Re: Digest for usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

[Michael Rosenberg]

I agree there is little logic to proscribing 3rd seat psyches.

But I think there is even less logic in allowing strategies that would help qualify for an event, when those strategies are not permitted in the event itself.  The idea should be for us to enable the qualifier that has the best chance to win.  It's counter-productive to let a strategy, that will be illegal, knock out another team.

I suggest a two-pronged approach:

1) Use whatever influence we have to try to get the WBF to change their position(s) where we think something else is better.  And keep doing this.

2) Where we fail on (1), TEMPORARILY follow the WBF rule(s) in our qualifying event.

This approach spans more than one issue.  For example, if we think all players should have to play 50% to be legitimate members of the team, try to get the WBF to change to that.  But if they don't, one-third (what the WBF has now) should be sufficient.  Sorry - not meaning this a change of subject.  Rather, I'm suggesting what our approach should be for 3rd seat openers (artificial or otherwise) - and every other issue.

Michael 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, <usbf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids - 25 Updates

USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 12:16PM In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3rd 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 <danny...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:45AM -0400 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

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:52AM -0400 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.

george <nobe...@aol.com>: Oct 07 09:54AM -0400 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       -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> To: Usbf-Ittc@Googlegroups. USBF <usbf...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Oct 7, 2016 7:16 am Subject: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids       In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3rd 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. -- 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.

Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:56AM -0400 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   On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 10:09AM -0400 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 <fr...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 07:32AM -0700 On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:   > 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 <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 10:36AM -0400 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: Oct 07 10:41AM -0400 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   In a message dated 10/7/2016 10:27:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fr...@bridgebase.com writes:   On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:   > 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.

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 02:45PM 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<mailto:fre...@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<mailto: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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@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 <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 11:04AM -0400 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.

"Marty Harris" <chim...@ameritech.net>: Oct 07 10:10AM -0500 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-ittc@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: usbf...@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com <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: usbf...@googlegroups.com <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 <fr...@bridgebase.com <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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <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.

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400 > 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 <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400 im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400 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   -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 03:40PM 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   From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 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-ittc@googlegroups.com> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:05 AM To: Jeff Aker Cc: Fred Gitelman; usbf...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc@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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<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 <fr...@bridgebase.com<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@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.

Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 08:46AM -0700 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   > 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 <mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.   Jan Martel mart...@gmail.com

Nik Demirev <nikde...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 03:48PM 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 <   -- Nik Demirev

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 12:07PM -0400 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.

Howard Weinstein <howiewe...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:12AM -0700 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.

Chris Compton <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:42AM -0600 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 <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:47AM -0600 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 <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:58AM -0600 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

Robb Gordon <robbg...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 11:01AM -0700 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   On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Chris Compton <chrisc...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jan Martel]

The problem with that is that we really don’t know what the WBF rule is. David Burn believes that the section of the HUM definition that says:

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.” means that an agreement to open in third seat with 7 or fewer HCPs is a HUM and not allowed except in the Bermuda Bowl & Venice Cup. Other people think that having ONLY that agreement with none of the other indicia of HUM systems wouldn’t constitute a HUM system. And of course the WBF hasn’t opined on this and is unlikely to do so. We are trying to get them to revisit their whole Systems Policy (after all, it hasn’t been seriously reviewed in over 30 years), and I hope they will do so, but sometimes they don’t move at great speed.

Meanwhile, are we doing our players a favor by imposing rules that no one really either understands or follows?

Things other than system regulation are off topic here, but do you seriously think we shouldn’t have gone to a sensible VP scale because the WBF was using a ridiculous one?

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

[Michael Rosenberg]

I guess it means "may NOT be made"?

I agree the WBF may be hard to pin down - and it's even possible they will change their rules between our Trials and the event being qualified for.  We cannot control that.

But I think we should do our best to find out what the WBF means (maybe by writing them a list of questions?) and to follow their answers.  While (of course) still going through channels to alter their rules where we think they are wrong.

If they don't reply, THEN we make our rule, doing our best.

The VP scale is a small issue - not really afecting our qualifier's chances in the main event.  We just made things less random.  Similarly, our rule about the declaring side giving info to the other side of the screen is clearly better than the WBF rule - but I don't think it affects who we want to qualify. (Of course, we should continue to try to get the WBF to change this.)

Whereas 3rd seat psyches can have a big influence on who wins a match.  If that's what a team 'needs' to wi, and they can't do it in the main event, it seems (to me) counter-productive to allow it in the Trials.

Michael

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fred@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<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

Back to top

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

[geoff hampson]

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

Am I the only one confused by this language? If the openers range is 10-15 wouldn't average be 12.5? Would a K less than "average" be 9.5?

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fred@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<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

Back to top

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

[Brad Moss]

Agreed geoff.  The ambiguity renders meaningful inference impossible.  This is indicative of why I think concerning ourselves with WBF makes little sense.

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc%2Bunsubs...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Back to top

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

--

[Jan Martel]

The WBF definitions say that an average hand is 10 HCPs.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[geoff hampson]

I get it, I just wonder at the need for vague language.(maybe it is not vague to others)

[Jan Martel]

That’s what we’re trying to discuss here :-). FWIW, when USBF originally put in systems rules, I tried REALLY hard to write something that made sense and completely failed. No one else did any better, so we gave up and decided to accept the ACBL Midchart for Round Robin and Superchart for KO. We all knew then and know now that those aren’t anywhere close to perfect. Now we have an impetus to try once more to write something that does make sense. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Howard Weinstein]

off topic, but Michael brought it up.  

I brought up the differing methods between the ACBL/USBF and WBF on ferreting out MI between the declaring side during our WBF Laws Commission meetings last month.  There was sympathy for this position and I think getting it changed may be possible.  The bad news: the Rules & Regulations Committee would decide this.  The good news:  it is largely the same people as the LC.

If and when we come to a consensus of what should be allowed, and are able to properly and understandably frame the policy — I would think the WBF Systems committee would be highly receptive and consider it reasonably soon.  I am not on this committee, but Chip is and Kokish is.  

Eric — are you on the ITTC mailing list and getting these emails (or just the thread where I added you)? 

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

[Kit Woolsey]

This is all getting ridiculous.

In a trials match, at one table Woolsey-Stewart are N-S. At the other table, Bathhurst-Lall are N-S.

In third seat at favorable, Woolsey and Lall pick up xxx, xxx, Qxx, Qxxx. It goes 2 passes.

At one table, Woolsey opens 1D. Woolsey-Stewart have no history of making bids like this. Sure, they open light in third
seat, but who doesn't? They have never made an out and out psych like this before. It is clearly a legal call. There is no
partnership agreement or even tendency to make a bid like this. Woolsey just judeged to do so.

At the other table, Lall opens 1D. Bathhurst-Lall do have some history of opening super-light hands like this at third seat
favorable. So they have an "understanding". This is deemed to be an illegal understanding. Hence, Lall's 1D opening is
illegal.

Now this can't be right. We are supposed to be playing by the same rules at both tables. How can an action by Woolsey be
legal, but the same action under the same circumstances by Lall be illegal?

There isn't anything we can do about idiotic ACBL or WBF regulations. But we don't have to have the same idiotic regulations
in the USBF.

[mec...@aol.com]

Well said Kit!

Sent from my iPhone

[Al Hollander]

Hopefully they are also proactively considering Jan’s announcement of using tablets for bidding – including alerts/question/explanations

I think self-alerting creates a new set of issues that should be anticipated

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Friday 07 October 2016 16:42
To: Michael Rosenberg <micr...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com>; ITTC Mailing List <usbf...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: screen procedures

 

off topic, but Michael brought it up.  

 

I brought up the differing methods between the ACBL/USBF and WBF on ferreting out MI between the declaring side during our WBF Laws Commission meetings last month.  There was sympathy for this position and I think getting it changed may be possible.  The bad news: the Rules & Regulations Committee would decide this.  The good news:  it is largely the same people as the LC.

 

If and when we come to a consensus of what should be allowed, and are able to properly and understandably frame the policy — I would think the WBF Systems committee would be highly receptive and consider it reasonably soon.  I am not on this committee, but Chip is and Kokish is.  

 

Eric — are you on the ITTC mailing list and getting these emails (or just the thread where I added you)? 

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

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

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

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400 > 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 <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400

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

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

Back to top

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

[Jeff Aker]

Kit,

Under ACBL rules neither can open 1d. You can't have an agreement to do so and you can't psych a convention. Please note that I'm not saying that I think this is sensible. Rather, I want to make sure that our conditions of contest reflect how we want our events to be played.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

> --
> 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.

[Michael Rosenberg]

That's because the whole idea about 'controlled psyches' has always been wrong.  There are 'self-controlling' psyches - and those theoretically ought to be allowed.

Interestingly, psychics are only questioned when they are under strength.  Many people lok questioningly at a psychic 1N overcall when their partner is a PH after a 2nd seat opening.  And, when doubled, it's an easy 'read' for partner.

But nobody questions a 'preemptive' jump over call made on opening bid strength when partner is a PH.  Yet partner, knowing the 'style' may choose not to make a 'normal' save - and now declarer misreads the cards and goes down.

Seems a little inconsistent to me.

