Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

[Jan Martel]

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Howard Weinstein]

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

Howie

--
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]

Kit sent this only to me, but told me to forward to the list.

From: Kit Woolsey <kwoo...@fibs.com>

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

Date: December 25, 2016 at 3:38:00 PM PST

To: mart...@gmail.com (Jan Martel)

Absolutely.  They have done a great job on it.

I made some comments on areas where I thought they needed improvement.  Most of them are in the ares where they say : "could
have been".  A main example is:

Playing 10-12 NT, can one leagally open a 9-count?  It is very unclear.

Actually for the USBF that restriction should be lifted entirely IMO (after all, it is only there to protect the guppies).  
And there is no such restriction in the WBF.  I think in areas where the WBF isn't screwing up, we should adopt WBF policy.

Kit

[Marty Fleisher]

it's not clear to me if a nebulous 1c or precision 1d are artificial
openings under these definitions.

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

--
Martin Fleisher
7 Times Square
27th floor
New York, NY 10036-6516
(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[Alan Frank]

I would suggest a definition along the lines of calling a one-of-a-minor
opening natural if (a) on average, you will have at least one more card
in the bid suit than in the other minor and (b) it denies a five-card
major unless the bid suit is at least five cards.

Playing standard with a strong notrumps, 1C on average holds about 1.35
cards more than diamonmds. A 1D opener, or playing weak NT or four-card
majors will increase the difference.

Playing Precision a la Kit (where 2C promises a six-card suit), 1D
averages .33 more cards in D than C. Allowing 2C with five clubs and a
four-card major increases the difference to .73. Both assume a 2D
opener for 4=4=1=4.

--Alan

[Chris Compton]

The nebulous 1C nebulous 1D are quasi natural under the proposed charts.

Chris

[Howard Weinstein]

quasi natural, yet essentially treated as artificial under the current rules.

[Kit Woolsey]

That is true only if they are balanced hands if they are "short". Thus, if a Precision 1D opener may be made on a singleton,
then it is defined as artificial, not quasi-natural.

I believe the same restrictions on artificial oveercalls (whatever is chosen) should be the same for quasi-natural 1m openings
as for natural 1m openings. They are not on the present gold chart.

[Sam Dinkin]

The gold chart and platinum chart are very good. 

I'm with Kit on permitting 9 point NTs 1st/2nd. I'd add the rest of near average and allow the platinum chart treatment of Natural NT even in the round robin (gold chart + small singletons) for permissible patterns.

I think an announcement for quasi-natural is best (like "could be as short as 1") and an alert for could be as short as 0. And again, the Platinum Chart treatment for quasi-natural permitting small singletons. 

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

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

[Howard Weinstein]

Alan’s method of determining “natural”  gets far too complex, IMO.

My preferred choice of definitions for natural would be either:

1)  NF, either with a hand which most partnerships would often open 1N if within the prescribed point range or 4+ of that suit

or instead:

2)  NF with any hand which promises 2+ of that suit.  While not my preference, you could also add there is no suit more than two cards longer.

I could see calling a 4225 hand opening 1D quasi natural, or choosing to open some 2452 hands as 1C quasi natural, or perhaps even a 3352 or some 5332’s quasi natural.  I cannot see calling a 4342 1C quasi natural when 4432 is natural.  

However, pragmatically these would be my definitions: An artificial 1C opener applies to forcing openings which may include any shape; quasi-natural 1C or 1D if it does not fit this definition of artificial, yet the suit could 0/1; and natural if NF and promises at least 2.

In any event, this is too fine of a distinction for how it is effectively treated at the table.  Whatever makes it natural or quasi-natural should be irrelevant for what the opponents are allowed to play.  Under any definition of quasi-natural, that opening being natural-like vs. a forcing true artificial opening (which may contain a strong and completely artificial variant) is night and day — this is where the line of what is allowed should be drawn. 

Howie

Disclaimer:  I play a system where one is allowed to use one’s bridge judgment, 1C may be optionally be opened on 5332 with a very bad major, systemically is with 3352 (other than optional 3rd chair), or on semi-balanced hands where opening 1D feels too mis-descriptive (typically awful diamonds).  These are disclosed after a 1C opener, they remain relatively unexpected, and there are no systemic methods to discover these hand types.  Not to beat a dead horse, but the key on all these is not what should be allowed against them, but that they are fully disclosed.

--
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.

[Chris Compton]

Please keep Danny Sprung on all all correspondence. He is chair of the sub committee for competition and conventions And he has done enormous work. Yes, we are the USBF, but continuity is desirable if not required.

Chris

[mec...@aol.com]

Kit and Sam,

You are very wrong about 9 point NT openers. This is clearly defined as a destructive method and therefore disallowed. 9 point NT's are a license to steal. This line has been drawn clearly in ACBL regulations for over 20 years, if 9 is allowed then what about a great 8, etc.

JM

Sent from my iPhone

[Chris Compton]

Jeff, regarding the 8-10 NT I respectfully disagree. All preempts can be defined as destructive. FWIW: playing no system over a 3rd seat NT is only a minor hindrance. 8-10 NT are just preempting 1N. I would not play the method if it were legal, but I see constructive merit. Why is it a license to steal when everyone knows what my range is? (You can stop a pair from psyching a sign off over an 8-10 NT as a middle regulatory position) I am not scared that my opponents are ahead of me with "illegal implicit or explicit agreements."

