🚀 go-pugleaf

Nick Hughes wrote
>I've used spare time over the break to jot down some ideas on System Regs.
>Here are some ideas on systems. Current Regs are dated 1998 but they are
>really 13 years old. Read the pdf at
>http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf
>
>Issues
>1) Lining up with the WBF
>2) Overhauling our categories
>3) Guidelines on when the different colours are allowed
>
>1) Lining up with the WBF
>Go to:
>http://www.ecatsbridge.com/bib/static/files/Systems%20and%20Systems%20Regula
>tions/2002%20WBF%20Systems%20Policy.pdf
>
>The WBF basically has the same 4 categories as us, plus "brown sticker".
>Strong pass is HUM, RCO twos are brown sticker, multi 2D is unclear
>(currently okay but the Yanks want it brown sticker) We are supposedly
>preparing our national teams to compete overseas so perhaps our Regs should
>be as close as possible to theirs.
>Not sure about this. If this were the aim, then surely we would have bidding
>boxes in all finals. This could (should?) have started 20 years ago. Then
>again, I'm glad we don't allow those dreadful WBF convention cards.

  Everywhere people come up with plans to align systems with elsewhere
in the world which basically is a sop to their international players
[usually about 8% or so of their players] and ignores the needs of the
92%.  Do ignore this!

  As to the differences about your colours, the ABF started with WBF
definitions, but the WBF and ABF have both changed since then.

>2) Categories
>Currently we have:

                                [s]

>1.3 Green Requirements
>
> 1) 18+ OPs for 1-level, 15+ OPs & a 5-card suit for 2-level, etc
>
>Because of 40D, nobody can stop a pair from agreeing to open 1H on Axx,
>Axxx, xxx, xxx. Or 2H on QTx, QJxxx, xx, xxx, or 3C on xx, xx, xxx, KQTxxx.
>So this restriction can only apply to conventional openings.
>
>I particularly HATE the ACBL "solution" to this, which is to ban
>conventional responses to light openings. They used the "regulate" loophole
>in 4OD to hobble natural methods that they did not approve of ("If you want
>to open a mini-notrump, partner must respond naturally. Blackwood can only
>be used by people wearing hats ...")

  You may hate it, but its legal, and the general feeling around the
world is to allow regulating authorities to say what they permit.  I
suggest you do better to make sure the ABF has its players' interests at
heart [all of them!] and not worry about legalities.

  What is much stranger is the quaint Australian idea of OPs being
required for bids above 1NT.  No-one outside Australia/NZ ever puts a
lower limit on a pre-empt!  I suggest it is time the ABF did awa with
this.

>Need to consider 3rd seat and overcalls.
>Overcalls are a problem. Surely it's okay to overcall a STRONG CLUB with
>Kxxx, Kxxx, xxx, xx. Even less. If you play 1H = majors, this 14 OP hand
>should be okay but I don't mind having some base line for conventional
>overcalling (& 3rd seat opening). 15+ OP? (a bit arbitrary)
>
>You may want to allow more freedom over an artificial opening but I'm
>against that. If someone can overcall 1H to show 2 suits of the same rank
>(as quite a few do over our strong club) they should be allowed to do it
>over any 1C opening (as some do). Seems strange to be allowed RCO overcalls
>of a short (2+) 1C but not over a better minor (3+) 1C. I wouldn't allow
>them over either. Should be Brown Sticker - see later.

  Not at all.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Any defence to a
convention should be permitted: only players playing natural methods
should have protection.

                                [s]

> 3) Notrump bids must show a balanced hand.
>
>Again, I'd prefer "opening bids and overcalls".
>For balanced, prefer "balanced or semi-balanced." Maybe can rule out 5-4
>majors or 6-card majors from 1NT openings but surely not 2NT openings.
>Overcalls likewise. Singletons are a problem. I know a pair who opens or
>rebids 1NT on all 4441s (so opener's suit rebid can guarantee 5-4). Not
>clear that this should be enough to turn their system Red.

  While it is not my cup of tea to open 1NT with 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 why
should you stop others?

