[paulg]

The Scottish Bridge Union (SBU) has published a new Systems Policy (PDF).

The new policy largely follows the WBF System Policy, classifying systems as Green (natural), Blue (strong club/diamond), Red (artificial) and Yellow (HUM). The concept of (WBF) Brown Sticker Conventions is also introduced.

The principal difference between the SBU and WBF categorisation is the addition of constraints on multi-way two-level openers (that are not BSCs) for Green and Blue systems. This will turn some of these systems Red.

For most national competitions and, in my case the district ones too, Green, Blue and Red systems will be permitted but not Yellow and not BSCs. For the tournaments with matches longer than 16 boards, BSCs will be permitted subject to proper disclosure.

Initially this change will not make a significant different to bridge in Scotland. But the red classification is very broad, permitting transfer openings and a lot more, and it will be interesting to see if a lot of artificiality develops.

Interesting times.

Paul

[mjj29]

cardsharp, on Aug 3 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

For most national competitions and, in my case the district ones too, Green, Blue and Red systems will be permitted but not Yellow and not BSCs. For the tournaments with matches longer than 16 boards, BSCs will be permitted subject to proper disclosure.

Initially this change will not make a significant different to bridge in Scotland. But the red classification is very broad, permitting transfer openings and a lot more, and it will be interesting to see if a lot of artificiality develops.

Interesting. The EBU has just banned transfer (major) openings in most national and district competitions...

[NickRW]

I fancy moving to Scotland

[jeremy69]

Quote

I fancy moving to Scotland

Excellent idea!

[paulg]

mjj29, on Aug 3 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Aug 3 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

For most national competitions and, in my case the district ones too, Green, Blue and Red systems will be permitted but not Yellow and not BSCs. For the tournaments with matches longer than 16 boards, BSCs will be permitted subject to proper disclosure.

Initially this change will not make a significant different to bridge in Scotland. But the red classification is very broad, permitting transfer openings and a lot more, and it will be interesting to see if a lot of artificiality develops.

Interesting. The EBU has just banned transfer (major) openings in most national and district competitions...

The previous SBU regulations required that a one of major opening was natural, so the EBU was less restrictive for the past few years.

[david_c]

That's a shame. I'd always been impressed by the old Scottish regulations - they seemed to take most of the good bits from the EBU OB, without following it down its more dubious paths. Certainly they were very well written, as system regs go. Whereas, the WBF regs are notoriously woolly (particularly the HUM definition, which sadly is probably also the most important section).


Is Precision meant to be a Blue system? I can't find where the Precision 2♦ opening is allowed.

[paulg]

david_c, on Aug 4 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

That's a shame. I'd always been impressed by the old Scottish regulations - they seemed to take most of the good bits from the EBU OB, without following it down its more dubious paths. Certainly they were very well written, as system regs go. Whereas, the WBF regs are notoriously woolly (particularly the HUM definition, which sadly is probably also the most important section).

Although the old regulations were fine, I think it was just thought that it was time to update them. And, like in other areas, outsourcing most of this to the WBF is considered appropriate for a small country.

I don't think there is much concern about the wording of HUMs. Although a Tournament Director may have to make a decision the first time something strange is presented as Red when it may really be Yellow, there is a rapid-response system in place and a group of trusted individuals who will pronounce.

Quote

Is Precision meant to be a Blue system? I can't find where the Precision 2♦ opening is allowed.

You'd have expected Precision to be Blue and I did specifically point this out in review but it seems that they forgot or didn't agree to make it Blue. Perhaps a casualty of generality?

[RMB1]

Traditionally strong club was Blue in WBF. I always assumed designating the level as "blue" was a sop to the Italians' (blue club, etc.)

[Free]

Welcome to the good guys

About blue systems: these are strong C/D systems where responses are natural. If you're playing some kind of relay system it's no longer blue, but red. I don't think many blue systems still exist. The precision 2♦ opening is allowed as a red system. Even if it would be weak it would still not be a BSC because there's a 4+ card ♣ known.

[ahydra]

Unbelievable that they consider opening 1NT with a singleton "more complex" (Red) than strong 1C/1D systems (Blue)...

ahydra

[paulg]

At the WBF level (and equivalent) it makes no significant difference whether a system is Green, Blue or Red, except that you occasionally have to pre-submit Red systems presumably for someone to test whether its actually Yellow.

However the SBU has added additional constraints to two-level openers in Green and Blue which will turn standard Precision into a Red system. This will make negligible difference in practical terms.

The WBF Blue classification itself does seem a little archaic and its usefulness is debatable.

[mycroft]

cardsharp, on Aug 4 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

At the WBF level (and equivalent) it makes no significant difference whether a system is Green, Blue or Red, except that you occasionally have to pre-submit Red systems presumably for someone to test whether its actually Yellow.

