[ulven]

I know it's not pc to tutor my own horn, but after another week of playing (NABC still ongoing) against the best there currently is, the SCUM openings and relay strucure is the freaking best there is (based on 30+ years of international experience). Sorry if anyone is offended...

[jillybean]

Happy to hear you are having success

Shape Colour Ulven Majors

https://www.bridgeba...pic/86651-scum/

[awm]

Congrats on a nice finish in the Soloway. Sam and I felt much the same about our system when we used to play face-to-face bridge. Too bad there’s not really a way to measure these things accurately.

[foobar]

ulven, on 2024-December-06, 23:30, said:

I know it's not pc to tutor my own horn, but after another week of playing (NABC still ongoing) against the best there currently is, the SCUM openings and relay strucure is the freaking best there is (based on 30+ years of international experience). Sorry if anyone is offended...

Congratulations on the fine showing. I have been a huge fan of your system, and it will be really interesting to see hands where the system provided the edge.

[PrecisionL]

I would be interested to know how the system fared in Match Point Pairs contests?

(I play very few IMP contests.)

[ulven]

PrecisionL, on 2024-December-07, 11:28, said:

I would be interested to know how the system fared in Match Point Pairs contests?

(I play very few IMP contests.)

We've only played imps here but I'm sure it would do very well in mp as well.

There should be 8 sets of vugraph from Soloway available to check our auctions. There seems to have been significant issues with accuracy though. I can answer questions.
I never felt system put us in bad spot except a couple of times when our 1C-auctions got crowded thru jump overcalls.

[ulven]

foobar, on 2024-December-07, 11:28, said:

Congratulations on the fine showing. I have been a huge fan of your system, and it will be really interesting to see hands where the system provided the edge.

2M were mildly positive, several gains, no losses. One big gain on vugraph vs Boye, which was probably more related to judgement than system, to be fair.
2D multi, several wins, no losses.
2C several gains (one on vugraph vs Geir)
2NT never came up
1D and 1M very stable
Our easy relay structure never got into trouble and provided several gains. My rather diff cont after 1C-1D provided mostly gains and one loss in regional Swiss (when we failed to reach a very marginal 6M that rolled home at other table). Reverse relays after 1C is good.
I feel it's really useful to remove 15-17 NT from strong 1C. That's a hand type that most often suffer from competition (from previous experience).
The system is fairly easy if you're reasonable capable, only 4 pages (double columns) which makes less memory strain and allows focus on judgement and card play.

[awm]

I decided to take a look at some of these.

Soloway R32 Q3 vs. Moss/Grue

Board 1: Overcalled 2♥ over Grue's short 1♦, showing 4♥ and a longer minor (diamonds!). Wound up in 3NT, which was also reached at the other table. Probably all roads lead to 3NT here, although one wonders if passing might have allowed a lucrative penalty (opponents really have no fit and no values).
Board 2: Win 12 when opponents misdefend 4♠X. No system involved here really.
Board 4: Routine 18 opposite 7 game after a strong ♣ opening.
Board 5: Double fit in the round suits with 4♥ a lucky make after 1♦ opening, but sold to 3♦ and set it a trick.
Board 7: Seemingly missed a 27 hcp 3NT after a 1♦ opening; likely either operator error or some sort of hand sorting mistake by the players.
Board 9: Reached 3NT despite a 1♦ opening on utter garbage by Grue, but it doesn't make. Push board though.
Board 10: Opened 2♥ showing 4♥ and a longer minor, and landed in 3♣ on a 5-3 fit. Made 3 for a push with 3♦-1 at the other table.
Board 11: Reached 4♠X+1 after a natural 1♠ overcall. Seems well played and a bit of luck on the lead.
Board 12: Lose 10 when opponents push to 3NT on 14 opposite 11 and it makes; teammates were in 1NT.
Board 13: Reached the normal 3NT after a 1♣ opening for a push board.
Board 15: Used methods after 1♦ opening and 1NT rebid to reach the normal 3NT.

The big swings in this segment were boards 2 and 11 (win 9 and 12) and boards 7 and 12 (lose 11 and 10). None of them really seem system related to me.

