Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Different STYLE is a far cry from different SYSTEM.

Perhaps

But, different style, played in conjunction with a radically different response structure would seem to be a very different case.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This VERY much depends on where you are playing.

For example, in ACBL Land I could, in theory, play 8 different “systems” (varying based on seat and vulnerability) even in a two round pairs event.

Moreover, I'd argue that almost all players have very different opening requirements based on what seat they are in. They just don't describe this as playing a different system.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> here is another example.
> I would certainly open ax xx xx kqxxxxxx 1NT at any time.

Do you believe that the words “Flat 9 count” is an accurate description of this hand?
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you play on BBO often? If so, are you willing to give permission to have all your hand records yanked so we can take a look at what you actually do?

Alternatively, can you write a deal script that is consistent with your NT opening style in various seats / vulnerabilities?
Sept. 2
Richard Willey edited this comment Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not 30 minutes ago you stated that you decision to open 1NT would be based on the state of the match.

Now you are pretending that your methods have not changed.

I don't really care how you want to label your “methods”, however, you do need to adjust your disclosure to accurate describe what you are playing at a given point in time.

Providing extraneous information - for example tell the opponents that you open 1NT with vulnerable 9 counts when “the state of the match” - is deliberately lying about your methods and should be treated accordingly.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> If I am 20 imps down I might well open 1NT with a
> flat 9 count vul vs not.

If you are permitted to change your methods this dramatically with the state of the match then you should alter your disclosure based on the state of the match.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> So what do you want me to write for the NT ranges to
> comply with the insane regulations you propose ?

First and foremost, I want you to understand that the purpose of disclosure is to help the opponents by providing them with useful information and, as such, providing too much information can be just as bad as providing too little.

Second, I think that you need understand that if your methods can not be adequately disclosed then you might need to adjust them as to make them consistent with expected standards.

Next, I think that you need to adjust your disclosure to accurately reflect seat and vulnerability.

Lastly, I think that you need to recognize that your responsibility is to be consistent with the local disclosure regulations and not to cater to the whims of the individual in the following example.

> Do you want me to write 16-18 HCP and every time I
> downgrade a 20 count have someone complain he
> had 20 HCP he is not revealing his real range of NT ?

FWIW, I would LOVE to see the powers that be adopt more objective standards with respect to disclosure responsibilities. For example, let's assume that I had the corpus of all hands that a given partnership has chosen to open 1NT in first seat NV playing their current methods. I would claim that if either tail of this distribution becomes too “thin” then including this in the HCP range starts causing more harm than good. (One can argue what this critical value might be, however, I think that the basic principle stands)
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> The full NT structure is 1NT 9-17HCP
> 1♣ 1♦ 1NT 16-20HCP

Being deliberately obtuse does not excuse you from disclosure requirements.

With luck, some director is reading this and will hang you from your heels next time you play in an event.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that the population of players competing in such events is non uniform…
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If only Ian H realized that…
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know how things work in the EBU

Under ACBL jurisdiction, I would suggest that IF you are making changes to your methods that are sufficiently gross that they would warrant adjusting your disclosure AND these changes are not happening during a round break, then these changes are not permitted.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> As I see it I write 9-17HCP is the range but what hands
> are opened depends on vulnerability and position

As I see it, if your agreements change significantly based on vulnerability and position, that you specifically disclose each of these combinations

It is certainly permissable for you to make significant changes to your methods based on the state of the match, however, this must happen at round breaks. And, if you make such a change then you should adjust your disclosure such that it is consistent with what you are currently playing.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ain't the wayback machine grand…

https://web.archive.org/web/20190609094130/http://bridgeguys.com/
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@marty

Would it be possible to get an ex cathedra version of your interpretation?

I consider this to be interesting / useful, however, a comment on BW is nowhere near as useful as an official document that I can present to a tournament chair.

Perhaps this could be added to the examples at the end of the Convention Charts or some such?
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then this is a great opportunity for them to learn how the game is supposed to be played at top level.

Once again, you shouldn't get to use the excuse “I'm inexperienced” to gain advantage at a game of skill.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“taking into account his level ”

FFS, this took place in a “World Open Championship”

Its fine to enter such an event if you are inexperienced, however, you don't get to use that as protection.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that he is talking about opener who has shown

5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs

Rather than

4 Diamond and 3 Spades
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is that, back before there was dirt, people would open 1 with this pattern if they lacked sufficient strength for a high reverse.

I haven't heard anyone seriously advocate this theory in a very long time…
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid 2 with the original hand and 2 with this
Aug. 24
.

Bottom Home Top