  To the extent a system or conventions are winning ways against perfect defense and full knowledge, rather than largely gaining through unfamiliarity, it should be allowed.  I would like to see this discussed as well.

Howie

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Jan Martel]

Why can’t we psyche a strong 2C opening bid? Yes, I am serious. I really don’t understand the whole “you can’t psyche an artificial or conventional bid” rule. If I think it’s in my best interest to open 2C (or anything else for that matter) on a hand that someone else doesn’t think is appropriate, why can’t I? Sure, I’m more likely to want to psyche an artificial or conventional bid in 3rd seat NV, but why should the rules say that’s the only time I can do so?

If I think it’s right to open JTxx, xxx, xxx, xxx 1S (or 2C or 2D or anything else) in second seat vulnerable, you may disagree with me and I will almost certainly find that it isn’t a successful strategy, but why shouldn’t I get to try it?

I think (but don’t really know) that many of the “disallowed” things in the ACBL convention charts are disallowed to protect people who don’t play a lot or don’t play at a high level or don’t think about bridge enough to protect themselves. Those aren’t the people who are playing in USBF events. I started to say “or World Championships” although that is probably less true for the WC than for the Trials, and is certainly completely untrue for all the “World Championships” the WBF now runs opposite the real events. 

I’m not proposing we should get rid of all the restrictions, but I do wonder why we bar psyches of artificial/conventional bids, relay systems (whatever that means), and some of the other things that also suffer from the “whatever that means” problem. Would we be better served to limit the things that are disallowed to (I’m quoting from the Midchart - maybe language could be better):

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods. 

4. Forcing pass systems. 

8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened). 

To see what I’ve left out, here’s the current list in the Midchart:

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods. 

2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. 

3. Psychic controls (includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych). 

4. Forcing pass systems. 

5. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game-forcing. 

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

7. Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these methods. 

8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened). 

Am I showing my own bias in leaving those 3 things in? Undoubtedly. But I think that my bias makes sense (don’t we all and I recognize I could be wrong). Those are the things that are hardest to defend against without a lot of preparation and a very good understanding of what the opponents are doing. The second and third are also the things that put the opposing pair in the most unfamiliar territory and incidentally are the most difficult for the proponents to describe fully. 

I’m now finding myself waffling on “Primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods” - and leaning to removing it too. It covers a lot of ground and whether it applies to some specific bid is going to be in the eye of the beholder, both of which are (IMHO) bad things for regulations in general. And why should we forbid people from figuring out things that will get in their opponents’ way as well as constructive things? Lots of us play methods over the opponents’ strong club primarily to make the life of the other side more difficult, why should that be limited to methods used after an opponent has opened 1C? I think I’ve about convinced myself to remove 1, but I’ll leave it for now :-).

On Oct 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Danny Sprung]

Jan:

The subcommittee is working on a better definition for "Purely destructive bid".  Right now that definition is:

 "An opening bid or overcall that does not promise a specific suit and may be made with a hand that does not meet the rule of 13"

This may not be the perfect definition, but it is a start. The idea is not to bar preempts or stuff like crash over 1C, but to bar, say an opening bid of 3D that could be made on literally any hand.

Danny

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Jan (and others who’ve raised the “destructive methods” issue):

 

IMO, preempts and methods like CRASH are not “destructive” within the meaning of ACBL’s rules.  I’ve always understood “destructive” to mean that the bid mainly just eats up space without showing anything useful about the bidder’s hand:  i.e., it does not meaningfully limit either the bidder’s shape or his HCP (nor does it serve any other constructive purpose, such as genuinely asking about partner’s hand).  If a preempt helps your side find its best contract by showing significant length in a particular suit, then it helps your side find its best contract.  By contrast, if you open 1NT or 2S just to show 13 cards (i.e., almost any shape and 0 to 15 HCP), that’s destructive, because it doesn’t help your side find its best contract.  The ONLY purpose of a fert bid like that is to make life difficult for the opponents.

