[Cascade]

Crunch3nt, on 2011-December-05, 21:49, said:

To clarify Australia/New Zealand actual regulations, this is what they are:

In matchpoint events HUM systems are banned in both countries, while brown sticker is banned altogether in NZ and in all but very top matchpoint events in Australia. This is much more annoying in NZ where 80% of tournament bridge is still matchpoints, while in Australia 90% of tournament bridge is imps.

In team events, with matches of 8 or more boards, HUM systems are allowed in both countries, but the entire team loses its seating rights for the whole of the swiss qualifying (including the matches when the HUM pair are not playing in a 6 person team). Also you are not allowed to play the HUM system for the first 3 rounds of the swiss qualifying event, and then if you drop out of the top 3rd of the field in terms of your placing, you are not allowed to play it until you regain top 3rd. Also you need to lodge your full system notes with the directors 2 weeks before the event and provide a bona-fide suggested defence.

One incorrect statement on here is that HUM systems are allowed in the Bermuda Bowl - they are not allowed in the qualifying round-robin at all, and only, in theory, can be used in the knockout stages. The reality is different. I play (and co-created) the dreaded T-rex mentioned by Hog, although we call it "Crunch!" now. In 2009 Crunch was submitted to the WBF by New Zealand to play in the Burmuda Bowl in the event we made the knockouts but the chairman of the WBF systems committee John Wignall (interestingly, a New Zealander) banned it from even the final stages! The Bermuda Bowl truly is a "no-fear" event.

Some minor quibbles and clarifications of Michael's post regarding the conditions in NZ.

1. Brown Stickers are allowed in Pairs events with separate qualification and (semi-)final stages but only in the semi-final stages and above.

2. I can't find in the manual the "2 weeks" condition. It seems to just says "prior to the start of the event".

3. I can't find in the manual the rules regarding the first three rounds or if you drop out of the top third of the field. Are these rules operative in the New Zealand Teams?

[Vampyr]

dake50, on 2011-December-05, 21:05, said:

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.

This does not make any sense. What you meant to say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[akhare]

Dake50 said:

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.

Vampyr, on 2011-December-06, 07:35, said:

This does not make any sense. What you meant to say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

True FP practitioners "pass" the eating part -- they have ferts for dessert instead ...

[akhare]

Crunch3nt, on 2011-December-05, 21:56, said:

In New Zealand in the 80's, medium pass (9-15) was played by 3/4 high quality pairs but it went by wayside quickly due to the preemption issues already mentioned.

AWM, Here Strong Pass means 15/16+, not 13+, with 8/9-14 openings and a 0-7/8 1H fert.

Having played FP myself, I agree with several of the issues that awm raised.

1) The 15+ P leaves the responder in more or less the same situation as interference over 1♣. If they don't interfere, we can split responder's hands into GF, semi-positive and double negative and play the same relay scheme over the first two.

2) The point about the 1♣ / 1♦ opening bids containing "low" information still stands. In theory, since these openings typically show a 4 card major, responder can blast to the 2-level with say a 3-card fit, but the main problem that opener can hold 5 cards in the suit as well and we may very well have a better fit in a side suit.

Of course, one can argue that the whole point is to show the 4 card major immediately and then let the opps to guess at the 2-level. The catch is that responder will often hold an invitational hand and the 1-level relay gives them a chance to introduce their suits cheaply.

3) The 1♥ fert is really a double edged sword that hurts our part scores equally. Quite often responder isn't well placed to judge competitive auctions and often has to pass when we could have otherwise competed because we can't tell 0-5 from 6-8.

In fact, given that the fert conveys little besides 13 cards with 0-8 points, I would argue that it should be relegated to 1♦ / 1♣.

4) It's difficult to find opps willing to play vs. FP, even online. In a way, I can't really blame them because the fert auctions create all sorts of undiscussed situations, which gives us an undue advantage for the wrong reasons.

Of course, this would be moot playing a 1♣ fert, but how many FP players are willing to accomodate that?