Actually, it is also (and in my belief more importantly) so that prospective opponents can prepare for those Red elements.

Quote

However the SBU has added additional constraints to two-level openers in Green and Blue which will turn standard Precision into a Red system. This will make negligible difference in practical terms.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that this will cause not-serious, but embarrassing, damage in two cases:

1) People who have a WBF card, know it, and "know" that Precision is blue; either they play their Blue Precision card in Scotland and get hassled for it (after all, they see the structure, and "know" it's WBF, and they know their system is WBF blue. Are they going to see that one line that says otherwise?), or they see a Red card and spend time figuring out why it's red.

2) Scots internationalists who play Precision will register their Red card with the WBF (because, it's the same regulations, right?), and get criticized for it/have opponents scrounge the card looking for the red aspects, and complaining when they aren't there. Conversely, Scots internationalists who don't play Precision will see Blue cards from strong club pairs, and not necessarily notice the not-Red calls their opponents play.

For evidence of what happens when you "almost" play WBF regulations, see the 20+years of gripes about proper disclosure by the Poles (go ahead, search for it here, never mind anywhere else). A lot of it is for other reasons than the colour coding, but *a lot* of it is that many pairs register their Green Polish Club systems, and get the immediate reaction of "well, if they can't get the most basic part of the card right, what else can't I trust about it?" The thing, is, of course, that Polish regulations are, effectively, "WBF, but 1C clubs, balanced, or strong is Green"...

On a more serious note, there are Category 4 events (although they are intended to be rare, it seems). Which would you rather face in a "less-fear-than-normal" event:
Standard Precision with a 3-suited 2D opener and 1D promising 2+?
"Blue" Precision with a weak (or Multi) 2D opener and 1D promising 0+?

On the rest of the regulations,
- Does having non-Green defences to Blue/Red-only systems make the system non-Green?
- Are they really saying that playing Cappelletti/DONT/Brozel/any other NT-defences where there is a "unknown one-suiter" makes my system Red?
- Does 3.2.1c) apply to Blue systems? If so, does 3.2.1c) apply to Blue systems in response to their strong,forcing opening call (in particular, 3.2.1 c) exception iii? Should it? If not, is that a hole we want to fix (I'm seeing someone come in with a Strong Unbalanced Diamond system with transfer responses to the catch-all 1C - it's Blue...)
- "familiar or easy to understand" - that sounds like fun for the TDs, especially for your North American Visitors. Is Drury "easy to understand"? How about Bergen Raises? Gambling/Kantar 3NT? Lebensohl 2NT (or is that "wildly familiar")? So-called Good-Bad 2NT (same thing)? Again, it doesn't matter if Red systems are allowed, but how are they to know what things to cite that make the system "red"?
- nit-picky point, but these are system regulations - I see no regulations on doubles and redoubles. They aren't overcalls, they aren't conventional *bids* - do they mean "calls" in that spot? In conjunction with the previous point, are, say, Snapdragon doubles "easy to understand"? One-under-splinter doubles?
- it's clear in context, but there should be another section in the lettered 3.2.3 items for "contains Special Partnership Understandings (see 3.2.1 Note)", and/or a note that the list is not exhaustive.

BIG issue: The regulations use this word "strong" a lot - in particular in conjunction with "weak". Strong, except in the context of an Acol Two, is not defined. So, does Flannery 2D (assuming it was wildly familiar, which I would expect it isn't) count as strong (assume, for the moment, it's forcing - it's as forcing as 2D mini-multi)? It's not weak... Is 2D where one of the meanings is 17-19 balanced (so, potentially Rule of 24) legal?

[paulg]

mycroft, on Aug 4 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

For evidence of what happens when you "almost" play WBF regulations, see the 20+years of gripes about proper disclosure by the Poles (go ahead, search for it here, never mind anywhere else).  A lot of it is for other reasons than the colour coding, but *a lot* of it is that many pairs register their Green Polish Club systems, and get the immediate reaction of "well, if they can't get the most basic part of the card right, what else can't I trust about it?"  The thing, is, of course, that Polish regulations are, effectively, "WBF, but 1C clubs, balanced, or strong is Green"...

I agree with many of your concerns and most of them were brought to the committee's notice by me prior to the release of the document. I believe that their approach will be to collect the anomalies and address them in a review after the system has been in operation for a year. This may seem an unsound method, but Scotland is a small bridge country and I think it is a reasonable approach for us.

I do know that one of the problems using the WBF classifications is the complete lack of definition of Green and Red. "Green = natural" is really quite limited as a definition. The definition of Red is "Artificial" and includes an example of a three-way one club opener, when a simpler example (like whether Polish Club is natural) is needed.

