[uday]

I rather suspect that neither Meckles nor Martel would be interested in a debate in a hostile environment.

Perhaps a calm, well-reasoned email to Memphis would be answered. I don't know. But if the objective is to push change thru, rather than to understand why change hasnt happened, whats the point? We're just venting.

[fred]

Walddk, on Apr 28 2006, 08:15 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 28 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

>From: "Jeff Meckstroth" <j.meckles@XXXX.net>
>To: "steve weinstein" <lizsteve@XXXXXXXX.net>,
>        "Chip Martel" <martel@XXXXXX>, <Gary.Blaiss@acbl.org>
>Cc: <rick.beye@acbl.org>, "Steve Beatty" <sbeatty@XXXXXXXXX.com>,
>       
>Subject: Re: mid-chart submission
>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:26:31 -0400
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.4.219.65] at Sat, >14 Aug 2004 20:26:32 -0500
>
>This one is not difficult and is ok. However if we allow this it will lead to other requests for
>transfer openings such as the mosquito system from down under. This system we don't want in acbl.
>
>I would approve this but warn all of the looming danger.
>
>Jeff

Interesting reading, apparently sent to Richard by mistake. If this is how it works behind the scene, I am beginning to lose respect for the members on that committee - not as bridge players, but as administrators and/or advisers.

Give a factual explanation as to why you shouldn't have this system or that defence, but do not tell the world: "This system we don't want in acbl" without giving relevant arguments, i.e. why you want to ban it/them.

If what Meckstroth writes in his e-mail is all you can come up with, you are not equal to the task in my opinion.

Roland

Roland - This is not "how it works behind the scenes".

Here is how it works:

The committee members are asked to express an opinion via e-mail when a convention is submitted. If all committee members share the opinion that "this is system we don't want in the ACBL", then there is no reason to waste time on a bridge discussion that everyone understands already.

Frequently the committee members disagree. In such cases there are more (sometimes many more) e-mails that involve a (typically complicated) bridge discussion. Sometimes Rick Beye and Gary Blaiss (who were cc'd on the e-mail in question and who are ACBL's leading experts on the rules) get involved, express their opinions, and make sure that "process" is properly followed.

The posted e-mail (inappropriately posted in my view) is likely one of many e-mails on this subject. This one simply expresses the initial reaction of one of at least 3 committee members. Furthermore, this e-mail was part of an internal discussion - it is not a "final statement of official policy".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

As a dues paying member of the ACBL what concerns me most about this thread is the fact that the ACBL has formed a committee that has no clear mission statement and that our very best players join year after year and do not know what their mission clearly is yet seem to rejoin the committee year after year without getting a clear answer. The members do seem to have some vague idea what their job is but it is very very vague based on this thread.

I have sent repeated emails and phone calls to the ACBL on this issue and the replies I get are simply nonresponsive. That means they politely reply to me with answers that do not address my questions and finally just stopped replying.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Mar 31 2006, 08:28 AM, said:

I was starting to get really pissed off and asked a friend of mine named Tim Goodwin for some help.  (Tim was a occasional partner of mine and also was the President of ACBL District 25).  Tim made the reasonable suggest that we start small and try to get defenses approved to a “simpler” opening and then (progressively) add complexity.  This is an obvious “thin end of the wedge” type strategy.  Accordingly, we stated that we wanted to playing a 1H opening that shows the exact same hand as a normal SAYC style 1S opening.  We submitted the opening and the defense to the Conventions committee.  By this time, Fred had left the committee and been replace by Steve Weinstein.  Steve sent Tim and I an email that stated that he saw nothing wrong with the submission and that he expected a quick approval.  At this point in Time Meckstroth sent out an email of his own stating (correctly) that this was an attempt to open the door for MOSCITO and that he would never permit this “diabolical” system to be played in North America.

A few of notes:

1) The committee did approve a defense to a 1H opening bid which showed a Standard American 1S opening bid (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP, etc.) for matches/rounds of at least 12 boards.

2) The approval process took nine months. I believe I submitted my original request on June 30, 2004, and received approval April 1, 2005. I had no interaction with the committee between September of 2004 and April 2005 other than requesting updates on the process. The committee chose to discuss the item face to face in Orlando at the 2004 Fall NABC, and then again at (or maybe it was tabled until) the Spring 2005 NABC (which is where it was apparently approved because the approval notifaction came shortly thereafter).

