🚀 go-pugleaf

Thx David,
I though you might still check on the group.
Lot's of <snipping> ....

"David Stevenson" <bridge2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S12lcKAevrG+EwgY@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> Nick Hughes wrote
>
>   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!
>
Agreed. It's not as if the WBF has the expertise and experience to dictate
to the world anyway.

> >
> >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.
>
It is a concern though. There is an (apocryphal?) story of a German club
that forbids falsecards. Perhaps a Sponsoring Organisation will try to
discourage reverse signals on the grounds that they might confuse the 92%.
The rule will go "you can use reverse signals if you agree to signal
honestly at all times."

>   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.
>
Agree. Even quainter is the idea of OPs or HCP at the 1-level. Stuck with
that I think.
Didn't the ACBL have the 5 & 5 rule about weak twos? (Since proved illegal
of course).
There is no power to limit natural pre-empts but since 40D gives the ABF the
right to limit conventional pre-empts, I'm surprised the ACBL doesn't do it,
in the interests of the 92%.

> >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.

Half Australia opens 1C on 3+, the other half play colonial club. They open
1C on 4=4=3=2 only, not forcing. That makes it a convention. It's strange
that their quirky choice with one extremely rare hand exposes them to
something alien.
Re "Die by the sword". This is an emotive response. I would prefer to focus
on a partnership's first action. One wonders when you think RCO overcalls of
a natural 1NT opening should be allowed. DONT is okay but RCO is not,
because ..... Don't want an event where you can't open an RCO two (or DONT
two?) but you can bid one over their 1NT.

> >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?
>
Or 4=4=4=1, or 6=3=2=2 (Courtney-style, etc). I'd allow them all and just
refer to intent.

> >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.
>
Not sure. Like it simple. Green = no conventional 1-level openings. No
strong feelings but don't like making exceptions.

>
>   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.
>
Luckily, that's no longer a problem because red systems are okay now in all
ABF events. The EBU style is to look for a way to express the methods in
current circulation. I understand, up to Level x, 1D can be "balanced or a
hand that would open 1C or 1D in a natural system." This is saying that 1975
was a good year for systems and system regs.

> >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?
>
Well I would accept it, at the same time allowing versions of it. It's silly
that every variation of some 2-bit idea requires a license in ACBL-land.
Think of defences to 1NT ... I'm sure you'll find a situation wehre ASTRO is
okay but ASPRO isn't.

Nick Hughes