 

In short, a bid is still constructive when making life difficult for the opponents is ONE of its purposes – even its main purpose (e.g., CRASH over strong club) -- as long as that bid ALSO helps our side find its best contract in a meaningful way (CRASH meets this test, since it tells partner I have certain suit combinations).  It’s destructive when its ONLY purpose is to interfere with the opponents, without meaningfully helping our side.   

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jan Martel
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 11:50 AM
To: Danny Sprung
Cc: Kit Woolsey; Jeff Aker; Marty Harris; Michael Kamil; Fred Gitelman; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Why can’t we psyche a strong 2C opening bid? Yes, I am serious. I really don’t understand the whole “you can’t psyche an artificial or conventional bid” rule. If I think it’s in my best interest to open 2C (or anything else for that matter) on a hand that someone else doesn’t think is appropriate, why can’t I? Sure, I’m more likely to want to psyche an artificial or conventional bid in 3rd seat NV, but why should the rules say that’s the only time I can do so?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

[Marty Harris]

IMO, this discussion is going in a dangerous direction.  I don’t hear anyone suggesting that we should change the rules to allow declarer to hesitate and pretend to think for a while before following suit from a singleton.  Nor is anyone advocating that a defender should be able to “consider” whether to “cover” a Jack before playing from a holding of 4,3,2.  Yet it seems to me that the rules against certain destructive bidding methods or psychs has a similar purpose to the rules about not hesitating during play when there’s nothing to think about. 

 

I can’t speak to what the framers of our rules actually discussed or intended, but looking at the rules, it appears they wanted to keep bridge distinct from poker.  They prohibited both bidding agreements and conduct whose sole (or overwhelming) purpose is destructive (i.e., to mislead or impair the opponents).  I don’t see how we can logically eliminate the restrictions on destructive bidding without also removing the restrictions on fake conduct.  Kit, Chris, Jan and other have argued that it’s “clearly in my interest” to make certain openings in 3^rd seat with 0 HCP, including psyching a strong 2C or opening 1NT with 0 to 15 HCP (not vul.).  I completely agree that those bids are “in my interest”; i.e., likely to gain.  But it’s just as much “in my interest” to fake out the opponents by hesitating from a singleton or pretending to think about covering an honor as it is to open a strong 2C on 3 HCP.  In fact, it’s probably MORE clearly “in my interest” to fake hesitations when I’m declarer, because unlike a psychic bid, the fake hestiation can’t possibly cause my partner to go wrong, it can only mislead the opponents.

 

In sum, the fact that it’s logical and “clearly in my interest” to do something does NOT mean we have to allow it.  Bridge should not become poker.

 

 

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jan Martel
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 11:50 AM
To: Danny Sprung
Cc: Kit Woolsey; Jeff Aker; Marty Harris; Michael Kamil; Fred Gitelman; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Why can’t we psyche a strong 2C opening bid? Yes, I am serious. I really don’t understand the whole “you can’t psyche an artificial or conventional bid” rule. If I think it’s in my best interest to open 2C (or anything else for that matter) on a hand that someone else doesn’t think is appropriate, why can’t I? Sure, I’m more likely to want to psyche an artificial or conventional bid in 3rd seat NV, but why should the rules say that’s the only time I can do so?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

[Gavin Wolpert]

I'm definitely in agreement with Chris Compton and others who say we should not be dumbing down the game at this level.  I don't open overly aggressively in 3rd seat, basically for the lead and perhaps once in a blue moon with a yarboro.   Being in my spot playing with a less experienced player, rules that protect less experienced players are definitely in my best interest.  

I think we should allow as much as possible, and enforce full disclosure.   The best way to enforce full disclosure is to have a convention card that spends less space outlining constructive bidding and more space devoted to style and structure by seat/vulnerability.  

I agree specifically with the removing the restrictions Jan has proposed.  I would go even farther, like allowing forcing pass and such, but I can understand the other side of that particular debate.  I also would remove the ability for players to bring written defenses to the table, but thats another discussion all together.  