I disagree with Kit's last two sentences.  There MAY be something we can do about idiotic WBF regulations.  And while we don't want the same idiotic regulations in USBF, it may be even more idiotic to allow a team to qualify using tactics that will be barred by the WBF

Michael

[Jan Martel]

No, Kit, that is not the rule under the ACBL Super Chart. Under those charts, you are not allowed to psych a 1m bid that doesn’t promise a 3 card or longer suit, whether you have ever done it before or not. The issue that we are supposed to be discussing here is whether that SHOULD be the rule. There isn’t any issue about whether it is PRESENTLY the rule. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Kit Woolsey]

Darn. I knew I should have opened 1H instead of 1D. Let's see them get me for that!

Seriously, the concept of it being illegal to "psych" a "conventional" call is an example of ACBL nonsense. The USBF does not
and should not adhere to this.

IMO while the USBF can and should regulate partnership agreements, there should never be any regulation about the legality of
actual bids. If a bid is a bridge legal bid, then it is legal. Of course in the case of a psych if it appears that the
partner catches the psych without sufficient information or even hedges his bets in case of a psych that is an indication that
the partnership does have an agreement along these lines, and that might be illegal. But the psych itself can never be
illegal.

While we are on the topic of getting rid of ACBL nonsense in the WBF, how about the 10-12 1NT opening on xxx, Ax, xxx, AJ109x.
According the the ACBL it is "legal", but responder can't use any conventions opposite it. This is obviously ridiculous for
several reasons. Even the WBF has no such restrictions. Let's dump this for the USBF.

Kit

[Marty Fleisher]

The USBF does not and should not adhere to this.

​Yes, it does.  The issue is whether it should.​

--
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.

[Mike Passell]

So we can open QJx QJx QJx Jxxx. But not AKQxx Xxxx xxxx. Nice

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]

In fairness, I think the WBF doesn't define a 2+ 1D as conventional (I believe, at least according to others in this thread), the ACBL does.  The USBF could go either way here and allow the 1D psyche, but that doesn't address all the underlying issues.

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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.

email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 02:45PM 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...@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<mailto: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+...@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400 > 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 <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com<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: usbf...@googlegroups.com<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 <fr...@bridgebase.com<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 usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com<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 usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com<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<mailto: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<mailto:usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Back to top

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

[Mike Passell]

Michael the wbf actually allows zero boards to be played and still get the gold. They just don't receive world master points. An insanely horrible rule

Sent from my iPhone

[Howard Weinstein]

I hate their rule.  

Lost in the semi’s of the Rosenblum to Versace-Lauria, the Racecars, and Sementa-Angellini by 3 mps, where Angellini did not play a board and receive a gold medal —maybe even MPs, when he played enough in the finals when they beat Brazil by 100.  Bad enough losing to the Racecars.

If they get a medal without playing the 1/3 in the RR and each match, just like an NPC is listed as an NPC, they should be listed as an NPP, non-playing player.

[Michael Rosenberg]

Mike P:  If "Michael" meant me, I know that.  My point was it may not be in the UISBF best interests to force players to play half in the Trials, if we are only going to compel them to play one-third in the world event.

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

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

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400 > 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 <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400

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

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

Back to top

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

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.

[geoff hampson]

I think the 1/2 standard in each match is better, why not continue to try and encourage the wbf to see the light?

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fred@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<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

...

[steve robinson]

I wonder if we should change the focus from what can you open to what is the partner's responsibility. If it goes 1diamond -1nt and partner has 9 points should he be required to double the 1NT and if he doesn't and his partner's opening bid is light, he has fielded the psych and should be strongly penalized. You should be allowed to open any hand you want but partner must assume that its a full opener and bid accordingly.  

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fred@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<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

Back to top

--

Make every card count

[Mike Passell]

Sternberg never plAyed a hand in seniors in China got Silver 

Sent from my iPhone

[Mike Passell]

I can't argue with your logic Michael

Sent from my iPhone

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

[Michael Rosenberg]

Geoff: I think the 1/2 playing is better also. I think we should try to get WBF to change tp our way of thinking.  But, until they do, I think we should do whatever we can to give ourselves the best chance at world level.  And a team that WOULD be a favorite to win the trials if 1/3 was allowed, logically has the better chance at the Worlds, I think. 

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc%2Bunsubs...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Back to top

[Mike Passell]

So we go inferior since they do? So why do they have to play at all? 

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]

It does give the sponsored teams a much better chance though

Sent from my iPhone

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

[geoff hampson]

Michael; you make a valid point, but the Trials is also an event unto itself and harming that event because the WBF has some mistaken ideas is also flawed. As in other areas, the usbf should lead by example. Make the best rules across the board and have the bridge world follow along in time when they recognize this.

...

[Michael Rosenberg]

If we're thinking of not going to WBF events, that would be a different matter.  As long as our intention is to go, I think we should make rules for our Trials that give us the best chance for our qualifier(s) to win the Worlds.

[Michael Rosenberg]

Geoff: That's a valid point also.

[mark feldman]

Michael,

Your argument as to 1/3 the boards as a sufficient playing requirement to best choose

the Team, is with respect to the set of teams entering in the Trials. It is at least possible,

though, that a weak client might elect to field a team only if the lesser playing requirement

was in force. If that were the case, then reducing the requirement to 1/3 the boards, could possibly on balance reduce the expected performance of the USBF team or teams.

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

Strongly disagree with this.  Light 

openers in any seat don't necessarily 

X 1N with 9.  Even if pard doesn't have

a psyche but a totally normal light 3rd

seat opening with say a 5332 9 then

Xing 1NT is a bad idea.  As I said earlier 

pairs that use light 3rd seat openings

do suffer some losses as well.

I THINK WE SHOULD NOT CALL LIGHT,

EVEN ULTRALIGHT 3rd SEAT OPENINGS

"PSYCHES".  Opening a 3-card or

less Major would be considered a

psyche. 

Who out there agrees with me?

Sent from my iPhone

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

[Danny Sprung]

Eric:

If you consider opening with less than say 6 HCP not a psyche, I most definitely do not agree with you.  If your normal opening deliver 10 HCP, then being within a king (or ace even) would not be a psych.  Any 13 cards hands would be.

Do you really consider opening 1 Diamond with Qxxx xx Jxx xxx just normal bridge?

Danny

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc%2Bunsubs...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Back to top

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

I don't know how normal it is.  Even at

Favorable it is risky (-1100 vs a game)

I'm just saying that if an opponent

did it against me I wouldn't think

much of it, unless they were vul

My main point is that 2 vs 3 in a

minor shouldn't matter as far as

USBC regs are concerned.  

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 agree with u eric

[Jeff Aker]

Yes, this was the original point of this particular discussion- not whether it's ok to open light , but whether the fact that you don't promise 3 cards in the minor you've opened should affect the regulations. Eric, thanks for getting things back on track.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

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.

[Chris Compton]

I can't imagine telling my opponents they must double 1N. Why not tell the other players they must play 14-16 1N NV and open all 11's first seat  NV. This way no one has to commit suicide by doubling 1N w 9.

Chris 

[Mike Passell]

I certainly agree with Eric 

Sent from my iPhone

[Fred Gitelman]

On 10/9/2016 5:35 AM, erod...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:

I THINK WE SHOULD NOT CALL LIGHT,

EVEN ULTRALIGHT 3rd SEAT OPENINGS

"PSYCHES".  Opening a 3-card or

less Major would be considered a

psyche. 

Who out there agrees with me?

I think it is fine to call "light third seat openings" exactly that.

As far as "ultralight 3rd seat openings go", it depends on who makes them.

If it is "routine" or at least "not unexpected" for a given partnership to open ultralight then doing so is not a "psych". Hopefully needless to say, however, such partnerships should disclose in some fashion "we open ultralight in 3rd position". A conversation like the follow might ensue..

"ALERT! Could be ultralight"

"Would you, for example, open all balanced 4-counts in 3rd seat not vul?"

"No, only those in which we wanted to make a lead-directing statement" or (for another partnership) "pretty much but he might choose not do so due to state of the match considerations" or (for another partnership) "yes at favorable, only with lead direct at equal white".

"Thank you for being so forthcoming"

"Your welcome. I believe my opponents have the right to know what we know".

But if the partnership in question has no history of opening ultralight then to do so for the first time would be a "psych".

[Michael Rosenberg]

Eric: Philosophically, I agree with you about what the rules SHOULD be.

  However, I still think it's counter-productive to allow strategies that will enable one to qualify for a World event, when those strategies are prohibited in that World event. 

I hate their rule.  

