[bluejak]

The original questions asked were answered. Thread drift is not unreasonable.



I just cannot see why when people really know what a basic system is there seems a crazy idea of getting two different systems and calling them one system. Why? What gain do you get apart from confusing the majority? Why should a pair who play Acol in one position and Precision in another be assumed to play one system?

Of course people who play one basic system play different things in different positions. That does not alter the fact that they play one basic system.

Also there will no doubt be borderline cases where it might or might not be called two systems. Fair enough. Quoting them proves nothing, any more than borderline decisions in other cases. The main point is that people who play different basic systems by position, vulnerability or opponent [a] play more than one system and [b] may or may not be permitted to by their TO.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-13, 13:08, said:

Anyway, what I would really like to know is the EBU's position. When is/isn't it legal to play, say, Strong Club when opponents are vulnerable, Acol otherwise?

You can find it in the Orange Book, but the summary is: you may only play precisely two (not more) systems at different positions and vulnerabilities at events which are level 4 (or 5) and which have 7+ boards per round. In practice, this is all swiss or private teams events that the EBU run (since they only run level 4 events) other than the C flight swiss pairs at a couple of congresses and non of the other pairs or multiple teams events (since they have too few boards per round). For events organised by clubs or counties you should consult their conditions of contest.

Matt

[bluejak]

peachy, on 2011-September-12, 01:09, said:

There is no appropriate forum for this question as this does not involve a ruling, appeal, or change of regulation. I am just curious because I could not locate the relevant law (if one exists).

The names of the forums are not exhaustive descriptions of their contents. We consider any aspect involved with Laws, Regulations and general Tournament Direction in Laws & Rulings and in Simple Rulings, excepting what the Laws & Regulations should be. We consider any aspect involved with Appeals Committees, whether running such or decisions made, in Appeal Committees. We consider any suggestions for change in Changing Laws & Regulations.

If it is to do Laws, Regulations, Tournament Direction and/or Appeals Committees in any way whatever we usually think it is on-topic in one of these four forums, and Ed or I will move it if we feel it is in the wrong one.

I consider your query on-topic here.

[barmar]

What is or is not a "system" is not something that can be answered definitively. It's similar to the problem biologists have delineating species and varieties; linguists have distinguishing languages, dialects, and creoles; etc. Humans like to categorize and label things, but most things don't fall into such neat categories, and subjectivity is often required.

I think the general concensus among bridge players is that a system is a collection of conventions and agreements that has a name, e.g. Precision, Standard American, 2/1, Polish Club, SAYC, etc. The ACBL convention card has a line at the top labeled "Basic Approach" where you're supposed to write a name like this. If your approach would require you to mention two names, then most would consider you to be playing two systems.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from creating a system that's a mixture of Precision and SAYC, and then giving it a name of your own. But unless it gains some popularity outside your immediate circle of partners, everyone will probably consider it an ersatz system. It's like trying to make up your own words -- it's not really a part of the language unless a significant number of speakers know it.

[campboy]

I think it is unfortunate that the OB uses the word "systems" here. Acol and SAYC are certainly different systems, but they do not count as different "Basic systems" for the purpose of this regulation.

[gombo121]

bluejak, on 2011-September-14, 08:09, said:

I just cannot see why when people really know what a basic system is there seems a crazy idea of getting two different systems and calling them one system. Why? What gain do you get apart from confusing the majority?

Actually, you can get some quite real gain. Depending on position you get quite different expectation on strength of partner's hand and probability of interference from opponents, which makes it very reasonable to vary opening and response structure to accomodate accordinagly, possibly changing both beyond recognition, so that notion of "basic system" became unreasonable.
Of course, that leads to excessive strain on memory so hardly anyone does that, but from theoretical point of view the concept is sound.

[mycroft]

There are many reasons for playing two systems, Gombo. But David is asking "why call it one system, when it isn't?"

I've played two-system methods probably more than 99.9% of the ACBL - either because we played "Precision when they are VUL, 2/1 if they're not" or Kontrast - where, since we opened almost all 8-counts, opposite a passed hand, 1-level openings were *sound* - 13-18 or so - or a Southern EHAA variant with a two-way 1♣ by 1/2, and sound-and-unlimited 1-openers 3/4.

It's legal, (provided it's pre-Alerted), so why not? But why try to hide it - either to get around regulations, or for other reasons - is the question?