Soloway R32 Q4 vs Moss/Grue

Board 18: Auction to the normal 5♣ after a 1♠ opening and 2♣ response for a push board. I'd expect any reasonable method to get here though.
Board 20: Somewhat interesting auction with a third seat 1♦ opening, 1♠ overcall, and 2♦ on a 4360 six-count. Possibly this contributed to Grue/Moss reaching a pushy 4♠ game that failed by two tricks. Teammates sold to 3♦ at the other table (making) for win 3.
Board 21: Strong ♣ auction to a normal 4♥ contract, also reached at the other table.
Board 22: Grue/Moss overcall 1♥ over a 1♦ opening and land in a normal 3♥. However, teammates get to 4♥X, which makes on the non-trump lead.
Board 23: Relay auction to 6♠ making, but I don't imagine this is hard in any sensible system (11-card spade fit). Push board.
Board 24: Competed to 2NT after a 1NT opening and 2♣ majors by Grue. Lost three when this failed by a trick with 3♥ failing by teammates.
Board 26: Opened multi, opponents played 3NT. Teammates bid and made 6♣ at the other table, but the slam isn't great (needs ♦J falling third in a six-card fit).
Board 27: Reached 6♣ after a 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid; responder has a very prime 17 so probably not hard to reach (push board).
Board 29: Reached 6♠ after a 1♦ opening and 1♥ overcall. Interesting choice not to raise spades after 1♦-(1♥)-X-(2♦) with a 4243 12-count. Didn't matter when partner basically slam forced. Opponents tried 7♠ after the 1♦-(1♥)-1♠-(3♥)-3♠ start (three spades perhaps an overbid on a minimum hand) and this had no play.

The big swings are boards 22, 26, 29. All of these look like they were primarily at teammates table.

My conclusion looking at these two segments is that it's somewhat surprising how little the system seemed to matter at all. I looked at some other segments as well (if less thoroughly) and came to same conclusion.

[nullve]

awm, on 2024-December-08, 13:45, said:

Board 9: Reached 3NT despite a 1♦ opening on utter garbage by Grue, but it doesn't make. Push board though.

Grue opened 1♦ (nebulous) in 1st NV vs V on

QT98
KQ97
J3
J32

even though, at least according to the CC they used in the 2024 World Bridge Games, their Precision 1♦ shows

Quote

10-15, 2+ NV & 4th; 3+ 3rd NV

They seem to do this quite often (I've posted at least one hand earlier where Grue opened 1♦ in 1st or 2nd on a totally non-upgradable balanced 9 count), so I think they might have a disclosure problem, to put it mildly. It doesn't (or shouldn't) really help that they've put

Quote

NV openings can be as light as 8 HCP

on the front of their CC when they know it's already common to open many 8 counts with 6-5 shape.

[DavidKok]

Grue-Moss have played a modified system over their 1♦ when NV before, including inviting with 14-counts opposite after finding a major suit fit. I think the opening systemically shows around 8-12 HCP. I am not sure if it can also be stronger.
I'm not sure what exact agreements they had in the Soloway or what the disclosure rules in place were.

[nullve]

http://systems.world...Moss%202024.pdf

[DavidKok]

That's funny, I thought the ACBL had rules that you couldn't use judgement to upgrade a 9-count into a 10-13 NT opening range. The card states that 1♦ is 10-15 at these colours and vulnerabilities, and that the 1NT opening shows 14-16. I didn't realise this stipulation did not apply to the balanced range in the 1m opening.

[mycroft]

Why would you think "disallowed to open 1NT with fewer than 10 HCP" says anything about "disallowed when opening 1 of a minor"? Especially in a rewrite of the convention charts that is so incredibly precise and lawyerly (at least as compared to the GCC)?

Unfortunately, you aren't the only one who knows obviously what is allowed (or Alertable) because "it's obvious" rather than reading the documents and finding out. And unlike those others, you have the (very reasonable!) excuse that you don't have to know, because you never play under ACBL regulations.

I have said (and Europeans have frequently said!) that the American Precision players' disclosure of the bottom of their ranges is sketchy at best and deliberately misleading (*) at worst, but it's okay because they're American and "we all know what they actually play, so it's not a problem". Except when they play outside the "we all know" group, I guess.

(*) Okay, *I* say that. Others (from Europe) have gone farther than "deliberately misleading". I shall not name names or statements; but I'm sure it's still available if you look.

[DavidKok]

mycroft, on 2024-December-08, 18:31, said:

Why would you think "disallowed to open 1NT with fewer than 10 HCP" says anything about "disallowed when opening 1 of a minor"? Especially in a rewrite of the convention charts that is so incredibly precise and lawyerly (at least as compared to the GCC)?