The USBC in my opinion has the most well-documented CoC of any event out there.  Any time I hear someone say the words, "we should rely on the WBF" it makes me cringe, their CoC are one minor example.  It should be the opposite.  We should send them our CoC and say look this is how its done.  The USBF has put in enormous effort to create CoC that are perfectly transparent.  We are the leader, not the follower.  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

2S light preempt in any of the four suits has two major constructive purposes: 

1) when you preempt at the three level, you have a solid preempt. 

2) when responder has a strong hand, he can ask 2S opener to transfer back by bidding 2N. This increases the chance you to slam or game from the correct side. You are constructively ahead of the other table.

People objected because it is very hard to defend against. In particular, when NV responder has a weak hand, passing the 2S bid with any hand created a nearly impossible problem for the fourth hand. 

If there is a purely destructive action, it's the pass of 2S, not the preempt. Again, eventually the 2S preempt in any of four suits will become more mainstream. 

Same issue with any preempt with no known 5 card suit. An example of somethings ridiculously hard to play against is either a 3C or 3H overcall of 1C which shows, respectively, one minor or one major, but does not identify which one.

As an aside, having to prepare for a different set of convention restrictions for the ACBL, the USBF, and the WBF is hardly an enormous burden. 

Chris 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Marty Harris]

To those advocating that “full disclosure” is a panacea that eliminates the need for restrictions on bids, please don’t forget our recent cheating scandals.  Do you really believe pairs like F-N, F-S, or B-Z would tell you the truth about how frequently they have 0 HCP for certain 3^rd seat openings, or which rebids they make after they’ve opened with 0-5 HCP (warning partner to “slow down”), etc.?  Allowing pairs to open anything they please, with the only constraint being a requirement of full disclosure, is an invitation to cheat.  If we decide to go down that path, we’d better have an awfully good system for tracking BOTH the frequency with which each pair actually psyche or opens garbage AND what they tell their opponents about those frequencies.  Absent that, we’ll give a huge advantage to pairs who cheat by failing to honestly and fully disclose their agreements and partnership understandings.

 

From: Gavin Wolpert [mailto:gavinw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 12:46 PM
To: International Team Trials Committee
Cc: danny...@gmail.com; kwoo...@fibs.com; ja...@gargoylegroup.com; chim...@ameritech.net; michael.d...@gmail.com; fr...@bridgebase.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

I'm definitely in agreement with Chris Compton and others who say we should not be dumbing down the game at this level.  I don't open overly aggressively in 3rd seat, basically for the lead and perhaps once in a blue moon with a yarboro.   Being in my spot playing with a less experienced player, rules that protect less experienced players are definitely in my best interest.  

[Fred Gitelman]

This is completely misguided in my view. Those who are inclined to cheat do not need an "invitation" - they are going to cheat regardless of whatever rules pertaining to systems are in place.

I also disagree with your previous e-mail that tries to equate rules regarding things like hesitations with rules regarding restrictions on bidding methods. Apples and oranges as far as I am concerned.

[Peter Boyd]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the idea that we should design the rules for the USBC to be the same as the WBF rules. I much prefer the philosophy that we should make our USBC the best event possible, including using whatever we consider the “best” set of rules. 

 

IMHO, the probability that the “wrong” team might win our championships because our rules were different is very small, and not worth worrying about. Furthermore, the need for “practicing under WBF rules” during the USBC, is of very little value.

 

There is one advantage to using rules that are equal or similar to the ACBL rules used at NABC’s.  That is that all 15-20 teams in the event will already be familiar with those rules.  Eventually, only one (or two) teams will have to adapt to whatever rule changes they will face at the WBF event.

 

The advantage to using whatever we believe to be the “best” rules, is that our event will be the better for that.  We can lead the way, for other organizations, towards better rules.

 

  -- Peter Boyd

 

From: Marty Harris

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 11:10 AM

To: 'Michael Kamil' ; 'Jeff Aker'

Cc: 'Fred Gitelman' ; usbf...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Shouldn’t the USBF rule mirror WBF’s rule?  If we’re trying to select the team that has the best chance of winning a world championship, teams should compete under the same conditions as they’ll face in world championships.  Inventing our own rule, solely for USBF Trials events, makes no sense to me (even if the rule we’d adopt is more logical than ACBL’s or WBF’s rule).