Opening all 10HCP hands Non vul is designed to blow out opponents with two balanced opening hands. It's a license to steal just as much as an 8-10 1N.

Separately, when it goes pass pass to me and I am non vul w a bad hand, then my partnership's job is to reach 1M w a 7 card fit, 2M w an 8 card fit, 3M w a 9 card fit and 4M w a 10 card fit. The same goals apply to minor suit fits, but they are harder to obtain have more risk and do need t block the major suits effectively.

Someone said on an earlier thread that they would be "glad" if their opponents opened all 0-3 point hand non vul in third seat. As you can surmise, I believe it not only to be a viable method, but I wonder if it is not, in fact, a correct method. I am not in 3rd position non vul a "sitting duck" --- just sitting their waiting to allow my opponents their very accurate 4th seat constructive methods (partner a passed hand makes relay for example, much easier). I am there in third position to carve into my negative equity with obstruction. I will risk 800 to avoid 620 (minus 1100 to avoid 1430).

All carding systems are a license to steal because cards are rectangular and may be played in multiple directions. Should we outlaw all carding?

I will be sad if we dumb down bridge in an unsuccessful and misguided attempt to catch concealed agreements.

Chris

[geoff hampson]

Jeff; Bocchi-Madala opened a 9 point 10-12 1NT in a finals vs team Diamond and there was no penalty assesed.  I think ACBL relaxed their position on that rule over the years.

> 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.

[Howard Weinstein]

I don’t have a particularly strong (or weak) opinion on the NT ranges. I suppose you could frame it as the ACBL allowing 11 as a minimum range with a point leeway for upgrading.

[Jeff Aker]

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

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.

[Brad Moss]

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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.

[geoff hampson]

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

[Jeff Aker]

Geoff and Brad,

I’d like to address your comments together, because I think that you’re at the crux of the matter. Brad, I don’t think the poker analogy is quite apt. In poker, if the other players don’t know your tendencies, that’s their hard luck. The way for them to find out is to play against you. Bridge isn’t like that. You need to disclose your agreements. If you want to open 1c on your example hand, that’s ok with me, but not if you alert and say “ 16+ points, any shape” when your partner knows that you might have this hand. Geoff, this goes to your point as well. The language you suggest is excellent, but I think it  should be used by the pair to describe their methods, not by the administrative body to constrain those methods.

Having said this, I’m aware that the ACBL has different issues than do we at the USBF. Running a large variety of events creates problems that we don’t have, or at least that we’re better placed to deal with. Every pair has to submit a System Summary Form well in advance. The only two people who I know for sure read them all are myself and Michael Rosenberg. I’d like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their proper completion. Then I think we’ll be able to allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

 

Jeff

 

From: geoff hampson [mailto:gham...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:19 PM
To: Brad Moss
Cc: Howard Weinstein; Jeff Aker; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

 

On Dec 27, 2016 8:11 PM, "Brad Moss" <bradfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Moss]

Jeff,

from a game theory perspective I completely disagree with you.  suppose one is down 30 imps in the final segment of a match. there is no relevance of tendencies.  it simply is math to generate "jump balls" that have reasonable expectations of success.  your approach will make it positive EV to do away with bridge almost entirely and create a poker hand that puts enormous pressure on the opponents. I agree with your general ideas, and this situation obviously occurs to varying degrees already, but making people deal with complete psyches of strong artificial openers is a bridge to making the game far less skillful by rendering the meat of a match less significant to the outcome.  it will increase the random factor by a lot. 

brad 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Moss]

lets take another hypothetical:

all other psyches have exactly a 40% chance of success and an expectation of minus 1 imp a board. psyching a 2c opener has a 50% chance of success and a 0 imp expectation.  if you play on a team weaker than your opponent, then you might increase your chances of success by opening 2c on every hand.  obviously this is a silly example; I'm simply trying to say that I believe a point exists where it will adversely effect the game to allow an anything goes approach. for my money, the opening of a strong artifice hand crosses that threshold. 

[Jeff Aker]

Brad,

Sure, but why does it matter that the bid is artificial? In a similar situation in a Spingold match a couple of years, playing Precision, I psyched a 2h response to 1s (without a spade fit). This was still risky, but I was willing to take my chances at the state of the match. If you want to bar psyches of artificial bids, that does no violence to the laws and I suppose that I understand the argument that policing such things is too difficult for them to be allowable. However, if it’s your judgment that x Akqjxxxx xx xx is too strong for a 1h opening in a strong club context it’s ok for me try to convince you that the lack of defense makes this a bad idea, just as it’s ok for me to try to convince someone else that’s it a poor idea to open a strong club on kq kq qjxxx qjxx because of the lack of offense as well as defense.  My point was that I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it illegal to open 1c on your example as a matter of routine partnership agreement.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad Moss
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff,

 

from a game theory perspective I completely disagree with you.  suppose one is down 30 imps in the final segment of a match. there is no relevance of tendencies.  it simply is math to generate "jump balls" that have reasonable expectations of success.  your approach will make it positive EV to do away with bridge almost entirely and create a poker hand that puts enormous pressure on the opponents. I agree with your general ideas, and this situation obviously occurs to varying degrees already, but making people deal with complete psyches of strong artificial openers is a bridge to making the game far less skillful by rendering the meat of a match less significant to the outcome.  it will increase the random factor by a lot. 