But what is natural? The WBF Systems Committee recently told me that any system with an artificial 1♣ opener that is not Blue must be Red. This includes systems where a non-forcing 1♣ is opened on a two-card suit when holding precisely 4=4=3=2.

If you play Flannery, does this make your system Red? It is not a BSC, but it is clearly artificial and surely should be Red. The systems policy does not say that it only applies to one level openers, even though this is what many presume.

So I do know that the committee struggled with this lack of definition from the WBF and sought to provide some clarity. The result will probably see too many people having Red systems when Green might be more appropriate, in the sense that opponents do not really need to worry.

But I don't think that it will really cause significant problems for us or visitors.

Paul

[paulg]

mycroft, on Aug 4 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

BIG issue: The regulations use this word "strong" a lot - in particular in conjunction with "weak".  Strong, except in the context of an Acol Two, is not defined.  So, does Flannery 2D (assuming it was wildly familiar, which I would expect it isn't) count as strong (assume, for the moment, it's forcing - it's as forcing as 2D mini-multi)?  It's not weak... Is 2D where one of the meanings is 17-19 balanced (so, potentially Rule of 24) legal?

I raised this too

It was deliberate. The committee believes that the WBF definition of strong (13+ HCP) is not appropriate and confusing. They believe that most people have a innate understanding of what is strong and what is weak and it does not a prescriptive definition.

If this does become a BIG issue then I expect to see a definition added.

p

[mjj29]

cardsharp, on Aug 5 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

It was deliberate. The committee believes that the WBF definition of strong (13+ HCP) is not appropriate and confusing. They believe that most people have a innate understanding of what is strong and what is weak and it does not a prescriptive definition.

Experience in the EBU shows this is not the case. Is:

AQJxxxxx
Kx
xxx
x

strong? There are people who say "it's got 8 playing tricks, I must open it a benji 2C" (ok, that's an extreme example, but I think you get the point). This is not all _that_ uncommon

[aguahombre]

mjj29, on Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

Is:

AQJxxxxx
Kx
xxx
x

strong? There are people who say "it's got 8 playing tricks, I must open it a benji 2C" (ok, that's an extreme example, but I think you get the point). This is not all _that_ uncommon

Yes, it is an extreme example ---but covered by other regulations. In particular the number of cards allowed in one hand.

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on Aug 5 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

mjj29, on Aug 5 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

Is:

AQJxxxxx
Kx
xxx
x

strong? There are people who say "it's got 8 playing tricks, I must open it a benji 2C" (ok, that's an extreme example, but I think you get the point). This is not all _that_ uncommon

Yes, it is an extreme example ---but covered by other regulations. In particular the number of cards allowed in one hand.

Pfft, you people and your ability to count!, make it xx rather than xxx...

[blackshoe]

---

This is considered "strong" in the ACBL, provided "the person holding it thinks it's strong." I'm quoting the ACBL TD who was called to rule on it at a Sectional several years ago, but the then CTD of the ACBL agreed with him.

[mycroft]

And that's the other reason why I pointed out the flaw there. The ACBL in is wisdom have decided to take a Justice Stewart definition of strong, and that has become "what the player considers strong", and continues to cause disclosure issues to this day (you know, I don't have a problem with people opening AKQJxxxx Jx -- Jxx a "strong, artificial 2C" (or a "strong, artificial 1C", either); I do have a problem with them explaining 2C as "strong" without disclaimer; I especially have a problem with it when I take the "sacrifice" in 5H, and score up +480 (as opposed to +750 or +300, I mean)).

But it's compounded in these regulations by actually defining strong for one case - the Strong Two. It is not at all clear that strong (no caps) in its other meanings isn't Strong, therefore "rule of 25". Again, that will likely cause problems/ruffled feathers in Cat 4 events, and frustration in Cat 3, having to read through all this fluff that makes "your ordinary system" Red to find the stuff I do actually have to worry about. I would *hope* that people playing a truly Red system would put the weird stuff first, and the everyday stuff near the bottom of the "things people should know about" list, and especially hope that they wouldn't deliberately try to mislead/confuse/get the opps to ignore (ex. the pair that played 1NT 12-14V, 15-17NV, and wrote it that way on their card)

[paulg]

The discussion of Acol 2s is happening because the SBU has noticed the problem that the EBU has been having in the recent pass, namely describing a hand with eight playing tricks as Strong or an Acol 2 bid. Currently it is not perceived as a problem in Scotland but I think they've tried to take some preventive action. As you say this may not have been as helpful as they wished.

Pairs are supposed to highlight the areas that make their systems Red. I expect that we shall see sense prevailing here with the more important red components being shown near the top.