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: Fred Gitelman; usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

Well I guess I'm saying we should have our own rule for 3rd seat (anything goes).  I would probably use the ACBL rule in other seats.

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Mike,

 

Keep in mind that we’re trying to focus on a limited area. The relevant ACBL rules currently forbid opening 1c or 1d on fewer than 10 HCP if the partnership doesn’t promise at least 3 cards in the suit opened. The issue is whether the USBF should accept that, or have its own rule.

 

Jeff Aker

 

 

From: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com'); [mailto:javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com');] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Fred Gitelman
Cc: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com');
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

I think you're right Fred....the use of the word psych was wrong.  If it's 0-15 by agreement, then it's not a psyche.  I don't know what to call it exactly....perhaps just an "agreement".

 

I do think there's something wrong with the rules of the game if one is not allowed to use what is (to me) an obviously winning strategy of making the opps life difficult, when you know they have game or slam and you know your risk is limited.

 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Fred Gitelman <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fr...@bridgebase.com');> wrote:

On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:

Danny -

Is the point to legislate risk to the "possibly" psyching side?  I would think they should be allowed to do whatever is best strategy there even if it allows psychic controls.....

Michael - with all due respect...

As I understand it (sorry if I am wrong), your use of the terms psych/psychic/psyching here (and in your previous e-mail) does not jibe with what your previous claim:

"the fact that a 1H opener in 3rd seat promising 0-15 (basically) is allowed"

I always thought that "psych" referred to an action that was contrary to partnership agreement. But if the 3rd seat opening "promises 0-15" then opening the bidding with a hand that is closer to the lower end of this range is not a "psych" - it is in accordance with partnership agreement.

So if a given bid is not a psych in the first place, any discussion of "psyched controls" is taking us in the wrong direction - there has been no psych so there can be no psychic control.

To me this is really about whether or not to allow a partnership to play 0-15 opening bids more or less by agreement. If players are allowed to open 0-15 hands by agreement then of course their partners can play them for 0-15.

I do not have solution to propose, but I think it is important that we get the terminology right if we want to come up with a solution that is both fair and sensible without wasting time and effort on various irrelevant tangents.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brad Moss]

100 % agree peter

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Kamil]

Absolutely agree with Peter and Brad on this. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Marty Fleisher]

Me too. 

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[Alan Frank]

There are two separate questions. One is whether the bidding rules
(e.g., for strength of third-seat openings) should mirror the WBF rules,
the ACBL rules, or whatever this group thinks are the best in a vacuum;
the other is which way the COC (e.g., whether the declaring side should
compare notes to see if there was MI on one side of the screen) should
go. As an amateur who is unlikely to be substantively affected, I will
not offer my own opinion, but would encourage those who have replied
that they agree with Peter to be clear as to which half of the
question--or both--they agree on.

--Alan

[Howard Weinstein]

this is not a question. We will use existing ACBL/USBF screen rules on clarifications, with the hope the WBF will join us sooner rather than later.

Howie

[geoff hampson]

I agree that the usbc should form coc that the rest of the bridge world can hope to emulate. I agree that following the WBF is pointless given that the WBF doesn't even follow its own coc. Separately, I think that third seat NV rules need to be amended to treat this as a one level "preempt or better" situation since that is what bidding seems to have evolved into currently, as long as there is actual reason for the third seat opener, not purely psyche every time.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[mec...@aol.com]

Geoff's suggestion makes a lot of sense. 

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Mike Passell]

While we have cleaned up the game to some degree allowing extreme destructive tactics certainly favors  the pairs who have a little more going for them. Unless we are naive enough to believe they have all been weeded out it seems wrong to add to their edge. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Mike Passell]

I am not in favor of dumbing down the game at all. I am not in favor of opening it up more. I think we all agree that full disclosure is the most important issue 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jan Martel]

A problem with 2S light preempt in any suit, and other bids where the suit bid can be opener’s primary suit, is also one of disclosure - because these bids are generally not allowed, the people who are using them when they are allowed have had very little experience with them and honestly don’t know what they would do in certain situations. So if you’re trying to develop a defense, and to do so you need to know what responder’s actions after 2S-(DBL) mean you may get the honest response “we don’t know.” 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Jan Martel]

And me

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

I object. I know what i play after dbl.

