🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Nick

Interesting stuff. You may know that Laurie Kelso has been given the
job of chairing the Systems Committee and looking at the Regs. I'm
sure he'll be interested in what you have to say.

Dennis Yovich

On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 06:43:19 GMT, "Nick Hughes"
<nhughes@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>Yellow systems
>
>Here�s my experience from playing a strong pass system at Canberra, Surfers
>and SNT. I also have a few suggestions. We have a reputation overseas of
>being lenient on Yellow systems. Maybe but there are not a lot of us left.
>Frankly, I wouldn't care that much if they were simply banned. It's comical
>that half the ABF's system Regs are devoted to them. Anyway ...
>
>Yellow suggestions in a nutshell
>- prelodgement to continue, with a recommended default defence included (and
>ratified?)
>- Yellow okay in ANY session of ANY ABF event with rounds of 14+ boards
>(16+?).
>- Yellow people automatically lose seating rights
>
>
>A) Pre-lodgement
>Yellow people are required to lodge a summary a week before the event (a
>complete ABF system card is now considered adequate). This procedure was
>probably derived from WBF events where systems are lodged early so that they
>can be pre-circulated. This isn�t done here so the only reason seems to be
>to have photocopies made and a folder prepared. No problem with that.
>
>B) Restrictions
>Each ABF event has it�s own supplementary regulations:
>In the SNT, Yellow systems are allowed in ALL rounds. (Compared to Canberra
>and Surfers, the SNT field is smaller but of higher quality so there are
>fewer pairs requiring �protection�). In the VCC it's not it the first 2
>rounds or in the lower 65% thereafter.
>In the ANOT it's not in the first round, then lower 50%.
>In the SWPT, it�s no Yellow in the first 3 rounds, unless the teams are
>seeded in the top 25%. Thereafter, it�s the top 25% of the field. (Surfers
>is 1st 2 rounds, then same) Butler it's not in Stage 1 but okay in Stages 2
>& 3. In GNOT, Yellow is only allowed in longer (28+) KO matches. Etc.
>
>This all seems to be at the whim of the convener.
>
>As a consequence, Yellow people come equipped with two systems, prepared to
>chop and change. There are always a few problems for directors. For
>instance, if we win big in match 1 at Canberra and draw Team 8, they come to
>the table 1 minute before start time and say �We thought you couldn�t play
>Yellow on Day 1" After 10 minutes consulting regulations and 15 minutes
>scribbling a defence, we get under way. Later in the week there are always
>problems and delays with teams not realising who they�re playing or, more
>amusingly, pairs coming with pages of typed and photocopied notes to find
>the match is outside the top quartile.
>
>The first round I can understand, if not agree with. In later rounds, the
>presumption is that teams will stick around for the draw to see whether they
>need to do extra preparation. In practice, people don�t do that. They turn
>up at start time and might take 15 minutes to devise a defence and the match
>often goes slowly. Who can blame them? Why should they postpone a meal or
>get back early on the 1% chance they are playing us?
>
>There�s no value in restricting FP in first 2 or 3 rounds. Protection is a
>curious concept in events like these. Strong Pass systems can gain by giving
>technically inferior pairs a chance against top players. If we play Standard
>against Team 1, I pick us to lose 9-21. If we play strong pass, 4-25 is more
>likely but we also have a decent chance of bluffing our way to a win.
>Against poor teams, we are probably better off playing Standard and grinding
>out a solid win, rather than risking a few disasters by playing Strong Pass.
>However, we choose to play Yellow whenever legal to get some practice and
>get some rhythm going, rather than chop & change.
>
>The early round constrictions seem designed to avoid causing any slight
>discomfort to the 90% of teams make the SWPT and Gold Coast Teams so
>successful. Is there evidence to suggest that the 1% prospect of coming up
>against Strong Pass might dissuade entries or that a loss against Strong
>Pass might be more painful than other losses. Are these serious bridge
>events?
>
>The Systems Committee could recommend that conveners (& the TC) jump one way
>or the other. Either ban Yellow systems or allow them in all matches of the
>required length.
>
>
>This brings up the issue of match length. I think the Committee should
>recommend something like: �Yellow systems are okay in all matches of a stage
>of an Open (or Women�s) event in which the length of the match is 14 (or
>16?) boards or greater.�
>14+ would mean all the GNOT, SWPT, Gold Coast, SNT, etc. My preference.
>16+ allows Yellow in SWPT, SNT, some GNOT (unless the SNT shortens to 14
>16+ board matches!)
>
>The WBF is more restricted as expected. Only in the Bowl do they allow HUM.
>They also regard a long match as "a match of 17 or more deals." That's only
>Canberra (and the SNWT!).
>
>
>Back to our Canberra experience. Posting line-ups is a bore. If our team is
>Away, we have to turn up 30 minutes before the match to scrawl our seating.
>If we are Home, it�s 15 minutes in theory but usually unnecessary. In recent
>years, we have played in all Yellow teams, all playing the same method,
>partly to avoid this chore.
>
>I would much prefer simply to give up seating rights! In other words �In a
>single set match, a team with a Yellow pair becomes the Away team.� This
>would apply even for teams with one Yellow pair, who might be sitting out.
>Any team with a Yellow dot losing seating rights. In long matches (40+
>boards?), or when two Yellow teams play each other, normal seating applies.
>This is WBF policy.
>
>There are other self-inflicted handicaps for Yellow people. For instance, we
>never got to play against Kaljo, Noble, Rothfields, etc. They�d head for the
>golf course or the bar if drawn against us.
>
>Defences on the table. The Regs say that defenders should bring two copies
>to the table, ratified by the Chief Director. Nobody does that. Certainly,
>Yellow people should provide a decent, simple defence on their card and THAT
>needs to be approved.
>
>From Supplementary Regs to last year's VCC (I think):
>4. Defences
>4.1 For defence against a YELLOW system and the conventions that make a
>system RED, a pair using a GREEN, BLUE or RED system may change any facet of
>its system, including opening calls, but may use a YELLOW system only if it
>has been submitted in accordance with #3.2 above.
>
>This means pairs can�t agree to pass 1st in hand with good hands to collect
>from a fert. Does not bother us. I believe the WBF is different, not sure.
>
>4.2 During the auction, pairs may use written notes of their defence or
>counter-defence for YELLOW systems and defence for the convention(s) that
>make(s) a system RED provided they comply with the regulations below. During
>the play period, a player's own notes may be used only to answer a question
>from the opponents.
>
>Other events don�t have written defence to red conventions, Should they?
>
>4.3 A written defence must be: typed or written in black ink on one side of
>an A4 sheet; identical for each player; approved by and lodged with the
>Director at least 15 minutes before the scheduled session time; submitted to
>the opponents at least 10 minutes before the scheduled session time;
>available to the opponents during the auction and play.
>
>Nobody does this. Either discard (my preference) or enforce.
>
>That�s enough. Congrats if you read all of this ....
>
>Nick
>