[JanM]

Rob F, on Dec 15 2008, 03:19 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

Obviously, your entire post was designed to point out that someone who wants to be diabolical can play ridiculous methods in GCC events.

I'm bad at reading tone online, but did you intend "ridiculous" and "diabolical" like you think they ought to be illegal, or like you think they're bad methods for those who play them (or both)?

I meant that these are bad methods that you were only proposing in order to show that it is possible to "get around" the GCC if you want to.

Quote

(1♣ 16+) - 2♥(multi) - (?)

or maybe

(1♣ 16+) - 1♠(0-8 any shape) - (?)    (See bridge bulletin 12/08 pg 15, the Poles in Bejiing played this vs Meckwell)

Any defense is allowed to a conventional club (including a "diabolical" 2♥ multi overcall or the 1♠ "fert"), but maybe you think precision players just get what they deserve when people interfere over their strong club on crap, especially crap with very poor disclosure about tendencies and alternatives?  Perhaps we should ban conventional interference there because it's routinely abused and used by players with very bad (almost unethical) disclosure much of the time.  I mean I don't want to impugn the Polish team (since their actual disclosure maybe have been better than related in the Bulletin), but do they really never overcall a strong club with any other call besides 1♠ when holding 0-8 points?  As an often strong clubber myself, I'd selfishly benefit from having all such crazy defenses to my strong club banned - it'd be less for me to prepare for, but is it's still the wrong approach and I admit it.

I think the problem with those bids (which are also allowed against my basically natural 1♣ that might have only 2 clubs because 1♦ promises 4 and a shaped hand) is exactly what you've pointed out - they are rarely adequately described. Because they aren't "Brown Sticker" many people don't think that they have an obligation to describe them fully (they're wrong of course, but when you're reviewing 60+ convention cards, it's often hard to notice and object to things like that - I don't think that Eric Kokish, Meckwell's coach, did before Beijing for instance).

Quote

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

The statement that a 3 card suit is "natural" was intended to apply only to bids at the 1-level.

You tell me why a natural weak 2M is legal with a 6 card suit and I'll tell you why my 3+ 2m bid is legal. How do you know what was intended by the definitions of natural? If they were "clearly" meant to apply only to 1-level bids, you think maybe they might have actually said that?

I'm not the expert on international bridge law and the ZAs, but I thought it was beyond the scope of the ACBL to regulate natural bidding if one read the laws carefully. Since the GCC specifically says 3+ minors are natural, with no reference to 1 level or 2 level etc, I think the only reasonable interpretation is that all natural bids are allowed. After all, otherwise there's no explicit rule allowing one to open a natural SAYC 1♥ or a standard weak 2♥ for example unless it's because they are natural under the given definitions.

Perhaps next time I run into someone questioning my 2♣ bids on 3 cards, I'll ask them to prove why their SAYC 1M and 2M bids are legal and hassle them since "disallow unless specifically allowed" is the rule, right?

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

If anyone actually tried to play 2 bids with 3 card suits, the rule would either be interpreted not to apply or it would be re-written.

This is a pretty telling response - basically it's legal but if you play it the "establishment" will ban it (just like those Midchart weak twos on 4/4 two-suiters, right?). Not that I'm disagreeing with you - we've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence about the way the C&C committee operates in practice and what their biases are. Someone on the committee must like opening 5 card weak twos in 3rd position, or frankly I'm surprised they haven't banned those yet either.

Once again, you're deliberately exaggerating to try to make a point and your hyperbole makes me respond with things like diabolical and ridiculous. The "natural" 3 card minor would be interpreted to mean at the 1 level because that's what was intended, not because the "establishment" wants to ban something they don't happen to like. You know that a 3 card weak 2 bid is in a completely different universe from a 5 card weak 2 bid. You probably know that the drafters of the GCC (who admittedly didn't do a very good job, but there was a lot of ground to cover) could have limited the "3 card minors are natural" definition to "at the one level." You probably even know that that would be the appropriate thing to do. So you're just deliberately setting up a straw man. I don't know why, but I don't find it productive.