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc%2Bunsubs...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Back to top

[Chris Compton]

I was too cavalier: Maybe I should have said it this way: my job is to get to 1 or 2M and your job is to make me pay by carting me off. I will be glad to alert, pre alert, system summary form, etc. again, the idea that you can prohibit me from what you are sure are unsound methods is bad for bridge. It took a long time after DONt and Meckwell to make players return to penalty doubles of 1N (I was part of causing that). I give one example from a very recent team game: My paying partner held X xxxx jx and QJxxxx and passed in first seat no one vul. (As an aside, I believe 1N or 3C are both fine choices of opening bids from a purely bridge point of view, 2S weak preempt is ideal, but partner passed) and it goes pass and I open 1H in third NV. The next player overcalls 3N and my partner chose to bid 4H. I went for 1100 against 990 (opponents 33 HCP) despite our nine card heart fit. No way if partner had passed over 3N (like any bridge player) would our opponents have bid slam. Weak teammates brought back 490 w 33 HCP and we lost 12 instead of 3. To this day I have not told my idiot partner not to bid 4H, because bridge administrators have me concerned that I could end up suspended due to rules that dumb down bridge. At this point, I begin to believe that I need to start a movement "all bridge bids matter." The fact that those around me are convinced that my methods can not be allowed in some misguided effort to prevent collusive cheating is sad for bridge. Why not just let me go for 1100 as you are so sure I will? 

Chris 

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

[Gavin Wolpert]

I disagree that if we change the requirement to 1/3 that the team will have more chance of winning the worlds.  I think forcing everyone to play half of the trials means that the team that qualifies as USA will have the 3rd pair more battle tested for the worlds.   We have 60 boards a day in the trials vs 48 (i think) per day in the worlds.  So the trials having a 50% requirement does an adequate job of prepping the first two pairs for playing an entire day at the worlds, while forcing the 3rd pair to get more experience.  

[rj...@sbcglobal.net]

If we really want to follow the rules of the championships so that we can send our BEST team we shouldn't require the client to play at all.  They don't ever have to play after they qualify so why require them to play in our trials.

Bob Katz

---

From: Gavin Wolpert <gavinw...@gmail.com>
To: International Team Trials Committee <usbf...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: robins...@gmail.com; howiewe...@gmail.com; mnpa...@sbcglobal.net; tom...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

I disagree that if we change the requirement to 1/3 that the team will have more chance of winning the worlds.  I think forcing everyone to play half of the trials means that the team that qualifies as USA will have the 3rd pair more battle tested for the worlds.   We have 60 boards a day in the trials vs 48 (i think) per day in the worlds.  So the trials having a 50% requirement does an adequate job of prepping the first two pairs for playing an entire day at the worlds, while forcing the 3rd pair to get more experience.  

--
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.

[Brad Moss]

I apologize for being redundant.  The us team trials are the best run event in bridge; we effect change by leading; the WBF selectively enforces their own COC anyway; I think we should continue to do what we determine is best, and continue to lead by example.

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.

[Mike Passell]

Better for the professionals to have only 1/3 required for sure. Great selling tool. We surely would see weaker overall teams advancing. 

Sent from my iPhone

[geoff hampson]

Chris; I don't think the logic behind the rules here is to prevent collusive cheating, it is to avoid opening a Pandora's Box by saying anything goes in third position... Who knows where that might lead. Having clearly defined rules to govern what is allowed, and then actually enforcing them is an automatic next step.  Following the lead of the WBF is a foolhardy path to take IMO since their rules are not clear, are likely to change, and aren't uniformly enforced by design currently.  Let's make clear rules for all and actually abide by them!

[Michael Rosenberg]

Those "clearly defined rules" SHOULD IMO have zero connection to HCP.  So it's going to be difficult to come up with a legitimate definition.

'Has a legitimate constructive reason for bidding' is perhaps what some want - but will still be not clear and open to argument.

I guess it's possible that 'anything goes in 3rd seat' has fewer 'worms' than any other can we choose to open.

[Jan Martel]

I completely agree, particularly with your last sentence. Now, what should those rules be (remembering the goal that they be clearly understood and easy to enforce).?

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]

Jan, subject to appropriate full disclosure (which should include modifying our System Summary Forms), and perhaps “alert” requirements, I suggest the following for clear third seat rules:

 

1.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1 of a suit with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the opening bid either:  (a) is natural, promising 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ cards in a Major; or (b) is the same artificial catchall opening (such as a Precision 1D or a “could be short” 1C) they would make in first or second seat with the same shape, if they had normal opening strength (e.g., 11-15 HCP, but outside their 1NT range). 

 

2.  In third seat, it is legal for a pair to agree to open 1NT on anything they please.  However, a pair cannot play any conventions over their third seat 1NT opening if, by agreement, they can open 1NT in third seat with any of the following:  (a) fewer than 10 HCP, (b) a range wider than 5 HCP, or (c) shape that is not natural for 1NT (e.g., a small singleton or 5521).  If a pair has opened 1NT with such hands more than occasionally in third seat, they are deemed to have an “agreement” (i.e., an implicit understanding based on partnership history), even if they have never actually discussed it.  [Do we want to be more specific than “more than occasionally”?  E.g., “more than twice in the past year”?]  As always, a pair can agree to have different NT ranges for different vulnerabilities. 

 

3.  It is never permissible to make a strong, artificial opening bid, even in third seat, unless the hand contains at least 15 HCP or meets the “Rule of 24” (e.g., 14 HCP plus 10 cards in the two longest suits).    

 

4.  In third seat, natural preemptive opening bids at the two-level or higher may be very wide ranging.  There are no restrictions on the conventions that may be used after such an opening, even if opener’s agreed HCP range exceeds 7 HCP.      

 

Each of these proposed rules stands alone, so we could adopt some without others if the group only agrees with some of these.  

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jan Martel
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 2:41 PM
To: geoff hampson
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

 

I completely agree, particularly with your last sentence. Now, what should those rules be (remembering the goal that they be clearly understood and easy to enforce).?

 

I hate their rule.  

 

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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.

Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:56AM -0400

email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 02:45PM

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...@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<mailto: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+...@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com>.

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

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400

> 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 <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400

im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400

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

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

Back to top

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

--

Make every card count

 

--

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.

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

[Jan Martel]

I haven’t read this carefully, but I don’t see why we need to have something different for third seat. Maybe it wouldn’t be sensible to play that a 1st or 2nd seat opening bid could be made on 0 HCPs, but should we bar it? As long as Pass doesn’t promise values.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Jan, I thought the whole point of this discussion was to develop clear rules for third seat.  At least from prior comments, there doesn’t seem to be widespread sentiment for changing the 1^st / 2^nd seat rules.  IMO, we should resolve this third seat issue first.  After that, if you or Chris (or anyone else) wants to propose eliminating restrictions on 1^st / 2^nd seat openings, we could have a separate discussion about that.  But I believe it would confuse things to have both discussions at the same time.

[Jan Martel]

The third seat issue was what prompted this discussion, but in general isn’t it better to have short, clear rules that cover everything? 

If we want to be less restrictive (do we?) why should we limit to 3rd seat.

On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net> wrote:

Jan, I thought the whole point of this discussion was to develop clear rules for third seat.  At least from prior comments, there doesn’t seem to be widespread sentiment for changing the 1^st / 2^ndseat rules.  IMO, we should resolve this third seat issue first.  After that, if you or Chris (or anyone else) wants to propose eliminating restrictions on 1^st / 2^nd seat openings, we could have a separate discussion about that.  But I believe it would confuse things to have both discussions at the same time. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Jan Martel]

And now that I’ve had a chance to look carefully at this, I have some issues with it. Comments below.

On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net> wrote:

Jan, subject to appropriate full disclosure (which should include modifying our System Summary Forms), and perhaps “alert” requirements, I suggest the following for clear third seat rules:

 

1.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1 of a suit with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the opening bid either:  (a) is natural, promising 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ cards in a Major; or (b) is the same artificial catchall opening (such as a Precision 1D or a “could be short” 1C) they would make in first or second seat with the same shape, if they had normal opening strength (e.g., 11-15 HCP, but outside their 1NT range).  

If I wanted to open 1m (<3) with 5332 shape in third seat - I do mean 5 spades, why would you want me to stop me from doing so? IOW I don’t understand your purpose in limiting shape to what applies in other seats. How does this improve on just saying anything goes in 3rd seat as long as it isn’t designed to be purely destructive?

 

2.  In third seat, it is legal for a pair to agree to open 1NT on anything they please.  However, a pair cannot play any conventions over their third seat 1NT opening if, by agreement, they can open 1NT in third seat with any of the following:  (a) fewer than 10 HCP, (b) a range wider than 5 HCP, or (c) shape that is not natural for 1NT (e.g., a small singleton or 5521).  If a pair has opened 1NT with such hands more than occasionally in third seat, they are deemed to have an “agreement” (i.e., an implicit understanding based on partnership history), even if they have never actually discussed it.  [Do we want to be more specific than “more than occasionally”?  E.g., “more than twice in the past year”?]  As always, a pair can agree to have different NT ranges for different vulnerabilities.  

I don’t think it makes any sense to restrict conventions that may be played over anything - that approach came into being because the Laws used to say that a Regulating Authority couldn’t regulate natural bids. That has now been changed so they can do so. If we want to restrict 1NT openings let’s do it honestly and not with the “no conventions” rule. 

 

3.  It is never permissible to make a strong, artificial opening bid, even in third seat, unless the hand contains at least 15 HCP or meets the “Rule of 24” (e.g., 14 HCP plus 10 cards in the two longest suits).    

I still don’t understand the problem with psyching an artificial strong opening bid, but if others do and want to bar it, this seems to do that.

