[weejonnie]

Sitting down to play in the local duplicate, 3 boards a round, against someone who looks and sounds like a Secretary bird, I was disturbed to see him prsent two fully-filled in convention cards.

The first convention card stated: SBs marvellous system (1st/ 3rd): 7NT = 35+ points balanced.
The second convention card stated: SBs marvellous system (2nd/ 4th): 7NT = 35+ points balanced.

Being surprised at seeing two such similar system card titles, I made enquiries. SB said - "the first convention card lists our agreements in 1st/ 3rd to speak and the second one lists our agreements in 2nd/ 4th position. They do vary a lot- in fact they are completely different, other than the fact that we have agreed that an opening bid of 7NT in any position guarantees 35+ points." However we will alert/ announce any call as required.

Not happy with this, I called the director. Who amazingly had a Blue Book with him.

The director read out "A partnership may play two basic systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in level 4 or level 5 competitions and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. The partnership must display two system cards for each system, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply."

"I am sorry - but as this is only 3 boards a round, I cannot permit this.

SB was there in a flash.

'Please read the next paragraph'.

"It is always permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/ or vulnerability. This includes, for example, variable NT openings and playing four or five card majors in different positions."

'We only vary certain parts of our system according to position - the fact that this is 99%+ of calls is irrelevant. The Blue Book does not put any limit on the proportion of a system that can be varied and the examples given are not exhaustive.'

[gordontd]

Mods, may we please have a new forum devoted to the shenanigans of SB so that the rest of us can ignore them?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-25, 07:17, said:

Mods, may we please have a new forum devoted to the shenanigans of SB so that the rest of us can ignore them?

This question is very relevant and interesting to all EBU players.

[weejonnie]

Is there any real difference from playing:-

1NT = 9-11 1st NV, 12-14 1st Vul, 16-18 3rd Vul otherwise 15-17 AND

2H = 6-10, 5 hearts 1st Non Vulnerable, 8-11 5 Hearts 3rd Vulnerable, 16-20 6 hearts 2nd vulnerable, otherwise 11-15 5+ hearts?

[helene_t]

The regulation is obviously a bit vague.

But I think it means that you can vary shape and strength of natural openings.

Playing e.g. strong club when NV and "natural" when V (as some pairs do in India, based on the idea that the strong vulnerable 1♣ opening will suffer too much obstruction) is presumably not allowed. If it were, the 7+ boards restriction would be meaningless.

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on 2017-January-25, 08:39, said:

The regulation is obviously a bit vague.

But I think it means [.....]

I don't think OP (or SB, of course) is confused about the regulation means. The argument is about what it says.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-25, 08:09, said:

This question is very relevant and interesting to all EBU players.

That is patently untrue.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-25, 08:09, said:

This question is very relevant and interesting to all EBU players.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[weejonnie]

gordontd, on 2017-January-25, 10:55, said:

That is patently untrue.

Of course if the esteemed director would like to put this matter to rest by clearly defining what the phrase in the Blue Book actually means - and how far a system may be varied according to position and vulnerability, I would be only too grateful for his direction.

Edit:

Even the two suggested amendments (length of majors + NT strength) enables you to change from Acol (4CM WNT) to the principles of Standard American. (SNT - 5CM). You don't have to worry about changing responses as they are specifically unregulated. So I think there is no problem in changing from Acol - 3 -strong 2s, to American 3-weak 2s. Nor, for instance, changing from a short club/ diamond (could be 2+) to Acol (3+)

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-25, 09:07, said:

I don't think OP (or SB, of course) is confused about the regulation means. The argument is about what it says.

Well, I don't know what it means. What I think is that changing "certain parts" of your system just means that one or more things have to be the same., as suggested in the OP. So you can play a strong club only sometimes - although I would base it on the opponents' vulnerability, not ours.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-25, 12:28, said:

Of course if the esteemed director would like to put this matter to rest by clearly defining what the phrase in the Blue Book actually means - and how far a system may be varied according to position and vulnerability, I would be only too grateful for his direction.

I was simply contradicting Stefanie's assertion that this discussion is of interest to all EBU players.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-26, 02:28, said:

I was simply contradicting Stefanie's assertion that this discussion is of interest to all EBU players.

OK maybe not all.