3) There was a proposal made, I believe by Henry Bethe, regarding linking allowable methods to length of match that I believe overlapped my request and may have contributed to the lengthy approval process. I believe the defense would not have been approved without the 12+ board restriction and that the process was strung out so that the restriction could be used and the defense could be approved, if only in limited circumstances. That is, the delay was in part for my benefit.

4) I was cc'ed on some of the early discussion between committee members, and I appreciated that. It was, at the same time, often frustrating. For instance, one committee member said "The more I think about it the more I think it is a mistake to approve because of the can of worms it opens." It sounded like the committee was reluctant to approve my submitted defense, not because the submitted defense was inadequate, but because it might make it harder for them to reject similar defenses to similar methods (that they didn't want to see played in ACBL events) in the future. Of course, in the end they did the right thing (in my opinion) and approved the defense. And, the committee should not be faulted for discussing the ramifications of their actions. It just happened to be frustrating at the time. Meckstroth recognized the problem: "It's difficult to say yes to this and not allow these other transfer opening systems." I believe that Richard overstates the case when he claims Meckstroth said he would "never permit" more complex methods, though there was an obvious reluctance on his part.

While there may be opportunity to legislate through regulation, I don't think this example means that the committee is doing that. Quite the contrary. When similar methods are rejected, there may be a case to be made, but not at this time. Of course, what some see as an end around, others will see as preserving the best interests of ACBL members. Opinions are strong on both sides and there may never be agreement about the motivations.

5) I never followed through with submitting defenses to similar methods to see where the committee would draw the line (between a SA-type transfer opening and a MOSCITO-type transfer opening). I did have a specific, non-MOSCITO, method that I had hoped to be able to play. But, the 12+ board restriction severely limited the opportunities I might have to play the method and I didn't really want to be required to remember two systems for a single tournament. I am no longer an ACBL member and have no plans to play in an ACBL event in the near future, so while I once had a legitimate interest in approved defenses for these and similar methods, I don't at this time and as a result won't be bothering the committee with requests!

Tim Goodwin

[hrothgar]

I'm going be somewhat forward here and make a few suggestions regarding corporate governance. The comments are intended to be constructive. (Hopefully they will be read as such). As I noted earlier in this thread, I'm a big fan of process. More specifically, I favor systems that are based on relatively simple rules that are applied consistently. From my perspective, the ACBL's Conventions Committee is making some very basic mistakes. Most of these deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences. (This is a fancy way of saying that things don't always work out the way you anticipate). One of the corrolaries of this law states that the more complex the system, the more difficult to predict how is going to function. Simplicity is a virtue in and of itself.

First and foremost, the Convention Committee is treating the Defensive Database as an addendum to the Convention Charts. Members of the Conventions Committee believe that certain conventions should not be allow within the ACBL. We may agree or disagree whether or not a multi 2D opening or a MOSCITO style transfer opening should be allowed at Midchart level. However, I would hope that we all agree that the “right” way to license conventions in the ACBL is to do so through the auspices of the Convention Charts. Its certainly possible to use the approval process for the Defensive database to accomplish many of the same ends. However, in doing so you dramatically increase the complexity of the regulatory structure and damage the transparency of the system. Case in point: There were a number of occasion during the whole run arround where members of the Conventions Committee stated that they were unwilling to sanction defenses to method XYZ because (hypothetically) it was unfair to use methods like a multi 2D in a two round pairs event. Unfortunately, by refusing to sanction any defense to method XYZ you prevent people from using in ANY event. If you want to ban people from using method XYZ in a 2 round event amend the Conventions Chart based on the length of the rounds.

Equally significant, there seems to be some confusion within Conventions Committee regarding how the convention approval process is structured. For better or worse the ACBL has decided that conventions are licensed in isolation. Both the ACBL Conventions chart and the Defensive Databased are designed to sanction individual conventions like a multi 2D or a ROMEX dynamic 1NT. A number of the email exchanges with the Conventions Committee suggested that they preferred a regulatory system based on sanctioning an entire bidding system. For example, Meckstroth expressed a desire to block people from being able to play MOSCITO. In a similar fashion, Martel often insisted that the decision to license a 1H opening showing 5+ Spades should depend on the definition of the a 1S opening in that system. (The British used to use a regulatory passed on sanction bidding systems as a while, I don't know the precise date that they switched to a system based on licensing individual conventions). I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole. With this said and done, I'd like to return to my basic point about transparency: Once you make a decision that the regulatory structure is based on evaluating conventions in isolation you need to apply this principle consistently. I understand the appeal of creating exceptions, special cases and the like. However, these always come back to haunt you.