 

4.  In third seat, natural preemptive opening bids at the two-level or higher may be very wide ranging.  There are no restrictions on the conventions that may be used after such an opening, even if opener’s agreed HCP range exceeds 7 HCP.      

I thought that 7 HCP range had disappeared from ACBL requirements, so why would we need this?

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

Jan, my replies are below in red.

 

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

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Marty Harris

Cc: geoff hampson; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

 

And now that I’ve had a chance to look carefully at this, I have some issues with it. Comments below.

 

On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net> wrote:

 

Jan, subject to appropriate full disclosure (which should include modifying our System Summary Forms), and perhaps “alert” requirements, I suggest the following for clear third seat rules:

 

1.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1 of a suit with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the opening bid either:  (a) is natural, promising 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ cards in a Major; or (b) is the same artificial catchall opening (such as a Precision 1D or a “could be short” 1C) they would make in first or second seat with the same shape, if they had normal opening strength (e.g., 11-15 HCP, but outside their 1NT range).  

 

If I wanted to open 1m (<3) with 5332 shape in third seat - I do mean 5 spades, why would you want me to stop me from doing so? IOW I don’t understand your purpose in limiting shape to what applies in other seats. How does this improve on just saying anything goes in 3rd seat as long as it isn’t designed to be purely destructive?  You can open 1m with 5 spades!!  As long as you have 3 cards in the minor, it’s a natural opening so it’s legal, even if, e.g., you’re 5-2-3-3.  You could not open a short minor (0-2 cards).  This restriction is consistent with Eric, Geoff, and others saying there must be a constructive bridge reason for bidding that suit, and explicitly saying you can’t open a doubleton Major. 

   If you open in a short suit where your bid is supposed to promise length, that destroys the opponents’ methods / language.  They won’t have bids to say that they want to play in the suit you opened, especially a Major.    

 

2.  In third seat, it is legal for a pair to agree to open 1NT on anything they please.  However, a pair cannot play any conventions over their third seat 1NT opening if, by agreement, they can open 1NT in third seat with any of the following:  (a) fewer than 10 HCP, (b) a range wider than 5 HCP, or (c) shape that is not natural for 1NT (e.g., a small singleton or 5521).  If a pair has opened 1NT with such hands more than occasionally in third seat, they are deemed to have an “agreement” (i.e., an implicit understanding based on partnership history), even if they have never actually discussed it.  [Do we want to be more specific than “more than occasionally”?  E.g., “more than twice in the past year”?]  As always, a pair can agree to have different NT ranges for different vulnerabilities.  

 

I don’t think it makes any sense to restrict conventions that may be played over anything - that approach came into being because the Laws used to say that a Regulating Authority couldn’t regulate natural bids. That has now been changed so they can do so. If we want to restrict 1NT openings let’s do it honestly and not with the “no conventions” rule.  I disagree and would like to hear what others think. 

    IMO, allowing conventions over a “could be anything” 1NT allows you to do the equivalent of “controlling a psych” (technically it wouldn’t be a psych, but it’s the same principle).  For example, over my 0-17 1NT, we’d play “range Stayman.”  If I have a real 1NT opening, we could still find our game.  But when I was fooling around, we could guarantee stopping at 2-level in a playable suit -- especially if we put a few shape constraints on garbage 1NTs:  e.g., I’ll always have a 5+ card suit, so I can pass your 2C response, bid 2M in response to Stayman [showing a 5+ card suit but no game interest], or rebid 2D [must be 5+ D, since I didn’t pass or bid 2M].  Likewise, if LHO (4^th hand) bids after my Fert 1NT, if Responder can play a conventional, card showing X, we can penalize them when opener has a real NT opening, and still get out in 2 of opener’s long suit when he was just fooling around.  Prohibiting conventions levels the playing field against wide range (fert style) 1NTs.    

 

3.  It is never permissible to make a strong, artificial opening bid, even in third seat, unless the hand contains at least 15 HCP or meets the “Rule of 24” (e.g., 14 HCP plus 10 cards in the two longest suits).    

 

I still don’t understand the problem with psyching an artificial strong opening bid, but if others do and want to bar it, this seems to do that.  Again, psyching a strong opening destroys the opponents’ methods / language.  No one designs defenses against strong openings to say, “I’m even stronger.”  Defenses against strong openings are designed to preempt, take up their space, etc. 

 

4.  In third seat, natural preemptive opening bids at the two-level or higher may be very wide ranging.  There are no restrictions on the conventions that may be used after such an opening, even if opener’s agreed HCP range exceeds 7 HCP.      

 

I thought that 7 HCP range had disappeared from ACBL requirements, so why would we need this?  You’re correct.  This restriction is still in the Gen Chart, but it’s been dropped from the Mid Chart and Super Chart.  So we don’t need #4. 

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

[Fred Gitelman]

While I think Marty's proposal is a very promising start, I don't buy the logic of what follows (and please note that it is not really Marty's logic - he is quoting others).

Details below...

On 10/9/2016 2:31 PM, Marty Harris wrote:

 

If I wanted to open 1m (<3) with 5332 shape in third seat - I do mean 5 spades, why would you want me to stop me from doing so? IOW I don’t understand your purpose in limiting shape to what applies in other seats. How does this improve on just saying anything goes in 3rd seat as long as it isn’t designed to be purely destructive?  You can open 1m with 5 spades!!  As long as you have 3 cards in the minor, it’s a natural opening so it’s legal, even if, e.g., you’re 5-2-3-3.  You could not open a short minor (0-2 cards).  This restriction is consistent with Eric, Geoff, and others saying there must be a constructive bridge reason for bidding that suit, and explicitly saying you can’t open a doubleton Major. 

   If you open in a short suit where your bid is supposed to promise length, that destroys the opponents’ methods / language.  They won’t have bids to say that they want to play in the suit you opened, especially a Major.   

Suppose it were legal to play "2-card majors"...

While opponents playing traditional methods (takeout DBLs, Michaels, etc) would surely suffer and arguably their "methods/language would be destroyed", as long as they knew in advance that their opponents were playing 2-card majors, they would surely adopt more effective counter-measures and not simply bid as if they were playing against a pair playing 5-card majors.

For example, since 2+ 1C openings have become increasingly popular, more players have started using natural 2C overcalls. In principle they could do the same sort of thing over a 2+ 1H or 1S opening.

I am not saying that I think this would be an "optimum defense" (whatever that means) or that I advocate allowing 2-card majors. My point is that IMO the "destroys the opponents' methods/language" argument is badly flawed since the opponents have an obvious counter: change their default methods and language versus opponents who play 2-card majors.

Any serious pairs' system notes will have many examples of competitive bids that mean different things depending on what the opponents are playing.

The only reason I see for allowing 2+ 1m and not 2+ 1M is that the former is popular and the latter is not (and who knows? maybe 2-card majors would be popular if it was allowed and was found to be an effective way to play).

For the record I would not want to see bridge devolve into an arms race, but let's be honest here - this is really about allowing the methods that people want to play and disallowing the methods that people don't want their opponents to play. There is no real logic to system regulations other than that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this approach. "Allow methods/style that the majority wants" is a very reasonable standard in my view, but let's not waste time concocting arguments that attempt to justify what we are doing in terms of "pure bridge reasoning". IMO the only thing that pure bridge reasoning suggests is "anything goes".

[Jan Martel]

On Oct 9, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net> wrote:

Jan, my replies are below in red.

 

From: Jan Martel [mailto:mart...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Marty Harris
Cc: geoff hampson; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

 

And now that I’ve had a chance to look carefully at this, I have some issues with it. Comments below.

On Oct 9, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Marty Harris <chim...@ameritech.net> wrote:

 

Jan, subject to appropriate full disclosure (which should include modifying our System Summary Forms), and perhaps “alert” requirements, I suggest the following for clear third seat rules:

 

1.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1 of a suit with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the opening bid either:  (a) is natural, promising 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ cards in a Major; or (b) is the same artificial catchall opening (such as a Precision 1D or a “could be short” 1C) they would make in first or second seat with the same shape, if they had normal opening strength (e.g., 11-15 HCP, but outside their 1NT range).  

 

If I wanted to open 1m (<3) with 5332 shape in third seat - I do mean 5 spades, why would you want me to stop me from doing so? IOW I don’t understand your purpose in limiting shape to what applies in other seats. How does this improve on just saying anything goes in 3rd seat as long as it isn’t designed to be purely destructive?  You canopen 1m with 5 spades!!  As long as you have 3 cards in the minor, it’s a natural opening so it’s legal, even if, e.g., you’re 5-2-3-3.  You could not open a short minor (0-2 cards).  This restriction is consistent with Eric, Geoff, and others saying there must be a constructive bridge reason for bidding that suit, and explicitly saying you can’t open a doubleton Major.  

I don’t think that what matters in your rule is whether I actually HAVE 3 cards in the minor, it’s that our AGREEMENT is fewer than 3 - that’s why I included (<3) in my comment. When a pair opens a <3 1m, the opponents have to deal with the fact that their side may have more cards in the suit than the opening bid side - why on earth does it matter that the opening bidder might also not have very many HCPs?

   If you open in a short suit where your bid is supposed to promise length, that destroys the opponents’ methods / language.  They won’t have bids to say that they want to play in the suit you opened, especially a Major.    