Unfortunately, you aren't the only one who knows obviously what is allowed (or Alertable) because "it's obvious" rather than reading the documents and finding out. And unlike those others, you have the (very reasonable!) excuse that you don't have to know, because you never play under ACBL regulations.

Did somebody piss in your cereal this morning Mycroft? You're aggressively misquoting me, I really expected better of you. My concern isn't the legality of opening 9-counts, it's claiming that the 1♦ opening contains 10-13 balanced and then exercising judgement to include 9's. Since 10-13 NT is completely legal but using such judgement for that particular opening is not, I was surprised the same does not apply to 1♦. Now if their CC said that the range for 1♦ was 9-15 or 8-15, or contained 9-13 balanced as a possible hand type, I would not have had any questions. I've checked the Charts after writing the above though, in preparation for playing under ACBL rules. You are completely right, the above rule specifically only applies to 1NT openings. The legal limit for the 1♦ is 'near average strength' I believe, which is something like "8 HCP or rule of 17". Thank your for pointing this out!

mycroft, on 2024-December-08, 18:31, said:

I have said (and Europeans have frequently said!) that the American Precision players' disclosure of the bottom of their ranges is sketchy at best and deliberately misleading (*) at worst, but it's okay because they're American and "we all know what they actually play, so it's not a problem". Except when they play outside the "we all know" group, I guess.

Relax, disclosure is just awful no matter where you go. No need to distinguish so hard between different nationalities.

[awm]

Soloway R16 Q3 vs. Elmas/Basaran

Board 1: Reached 4♠ after opening 1♦ on a 5323 hand. Easy to reach the same contract after a normal 1♠ opening of course, for a push.
Board 2: Opened 1♦ and caused opponents a bit of trouble when they overcalled 1♠ and partner was able to bid 2♣ on a very poor hand. Opponents pushed to 5♠ on a slam try auction, but this also made for no swing.
Board 5: Win 16 when teammates reach a better slam than opponents.
Board 7: Stayed out of a bad slam after opening multi on a strong balanced hand for win 13. Seems like mostly judgment on when to super-accept a transfer.
Board 8: Played 2♦ after opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♦. Win 1 on overtricks.
Board 10: Missed a reasonable (but not cold) slam after opening 1NT on a 17-count that some would upgrade. Opponents also missed this despite showing 17-19.
Board 11: Win 7 after opponents open and the auction goes (1♣)-3♦-(X). At the other table opponents raised the preempt to 4♦ which failed; at your table partner passed and opponents played 3♠ failing by five tricks!
Board 12: Reached 3NT on 23 combined (and no great fit) after a 2♠ opening showing spades and a minor, ended up -3. Lose 2 when opponents opened the ten-count also and reached the same game. I wouldn't want to be in game on this pair of hands; even after playing Q9873 opposite K62 for one loser you still need something else to go right.
Board 15: Bid to 4♠ after opponents opened, and doubled when the opponents took a sacrifice at unfavorable. Teammates were not doubled at the other table.

Big swings are boards 5, 7, 11, 15. The only one where your side opened was board 7, and that was effectively a 2NT opening (multi...2NT actually) which happened also at the other table. Arguably board 12 was a bad result due to system (but the opponents duplicated it at the other table).

Soloway R16 Q4 vs. Elmas/Basaran

Board 16: Opened 1♣ and got to play 2♥ on a transfer auction with 19 opposite 2. At the other table they opened multi and wound up in 2NT failing (win 5).
Board 17: Reached 4♠X after an aggressive overcall (I suspect most would bid here at the top level though) for -500. Opponents at the other table redoubled, so they go for -1000 and you win 11.
Board 25: Lose 11 when the lead of unsupported ace against a normal 4♥ is ruffed. Teammates went down (against a different lead).
Board 26: Nice play by opponents to make a very aggressive 6NT; teammates in 3NT at the other table.
Board 30: Looks like a reverse relay auction to 6♣, which is excellent. Opponents reach this too though, so push board.

Finally a clear system win, but it's being able to open 1♣ and rebid 1NT with 19 instead of winding up at the two-level (same thing every strong club system and a lot of people playing transfer responses to short 1♣ can do). Board 30 seems like it was a nice auction, although I suspect most top-flight pairs would reach the slam.