As I noted in the past, I strongly believe that the incentive structure behind the Defensive Database is badly skewed. I've never understood why the players are required to submit defenses to their own methods. You aren't going to get good defenses. Players often have blind spots regarding theoretical weakness with their “pet” methods. Equally significant, players really don't have much of an incentive to submit “good” defenses.

Last (and not least) whatever regulatory structure that you put in place needs to be applied consistently.
When I was trying to get suggested defenses approved for MOSCITO type transfer openings /I was frequently told that I was required to document every possible bid and every possible followup in competive auctions four or five rounds into the auction. If I go and contrast this with any number of suggested defenses that we approved it seemed as if there was a clear double standard in place. As a comparison, I offer “approved” defense: http://web2.acbl.org...database/1a.htm

[TimG]

The midchart allows: "4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, ... [with some exceptions]". A MOSCITO 1D opening promises 4 or more hearts and does not fall within any of the prohibited exceptions. Yet, the committee can effectively bar the transfer opening by refusing to approve a defense. To me, there is somethig wrong with this. Either the method is allowed and a defense MUST be approved or provided, or the method is not allowed and the chart should be changed. The committee ought not be enabled to bar the method by determining that ANY defense is either too complicated or inadequate.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Apr 28 2006, 11:58 PM, said:

As I noted in the past, I strongly believe that the incentive structure behind the Defensive Database is badly skewed. I've never understood why the players are required to submit defenses to their own methods. You aren't going to get good defenses. Players often have blind spots regarding theoretical weakness with their “pet” methods. Equally significant, players really don't have much of an incentive to submit “good” defenses.

Players are required to submit defenses to their own methods because many of their opponents find tournament bridge to be unfun and unfair when they have to play against unusual methods that they have never faced before.

You may disagree, but there are a lot more of them then there are of you.

Since the ACBL has an interest in maximizing both funness and fairness, they have wisely (in my view) implemented this rule.

Players who play such methods have a strong incentive to submit good (without quotes) defenses: if they don't then they cannot play those methods.

For those players' whose blind spots prevent them from coming up with good defenses to their pet methods, here is what I suggest:

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

Ask one of them to help you with a defense.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2006, 01:58 AM, said:

For what its worth, I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole.

Case for licensing conventions: There must be a way to tell if some home-grown combination is allowed or not.

Case for licensing systems: What a convention means includes negative inference, so a convention exists only in the context of a system.

In general, I think the case for licensing conventions is much stronger. This Moscito thing may be an unusual situation and one might wonder how broad the licensing of transfer openings should be.

[fred]

helene_t, on Apr 29 2006, 12:57 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2006, 01:58 AM, said:

For what its worth, I think that you can have some interesting debates regarding whether its better to license conventions in isolation or systems as a whole.

Case for licensing conventions: There must be a way to tell if some home-grown combination is allowed or not.

Case for licensing systems: What a convention means includes negative inference, so a convention exists only in the context of a system.

In general, I think the case for licensing conventions is much stronger. This Moscito thing may be an unusual situation and one might wonder how broad the licensing of transfer openings should be.

Case for licensing conventions: In the real world licensing systems is a non-starter. How long do you think it would take to read through and properly evaluate (say) 100 pages of unfamiliar system notes? How long would it take to do this for everyone in the field?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Apr 29 2006, 03:26 PM, said:

Players are required to submit defenses to their own methods because many of their opponents find tournament bridge to be unfun and unfair when they have to play against unusual methods that they have never faced before.

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear. I'd like to differentiate between two cases:

Case 1: The act of presenting an approved defense to the opponents. I agree complete that player who are employing unusual methods should bear the burden of carrying arround written copies of their defenses that the opponents can consult during an auction.

Case 2: Developing an appropriate defense to method XYZ. As things currently stand within the ACBL the players who develop a new bidding convention are also asked to develop the defense to this method. As I suggested earlier, I think that this might be problematic. This system works very different in some other organizations. For example, I know that the Swedish Bridge Federation develops and publishes defenses.

From my perspective, some of these issues will (eventually) have a bearing on BBO. Five years from now the Full Disclosure application will (hopefully) be used as a tool to provide the opponents with suggested defenses to method XYZ.