But a <3 1m ISN”T supposed to promise length - that’s exactly my point. Why does it matter whether I’ve chosen to bid 1C with 5332 or 4342?

 

2.  In third seat, it is legal for a pair to agree to open 1NT on anything they please.  However, a pair cannot play any conventions over their third seat 1NT opening if, by agreement, they can open 1NT in third seat with any of the following:  (a) fewer than 10 HCP, (b) a range wider than 5 HCP, or (c) shape that is not natural for 1NT (e.g., a small singleton or 5521).  If a pair has opened 1NT with such hands more than occasionally in third seat, they are deemed to have an “agreement” (i.e., an implicit understanding based on partnership history), even if they have never actually discussed it.  [Do we want to be more specific than “more than occasionally”?  E.g., “more than twice in the past year”?]  As always, a pair can agree to have different NT ranges for different vulnerabilities.  

 

I don’t think it makes any sense to restrict conventions that may be played over anything - that approach came into being because the Laws used to say that a Regulating Authority couldn’t regulate natural bids. That has now been changed so they can do so. If we want to restrict 1NT openings let’s do it honestly and not with the “no conventions” rule.  I disagree and would like to hear what others think.  

    IMO, allowing conventions over a “could be anything” 1NT allows you to do the equivalent of “controlling a psych” (technically it wouldn’t be a psych, but it’s the same principle).  For example, over my 0-17 1NT, we’d play “range Stayman.”  If I have a real 1NT opening, we could still find our game.  But when I was fooling around, we could guarantee stopping at 2-level in a playable suit -- especially if we put a few shape constraints on garbage 1NTs:  e.g., I’ll always have a 5+ card suit, so I can pass your 2C response, bid 2M in response to Stayman [showing a 5+ card suit but no game interest], or rebid 2D [must be 5+ D, since I didn’t pass or bid 2M].  Likewise, if LHO (4^thhand) bids after my Fert 1NT, if Responder can play a conventional, card showing X, we can penalize them when opener has a real NT opening, and still get out in 2 of opener’s long suit when he was just fooling around.  Prohibiting conventions levels the playing field against wide range (fert style) 1NTs.    

The fact that you called it a Fert 1NT is exactly my point - you don’t like it. If a majority of people don’t like it, then we shouldn’t allow it. But barring conventions is just a round about way of doing that and is a whole lot more complicated (note how many words it took you to describe your rule) than just saying that the agreement has to be 1NT has at least 10 HCP and a range of not more than 5 HCPs (NOTE - that’s not actually what I’d want, but if you want to limit 1NT openings to “normal” I think it’s much better to that in a straightforward way.

 

3.  It is never permissible to make a strong, artificial opening bid, even in third seat, unless the hand contains at least 15 HCP or meets the “Rule of 24” (e.g., 14 HCP plus 10 cards in the two longest suits).    

 

I still don’t understand the problem with psyching an artificial strong opening bid, but if others do and want to bar it, this seems to do that.  Again, psyching a strong opening destroys the opponents’ methods / language.  No one designs defenses against strong openings to say, “I’m even stronger.”  Defenses against strong openings are designed to preempt, take up their space, etc.  

Given that you’re obviously including a strong club in your artificial, strong, I don’t think that’s true - sure, usually it isn’t our hand if the opponents’ open a strong club, but sometimes it is. And sure, we aren’t (now) used to protecting against the opponent opening 2C without reasonable values, but we could deal with it if it were legal. 

 

4.  In third seat, natural preemptive opening bids at the two-level or higher may be very wide ranging.  There are no restrictions on the conventions that may be used after such an opening, even if opener’s agreed HCP range exceeds 7 HCP.      

 

I thought that 7 HCP range had disappeared from ACBL requirements, so why would we need this?  You’re correct.  This restriction is still in the Gen Chart, but it’s been dropped from the Mid Chart and Super Chart.  So we don’t need #4.  

It doesn’t matter,  but where are you finding this in the GCC?

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Mike Passell]

Another subject- what are the current legalities for pairs playing transfer responses to their 1 club openers to psyche the response? With X xxx Jxxx Xxxxx  to bid 1 heart showing spades? 

Sent from my iPhone

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

Marty,

What does 1b mean?  I'm not sure

Sent from my iPhone

[Marty Harris]

Eric,

 

Suppose you hold Jxxx, Txx, xx, xxxx.  If you had that same 4-3-2-4 shape in second seat with 11-13 HCP, you’d open 1D (in your system).  Therefore, in 3^rd seat, 1D is a permissible opening for you, even with the 1 HCP example hand. 

 

I was trying to implement your point that in third seat, people should not be allowed to open 1M with a singleton or doubleton (that’s purely destructive), but should be allowed to open a Precision 1D (or a “could be short” 1C) on a singleton or doubleton.    

 

From: erod...@tampabay.rr.com [mailto:erod...@tampabay.rr.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 7:48 PM
To: Marty Harris

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

Thx

Sent from my iPhone

[Robb Gordon]

I have been following this discussion with some interest – it hasn’t been easy!

 

Basically what most of us seem to agree on is that the USBF should take leadership in setting conditions of contest and systems requirements since the WBF has continually shown themselves to be feckless.

 

I totally agree with this. I think that in setting up conditions of contest for the various team trials that any bridge organization would do well to follow the thoughtfulness and deliberation that we go through and Mike Becker has certainly taken a leadership role in this regard over the years.

 

But – at some point we need to get the WBF to agree to our requirements or a close facsimile thereof. If there are significant differences it would be to our disadvantage in determining and preparing our representatives.

Clearly we don’t want to ban something that the WBF allows because our teams  would be less prepared to face that particular thing.

Clearly we don’t want to allow something that will be banned at the world level for obvious reasons.

 

What has been missing to some extent from this conversation is a workflow as to how we determine our conditions, and then how we transmit to the WBF and persuade them to adopt these things.

In doing so we will have to overcome the instinctive institutional resistance that world bridge in general has shown to American ideas.

I think that Howie in particular needs to take the reins on this aspect of it.

 

In order to better facilitate acceptance I would suggest a more gradual change when it comes to opening up 3^rd seat requirements, psyche controls, psyching (particularly strong) artificial bids, etc.

 

Robb

[Jan Martel]

One problem I have is that we really don’t know what the WBF rules are. We’ve already discussed the HUM definition, which includes things most of us would agree make a system HUM (strong pass, opening 1S with any 0-7 hand, that sort of thing, and also any opening bid that is a king or more below average strength (I think average strength means 10 HCPs, but I’m not sure).

In addition, there’s this:

"2.6 Random Openings 

It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement, may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further definition is provided."

I’m not sure what further definition is required here.

The only thing I can find in the WBF System regulations about psychs is the following defining controlled psychs as Brown Sticker:

"The following conventions or treatments are categorised as ‘Brown Sticker’:

…

"d) Psychic bids protected by system or required by system.”

Also of interest under Brown Sticker bids is:

"f) For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural and not artificial.” 

So WBF limits psychic controls but not psyching artificial bids, whether strong or not.

I’m not sure whether any of this matters, and I definitely agree with what I think is the consensus that we should implement system regulations that we think are best, without worrying about WBF or ACBL rules. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Howard Weinstein]

Since Robb is invoking my name:

I have plenty on my plate & no specific expertise or pull in this area — other than ensuring any recommendations are addressed by the USBF Board should they take shape by year end before my term as President must end by statute — but Jan remains to help take the reins (she is already a horse person).

I have previously weighed in twice on how I thought this procedure should be conducted, largely ignored.  I am not going to reiterate it a third time — but as I have mentioned twice, Chip and Kokish are on the WBF Systems Committee.  Kit is also on this committee, along with two very knowledgable top directors — Maurizio Di Sacco and Laurie Kelso, PO Sundelin as coordinator, with Anna Gudge and John Wignall as Secretary and Chair.  

This is the committee which can recommend whatever it wants, and it is highly probable all their recommendations would be accepted by the WBF Executive Council.  I am not on this committee — but if this derivatively flows over to WBF Rules and Regulations or Laws, I am on those committees and can ensure whatever is looked at.   The R & R is starting to address prevention of scoring errors and the LC is putting the finishing touches on their cycle of drafting new laws every 10 years, which will be in force sometime in 2017.

My strong recommendation is those on the WBF Systems Committee are included in these discussions and someone (not me) create a new mailing list including those active so far in this discussion and also including all the WBF System Committee members (maybe spare poor Anna until the very end).  

This would serve several purposes — the WBF SC will certainly be dealing with aspects of this in any case after the Spain protest, and having a more universal approach can only be beneficial for everyone.  I suspect they would actually appreciate constructive input (or I could be shot).  If they disagree with some of the suggestions, it would be helpful to us to know why they disagree.  The WBF Systems Committee has a far broader background of some of the issues this effort entails, having been subjected to a very broad range of stuff from around the world for years — admittedly their approach may not be as parochially applicable to US bridge, for better or worse.

The WBF Systems Committee is largely non-political and generally extremely competent.  Perhaps there was a bit too much inertia in the past in dealing with what’s allowed or potential reclassifications (I don’t really know — I am guessing).  There is strong overlap between this ITTC group and the WBF SC — both in goals and personnel, and we should be making use of it.   