>Green allowances: All natural openings, plus
>
> 1) short 1C (2+)
>
>Well over half Australia plays this way. Groan. Since this 1C opening is a
>convention, should maybe make it Blue. Don't panic because we should be able
>to effectively do away with Blue.

  Why not just make it Green?  Seems simpler and more logical.

>Blue allowances: Add
>
> 1) forcing 1C (any shape)  (WBF refers to "strong 1C/D" meaning 13+)
>
> 2) Precision 1D (or "similar")
>
>Here's a thorny one. In 1970s Precision, 1D showed 4+. There are a number of
>modern variations. Say you play 1NT = 13-15, 2C/D = 6+ suits or 5-4 minors,
>no major. That leaves you with:
> 1D =  11-12 balanced, no 5-card major; OR
>  11-15 unbalanced, usually 4+ diamonds; OR OCCASIONALLY
>  0-3 diamonds with long clubs & a 4-card major
>Not useful as a basis for "similarity". What am I getting at? Say you want
>to update further, playing 1NT = 11-14 balanced, NO MAJOR. This subtle
>change produces a good method. What does it leave for 1D?
> 1D = 10-14, 4 hearts or 4 spades (or 4-4 majors), maybe canap� with a long
>minor.
>Is that "similar" enough to 1D? If that's okay, what about 1D = 4+ hearts?
>If anything, an opening that shows a known major should be more acceptable
>than one that shows either.

  Come on, Nick, that's just the thinking of someone who is still
annoyed because I did not allow you to play 1D=spades at Surfer's a few
year's ago!

  A catchall 1D is a different concept from a transfer, and it is
correct to treat it different.

> 3) canap� okay
>
>Okay but brings up a Green point. What do you open with
>Txx,   x,   AKJx,  KJxxx ?
>On OKbridge at any rate, everyone opens 1D and rebids 2C. Does that make
>them Blue?

  No, that's just bridge.

> 4) 1NT can be unbalanced if 25+ OP
>
>This illustrates what a joke it is to have TEMPORAL regulations. Surely this
>is just a fob to Romex?! Nobody here played that in 1989 and they don't now.
>Just something we lifted from the WBF Regs at the time. We need to decide
>which TYPE of conventions to in/exclude, ignoring fashion.

  Why do we need to exclude this?  You say ignore fashion - so ignore
it.  A strong artificial 1NT does no harm to opponents so allow it.

                                [s]

> 7) Standard Euro Multi 2D is okay: 15+ OP & 5+ in a major, or some strong
>hands.

                                [s]

>This Multi 2D exception came in when more events were "No Red systems" and
>congress players found their simple Multi had rudely been taken away from
>them. I guess there's no going back but hate making exceptions. Why should
>Multi 2D be Blue while Multi 2C (showing the same hand) be Red? A few Sydney
>pairs DO play 2C = weak 2 in a major.

  You have answered yourself: it is a historical quirk that Multi 2D
played in a specific way is permitted, and this is true in many places.
So why not accept it?

>Red allowances

> 2) 1NT+ can be anything, provided 15+ OP

  See above - I think the 15+ requirement incredible, especially in the
jurisdiction with the most open system policy of all!

                                [s]

>I think exactly the same restrictions should apply to overcalls.
>Incidentally, the Americans make an attempt to restrict responding
>conventions but that's mean and complicated. Let people play Relay Goren if
>they must (nobody but Gallus would).

  That is extremely unfair.  Regulations are dependent on so many
factors like history, local views, teaching, and so on, that to say
their basic approach is unfair seems wrong.  Sure, it is not suitable
for Australia.

                                [s]

>3) Guidelines on when the different colours are allowed.
>A handful of pairs still play Yellow systems. Good on us. See separate
>email!
>
>Apart from that, it should be Red systems (Brown sticker) and below in all
>open ABF events. Or you may wish to keep Red Conventions out of events with
>4-board rounds or less (MP Pairs). Actually, I think that's a good idea -
>make Marston change his opening structure again, make Terry Brown drop his
>RCO Twos, temporarily.

  Why the same rules for all events of a type?  Why not have different
rules so people can choose to play in events where either anything goes,
or their is some restriction, so as to play what they prefer?

-- 
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )=
           Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~