Chris 

[Jan Martel]

That’s good. Do you know what sort of hands pass after 2S-(P)-? (is it dependent on vul?). What about 2S-(2N)-? It’s just much less familiar, both to those playing it and those playing against it, and the fact that there’s no cue bid available makes it harder.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

I agree the lack of a cuebid distinguishes this treatment from others. Indeed, that is its brilliance.  I hate that those who are unfamiliar with the method are able to ban it out of some untrue sentiment that it's for the better of Bridge. But again, I understand that there are more pressing issues, like ridding ourselves of some notion that a 2+ 1D is a convention. 

Chris 

[erod...@tampabay.rr.com]

I agree with most of what seems to be the consensus:

  .opening light in 3rd seat is and

    always has been "normal bridge"

    among better players.

  .we don't want to dumb down the

     game. 

  .we don't want to slavishly follow

     WBF or ACBL rules but we do

     need to consider them.

To answer the original question,

I don't think a 2+ minor opening should get substantially different treatment than a 3+ card minor opening.  Many top pairs use a 2+ 1C opening, why should they not be able to open what they want in 3rd seat?

I disagree with the notion that opening light in 3rd seat is either risk-free or a "controlled psyche".  If you are hyper-cautious on the other side then you lose out when partner has a normal opening.  

Before I met Meck I played with a partner who liked short Major psyches in 3rd seat.  I came up with the idea of using a PH X (RHO overcalls) as a raise.  This IS a psyche control that I think should be illegal.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3^rd seat non-vulnerable, we want to ask the ITTC to consider what methods should be allowable in the USBCs. The ACBL C&C committee is undertaking a review and rewrite of all ACBL convention charts, which may impact this, but we thought it would be good to have a discussion of what we want the rules to be for USBF events. 

This discussion is about what you think USBF should allow. We now allow ACBL mid chart methods in Round Robin matches and in KO matches of fewer than 60 boards, and super chart methods in KO matches of 60 boards or longer. Item 1 under Opening Bids in the GCC allows 1C or 1D as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. In order to be natural, an opening bid in a minor must promise three or more cards.  Psyching artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto is specifically disallowed. Additionally, opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high card points are disallowed. The Midchart does not change those rules. The super chart provides that the 8 HCP rule does not apply opposite a passed hand, but presumably the 10 HCP requirement of opening 1m applies in all seats. 

To try to keep this discussion on topic, please discuss the following:

Should a pair whose 1m opening bid does not promise 3+ cards in the suit be allowed to open hands like the following 1m (if seat is relevant please

include that)?

A1098 xx xxx AJ109

Qxx Qxxx Qxxx Qxx

xxx xxxx xxx xxx

Axxx x x KQ109xxx

 

Please try to limit this phase of the systems discussion to the issue of 1m opening bids where the bid does not promise 3+ cards in the suit. We can move on to other issues later if you want to.

Jeff Aker

Chair, ITTC

 

 

 

 

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

--

[Chris Compton]

I assume you are not really asking me if I know what I pass two spades with? But, just in case, a balanced 13 plus would always ask for the long suit, non vul I ca stand 8 down, so any weak hand with any number of spades may pass. I can go on, but let's return to Precision Diamond not being a convention.

Chris 

[Howard Weinstein]

Not sure if the WBF still allows comic NT overcalls.  Should this be allowed at the trials — used to play them and quite enjoyable?

Speaking of NT overcalls, another area which arose in Wroclaw was raptor 1N overcalls — played by many eastern Europeans and intended as a constructive convention.  At least one pair got in trouble for not having it listing on their card, and not sure where this was classified (red/brown/blue?).  While I think they should be allowed and they are relatively easy to defend against, the negative inference that a 1N overcall was not available is to me almost more important — and would never get disclosed in most situations.