[TimG]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Wilkosz 2♦ traditionally showed the following

1. A two suited hand with two 5+ card suits
2. 5+ cards in at least one major
3. Approximately 7-11 HCPs

[csdenmark]

awm, on Dec 15 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

Perhaps the following should be clear-cut about regulation of methods:

(1) Which methods are allowed/disallowed should be stated in a clear way, with examples if possible. This information should be understandable to directors who need to rule on the matter, and to interested players who are considering playing non-standard methods.

(2) The legality of methods should not depend on the pair in question. It should not be the case that people on a particular committee can convince directors during an event that their own methods are legal (when similar methods would be banned for other pairs) or that their opponents methods are illegal (when similar methods would be allowed for other pairs).

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

(4) If certain methods are only allowed provided there is a reasonably good "suggested defense" then the criteria for what is a reasonably good suggested defense should be approximately the same for all such methods. It should not be the case that some methods are approved with a very terse suggested defense which leaves most subsequent developments undefined, whereas other methods are declared illegal because substantially more comprehensive defenses are deemed "not comprehensive enough."

(5) If a particular event is sold as a national or international championship, then methods which are essentially standard in a substantial part of the bridge-playing world must be permitted.

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

You know why Adam? It is because it is based on principle of reversed proof.

That is a judicial very doubtful method because there is no protection for culpa.

Normally that principle is only used when life is serious threatened, f. ex. protection against cancer diseases. Then the standard is to create positive lists.

In bridge organizations they had no idea what they were doing as they started. Now nobody has courage to 'speak up against Roma'.

To that it comes they have all the time been violating basic principles for democracy. They have probably no knowledge of that either.

[JanM]

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

[csdenmark]

Wilkosz convention:

http://bridgefiles.n...onv/Wilkosz.htm

[helene_t]

Richard is obviously correct, I am surprised there can be any discussion on this. From the introduction to Jassem's 2005 book:

Quote

The many-time American champion Jill Meyers in the widely-distributed magazine “ACBL Bulletin” when polled on the most useful bridge convention, offered not Blackwood or splinters, but “Polish Two-suiters” – 2♥ and 2♠ openings to show 5-5 hands, the “natural” version of the Wilkosz convention adopted by Polish internationals (due to conventional restrictions).

[DrTodd13]

No, Wilkosz cannot include both minors. It must have at least one major. Polish standard from the year 2000 (wj2000) included Wilkosz for 2♦ but Polish standard from the year 2005 (wj2005) switched to regular Multi 2♦. Think of it as published updates to SAYC. People wanting to play Polish club with little discussion can agree to the latest published WJ version. So, I have no personal experience but I suspect that most Polish club players switched away from Wilkosz soon after the 2005 edition was published.

On a separate issue, poll most bridge players and I think they would wish that their system would dominate their opponents' and deprive them of cue-bids as much as possible. They might not like the complexity or lack of familiarity of a system that would actually accomplish this but the increase in aggressiveness in "normal" systems adds to their dominant behavior. So, I say "so what" to whines that a system is dominant or lacks cue-bids. I say good for them.

[Gerardo]

Fred, Tim:

Wilkosz shows a weak hand, 5-5, at least one major.

Fred:

Current version of "standard" Polish Club (wj2005, designed by person/committee) uses Multi 2♦ (only weak in a major) + 2 ♥ as 5♥-5 other and 2♠ as 5♠-5 minor.

Previous version (wj2000, designed by poll) uses Wikosz 2♦ + "normal" 2M (6+).

Quote from end of introduction of WJ2005 book, english version:

Quote

WJ05 has ambitions to become popular and accepted outside of Poland. Treatments not sanctioned in international tournaments (such as the Wilkosz 2♦ opening) or undesirable for natural bidders (such as e.g. the complicated definition of the WJ2000 1♦ opening**) have been swapped out for methods easier to adopt ("Polish Two-suiters" and the 4-card 1♦ opening, respectively)

** either

• 12-17 with 5+ ♦.
  