In an ideal world, it would be very useful if the FD application could track the usage of different opening bids. For example:

45% of at 1C opening are natural within the context of a strong NT system
25% of all 1C openings are natural with the context of a weak NT system
20% of all 1C openings are "Polish" club variants
9% of all 1C openings are "Strong, artificl and forcing"
1% of all 1C openings are reallly, REALLY far out there

This type of functionality would be useful because it would allow a group working on suggested defenses to prioritize their work and focus attention on relatively common methods.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Apr 29 2006, 03:26 PM, said:

For those players' whose blind spots prevent them from coming up with good defenses to their pet methods, here is what I suggest:

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

Ask one of them to help you with a defense.

Proponents of an "Anything Goes" style (myself included) claim that a partnership can create an adequate defense to unfamiliar methods using a simple set of meta-agreements. While the suggested defense won't be perfect there are big benefits with respect to memory load and ensuring that the (defending) partnership is on relatively familiar ground.

However, this really doesn't do much good if the standard for evaluating suggested defenses requires that the defenses are optimal on a case by case basis.

Let's use a concrete example:

Assume for the moment that I am playing a MOSCITO style 1♦ opening in which 1♦ shows ~ 9-14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, and could conceal a longer minor.

Its incredibly easy to construct a very simple defense to this opening.

1. Never cuebid 1H
2. Double shows a hand that would have made a takeout double of 1H
3. All bids from 1S+ mean exactly the same thing that they always did

I guaruntee you that this type of defense will get rejected because its not "optimal" against the method in question.

[TimG]

fred, on Apr 29 2006, 07:26 AM, said:

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

There is a difference between adequate and optimal. Or, maybe there is a difference. When the ACBL committee in charge of approving defenses reviews a defense, they evaluate it not only for how well it handles the method, but also how easy it is to understand and apply in the time allotted. An optimal defense to some methods would likely be too complex for most playing conditions.

In my experience getting defenses approved, I have found that it is best to be thorough (list lots of sequences in an attempt to cover most eventualities) while at the same time keeping things simple. Simple often means non-optimal, but easily applied. One thing the committee does not want is for a pair to be faced with an unfamiliar method and find that the sequence they hear at the table is not covered in the defense. Nor do they want a situation to be covered, but impossible to apply because of the complexity. There actually is incentive for those who submit defenses to submit less than optimal defenses: they are more likely to be approved than a more complex and nearly optimal defense.

Chip Martel has spent hundreds of hours preparing defenses to all sorts of unusual methods as part of his (as player and coach) preparation for international events. He, no doubt, has a defense to MOSCITO type transfer openings that he considers near to optimal. I suspect strongly, however, that his methods would be considered too complex for general ABCL defense database use.

Which sort of raises the question of what standards are used for approving defenses to mid-chart methods. Should there be objective requirements which, if met, assure that a defense will be approved? Or, is the subjective approach better? Does approval of a defense by ACBL mean that the defense is endorsed by the committee? That is, can the general ABCL public trust that the defense is optimal? Adequate? Complete? Useful?

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Apr 29 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

Case 2:  Developing an appropriate defense to method XYZ.  As things currently stand within the ACBL the players who develop a new bidding convention are also asked to develop the defense to this method.  As I suggested earlier, I think that this might be problematic.  This system works very different in some other organizations.  For example, I know that the Swedish Bridge Federation develops and publishes defenses.

Having spent hours and hours developing defenses to many different methods, and almost always having discovered that the defense had some holes when it was used in competition, I think it is completely unrealistic to expect the organization (whether it is the ACBL, the WBF or some other organization) to develop adequate defenses to all of the things that people want to play. (Richard believes that he was unable to produce an approved defense to transfer opening bids at the one level because the C&C committee was unfair to him. I suggest that perhaps he just doesn't realize how very difficult creating an adequate defense is.) It would be even more unrealistic to suggest that the people who are going to encounter an unfamiliar method should develop a defense "on the fly." So that leaves two reasonable alternatives:

1. Allow unusual methods only in situations where they are submitted well in advance and the opponents have an adequate incentive to develop a good defense.

2. Allow a pair to play an unusual method only if they, or some other proponent of the method, have developed and submitted an adequate defense.