[Jan Martel]

Of course not; I’m just trying to point out that there are problems with methods like that which can’t be played much, just because they can’t be played much. I know that one solution would be to allow them to be played more, but I don’t think that’s a solution we can adopt. And I agree that there are many more important things to deal with, one of which is whether a Precision 1D is artificial (note, I said that differently than you did, because I think that the ACBL convention charts prevent you from psyching a precision diamond not because it is a convention, but because it is artificial).

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Jan Martel]

Raptor is (I am fairly confident) completely legal in WBF - the issue is disclosure. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Mike Passell]

The other side of allowing bids like the random 2 spades is an open invitation for private undisclosed understandings. Someone naively stated that If a pair wanted to cheat they would find a way- this is an open invitation. Make the banks easier to rob  and we would have more robberies. Years ago when it was legal to overcall 1 spade over a strong club on any hand- the pairs doing it always luckily found a fit . I am enjoying playing on a level playing field at both Nationals and Regionals I would hate to see any of that reversed .

Sent from my iPhone

[Mike Passell]

Playing this convention you could never say I don't know 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jan Martel]

Years ago …? I don’t see anything that makes it illegal to employ any defense you want against a strong club. Under Allowed on the GCC:

 DEFENSE TO: a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below)

The exceptions have to do with using any conventional methods when you open 1NT with fewer than 10 HCPs or a range wider than 5 HCPs.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Geoff, you raised an interesting and important point.  You’re not advocating allowing a complete Wild West in third seat (i.e., “anything goes”).  Rather, it seems like you’re suggesting something along the following lines:

 

In third seat, there should be no HCP restrictions on 1-level suit openings (as long as there’s full disclosure).  BUT your bid still must either be natural (4+ card major, 3+ card minor), OR it must match the opening bid you’d make in second seat with the same shape and a full opening bid (but not strong enough for a forcing opening).  That’s another way of saying, as Geoff did, that there must be a constructive bridge reason for the bid.  Playing Precision, that would allow you to open 1D with garbage and a balanced hand (2+ D and no 5 card Major), while still barring you from psyching a 1S opening with a weak hand and a doubleton spade.  I’d be fine with that relaxation of the current rules.  [To ensure honest disclosure and permit enforcement if non-disclosure occurs, I would suggest clarifying that once a pair has made a particular opening more than once with garbage in third seat, it has an implicit understanding that must be disclosed – even if they’ve carefully “never discussed” it.]   

 

Other people (Jan, Chris, etc.) have raised additional issues, such as psyching 1NT or strong artificial openings in third seat. 

 

As for 1NT openings with 0-15 HCP in third seat, the rules currently allow it, but then you can’t play any conventions over it (including conventional escapes such as XX if you get X’d).  IMO, the existing rule already draws a fair balance.  If a pair more than occasionally has opened 1NT with balanced garbage, it must disclose an “agreement” (whether explicit or simply based on partnership history) that the third seat range is really 0-15 (or 0-16, whatever the upper limit is).  As a result of having that “agreed point range,” they can’t play any conventions over it.  Again, I’d want to require that the shape must be a shape you’d routinely open 1NT in 1^st or 2^nd; e.g., you can’t psych 1NT with very few HCP and 1-2-3-7 shape. 

 

As for psyching strong artificial openings, IMO we should never allow that.  That turns things into a pure guessing / bluffing game, and forces the opposition to have very complicated defenses to ferret out when third seat psyched vs. when they really have a strong hand.           

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of geoff hampson
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 3:16 PM
To: Alan Frank
Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

 

I agree that the usbc should form coc that the rest of the bridge world can hope to emulate. I agree that following the WBF is pointless given that the WBF doesn't even follow its own coc. Separately, I think that third seat NV rules need to be amended to treat this as a one level "preempt or better" situation since that is what bidding seems to have evolved into currently, as long as there is actual reason for the third seat opener, not purely psyche every time.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[mark feldman]

It is my opinion that while contemplating significantly relaxing restrictions on initial actions,

we also need to address whether players will then be allowed to pick and choose when to "open

2S with no known suit" or similar sorts of bids, depending upon the opponents defenses.