So once again, I don't see system as a significant factor in these wins.

[PrecisionL]

Thanks Adam for the analysis.

[ulven]

Nice writeup Adam. Pls share your take on quarter final also.

SCUM is a constructive system, not meant to generate variance but to consistently put us in good position to achieve par or beat it. For a system to create frequent gains, you need a different approach that also exposes you to losses when the great shuffler doesn't cooperate.

We played high level opponents, Grue Moss is s pressure pair, and did well. Against lesser opponents some slams wouldn't be reached and we would have gained.

Our system is 4 pages and not very memory intensive so our objective is definitely met. I do agree that systems have often a lesser impact than what might be a popular belief, especially against expert opposition. The absence of auction f**kups is an indirect gain, if you reflect on it. My comments on openings above is an reflection of 11 days of play, not just the later stages of Soloway.

[awm]

May as well finish this...

Soloway QF Q1 vs. Willenken-Helgemo

Board 2: Landed in 4♥ on a 4-3 fit instead of 4♠ on a 5-3 fit after a 1♣ opening and 2♦ interference. This was makeable but required guessing the heart position with T9x opposite AKQx, which declarer got wrong when he played the non-preempter for the heart jack. 4♠ could have the same issue, but you get to find out the spade break before making the decision which may help get it right, and you can also try to combine chances of hearts 3-3 vs. 4-2 with the doubleton in the short spade hand. Anyway this was only lose 6 when opponents somewhat strangely played 2NT+2 at the other table.
Board 4: Rather strange unopposed auction of 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♠-2NT-Pass to reach 2NT on 20 combined points (instead of the 5-2 spade fit). This time both contracts failed by two tricks for a push board.
Board 8: Somewhat aggressive bidding after a start of 1♣-P-1♦-(3♣); opener doubled with a 4342 18-count and responder went to game with a 5512 1-count. This wound up doubled for -300. I have some sympathy for these actions (opener thinks he has a well-placed club king which is actually in front of the ace, responder thinks perhaps he is getting a singleton club opposite in which case he needs very little). The other table defended 3♣ making pretty quietly.
Board 10: Opponents overbid themselves to 4♥ and go down; win 7.
Board 12: 2♥ on a 5-1 fit after a third seat multi on a five-card suit. This fails by three tricks; opponents play 3♦ in a nine-card fit but this is also down two. Could be a system loss for not having a weak two in diamonds available, though a slight one.
Board 15: Teammates weak notrump steals the board; at your table after 1♦-Pass-Pass you balanced back in and reached 3NT making for win 5.

Some arguable system losses here on board 2 and 12 (playing inferior fits) and board 8 (it's easier to avoid pushing too far if you get a 1NT overcall by opponents as they did at the other table over a "natural" diamond), and board 4 (although this might be a judgment thing or a misunderstanding). Teammates arguably had a system win for their weak notrump though.

Soloway QF Q3 vs. Brogeland-Bakke

Board 5: Won 7 IMPs by defeating 1♦X by three (it went down only two at the other table).
Board 6: Vugraph lost the auction, but both tables played 6♠ on a hand where 7♠ seems very good. Seems like relays should find the grand; maybe opponents interfered at your table?
Board 7: Strong club invited opponents into the auction and they eventually reached 4♣ making. At the other table opponents bought the hand in all of 1♦ (making).
Board 8: Played a 4-3 diamond fit after a 2♣ (minors) opening. Opponents played a 5-2 spade fit at the other table for a push.
Board 9: Jumped into the auction with 2♠ (spades and clubs) which got you to 4♠; this put opponents to a guess whether to push to the five level or double, but they actually can't go wrong (4♠X goes for 500 and five of a red suit makes for 450/420). Opponents never found the spade fit and sold to 4♥, but of course this isn't necessarily better given the lie of the cards.
Board 11: Funny hand -- Brogeland opened 1♣ with a five card heart suit and your side jumped in with 2♠ (spades and diamonds) and played 3♦ in a nine-card fit. This kept opponents out of the TEN card heart fit, which was found by your teammates at the other table... but went down FOUR (luckily undoubled).
Board 12: Opened 2♥ (hearts and a minor) and invited game with 3♠. Brogeland tried a speculative double of the eventual 3NT contract which made. At the other table opponents seemingly had a misunderstanding about whether a 1NT rebid could be based on a small singleton, and landed in 4♠ on the 6-1 fit (failing). Maybe a system win, although it seems like you'd expect 3NT to be reached at the other table also.