 

brad 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Geoff and Brad,

I’d like to address your comments together, because I think that you’re at the crux of the matter. Brad, I don’t think the poker analogy is quite apt. In poker, if the other players don’t know your tendencies, that’s their hard luck. The way for them to find out is to play against you. Bridge isn’t like that. You need to disclose your agreements. If you want to open 1c on your example hand, that’s ok with me, but not if you alert and say “ 16+ points, any shape” when your partner knows that you might have this hand. Geoff, this goes to your point as well. The language you suggest is excellent, but I think it  should be used by the pair to describe their methods, not by the administrative body to constrain those methods.

Having said this, I’m aware that the ACBL has different issues than do we at the USBF. Running a large variety of events creates problems that we don’t have, or at least that we’re better placed to deal with. Every pair has to submit a System Summary Form well in advance. The only two people who I know for sure read them all are myself and Michael Rosenberg. I’d like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their proper completion. Then I think we’ll be able to allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

 

Jeff

 

From: geoff hampson [mailto:gham...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:19 PM
To: Brad Moss
Cc: Howard Weinstein; Jeff Aker; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

On Dec 27, 2016 8:11 PM, "Brad Moss" <bradfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Moss]

it matters because of the difficulty to defend against. it inherently creates huge swings where the outcome is pure poker, and the returns might be asymmetric.  in your example actions have occurred before the bid in question.  players have more information to make a bridge judgement.  defending against a possible psyched 2c opener is not a bridge battle.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[Marty Harris]

Jeff,

 

I agree with Brad and Geoff.  When you make a strong artificial opening, you often change the opponents’ bidding language.  Very reasonably, they switch to bidding methods that simply show shape without worrying about strength (e.g., CRASH), as your opening has announced that they can’t have the values for game (absent a big fit and distributional hands).  That leaves them without a fair chance to defend against a psychic strong artificial opening (i.e., to figure out that it’s “their hand” and they should be bidding game).

 

On top of that, as Brad mentioned, allowing psychic strong 2C openings creates a pure guessing situation that randomizes match outcomes.  If your opponent really has 22-24 balanced, it’s foolhardy for you to overcall 2M with 12 HCP and a 5 card suit.  Yet if he can have AKQxxxxx, x, Kxx, x, it becomes imperative that you overcall or you’ll be robbed blind.  The rules should not encourage people to play poker by creating pure guessing situations.  It decreases the skill element, or at least the odds that skill (rather than guessing well) will determine the outcome.  It’s the same as the rationale for prohibiting “fert” bids that simply raise the level and use up space without showing anything about the bidder’s hand (other than possession of 13 cards). 

 

Finally, as you mentioned, “I understand the argument that policing [psyches of artificial bids] is too difficult for them to be allowable.”  Full disclosure sounds great in theory.  In practice, it’s unrealistic to expect that many pairs will truly provide full disclosure – and equally unrealistic to expect the opponents or directors to have the data necessary to call them on the mis-info.  In practice, the partner of the opening bidder will have a far better idea about how likely it is that his partner has used a strong 1C or 2C opening as a psychic preempt without really having a strong hand.  

 

Marty

[Jeff Aker]

This is still a different issue than the one I was focusing on, which is the inadvisability of using a formula to regulate judgment. A psych by definition is a violation of partnership agreement. No one has the agreement to open a strong artificial 2c on xxxx xxx xxx xxx (to use an extreme example) However, someone might have the agreement to open 2c on AKqxxxxxxx x x x. I would allow them to so, if properly disclosed. If you think that’s a bad idea, because it’s too hard to play against, how do you respond to a pair who wants to open that hand 2s, playing that it’s natural, 4+ spades and either 23+ HCP or 9+ playing tricks. The laws don’t allow you to make that illegal.

 

Jeff

 

From: Brad Moss [mailto:bradfor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 9:05 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

it matters because of the difficulty to defend against. it inherently creates huge swings where the outcome is pure poker, and the returns might be asymmetric.  in your example actions have occurred before the bid in question.  players have more information to make a bridge judgement.  defending against a possible psyched 2c opener is not a bridge battle.

 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Brad,

Sure, but why does it matter that the bid is artificial? In a similar situation in a Spingold match a couple of years, playing Precision, I psyched a 2h response to 1s (without a spade fit). This was still risky, but I was willing to take my chances at the state of the match. If you want to bar psyches of artificial bids, that does no violence to the laws and I suppose that I understand the argument that policing such things is too difficult for them to be allowable. However, if it’s your judgment that x Akqjxxxx xx xx is too strong for a 1h opening in a strong club context it’s ok for me try to convince you that the lack of defense makes this a bad idea, just as it’s ok for me to try to convince someone else that’s it a poor idea to open a strong club on kq kq qjxxx qjxx because of the lack of offense as well as defense.  My point was that I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it illegal to open 1c on your example as a matter of routine partnership agreement.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad Moss
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff,

 

from a game theory perspective I completely disagree with you.  suppose one is down 30 imps in the final segment of a match. there is no relevance of tendencies.  it simply is math to generate "jump balls" that have reasonable expectations of success.  your approach will make it positive EV to do away with bridge almost entirely and create a poker hand that puts enormous pressure on the opponents. I agree with your general ideas, and this situation obviously occurs to varying degrees already, but making people deal with complete psyches of strong artificial openers is a bridge to making the game far less skillful by rendering the meat of a match less significant to the outcome.  it will increase the random factor by a lot. 