  
• 12-17 with any 4441 with 4♦.
  
  
• 12-14 with 4♦ and 5♣.

Even Matula's book (english version, 1994) have the same set of 2-level openings as an alternative in an Appendix named "A new approach to two-level openings", which starts

Quote

The WBF system policies introduced in 1988, soon adopted by the European Bridge League and national contract bridge organizations through Europe, made it impossible for Polish players to use their favored structure of two-level openings in many European tournaments

.

So, this particular change seems to be regulations driven.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 15 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

I don't know if "all the Poles" (or any of the Poles for that matter) have suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D) or not.

I believe there are 10s (if not 100s) of 1000s of Poles who play bridge. I have no idea how many of them once played Multi or how many have recently stopped doing so. I also find it hard to believe that you know this.

I would guess that, at the most, 50 Poles come to play in the ACBL Nationals on a regular basis. These are the only Poles I encounter with any regularity and, to the best of my knowledge, the big ACBL pairs events are the only major international pairs tournaments in which Multi 2D is not allowed. I would guess that the majority of these 50 or so Poles come to ACBL tournaments, not because of the great pairs events, but because they want to (or are being paid to) play in events like the Spingold or Vanderbilt where I believe Multi 2D is allowed.

I am guessing that even if such Poles were not allowed to play Multi in ACBL pairs tournaments and if such Poles really thought Multi was a wonderful convention, that they would continue to play that convention in other tournaments.

I know that I personally played Multi 2D for many years and stopped playing it, not because of systems restrictions, but because I came to believe that this convention sucks (mostly because my opponents learned how to defend against it).

Maybe "all the Poles" have come the believe the same thing?

Maybe they decided to play "Polish 2-bids" instead? Wouldn't that be strange?

Fred, you really might want to get better informed about these issues before making posts like this one. (In particular, a working knowledge regarding the definition of a Wilkosz 2♦ is probably a good starting point)

20 odd years ago, the following opening structure was pretty popular in Poland

2♦ = Wilkosz

Two suited hand
At least 5+ / 5+ in the two primary suits
At least one 5+ card major
Approximately 7 - 11 HCP

2♥ = normal weak two
2♠ = normal weak two

The Wilkosz 2♦ opening fell a-foul of WBF system regulation. A number of the Poles gravitated over to a new opening structure that used

2♦ = multi

2♥ =

Two suited hand
5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another suit
Approximately 7-11 HCP

2♠ =

Two suited hand
5+ Spades and 5+ cards a minor
Approximately 7-11 HCP

(Or more simply put, the Polish Two bids that you reference)

This little tidbet of data is discussed quite explictely in Matula's Book on Polish Club. I don't happen to have a copy of this at work. However, I suspect that someone on this list has a copy hand is can check what it says on the chapeter dealing with the Wilkosz 2♦ opening. (I can't recall whether Matula recommend that 2♥ as Hearts and a minor versus Hearts and another suit)

I found this section to be one of the more interesting in the book. As a result, when I've seen discussion about Wilkosz on rec.games.bridge and the Bridge Laws Mailing List I check and see whether his claims match those that I've seen from other posters. Low and Behold, they seem to stand up. However, I reocgnize that you might want some more direct evidence, so I sent a post off to Bridge Laws a couple minutes back asking if any of the Polish Directors would be willing to comment whether they've noticed a change the frequency of the Wilkosz 2D in Poland and whether or not they attribute this to WBF system regulations.

[fred]

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Thanks.

Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but:

1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

2♦ showing both majors is not a BSC so you can play it "everywhere".
Wilkosz is a BSC so you can play it "nowhere".

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Thanks.

Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but:

1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention
Baliciki-Zmudzinski - the name of the convention is "Multi Balickiego".

http://www.bridge-forum.pl/multi.php

http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-83.jpg
http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-84.jpg

[TimG]

helene_t, on Dec 15 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

2♦ showing both majors is not a BSC so you can play it "everywhere".
Wilkosz is a BSC so you can play it "nowhere".