Bit of a system loss for strong club on board 7 here. You caused some action on boards 9 and 11 but not really clear this worked to your advantage. Board 12 was arguably a system win to reach 3NT instead of 4♠, although it seems like perhaps more of a system loss for opponents at the other table.

Soloway QF Q4 vs. Willenken-Helgemo

Boards 16-18 had a bunch of IMPs flying around, but not really system related.
Board 20: Opened 1♦ and reached 1NT by opener. This seems to have talked opponents out of a diamond lead with queen-sixth of the suit, allowing you to make a 1NT that failed at the other table.
Board 21: Reached 1♠XX after P-1♦-P-1♠-X, making two for 720 on a hand where your side has all the values. Teammates went for 800 in 2♠X though so lose two. Perhaps the system helps you in that you know partner will not have singleton spade, but it seems like the same auction is quite possible in most methods.
Board 22: Lost 12 when declarer took a wrong view in the play.
Board 24: Sort of a weird system loss when declarer never showed clubs in the auction (despite holding six of them) and got a club lead. But this turned out to make timing the play quite a bit more difficult than the natural spade lead at the other table, and declarer went down, losing ten imps.
Board 26: Win for 2♣ minors when opponents tried to double for takeout and caught partner with no values and no fit. Scored 800 in 2♠X to win 5.
Board 30: Teammates pushed to 6NT which made when opponents couldn't find a heart lead from Qx. Win 11.

From this set, there was one pretty clear system win on board 26 when opponents chose the wrong time to step in over 2♣ minors. Some weird system swings on board 20, 21, 24 but arguably these are just mistakes by various players at the table.

[mycroft]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-09, 01:00, said:

Did somebody piss in your cereal this morning Mycroft?

Apologies for the tone. It was unnecessary. The issue is that there are a *lot* of players here that say "but what they're doing is the same as what we're doing, why is that legal and mine not?" When in fact it's a different thing.

Quote

You're aggressively misquoting me, I really expected better of you. My concern isn't the legality of opening 9-counts, it's claiming that the 1♦ opening contains 10-13 balanced and then exercising judgement to include 9's. Since 10-13 NT is completely legal but using such judgement for that particular opening is not, I was surprised the same does not apply to 1♦.

But that is the issue.

The statement in the (Open chart, Basic/+ chart is equivalent except for "allowed/disallowed" inversion) is: "If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape. If an agreement is disallowed, then adding an unlikely hand type to it does not make it allowed."

So, the difference - and it is key - is exactly that "opening 9 HCP 1NTs are disallowed but opening 9 HCP Quasi-Natural 1♦s are not." Which means "exercising 'judgement' to actually play 9-12 NT (but claim it's 10-12 to meet legality)" is ruled an illegal agreement, but exercising 'judgement' to actually play 9-15 1♦ openers and *rebid* 1NT on 9-bad 13 but claiming you play 10 is poor disclosure, but not use of an illegal agreement. Now, as you said later, if they opened 8-12, say (with a 13+ 1♣), and opened some 7s "that looked like 8", they'd be in the same bind.

Quote

Relax, disclosure is just awful no matter where you go. No need to distinguish so hard between different nationalities.

The difference is "poor disclosure" vs "having a disallowed agreement and using poor disclosure to conceal it". Which Blackshoe has serious issues with [edit: the implication], and he's not wrong, but the ACBL C&CC has decided that the number of "mah holy judgement" cases that were in fact "they're trying to cheat the regs, but us saying that will provoke a lawsuit" were high enough that they now say "if you play right to the line, don't go one toe over. If you don't, you can slide a bit." And if it catches a couple of truly real judgement people, well, them's the breaks.

[Zelandakh]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-08, 17:13, said:

That's funny, I thought the ACBL had rules that you couldn't use judgement to upgrade a 9-count into a 10-13 NT opening range. The card states that 1♦ is 10-15 at these colours and vulnerabilities, and that the 1NT opening shows 14-16. I didn't realise this stipulation did not apply to the balanced range in the 1m opening.

You should understand by now that ACBL system regs are designed to allow everything the players making the decisions want while banning anything they think might cause them issues. There is no underlying logic behind the decisions. If one of the influential pairs decided they wanted to play a 9-11 1NT opening, you can be sure that the regs would change fairly quickly.