 

brad 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Geoff and Brad,

I’d like to address your comments together, because I think that you’re at the crux of the matter. Brad, I don’t think the poker analogy is quite apt. In poker, if the other players don’t know your tendencies, that’s their hard luck. The way for them to find out is to play against you. Bridge isn’t like that. You need to disclose your agreements. If you want to open 1c on your example hand, that’s ok with me, but not if you alert and say “ 16+ points, any shape” when your partner knows that you might have this hand. Geoff, this goes to your point as well. The language you suggest is excellent, but I think it  should be used by the pair to describe their methods, not by the administrative body to constrain those methods.

Having said this, I’m aware that the ACBL has different issues than do we at the USBF. Running a large variety of events creates problems that we don’t have, or at least that we’re better placed to deal with. Every pair has to submit a System Summary Form well in advance. The only two people who I know for sure read them all are myself and Michael Rosenberg. I’d like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their proper completion. Then I think we’ll be able to allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

 

Jeff

 

From: geoff hampson [mailto:gham...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:19 PM
To: Brad Moss
Cc: Howard Weinstein; Jeff Aker; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

On Dec 27, 2016 8:11 PM, "Brad Moss" <bradfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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]

Many good points by all here. 

 The subcommittee is working for a different goal than the USBF.  We could try to have a large number of different charts for different levels.  My opinion is that this would be bad for the game, as players would need to spend more time away from the table refining their systems for each chart.  I think we can agree that is not desirable.

Having 'Bright Lines' for bids that are regulated is very desirable for most bridge events.  If you don't the game does evolve into Brad's 'poker'.   Having definable rules for Strong forcing bids is very important for the defense.  If you can open 1 or 2 Clubs on defenseless hands, and psyches, it becomes a very different situation for the opponents when they try to devise the appropriate defense.  It also makes the rules easier for the directors to apply.

I see Marty has made similar points to mine in a cross posting.

Danny

[Danny Sprung]

Jeff:

Why do you think the laws can't bar your 2S bid?  It is artificial, so even in the old days it was subject to regulation.

Danny

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[Jeff Aker]

Marty,

You’ve framed the issue well. First, let’s put aside the issue of psyching for the moment, except to defined what it is and isn’t. If my partnership agreement is that Akqxxxxx x kxx x is a 2c opener, then opening 2c isn’t a psych. The argument that it’s hard to play against is a reason that a pair might adopt it. I get that there’s a disclosure issue, which is why this thread is meant for USBF, not ACBL purposes. We’re in a much better position to enforce proper disclosure and punish its absence. Having bids with narrow limits makes it easier for both sides. Having wider limits helps in some ways and hurts in others. See my reply to Brad in another email. I presume that if you could, you’d make it illegal to open 2s on your example hand. I believe that the laws don’t allow. They allow you to bar an opening 2c, but it’s an extremely poor idea in my opinion, at least in the USBF.

 

Jeff

[Jeff Aker]

Danny,

Why is it artificial? Because it’s forcing? Can you show where in the laws that it can be outlawed? Not a rhetorical question. I’m surprised and I’d like to know.

 

Jeff

 

From: Danny Sprung [mailto:danny...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: Brad Moss; geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff:

 

Why do you think the laws can't bar your 2S bid?  It is artificial, so even in the old days it was subject to regulation.

 

Danny

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

This is still a different issue than the one I was focusing on, which is the inadvisability of using a formula to regulate judgment. A psych by definition is a violation of partnership agreement. No one has the agreement to open a strong artificial 2c on xxxx xxx xxx xxx (to use an extreme example) However, someone might have the agreement to open 2c on AKqxxxxxxx x x x. I would allow them to so, if properly disclosed. If you think that’s a bad idea, because it’s too hard to play against, how do you respond to a pair who wants to open that hand 2s, playing that it’s natural, 4+ spades and either 23+ HCP or 9+ playing tricks. The laws don’t allow you to make that illegal.

 

Jeff

 

From: Brad Moss [mailto:bradfor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 9:05 AM

To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

it matters because of the difficulty to defend against. it inherently creates huge swings where the outcome is pure poker, and the returns might be asymmetric.  in your example actions have occurred before the bid in question.  players have more information to make a bridge judgement.  defending against a possible psyched 2c opener is not a bridge battle.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Brad,

Sure, but why does it matter that the bid is artificial? In a similar situation in a Spingold match a couple of years, playing Precision, I psyched a 2h response to 1s (without a spade fit). This was still risky, but I was willing to take my chances at the state of the match. If you want to bar psyches of artificial bids, that does no violence to the laws and I suppose that I understand the argument that policing such things is too difficult for them to be allowable. However, if it’s your judgment that x Akqjxxxx xx xx is too strong for a 1h opening in a strong club context it’s ok for me try to convince you that the lack of defense makes this a bad idea, just as it’s ok for me to try to convince someone else that’s it a poor idea to open a strong club on kq kq qjxxx qjxx because of the lack of offense as well as defense.  My point was that I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it illegal to open 1c on your example as a matter of routine partnership agreement.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad Moss
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff,