After whatever the WBF SC decides by say February, if anything, then this committee should decide which rules should apply to the trials, most likely with some separate rules for our RR and the KO stages.  I do not know whether anything the WBF decides can be implemented for Lyon, but I am guessing it can be done.   Even if nothing is timely done by the WBF or we disagree with it all, getting some feedback of their thinking should help in our efforts to decide what should appropriately be allowed in the trials.

If this is the approach y’all feel you want to pursue, I or Kit or Chip or Eric can contact Wignall (the SC chair) and try to get it underway.

Howie

On Oct 9, 2016, at 9:13 PM, Robb Gordon <robbg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Greg Humphreys]

The problem runs quite deep, Jan -- not only are we not exactly sure what the wbf rules are, or how they will be enforced in practice, the rules as written are full of non sequiturs. For example, the one you quoted:

"Psychic bids protected by system or required by system.”

Is just silly. A psychic bid cannot be "required" by system, as psychic bids must be DEVIATIONS from system by definition. 

For what it's worth I strongly agree that we should just write the CoC that we think are the best CoC, abide by them, and separately discuss how to get the rest of the world to adopt them, if we even think that is necessary. Personally I think that the likelihood of our third seat regs having a direct impact on the outcome of the USBC is very small, and I think the likelihood that a team that can win the USBC would be hampered by different regs at the world championships is very small (as long as they are aware of the differences and behave accordingly). This is a very different discussion from, say, the percentage of boards played requirement, which obviously could have a very material impact on the outcome. 

The wbf regs may be inferior and opaque, but they're not so removed from reality that the winners of the team trials are going to show up at the world championship and all of a sudden discover that they are playing beach volleyball or something else they are completely unprepared for (Geoff excepted, I'm sure he's great at beach volleyball). 

I hate their rule.  

 

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

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

--

Greg Humphreys

ɯoɔ˙lıɐɯƃ@ɹǝdɯnɥ

[Jeff Aker]

The initial focus of this discussion was intended to be quite narrow, although it was clear that the scope would expand as it has. The big issues certainly need to be dealt with, but I’d like to get back (however briefly) to the original issue, which concerns pairs whose opening bid of 1C or 1D does not promise 3 cards in that suit. The letter of the law forbids widely played methods – not only opening a Precision 1d on an 8 count in 3^rd seat, but technically opening a 2+ 1C on Axxx x x AJ109xxx in any seat. The discussion we’ve had makes it clear that there’s a need to do a thorough review of the entire structure, working with the ACBL and the WBF, but we need some work on this issue as well. Marty Harris made some detailed suggestions that cover these matters, and I think they should serve as an excellent starting point. (By the way, Marty, I’d open a strong club with AKQJ109 Axx x xxx which doesn’t meet your rule, which just shows how hard it is to have rules that prescribe evaluation methods).

 

Jeff

[Fred Gitelman]

Sorry if I am being stupid or not reading carefully enough, but are people really suggesting that with:

Jxxx 10x xx xxxxx (hand changed slightly from Marty's example)

that is not OK to open 1H (which would be "purely destructive") but that it is OK to open 1S or 1D (presumably justifying this position by claiming that such calls are "not purely destructive")?

[Fred Gitelman]

Another non-sequitur:

"It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement, may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further definition is provided."

Doesn't "less than 10 spades", for example, qualify as a "further definition"?

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

[Jan Martel]

We’re (not surprisingly) wandering a little far afield. Since Marty has tried to provide some specific wording, perhaps we could discuss each of his suggestions, preferably one at a time?

I’ll start with his first one. First, I’d like to rephrase it (if both Eric R and I had difficulty understanding what was meant, maybe it should be clearer). Marty suggested:

In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1 of a suit with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the opening bid either:  (a) is natural, promising 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ cards in a Major; or (b) is the same artificial catchall opening (such as a Precision 1D or a “could be short” 1C) they would make in first or second seat with the same shape, if they had normal opening strength (e.g., 11-15 HCP, but outside their 1NT range). 

My change would be to (b) and would say: 

(b) is 1m and promises that when the minor has fewer than 3 cards, the hand has no 5 card or longer Major and no 6 card or longer minor.

I’m not advocating this rule, just trying to clarify what I think Marty means. My rewording does change the substance in one perhaps relevant way - Marty’s rule, I think, depends on what this specific pair does in first seat. I deliberately removed that - if I want to agree that in first seat my 1m opening bid is natural, but that in third seat it is catchall, I am not prevented from opening it in 3rd seat with 0. I hope that the limitation to what this specific pair does in first seat was accidental. If not, I guess we could put something in to require that the pair plays the same methods in first seat.

Now, let’s look at this rule:

Do we want to restrict agreements about shape but not HCPs? 

Do we want to limit this to 3rd seat? 

I’m reasonably confident that everyone agrees we shouldn’t have a rule that bars someone from opening Axxx,x,(x,AJTxxxx) with a <3 1m in any seat. If that’s right, we’re not agreeing with the ACBL restriction that a <3 1m has to have 10 HCP (I say “has to have” not “has to promise” deliberately, since ACBL bars psyching a short 1m opening). I’m not so confident about xxxx,x,(x,AJTxxxx). We could leave that issue for later, or we could decide to have a rule that applies to all seats.

On Oct 10, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

The initial focus of this discussion was intended to be quite narrow, although it was clear that the scope would expand as it has. The big issues certainly need to be dealt with, but I’d like to get back (however briefly) to the original issue, which concerns pairs whose opening bid of 1C or 1D does not promise 3 cards in that suit. The letter of the law forbids widely played methods – not only opening a Precision 1d on an 8 count in 3^rd seat, but technically opening a 2+ 1C on Axxx x x AJ109xxx in any seat. The discussion we’ve had makes it clear that there’s a need to do a thorough review of the entire structure, working with the ACBL and the WBF, but we need some work on this issue as well. Marty Harris made some detailed suggestions that cover these matters, and I think they should serve as an excellent starting point. (By the way, Marty, I’d open a strong club with AKQJ109 Axx x xxx which doesn’t meet your rule, which just shows how hard it is to have rules that prescribe evaluation methods).

 

Jeff

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

I hate trying to pass a rule telling us what bids are legal or illegal; so even though I do not employ the below method:

This change disallows opening 1C 2+ w either 5 card major and 5332. I have seen over time 

that the 1D unbalanced (usually 5 or 4X1) 2+ Swedish club approach results in a movement towards opening 11 point balanced  hands containing a 5 card major w 1C and (leading to 1M is sound opening or unbalanced). This method is very successful. (Yes, I think Roy and Sabine play these methods, not sure).

Yes, opening 1C w a 5332 11 (5 card major) playing 2+ standard has proven very reliable when I have experimented without telling my casual partner ANYTHING. NO DISCUSSION! It's a sound method, period.

Why are we trying to legislate bidding? We are scared of collusive cheating and moving dangerously close to "allowing only that which we understand and feel is mainstream." It is truly time for an "all bids matter movement."

Chris 

[Jan Martel]

I hate to say it, but if Chris & I agree, we’re probably right :-).

Any time you legislate what agreements are “legal” you have the problem that either you make the rule a little vague, and then it gets enforced unevenly (or even if the people enforcing are actually enforcing it evenly, some people will think that it is being enforced unevenly), or you have to have strict lines, and then some hand will be barred that “everyone” would agree should be allowed (Axxx,x,x,AJTxxxx in a <3 club system).

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Howard Weinstein]

In my mind Marty’s suggestion would not restrict opening 1C by agreement in third chair with 5332 —  as long as the hand had normalish opening values (lets say 10+ hcp) and that is the call they would make in any other position.  Any hand with less than 10 hcp would have to guarantee by agreement at least 4 of a major or 3 of a minor.   One could still psyche a shorter suit — just not by a agreement and after the first or second time it is now an implied agreement.

[Mike Passell]

Not by agreement. Wow good luck on that one 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jan Martel]

I think you are misunderstanding Marty’s proposal - he isn’t suggesting a rule for “normalish opening values” - he’s proposing a rule for opening with 0 in third seat, saying that if the shape is what you would open in first seat with 10+ HCPs, then it’s okay. Of course, you could have a rule that says opening bids with fewer than 10 HCPS have to be natural, but I don’t think that addresses common practice.

And further on Chris’ point - I hadn’t even recognized that the “rule” I articulated would bar Roy & Sabine’s 1C openings with 5332 and a major, but of course Chris is right that it would. Marty’s “rule” would allow Roy & Sabine, who open 5332 with a major 1C in first seat to open 5332 with 0 HCPs 1C in third seat, but wouldn’t allow me to do so if my first seat rule is that 1C can’t have a 5 card Major. I don’t think that makes sense, but maybe I’m being dense. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Howard Weinstein]

I may be misunderstanding it, but actually would prefer if it matched my misunderstanding — that if light it must be pseudo natural if 0 points or 5 points is in the normal realm of expectation.  I don’t think you should be allowed to systemically open 1D on 4405 0 count in third chair.

