Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having defined the expression “Purely Destructive Bid” are their any prohibitions against using one? If so, what are they and do they apply to overcalls? (for example, people overcalling a strong club opening)
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Passive aggressive cry for attention it is…

If you really care about the answer, 30 seconds with Google showed the following

http://denverbridge.com/index.php?page=board-members
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Paul

Have you presented these same questions to any officials in Unit 361?
What did they have to say?

If you have not asked anyone in Unit 361 about this, are you really interested in the answers to your questions or is this just some passive aggressive cry for attention on your part?
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The section of the ACBL Laws that you are citing is not part of the laws proper, but rather “Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors”. Said elections are not written in stone.

Please note: The Gold chart already includes the following language which indicates that players would be permitted to have agreement to open hands with less that 8 HCPs in 3rd seat.

“Note: In third seat, there is no minimum strength requirement for any Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level suit opening bid. However any 1 level opening bid that, by Agreement, can show less than Near-Average Strength is alertable even if Natural.”

As for my original post:

1. If the pair in question does not disclose an agreement to open a three count in third seat, then opening the 3 count is a psyche, and the use of Drury would be a psychic control and would not be allowed

2. If the pair does alert that their third seat major suit opening might contain a 3 count then this is a matter of partnership agreement and Drury would not be a psychic control
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact that training wheels slow down your son's bike is a feature, not a bug…
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The following is not directly related to the Convention Charts per se, but rather to suggested defenses.

My impression is that one high level goal to revising the Convention Charts is to eliminate the need for people to provide suggested defenses and, perhaps even, do away with player's right to consult written defenses to various methods that they might encounter. Be this as it may, I think that the C&C would provide continuing value to the ACBL membership if they were to provide suggested defenses to some to various methods that players might be using. Even you you can't carry a defense around with you to consult, there has to be some value in helping people devise good counters.

If the C&C is not willing to step forward in this area, then perhaps Bridge Winner's might. It might be useful to have a new section on the forums in which people could discuss / debate different types of suggested defenses as well as a section in which defenses that achieves a rough working consensus might be posted.
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, but we aren't talking about people playing in a 49's game. We're talking about top level pros using their position of influence to suppress methods that might inconvenience them.
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would skin the cat in a different way: The Gold Chart contains the following language:

“Note: In third seat, there is no minimum strength requirement for any Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level suit opening bid. However any 1 level opening bid that, by Agreement, can show less than Near-Average Strength is alertable even if Natural.”

Lets do away with the notion that players who open 1M on a three count in 3rd seat are psyching, force them to provide appropriate disclosure, and allow them to use Drury,

However, if a pair does not alert their opening and then choses to use Drury, they they are using a psychic control.

Seems relatively simple to me…
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what I can tell, the reason for this provision is a belief that people won't pass the (hypothetical) 3 opening if the Clubs can not be one of the suits shown.

In the past, I have played A 2NT opening that shows a bad three level preempt in either clubs or diamonds. And I have happily passed this bid with complete crap and gotten a top in 2NT -8 versus the opponents cold vulnerable 3NT game.

If you want to make sure that folks don't pass this sort of opening, then require that the opening bid be forcing. Don't try to back door the regulation by restricting what suits people can /can not hold because you won't get the behaviour that your hoping for.
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> We discussed MOSCITO at length… . Right now, it is
> residing on the “Platinum Chart”, or to put it another
> way, it would be allowed in the Vanderbilt Spingold only.

Any chance that you could provide additional context? In particular, who made the case for, who spoke against, and what arguments did people make.

In all seriousness, this is MUCH less innocuous that a lot of stuff that you are allowing. The opening structure is no different that “Transfer Walsh” which sailed right through.

If anything, you are providing the opponents with more bidding room on most sequence so I don't understand why this system presents such an unimaginable challenge to players in North America.

In all seriousness, this comes across as a big “F You” to players who like this type of method.

I can probably put together a reasonable proximity of the methods based on a more natural one level opening style. However, its not going to be any easier for the average player to defend against. What it will do is piss me off every time I am playing this and make my constructive openings less efficient.
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any chance that this will be in place for this year's GNTs?
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MOSCITO uses transfer openings because it uses relay responses

1. We want to be able to align the level of the opening bid with the number of hand types contained in the opening. We open hands with primary Hearts more often than hands with Spades more often than hands with Diamonds. As such, we're like to use

A 1D opening to show Hearts
A 1H opening to show Spades
A 1S opening to show Diamonds

2. This opening structure also allows us to “right side” a very likely contract. If we are exploring a Heart contract, we wold prefer if the relay captain is the first one to bid hearts rather than the relay responder.

3. (Associated with this, I won't deny that opening 1S with Diamonds does make it difficult for the opponents to show their major at the one level)

With all this said and done, I do think that transfer opening are far more innocuous than a lot of the stuff that is current legal on the gold chart and the primary purpose is most certainly constructive in nature.
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Precision pairs who play a 0+ Diamond do so to avoid the Precision 2D opening.

They will regularly open 1D with hands like

S ATxx
H KTx
D x
C QT9xx
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I view this as a very positive step. Between this, and the decision to legalize relay systems, I might even start playing again.

Of course, I also believe that the decision to legalize this represents an oversight on the part of the folks who drafted the document and I expect this door to be swung closed again almost immediately…
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the past, I have played a 2D opening that shows

4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either Hearts or Spades and ~5 - 10 HCPs.

If I am reading this chart correctly, this opening is now permissable.

I would appreciate clarification
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I missed that definition.

Is it the intent of this chart to explicit ban a Precision 1D opening that shows 0+ or 1+ Diamond and could systemically be made with 9 HCPs? Because to me this sounds like

“3. An Artificial 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Average Strength.”
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SO you are stating that relay systems are legal in Gold Chart events?
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You haven't defined “average strength” or less that average strength. I suspect that this is going to come back to bite you.

One could make an argument that Precision 1D opening that show 0+ or 1+ Diamonds are banned if they could be opened on a 9 count…
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, MOSCITO type systems that use transfer openings are now completely banned at the Midchart level.

At least you $%)#%^@#)^ are being honest about things for a change.
Dec. 24, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why an exception is being specifically made for 1C openings that show 4=4=3=2 shape.

If you want to ban conventional overcalls over short club openings, then ban conventional overcalls over short club openings. But don't persist with this ridiculous charade that opening 1C on a 4=4=3=2 is natural and opening 1C on a 4=3=4=2 is not natural.
Dec. 24, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top