 

from a game theory perspective I completely disagree with you.  suppose one is down 30 imps in the final segment of a match. there is no relevance of tendencies.  it simply is math to generate "jump balls" that have reasonable expectations of success.  your approach will make it positive EV to do away with bridge almost entirely and create a poker hand that puts enormous pressure on the opponents. I agree with your general ideas, and this situation obviously occurs to varying degrees already, but making people deal with complete psyches of strong artificial openers is a bridge to making the game far less skillful by rendering the meat of a match less significant to the outcome.  it will increase the random factor by a lot. 

 

brad 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Geoff and Brad,

I’d like to address your comments together, because I think that you’re at the crux of the matter. Brad, I don’t think the poker analogy is quite apt. In poker, if the other players don’t know your tendencies, that’s their hard luck. The way for them to find out is to play against you. Bridge isn’t like that. You need to disclose your agreements. If you want to open 1c on your example hand, that’s ok with me, but not if you alert and say “ 16+ points, any shape” when your partner knows that you might have this hand. Geoff, this goes to your point as well. The language you suggest is excellent, but I think it  should be used by the pair to describe their methods, not by the administrative body to constrain those methods.

Having said this, I’m aware that the ACBL has different issues than do we at the USBF. Running a large variety of events creates problems that we don’t have, or at least that we’re better placed to deal with. Every pair has to submit a System Summary Form well in advance. The only two people who I know for sure read them all are myself and Michael Rosenberg. I’d like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their proper completion. Then I think we’ll be able to allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

 

Jeff

 

From: geoff hampson [mailto:gham...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:19 PM
To: Brad Moss
Cc: Howard Weinstein; Jeff Aker; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

On Dec 27, 2016 8:11 PM, "Brad Moss" <bradfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[Marty Harris]

Jeff,

 

It’s necessary to use a formula to define what qualifies as “strong” because otherwise, you can’t have ANY enforceable rules.  As an example, how often do you see a pro (playing with a weak client) open a supposedly 15-17 1NT with a hand like AJxx, Kx, Qxxxx, Kx?  It’s not that he truly “judges” that hand is worth 15 HCP.  Rather, he believes it’s best to open 1NT and assure that he’s declarer if he’s anywhere close to 15 HCP, despite knowing that this hand really doesn’t qualify as worth 15.

 

The same problem arises if you allow players to use their (supposed) “judgment” about what constitutes a “strong” hand.  Absent bright line rules that clearly define whether something is or isn’t “strong,” many (not all) players will falsely claim they used judgment to evaluate a hand like AKQxxxxx and out as “strong” simply to get away with opening 2C (or a Precision 1C), and there will be no way for anyone to prove they’re lying (nor do we want to be in the business of routinely forcing directors to judge whether someone is lying).

 

I understand that if you agree to open 2C with AKQxxxxx and out, it’s not a “psych.”  But a partnership can agree in advance to “judge” that hand as “strong” simply because they know it’s so hard to defend against, not because they really believe it’s strong.  Again, there’s no way to “prove” they’re lying.  The only way to prevent that practice is to have a bright line rule.  Counting HCP, or counting “rule of x,” is a bright line rule that’s easy to enforce.       

[Danny Sprung]

Sorry, I misread your description.  I didn't realize you meant always 4+ Spades.

Law 40 2.a :

 (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. 

I believe this allows regulation of any call.  It is the reason the new charts no longer need the artifice of 'no conventions over a 1NT opening that could be fewer than 10 HCP'.  Now, it just be forbidden.

As to your 2S bid, which always shows a strong hand, there is no reason to bar it.

Danny

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[Jeff Aker]

Marty,

 

The pro is committing a violation that has nothing to do with convention charts. Surely you’re not arguing that he’s not allowed to open this hand 1N? He just can’t have the agreement to open it 1N and announce 15-17. Let them fill out their SSF properly and if they violate it, impose sanctions. I’d argue that this is possible in the USBF, although it requires some work by the opponents. With the later rounds all being broadcast, crowdsourcing is readily available. On all these example hands, my solution is proper advance disclosure. We’ve all been around long enough to know what actions are atypical in the expert community. By now everyone who plays against Marc Jacobus in a USBF event knows what his opening 1N opening bids might look like. Does this style randomize? Sure, but you and I have come to very different ideas about what should be done about it. Again, the ACBL has different issues. The USBF should have different standards.  I still think that it’s ok to have the agreement to open 2c on either type of hand BECAUSE it’s hard to play against. I’m willing to leave the issue of whether it’s ok to open 2c on a Yarborough for another day.

 

Jeff

[Jeff Aker]

Do you think that the word “special” is superfluous? May they bar any understanding? Are you saying that regardless of the wisdom of doing so, they can bar opening 1s on AKQJ Axx  xxx xxx?