[geoff hampson]

Playing a short 1C or 1D the rules must still allow opening a hand that almost anyone would open by current standards, eg Axxx x x AJ10xxxx for the 2+ Clubbers or reverse the minors for precision pairs. I would think that better wording for possibly short minors would preclude systemically opening on fewer than 8 points period and fewer than 10 points when balanced?  Sorry for the sidetrack, this seems like an obvious and simple fix while we are in the neighborhood. 

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.

[Jan Martel]

What about xxx,xxx,AKQx,xxx? That’s balanced and less than 10 HCPs but surely you’d want to let someone open 1 Precision diamond (or 1c 2+ if you trade the minors)? Or x,-, Axxxxxx, Kxxxxx? Less than 8 HCPs but again surely you’d want to let someone open 1m (if they didn’t have a suitable higher level opening available)? Of course I’m cherry picking, but that’s the problem with hard and fast rules - there are going to be some hands for which they don’t work. Maybe it’s worth it to have rules that we can all understand and apply though, I don’t know.

And I don’t think this is a sidetrack at all - I thought we were discussing what the rules should be for opening 1m that doesn’t promise 3 cards in the suit. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[geoff hampson]

I think few people would open a can be short minor (lets call the CBS for brevity) in first or second position with AKQx 333 and out. In third I would agree many would and I would want the rules to allow that. My problem with current rule is that it excludes many hands that nobody would argue against being legal openers (I am not saying everyone would open them, simply that when opened nobody would be bothered by it).  I realize that there is a problem with deciding where to draw the line once you have decided a line needs drawing (i am not certain one does but lets assume that is what the masses want). In first or second I would say that even with great shape you shouldn't be allowed to open 7 counts at the 1 level by agreement.

[Howard Weinstein]

I don’t like the idea of essentially pure fert bids — irrespective of complete diclosure.  I do think very light 3rd chair openers can be part of good bridge, but I do not mind putting some rules in place on them.

I could live with the following: (many will hate it)

A third chair opener may systemically be light.  However, if the 3rd chair hand is opened with a suit with less than 10 hcp, it must be either lead directing or opened with that hand’s longest suit which could be opened naturally.  If 1m would be strong and artificial, the other minor may be opened if at least 3 of that minor.

I previously mentioned a hand I opened in Wroclaw with KJTx, xx, xx, JTxxx.  I  believe this hand should be allowed to open 1C, 1S, or as I did 2S.  

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

[Mike Passell]

Opening 2spades opens a new can of corn. Partner has seen it and never ever raises

Sent from my iPhone

[Gavin Wolpert]

I think that adding complex restrictions to bidding (like the one Marty suggested) is definitely the wrong approach.  The 3rd seat psych (even of a precision 1!D) is not some lethal weapon that is difficult to defend against.  We have been dealing with it whether legal or illegal for my entire bridge career.   As long as a pair indicates their 3rd seat openings are suspect and therefore that their partner may go low to protect against it, that seems like it should be good enough.   The idea that we would create a law to prevent someone from making a short suit psych because there is no cuebid available is a joke to me.  This is self policing by how -EV it is to psych short suits and how annoying it is to have team mates who come back with completely random results.  

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

--
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

--
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.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Marty Harris]

1.  I think we need to define “could be short” (“CBS”) openings as “natural” (“semi-natural” might be better as we may want to treat them differently on Gen Chart).  That simple change would solve many of the problems, allowing them to be opened on as little as 8 HCP in 1^st or 2^nd seat, and treating them the same as natural openings for 3^rd seat purposes.  [The ACBL conventions subcommittee that Tom and Danny have mentioned will be focusing on that issue this week, so if people have opinions on this issue, now is a good time to raise them).

 

2.  Howie, I’m ok with most of your proposal, but it doesn’t work for CBS 1C systems.  1D is not a strong opening in that system, yet CBS one clubbers should be allowed to open the same balanced hands as Precision 1D pairs.  I think part of the confusion arises from trying to have one rule cover both 1M and 1m openings.  How about this:

 

1a.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1H or 1S with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the bid is natural (i.e., promises at least 4 cards in the suit opened). 

 

1b.  In third seat, a pair may agree to open 1C or 1D with any strength, including 0 HCP, as long as the bid either:  (a) is natural, or (b) is a “could be short” catchall because, with this shape, their system forces them to open in this minor (if they’re going to open 1-of-a-suit).  (This can occur, for example, if opening 1-of-the-other-minor would be strong and artificial [e.g., a Precision 1C], if opening the other minor would promise greater length there [1D might promise 4+ or 5+ diamonds], or for other systemic reasons.)

 

No one seems to be concerned about “fert” 1C or 1D openings.  The concerns (for those who prefer to avoid “anything goes”) seem to be focused on:  (a) opening 1M with shortness there, which destroys the opponents’ bidding language for finding a fit in that Major; or (b) opening a fert 1NT with just about anything.     

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 7:58 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: geoff hampson; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

 

I don’t like the idea of essentially pure fert bids — irrespective of complete diclosure.  I do think very light 3rd chair openers can be part of good bridge, but I do not mind putting some rules in place on them.

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

 

 

[Mike Passell]

Gavin couldn't have put it better. Anything goes as long as full disclosure is in place 

Sent from my iPhone

[Chris Compton]

I agree completely w Gavin and that we can handle 95% of anything through the system summary form, alerts and disclosure. I would like to just say that a 2+ diamond or 2+ club is neither artificial not nor conventional. 

Chris 

[Danny]

Right now most SSFs seem to say 'very light 3d seat openings'.  I would think that pairs that very seldom pass could say even more than that.  It would also be instructive to see what hands they DO pass.

Danny

[Al Hollander]

Premature jump

 

If one intent is to help drive changes to the WBF regulations, then

“Could Be Short” in most of this thread matches Chris’ 2+, which is consistent with what is used by the Big Clubbers in recent Open and Senior USBCs

But at least one frequent partnership in the Women’s USBC and many Bulgarian and Chinese Big Clubbers in WBF events play 1D=0+ or 1+

I’m not sure if the English Open Team still has a pair that uses a non-forcing 1C=1+

 

So, if driving WBF changes really is a goal, there either needs to be consistency in what is meant by “could be short” [IMO an obscene ACBL driven anti full disclosure phrase] or verbiage must be specific about minimum number of cards in the opened suit. Then, except for the few who have specifically said any length, others must decide if their stance is

a)       Length independent

b)      2+ vs 3+

c)       1+ vs 3+

 

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Compton
Sent: Monday 10 October 2016 19:34
To: Mike Passell <mnpa...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Gavin Wolpert <gavinw...@gmail.com>; International Team Trials Committee <usbf...@googlegroups.com>; gham...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Digest for usbf...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic

 

I agree completely w Gavin and that we can handle 95% of anything through the system summary form, alerts and disclosure. I would like to just say that a 2+ diamond or 2+ club is neither artificial not nor conventional. 

Chris 

On Oct 10, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Mike Passell <mnpa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[geoff hampson]

I think there could be a CBS notation that says naturalish or balanced as compared with alert which is can be shorter than 2?

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.

--
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 Harris]

Al, in my proposal, “CBS” means the minor could be as short as a singleton (e.g., all 4441 hands open 1C, if a 1D opening requires 5 in your system).  I understand that when CBS promises 2+ it’s merely an announcement, whereas if it could be a singleton it’s an alert.  But I don’t believe that affects what should be permitted in third seat openings.   

[Chris Compton]

I am not sure how to make this point, but here goes. 

A state statute criminalizing DUI might read: "under the influence of alcohol while operating a motorized vehicle"  the prosecutor has to prove the elements of the crime:under the influence and driving the car. A relatively clear, short sentence, capable of widespread and even application.

A state statute criminalizing improper influence or corruption of a state officeholder will be two or three paragraphs long. The prosecution under such a statute is open to incredible interpretation and turns into a political sideshow immediately. 

What I see in Marty's proposal is something that is not relatively clear and will be applied unevenly leading to uproar, allegations of favoritism, and divisiveness. 

I would rather begin by passing a motion that 2+ minor opening is nether artificial nor a convention and then step back and see what else needs to be done. Simple.

In an effort at full disclosure: a precision 2D opening with QXxx Kxxx K QJxx  has proven over time to be inferior to opening 1D. This has been discussed between partners but is extraordinarily rare. Am I going to get busted for

Opening 1D? 

A statute 

Chris 

[Tom Carmichael]

Chris,

With the recent change to the NT opening requirements as to what is considered natural, the wording on the rule could be phrased referencing "balanced" in the NT sense rather than of "2+".  i.e., singleton A/K/Q exempted.  A good point though, If that's the direction the USBF wants to go (which it sounds like it is).

Tom

[At&t Yahoo!©2013]

Chris,

Sometimes it is a very thin line between determining what works better for

a partnership, your example being a good one with the singleton diamond K being

thought to be safer (or more constructive) to open one diamond rather than two diamonds, likely having to do with the singleton diamond K's worth too great a percentage of the overall strength of the hand and thus realistically not sufficient strength wise to open 2 of anything.

However, what about the rights of the opponents in specifically having to deal with Precision diamond openings which then can have such wide distributional holdings, concentrating on short diamond length.