I was confused about the definition of Wilkosz, but I am more confident of this one: a weak two suited opening at the two-level must promise at least 5-4 in the two suits to be ACBL legal.

From the GCC Allowed: "6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

Nothing on the mid-chart changes this. (Though anyone can attempt to get the method and defense approved.)

[Cascade]

benlessard, on Dec 16 2008, 03:10 AM, said:

I agree with all Fred points from page 1 to 37.

I am only up to page six so I have got lots of good stuff still to read

[fred]

hrothgar, on Dec 15 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

Fred, you really might want to get better informed about these issues before making posts like this one.  (In particular, a working knowledge regarding the definition of a Wilkosz 2♦ is probably a good starting point)

You asked me a question that I was not in a position to answer so I did the best I could and made it clear I did not know and that I was mostly guessing.

Next time if you prefer I will just say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

I don't think it is important to be especially well-informed to offer your best guess when you are not in a position to offer FACTS.

By the way, if I don't know the name of a particular convention, chances are good that many other people don't know it either. In the future, it would not hurt for you to include a description of conventions whose names you wish to use.

Quote

However, I reocgnize that you might want some more direct evidence, so I sent a post off to Bridge Laws a couple minutes back asking if any of the Polish Directors would be willing to comment whether they've noticed a change the frequency of the Wilkosz 2D in Poland and whether or not they attribute this to WBF system regulations.

Thanks but not necessary. Gerardo's post suggests that much of your version of history is probably correct.

Still, I don't think this proves very much. My original point that you took issue with (I think) is my belief that few players in most countries seem interested in experimenting with systems that I would call unusual. Perhaps Poland is not "most countries" or perhaps what I consider "unusual" is usual there.

Or perhaps my belief is just wrong. I don't know and I tried to make it very clear that I was only expressing an opinion and that I was not in a position to know.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 15 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Wilkosz 2♦ traditionally showed the following

1. A two suited hand with two 5+ card suits
2. 5+ cards in at least one major
3. Approximately 7-11 HCPs

Sorry, I was confused.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Still, I don't think this proves very much. My original point that you took issue with (I think) is my belief that few players in most countries seem interested in experimenting with systems that I would call unusual. Perhaps Poland is not "most countries" or perhaps what I consider "unusual" is usual there.

For that statement Fred I think you ought to include at least Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 16 2008, 02:17 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

1) Most of the players prefer that certain classes of methods are banned (yes it is hard to know where to draw the line)

...

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

Fred your language changes here from a simple majority - "most" - for disllowing non-standard methods to a "substantial majority" for allowing the same methods. Is this deliberate?

Personally I think that this is something that should not be ruled by the majority. A significant minority should be sufficient.

In many places if the standard was "most" then bids like - Blackwood (not to mention Roman Key Card Blackwood), Transfers, Michaels Cue-Bids, Cue-Raises, Control Showing Cue-Bids ... too name a just few would be disallowed. I imagine that all of those things would not meet the "majority" requirement at the club that I play at where Gerber is the weapon of choice. In addition in some jurisdictions weird things like four-card majors and weak no trump would be banned. In other places I suppose weirder things like five-card majors and strong no trump might be banned.

I am not sure where the threshold should be.

I also do not believe that "most" is the standard that is applied to current regulations. There are many weird things allowed by even the ACBL's GCC that few or even no one plays.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 15 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Still, I don't think this proves very much. My original point that you took issue with (I think) is my belief that few players in most countries seem interested in experimenting with systems that I would call unusual. Perhaps Poland is not "most countries" or perhaps what I consider "unusual" is usual there.

For that statement Fred I think you ought to include Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.

OK Claus. Because you asked so nicely, I will admit it:

Perhaps Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland are not most countries.

While you are at it, why don't you try to provide a list of all the other countries where bridge is played? If you do that for me I will be happy to admit that the 100+ countries in that list do, in fact, constitute "most countries".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com