 

Jeff Aker

Senior Trader

The Gargoyle Group

ja...@gargoylegroup.com

201-227-2247

From: Brad Moss [mailto:bradfor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 9:05 AM

To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

it matters because of the difficulty to defend against. it inherently creates huge swings where the outcome is pure poker, and the returns might be asymmetric.  in your example actions have occurred before the bid in question.  players have more information to make a bridge judgement.  defending against a possible psyched 2c opener is not a bridge battle.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Brad,

Sure, but why does it matter that the bid is artificial? In a similar situation in a Spingold match a couple of years, playing Precision, I psyched a 2h response to 1s (without a spade fit). This was still risky, but I was willing to take my chances at the state of the match. If you want to bar psyches of artificial bids, that does no violence to the laws and I suppose that I understand the argument that policing such things is too difficult for them to be allowable. However, if it’s your judgment that x Akqjxxxx xx xx is too strong for a 1h opening in a strong club context it’s ok for me try to convince you that the lack of defense makes this a bad idea, just as it’s ok for me to try to convince someone else that’s it a poor idea to open a strong club on kq kq qjxxx qjxx because of the lack of offense as well as defense.  My point was that I don’t think it’s a good idea to make it illegal to open 1c on your example as a matter of routine partnership agreement.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad Moss
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Jeff Aker
Cc: geoff hampson; Howard Weinstein; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff,

 

from a game theory perspective I completely disagree with you.  suppose one is down 30 imps in the final segment of a match. there is no relevance of tendencies.  it simply is math to generate "jump balls" that have reasonable expectations of success.  your approach will make it positive EV to do away with bridge almost entirely and create a poker hand that puts enormous pressure on the opponents. I agree with your general ideas, and this situation obviously occurs to varying degrees already, but making people deal with complete psyches of strong artificial openers is a bridge to making the game far less skillful by rendering the meat of a match less significant to the outcome.  it will increase the random factor by a lot. 

 

brad 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Geoff and Brad,

I’d like to address your comments together, because I think that you’re at the crux of the matter. Brad, I don’t think the poker analogy is quite apt. In poker, if the other players don’t know your tendencies, that’s their hard luck. The way for them to find out is to play against you. Bridge isn’t like that. You need to disclose your agreements. If you want to open 1c on your example hand, that’s ok with me, but not if you alert and say “ 16+ points, any shape” when your partner knows that you might have this hand. Geoff, this goes to your point as well. The language you suggest is excellent, but I think it  should be used by the pair to describe their methods, not by the administrative body to constrain those methods.

Having said this, I’m aware that the ACBL has different issues than do we at the USBF. Running a large variety of events creates problems that we don’t have, or at least that we’re better placed to deal with. Every pair has to submit a System Summary Form well in advance. The only two people who I know for sure read them all are myself and Michael Rosenberg. I’d like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their proper completion. Then I think we’ll be able to allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

 

Jeff

 

From: geoff hampson [mailto:gham...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:19 PM
To: Brad Moss
Cc: Howard Weinstein; Jeff Aker; ITTC Mailing List; Jan Martel

Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Perhaps language like "very nearly the minimum high card requirements for a strong 1C with significant distributional upgrade value" would take some of the pressure off of the strong 1C restriction. 

On Dec 27, 2016 8:11 PM, "Brad Moss" <bradfor...@gmail.com> wrote:

and Jeff, would you allow x akqjxxxx xx xx. if you do, then the game just devolves into pure poker.  far be it from me to complain about poker in bridge, but this is one situation I would be careful about.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

I continue to be concerned about the adoption of any “rule of n”. The idea of legislating judgment is an anathema to me. The issue should center around proper disclosure and enforcement. That’s why we have an SSF. We just need to do a better job of making sure that pairs state their actual agreements. There was a recent thread on Bridgewinners regarding whether various hands with lots of playing strength but relatively light in high cards are legal 2c openings, and there were various arguments espoused as to why opening such hands would be unwise. Since 2c is conventional, it’s use can be regulated, but that doesn’t make such a regulation wise. I’ve seen arguments that we have to draw a line somewhere. I disagree. What we need to do is make sure that the opponents know our agreements. If I judge to open a strong club with AKQJxxx Ax xx xx even though it doesn’t meet the rule of 24, and open 1S with Akxxx Qjxx qj qj, surely that’s my business. While the committee by and large has done an excellent job, I don’t think that the USBF should accept all of its proposals.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

This looks like a very good start.  Upon first reading (without reading all the commentary yet), I would suggest:

 

1)   alerting if one often responds with 0-3 is just creating noise — those playing mid-chart should expect this as a semi normal treatment — not because some 6 decade old books say it shows a 6 count.

 

2)  overcalls needing to promise a known suit should apply to quasi-natural as well as natural openers.  The quasi natural is far more similar to a natural opener than an artificial one and differentiating those vs 4432 e.g. is specious IMO. 

 

It could also potentially create ambiguity when players reply “could be short” to their 1C opener (incorrectly when quasi-natural) and consequently which opponent’s system is applicable.   This is also at odds with the WBF policy (not that that should be the determining factor).