The lines of demarcation are undoubtedly cloudy when the above two factors collide. My long term experience concerning relatively weak opening bids, leads me to believe

that wily opponents are more interested in raining on their opponents parade than

worrying about relatively close percentage offensive advantages.

When it is specifically mentioned by competitors at high International levels that constructive bidding has now reached a point which is hard to overcome, methinks

the solution should be directed along the same lines as to either emulate them or

wonder of wonders, even surpass them, rather than to be able to just throw tacks

in the road to confuse and thus poison them.

At least, I, at one time, thought our country stood for excellence rather than standing

for attempting to prevent it from others.

Just perhaps what is now happening in World Bridge and its champions is a test for

all of us (or rather all of you) to determine what should be done to measure up and if so, perhaps different revelations (although economically dangerous) become the Yellow Brick Road on the road to somewhere instead of either nowhere or even worse, only destructive to those who really love the game.

Sincerely,

Bobby

[Greg Humphreys]

Marty - for what it's worth this is not the acbl rule; any non forcing opener that could be less than 3 cards is a CBS announcement. 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/AlertChart.pdf

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.

--
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.

--

Greg Humphreys

ɯoɔ˙lıɐɯƃ@ɹǝdɯnɥ

[Howard Weinstein]

This is not what my impression is.  I thought announcing CBS over 1C applied to if it could be a 4432 hand, and those like me, who play it could be 3352 or conceivably 5332 with a bad major or even 2452, require an alert.   I actually think this is probably the right approach as far as alerting — CBS is not sufficiently proactive on disclosure.  I do think either of those approaches should be considered “natural".  

As far as a Precision 1D opener, I think it should be considered “natural” if it promises either 2+ or if would be permitted to be opened 1N by the new ACBL rules if it was within the correct hcp range.   I think if the natural variety (2+) it should be announced as CBS, if often 0 or 1, then should be alerted.  I could go either way if stiff king is one of the rare possibilities.

[Eric Rodwell]

Michael,

I have to strongly disagree with the “follow the WBF” idea for several reasons:

  1.  It isn’t clear what their rules are in every situation, as noted by others.

  2.  They can change their COC rules on site if they choose.

  3.  They have at least one really terrible rule:  a player can get a medal

          without having to play any boards.  Also, I think most prefer, for

          our events, a 1/2 board requirement rather than the 1/3 for the

          RR in the WBF.

  4.  The ACBL sometimes leads in areas of Law Interpretation, and/or

          COC such as screen conditions.  We don’t want to have to wait

          for them to agree.

  5.  We don’t have a HUM system designation in our COC at all.

  6.  We use the SSF and ACBL convention card, not the WBF

          convention card.

  7.  Some things permitted in WBF events when HUM systems are

          allowed, are always disallowed in the USBF:  Forcing Pass

          systems, openings of 1M that promise either length or shortness

          in the M, etc.  If I’m not quite up to snuff on what the WBF

          currently allows, my apologies.

Getting back to the main question, I remember reading one of

Terence Reece’s books 40+ years ago, where he was Declaring

a slam vs a “psychic” 3rd seat opening.  It turned out on this

hand that the 3rd seat opening was a “squeal” as it not

infrequently is.  So, very light 3rd seat openings have been

around a very long time.

The WBF clearly didn’t have much interest in pursuing the

light 3rd seat opening allegations made by Spain against

Bathurst-Lall.  To get back to the main question, IMO

  .light (or ultralight) 3rd seat openings are fine, but disclosure

     matters.

  .same rules should apply to CBS minor openings.

E

On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Michael Rosenberg <micr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree there is little logic to proscribing 3rd seat psyches.

But I think there is even less logic in allowing strategies that would help qualify for an event, when those strategies are not permitted in the event itself.  The idea should be for us to enable the qualifier that has the best chance to win.  It's counter-productive to let a strategy, that will be illegal, knock out another team.

I suggest a two-pronged approach:

1) Use whatever influence we have to try to get the WBF to change their position(s) where we think something else is better.  And keep doing this.

2) Where we fail on (1), TEMPORARILY follow the WBF rule(s) in our qualifying event.

This approach spans more than one issue.  For example, if we think all players should have to play 50% to be legitimate members of the team, try to get the WBF to change to that.  But if they don't, one-third (what the WBF has now) should be sufficient.  Sorry - not meaning this a change of subject.  Rather, I'm suggesting what our approach should be for 3rd seat openers (artificial or otherwise) - and every other issue.

Michael 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, <usbf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids - 25 Updates

USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 12:16PM In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3rd 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 <danny...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:45AM -0400 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

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:52AM -0400 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.

george <nobe...@aol.com>: Oct 07 09:54AM -0400 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       -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> To: Usbf-Ittc@Googlegroups. USBF <usbf...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Oct 7, 2016 7:16 am Subject: USBF Systems Regulations re 1m opening bids       In light of the incident at the recent World Championships involving the allegation that a pair playing Precision never or rarely passed when 3rd 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.

-- 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.

Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:56AM -0400 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   On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 10:09AM -0400 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 <fr...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 07:32AM -0700 On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:   > 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 <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 10:36AM -0400 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: Oct 07 10:41AM -0400 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   In a message dated 10/7/2016 10:27:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fr...@bridgebase.com writes:   On 10/7/2016 7:09 AM, Michael Kamil wrote:   > 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.

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 02:45PM 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<mailto:fre...@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<mailto: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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@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 <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 11:04AM -0400 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.

"Marty Harris" <chim...@ameritech.net>: Oct 07 10:10AM -0500 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-ittc@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: usbf...@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com <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: usbf...@googlegroups.com <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 <fr...@bridgebase.com <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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <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.

Uday Ivatury <ud...@bridgebase.com>: Oct 07 11:25AM -0400 > 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 <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:26AM -0400 im not sure we know what the rule for WBF will be. I think they revise it pretty often.     -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

mec...@aol.com: Oct 07 11:28AM -0400 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

Marty Fleisher <marty@dearborncapitalpartners.com>: Oct 07 11:31AM -0400 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   -- Martin Fleisher 7 Times Square 27th floor New York, NY 10036-6516 (p) 212-767-7307 (c) 347-766-7696

Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com>: Oct 07 03:40PM 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   From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 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-ittc@googlegroups.com> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:05 AM To: Jeff Aker Cc: Fred Gitelman; usbf...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usbf-ittc@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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<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 <fr...@bridgebase.com<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@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.

Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 08:46AM -0700 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

> 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 <mailto:usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.   Jan Martel mart...@gmail.com

Nik Demirev <nikde...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 03:48PM 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 <   -- Nik Demirev

Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 12:07PM -0400 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.

Howard Weinstein <howiewe...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:12AM -0700 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.

Chris Compton <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:42AM -0600 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 <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:47AM -0600 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 <chrisc...@mindspring.com>: Oct 07 11:58AM -0600 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

Robb Gordon <robbg...@gmail.com>: Oct 07 11:01AM -0700 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   On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Chris Compton <chrisc...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Compton]

Can we put this WBF following to rest? It soles up every year or two and we always land the same place? We pay attention to what the WBF does and then try to see what is best. Anyone wanting to follow the WBF is simply NOT evaluating the performance of the WBF. Please, when the WBF earns anyone's respect can we revisit? Michale R, I have to admit i  am in total amazement of your opinion???? 

Chris 

[michael.d...@gmail.com]

While I agree with Chris that I wouldn't follow the WBF rules/regs, MR's argument surely seems reasonable.  We are, after all, holding a trial for THEIR tournament played by THEIR rules.

Hardly amazing for Michael (or others) to argue for that.  

I just don't think it's of any consequence whether we have slightly different rules during qualifying.  I doubt it will effect a winning team in any tangible way to shift to WBF regs once having qualified.

Sent from my iPhone

[Michael Rosenberg]

Eric: I see your points 1-2, 4 and 6 as irrelevant to my opinion.  I'm not saying we should always mirror WBF.  I'm saying in certain systemic areas it is counter-productive to be 'different'.  

Nos 5 and 7 are important - and perhaps shows that we should allow HUM in KO stages of our Trials which qualify for the Bermuda Bowl..

Let's take a hypothetical.  Imagine that we thought it a good thing to allow psyches of artificial bids, but WBF does not allow them.  We let a team play these psyches in the Trials and they qualify - either because the strategy is actually effective, or because it was effective on those particular hands.

  Now that team, unable to implement it's winning strategy (without which they are ineffective) , does poorly in the WBF event - whereas the team(s) they beat would have been more competitive.

Do you see a problem with this scenario?  If there is none, I guess you are right and we should ignore WBF COC.

If we plan to attend WBF events, it seems logical to me that we create the qualifier(s) with the best percentage chance to win them.

usbf...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

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

On Friday, October 7, 2016, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@googlegroups.com');> [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com');>] On Behalf Of Michael Kamil Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Fred Gitelman Cc: usbf...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','usbf-i...@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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fred@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<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 usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@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<mailto:usbf-ittc+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

Back to top

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.

[Chris Compton]

This is where we always get to. Item by item we see what to do. All is am asking is to not recapture the same issues continually. 

Chris 

[Greg Humphreys]

I think the announcement is terrible,  but the rule is written in clear language in the document I linked.