I would regard allowing such, would be the equivalent of  requiring the team on defensive in football

having to first announce who was in for the play, and then the offense could select the offensive

lineup to best advantage, with the defense having no opportunity to make switches.

 If the pairs are allowed to vary their opening actions depending upon their knowledge

of the chosen defenses, I would then advocate that the defensive bidders shouldn't have to reveal their defenses

in advance and could vary them.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Fred Gitelman]

OK then let's let the terrorists win.

[Jan Martel]

I confess that this completely confuses me. I don’t think that the same person who would open 1D with “garbage and a balanced hand” in third seat would do so in first or second seat - are you suggesting they would? And so far as I know, there is nothing that bars one from psyching 1S with a doubleton spade and weak hand, so long as your partner doesn’t expect it. And I still have difficulty understanding the difference between psyching an artificial bid and psyching a natural bid. I think that it was Geoff who commented on one of the unending BridgeWinners threads that he had once mentioned to someone that psyching a reverse Flannery response to 1D would be a good thing to do and then they did it against him at some future time and it worked well and he liked that - why should that be any more illegal than psyching a 1M response to 1D? 

I also think this sort of complex rule is not good because it is too difficult to enforce - who decides whether there is “a constructive bridge reason” for a bid? I’d rather keep things clear and simple and enforceable. Realistically, right now, no one is enforcing the “don’t psych an artificial bid” when it applies to a 1m opening bid that doesn’t promise 3 cards in the suit. The fact that it isn’t enforced (and maybe is difficult to enforce because my psych may be your upgrade) means it’s a bad rule (in my opinion). Obviously, it’s much easier to enforce for things like 2C (strong) and 2D (Flannery or strong) and a reverse Flannery response, but why should there be a rule that needs all sorts of confusing exceptions to make sense?

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Jan wrote, “I don’t think that the same person who would open 1D with “garbage and a balanced hand” in third seat would do so in first or second seat - are you suggesting they would?”

 

That’s NOT at all what I said.  I said that with the same SHAPE, but normal opening HCP (e.g., 11-15), they’d open 1D in 1/2.   

[Jan Martel]

That wasn’t how I understood what you said, although I see it could mean that. Why would that matter? 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Jan,

 

There’s nothing even a little bit confusing about a rule that says, “You can’t psych a strong, artificial opening bid.”  What part of that do you think anyone misunderstands? 

 

I agree with you that we should have the same freedom to psych a Precision 1D opening and a natural 1M opening (the same applies to a “could be short” 1C opening).  That does not mean we should allow psyches of ALL openings, including strong artificial bids and fert 1NTs.  The simple solution is to treat Precision 1D and “could be short” 1C as natural (or semi-natural) openings.  Then the existing rules would not preclude opening them light.

 

 

 

From: Jan Martel [mailto:mart...@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2016 7:41 PM
To: Marty Harris
Cc: geoff hampson; Alan Frank; ITTC Mailing List

[Tom Carmichael]

The "1S any hand" vs strong club falls under the general destructive disallowed.  (#1)

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods."

While not necessarily clear as written, it is meant to supersede what is allowed on the chart.  Again, we (C&C) are trying to work on things like this.

Tom

And me

and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com');.

For
more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You
received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group

and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com');.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Jan Martel]

But that isn’t the rule - the rule is that you can’t psych any artificial opening bid. There are plenty of artificial opening bids that aren’t strong, not just 1m with <3 cards (incidentally, should it matter whether one promises 2 or can open it on 0 or 1?)

I don’t really like rules that are designed for one specific situation - why not have simple rules that apply all the time?

Incidentally, about the <10 HCP 1NT - I sincerely hope that the kluge of barring conventions over one will be done away with in the new convention charts, now that a Regulating Authority can regulate natural opening bids. (I am not saying I think they should be barred, but if ACBL wants to bar them, then they should bar them, not allow them but limit the use of conventions over them, which causes ripples of complexity elsewhere.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[geoff hampson]

Tom. Would it be legal to play "1S showing 7+ cards in 2 suits one of which is S" be a legal treatment?

And me

and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

For
more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You
received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group

and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com');.

usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.