 

Howie

 

On Dec 25, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

If you haven’t seen http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/feedback-for-convention-chart/ yet, I’d like to point you to it, and ask for feedback on whether USBF should adopt the “Gold" convention chart for the 2016 Open, Women’s & Senior USBCs. The proposal will take a while to wend its way through the ACBL C&C Committee and BoD, so I expect we won't see it in ACBL events for at least another year. But it has been very carefully considered and changes are being made in response to sensible comments, so I do expect that it will be very usable before April (Open USBC starts April 28th). It seems to me to be a big improvement on the MidChart/SuperChart that we are now using for the Round Robin/KO phases of the USBC, but I’d like some more opinions before asking you to vote on whether to use it. 

 

I realize that what “it” is may have to be better defined, because the subcommittee charged with drafting is doing such a good job of seeking and responding to input. Probably we should choose a specific date and say that the Gold Chart as it is proposed on that date is what we use, and attach that exact document to the General Conditions of Contest for USBF events. But first we need to decide whether this is an approach we want to take. 

 

  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

The Laws now give very wide latitude to bar things.  Is that wise?  Up to you.  Would any RA bar 1S on your hand?  I really doubt it.

Danny

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

Although the USBF has different constraints than ACBL, there is a problem with allowing something (“light” forcing 1C and 2C openings for example) which is not allowed by ACBL. That problem is that full disclosure is virtually impossible for something that you don’t play very often. For example, we once worked on a defense to an opening 2H bid that showed either a weak 2H or a weak 2S - it was obvious to us that what sort of hands would be opened with this bid would depend on h ow respoder acted with equal length in the Majors, slightly longer spades or real spades. So we asked the pair playing the method to give us some examples of responding hands that had passed and responding hands that had bid 2S. They were honest, and said they didn’t really know - they had never been allowed to play this method, so didn’t know what sorts  of hands would choose to open 2H or what sorts of hands would pass or respond 2S. I have forgotten whether they were allowed to play the bid or not, but that demonstrated to me that full disclosure is not really possible when a bid is mostly not allowed. 

On Dec 28, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

Marty,

 

The pro is committing a violation that has nothing to do with convention charts. Surely you’re not arguing that he’s not allowed to open this hand 1N? He just can’t have the agreement to open it 1N and announce 15-17. Let them fill out their SSF properly and if they violate it, impose sanctions. I’d argue that this is possible in the USBF, although it requires some work by the opponents. With the later rounds all being broadcast, crowdsourcing is readily available. On all these example hands, my solution is proper advance disclosure. We’ve all been around long enough to know what actions are atypical in the expert community. By now everyone who plays against Marc Jacobus in a USBF event knows what his opening 1N opening bids might look like. Does this style randomize? Sure, but you and I have come to very different ideas about what should be done about it. Again, the ACBL has different issues. The USBF should have different standards.  I still think that it’s ok to have the agreement to open 2c on either type of hand BECAUSE it’s hard to play against. I’m willing to leave the issue of whether it’s ok to open 2c on a Yarborough for another day.

 

Jeff

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marty Harris
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 9:32 AM
To: Jeff Aker; 'Brad Moss'
Cc: 'geoff hampson'; 'Howard Weinstein'; 'ITTC Mailing List'; 'Jan Martel'
Subject: RE: Proposed "Gold" Convention Chart

 

Jeff,

 

It’s necessary to use a formula to define what qualifies as “strong” because otherwise, you can’t have ANYenforceable rules.  As an example, how often do you see a pro (playing with a weak client) open a supposedly 15-17 1NT with a hand like AJxx, Kx, Qxxxx, Kx?  It’s not that he truly “judges” that hand is worth 15 HCP.  Rather, he believes it’s best to open 1NT and assure that he’s declarer if he’s anywhere close to 15 HCP, despite knowing that this hand really doesn’t qualify as worth 15.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Kit Woolsey]

These emails have become a mess. It is very difficult to follow the thread of who has said what with each email copying all
of the previous emails. I have pretty much given up on reading them carefully.

I think it would make much more sense to communicate our thoughts via a bulletin board, as is done on many web sites. This
way it would be easy to see who is responding to what via the threads, and everything wouldn't have to keep being repeated.

I do not have the knowledge to set up such a bulletin board. But I'm sure that somebody on this mailing list does, or at
least knows somebody who does. I would think that for a person with web site development experience it would be a trivial
matter.

[Jan Martel]

I was actually hoping that we would discuss this on the BridgeWinners bulletin board. I can tell you that when I tried to do a USBF bulletin board, it just got a whole lot of spam registrations to the site.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Chris Compton]

If I was in charge, and i recognize I am not, the highest level events would be be conducted with either:

1) A limited amount of approaches and agreements and no disclosure. (No alerts, no questions.) or, 

2) An unlimited amount of approaches and agreements with private messaging allowed of both opponents. Full disclosure, including describing your actual hand (Law 88 would be broken) 

This idea that third hand non vul destructive bidding or opening a strong artificial bid is either illegal, "a license to steal", or "not the game we play" is not only unenforceable but distasteful.  (Constant bias attack, why are my treatments legal and yours illegal?) I am unwilling to say "that method is too hard to tell from cheating" -- we still allow Slavinski and that costs us the integrity of 15 years of results. 

None of us gets to pick the game we play. Together we caretake what we love and cherish and hope we steward well as a group. 

We can never thread the needle to combine the approaches described in 1 and 2 above. We have to pick either one approach or the other approach --  or be forever stretched out writhing on the proverbial Procrustean bed. 