[Zelandakh]

How about: "this question is of interest to a large enough portion of the EBU player base that an answer from an experienced English TD would be most helpful"?

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-26, 06:19, said:

How about: "this question is of interest to a large enough portion of the EBU player base that an answer from an experienced English TD would be most helpful"?

I doubt even that is true. Some of the SB questions are indeed interesting, but this one is so far removed from practical relevance that I'm not even sure what you want me to say. There's another current thread about which I might say "yes, the Blue Book could be worded better", but in this case I don't think the wording has much wrong with it and I've never heard of a real problem being created by it. There could perhaps be more detail and examples, but then the Blue Book would be much larger and we already have comments about our regulations being too long.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-January-26, 06:28, said:

I doubt even that is true. Some of the SB questions are indeed interesting, but this one is so far removed from practical relevance that I'm not even sure what you want me to say. There's another current thread about which I might say "yes, the Blue Book could be worded better", but in this case I don't think the wording has much wrong with it and I've never heard of a real problem being created by it. There could perhaps be more detail and examples, but then the Blue Book would be much larger and we already have comments about our regulations being too long.

I am with gordontd on this one, not with SB. The "basic system" may not be varied, except in longer matches. So, one cannot play, for example, Precision half the time and 2/1 the other half. Changing the no-trump range or length of majors according to seat/vulnerability does not change the basic system. The intent of the Blue Book is clear, and it is up to the TD to interpret the Laws (and Blue Book) according to Law 81C2.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-26, 06:28, said:

I doubt even that is true. Some of the SB questions are indeed interesting, but this one is so far removed from practical relevance that I'm not even sure what you want me to say. There's another current thread about which I might say "yes, the Blue Book could be worded better", but in this case I don't think the wording has much wrong with it and I've never heard of a real problem being created by it. There could perhaps be more detail and examples, but then the Blue Book would be much larger and we already have comments about our regulations being too long.

The detail and examples could be included in an appendix. Anyway it would be good to know how much of your system can be different. It is impossible to determine whether the regulation means about half, or almost all.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-26, 06:47, said:

The detail and examples could be included in an appendix. Anyway it would be good to know how much of your system can be different. It is impossible to determine whether the regulation means about half, or almost all.

I'd be happy to advise anyone who had a question about whether or not a particular combination of agreements that they intended to play was permissible.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-26, 06:47, said:

The detail and examples could be included in an appendix. Anyway it would be good to know how much of your system can be different. It is impossible to determine whether the regulation means about half, or almost all.

While I am totally in favour of definitive regulations rather than a woolly (mis)interpretable aspirations, I think this is impractical. Would it be half the lines on a convention card, half of all possible bidding sequences, or that the probabilities of hands meeting those different bidding sequences is 50%?

Maybe there should be no restriction if it cannot be simply described. If you wanted to have a card that only applied at Green against Red, 2nd and 4th seats, Thursdays only, but not after 8 pm, then as long as you present the appropriate cards at the beginning of the round, why not? Or you can do what the majority of people do, and that is have no card at all, just alert/announce/explain as required. Even that latter is more than most people do, the regulations being as they are.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2017-January-26, 08:36, said:

Maybe there should be no restriction if it cannot be simply described. If you wanted to have a card that only applied at Green against Red, 2nd and 4th seats, Thursdays only, but not after 8 pm, then as long as you present the appropriate cards at the beginning of the round, why not?

This seems like a very good idea. I guess the objection to it is that a quick perusal of the opponents' CC becomes onerous when it must be done from 2-5 times.

Quote

Or you can do what the majority of people do, and that is have no card at all, just alert/announce/explain as required. Even that latter is more than most people do, the regulations being as they are.

Is there something about the disclosure regulations that is too complicated for the players in your region to understand? Perhaps there are free literacy courses at the local library.

[barmar]

Perhaps a reasonable approximation would be "there are enough differences that you would need to prepare a different system card for each approach". ACBL convention cards have a few places (length of opening suit bids, strength of 1NT openings) where you can fill in multiple meanings for a call depending on seat or other conditions. But if you have lots of other variations, there's no way you'd be able to fit them on the same CC.

I know other NBO's system cards have more room than ACBL's, but even SB in the OP was not able to fit all his variations on one card.