The game is already part poker.  I will tell you what i play, let me breathe. In return the game will grow to its full potential. Who knows I might discover something as brilliant as a transfer or a negative double. What if double had never been allowed to be played as takeout? 

Thanks for listening.

P.S. The third hand non vul restraints are particularly offensive to the scoring table and equity analysis. Possibly such third hand restraints violate the laws of Bridge. If I know my opponents have at least a game through the legal information transmitted to me by my partner's initial pass; then, I should be able to offer a penalty to my opponents as a choice. That is bridge. 

Chris 

[Chris Compton]

Don't agree it makes the game less skillful. Indeed it makes it harder, judgment is required. 

Chris 

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

[Robb Gordon]

While this has been a fascinating discussion that lends (to me anyway) insight into the thought processes of some of the greatest minds in bridge, I think it has wandered a bit astray.

To the extent we are discussing USBF conditions (as opposed to ACBL) we should have one goal - to match our systems requirements as nearly as possible to what we expect the WBF systems requiremnts will be in the event for which the competition is attempting to qualify a team(s).

This is not because we think the WBF does it best (far from it) but because it will help contestants prepare to play and to defend against methods they rate to see/use rather than being under or over prepared. 

SInce Howie is the WBF rep, he should be able to articulate what he things is most similar to expected WBF guidelines.

Robb

[Alan Frank]

Replying to a few posts:

> Jeff Aker: I'd like to see us enforce stricter guidelines for their
> [SSF's] proper completion. Then I think we'll be able to

> allow people to play the methods that their judgment mandates without
> placing their opponents at an unfair disadvantage.

How much should be on the SSF, or should we just require pairs to make
their system notes available? I would expect nearly everyone to have
something available in electronic form.

> JA: Someone might have the agreement to open 2c on AKqxxxxxxx x x x. I

> would allow them to so, if properly disclosed. If you
> think that's a bad idea, because it's too hard to play against, how do
> you respond to a pair who wants to open that hand 2s,
> playing that it's natural, 4+ spades and either 23+ HCP or 9+ playing
> tricks.

That one at least has an anchor suit. Even with no discussion, I could
make a reasonable guess as to the meaning of my partner's double or 2NT
call.

> Jan Martel: Full disclosure is virtually impossible for something that
> you don't play very often. ... We asked the pair

> playing the method to give us some examples of responding hands that
> had passed and responding hands that had bid 2S. They

> were honest, and said they didn't really know - they had never been

> allowed to play this method, so didn't know what sorts of
> hands would choose to open 2H or what sorts of hands would pass or
> respond 2S.

I believe the other pair did provide full disclosure--they told you what
they know of their agreements and tendencies.

> Marty Harris: I understand that if you agree to open 2C with AKQxxxxx

> and out, it's not a "psych." But a partnership can
> agree in advance to "judge" that hand as "strong" simply because they
> know it's so hard to defend against, not because they
> really believe it's strong. Again, there's no way to "prove" they're
> lying. The only way to prevent that practice is to have
> a bright line rule. Counting HCP, or counting "rule of x," is a bright
> line rule that's easy to enforce.

One might provide a set of hands and require pairs to indicate which of
them qualified as a strong forcing opening in their partnership. Or ask
each pair to provide a rule. I've played "18+ HCP and either 8.5 tricks
in a major, 9 tricks in a minor, or 22+ HCP." Someone else might play
"Rule of 26 (HCP + length of longest suit)" or "LTC <= 5." I am not
convinced that a sponsoring organization needs to set the terms, so long
as they require partnerships to publicly do so (of course, this may not
work in a low-level game, not relevant here).

--Alan

[Chris Compton]

Sorry Brad, defending against a psyched 2C opening is indeed a bridge battle. To be sure, I will not get my way on everything, that it also  correct. 

Chris 

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

[Chris Compton]

If you go down this road, we will solve the bidding with perfected methods. Again, deciding when to overcall against 2C opening which may be balanced HCP or a lot of tricks, is a Bridge skill -- not a random guess. 

Chris 

[Howard Weinstein]

Happy holidays all.

Robb —  would you ask your ACBL district rep to articulate what is similar to the ACBL guidelines?   :-)

I would suggest inquiries of this sort are better addressed to Chip or Kokish, both members of the WBF systems committee and much more knowledgeable in this area than I.

Howie

[Chris Compton]

Incorrect to argue that hand not worth 15. Soloway believed any hand that wanted the lead in all four suits should probably be opened 1N.  This pro-client thing is completely irrelevant. 1N non vul with that hand a HUGE long-term winner. This leaves aside the poor decision to elect an inferior range non vul. 15-17 non vul is simply inferior to 14-16. Don't legislate away my bridge knowledge. 

Chris 

[Adam Wildavsky]

I agree with Chris. We ban psyches of strong artificial openings out of habit, not because it is good for the game. In fact it does violence to the spirit of Bridge.

Yes, many players use methods when the opponents open a strong 2c that do not cater to their own side having a game. That is a fault of the methods, which are sound only because of the ACBL's regulations. It is not an argument for banning this psyche, or any.

[Chris Compton]

Ugh! The BW bulletin Board?

Chris 

--
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.