The first approach is what WBF tried with Brown Sticker bids - they were allowed only in long matches (long I believe being defined as more than 16 board matches), the people using them had to submit them well in advance, and the submissions were distributed to all of the participants in the event. This method had two fairly serious disadvantages - first, it effectively treated different teams differently. Some teams could afford the time (or money to buy someone else's time) to develop good defenses. Other teams couldn't. The unusual methods were more effective against the latter. Also, some players are better than others at adapting to new conditions. Some players are more willing than others to take the time to read and use a written defense, even after it's been developed for them. So the unusual methods created an unlevel playing field. Of course, unusual methods will always create an unlevel playing field; the issue is how unlevel. The WBF now requires a pair that wishes to employ a BS bid to submit a defense to the bid and that defense is reviewed by the WBF Systems Committee. If it isn't adequate, the method can't be employed.

Method 2 places the burden of creating an adequate defense on the pair using the unusual method. But that means someone has to determine whether that defense is in fact adequate. That's far from easy. First, one has to decide what is "adequate" and then one has to decide whether the defense that is submitted meets ones requirements. How far into the auction is it necessary to go? How many unusual sequences need to be covered. How do you decide between optimal and simple? Richard suggested a "simple" defense to 1♦
showing 4 or more hearts. (I haven't figured out how to have more than one quote in a reply, sorry):
1. Never cuebid 1H
2. Double shows a hand that would have made a takeout double of 1H
3. All bids from 1S+ mean exactly the same thing that they always did

Certainly that's simple. Certainly it allows the opponents to bid as they would have over a natural 1♥ but of course it isn't optimal - it "wastes" the 1♥ bid that the opponents give us by playing a transfer opening. A good defense (in fact even a reasonable defense) has to take advantage of the holes in an unusual method in order to make up for the times that the method will help the opponents. For example, long ago in Jamaica, the US Bermuda Bowl team had to contend with a strong Pass system (I think, although I'm not sure, this was the start of the WBF regulations on both BS methods and HUM systems). When we were developing a defense, we decided that we had to be able to "get" them some of the times to make up for the times they'd "get" us. So we developed a defense (sorry - it's too long ago for me to have it in front of me!) that included passing with some good hands when they opened an ambiguous 1♣. And that led to a couple of numbers that made up for a couple of bad results.

This whole area is incredibly complicated and so far no-one has figured out how to deal with it in a way that is fair to both the people who want to play unusual methods and the people who have to contend with them. And I have to go hold my horses for the farrier, so I'll try to answer some more of the posts here later.

[uday]

If you wonder why JanM knows so much about this stuff, it is because she is, among other things (and in no order), married to another Martel and deeply involved in the USBF

http://www.usbf.org/

Now, correct me pls. if I gum the rest of this up

The UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION ("USBF") is the organization that selects the teams that represent the USA in Bermuda Bowls, Venice Cups and Senior Bowls. it was initially spawned from and funded by the ACBL but is an independent organization.

The US Team Trials are broadcast to the world on BBO courtesy of the USBF and in no small part, JanM as well.


Jan, a question?

Does the USBF follow the ACBL lead on things like the defence database, HUMs, etc, at the USBF tourneys, or does it do as it sees fit?

[JanM]

TimG, on Apr 29 2006, 09:40 AM, said:

Chip Martel has spent hundreds of hours preparing defenses to all sorts of unusual methods as part of his (as player and coach) preparation for international events.  He, no doubt, has a defense to MOSCITO type transfer openings that he considers near to optimal.  I suspect strongly, however, that his methods would be considered too complex for general ABCL defense database use.

While the first sentence of this quote is accurate, the second happens not to be. We don't in fact have an adequate defense to Moscito. Why? Because we haven't spent the many many hours it would take to develop one. When Chip's team played Paul Marston's team in Dallas, I did produce a *very* simple defense for them to use. Luckily nothing complicated arose and the match was not close.

On the other hand, we do have a defense to Multi that we think is fairly complete (note I don't say completely adequate - we constantly find holes in it). That defense is 11 pages long and can't be played without some advance study, as well as a general familiarity with how we write things and how to navigate through the defense. No, I wouldn't propose it as an ACBL "recommended defense" even though I find the actual ACBL approved defense to multi woefully inadequate.

[Sigi_BC84]

JanM, on Apr 29 2006, 10:08 PM, said:

On the other hand, we do have a defense to Multi that we think is fairly complete (note I don't say completely adequate - we constantly find holes in it). That defense is 11 pages long

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi?? Tell me you are kidding here.

I'm not wondering any longer why you guys are that opposed against unusual methods...

--Sigi

[JanM]

uday, on Apr 29 2006, 01:11 PM, said:

Jan, a question?

Does the USBF follow the ACBL lead on things like the defence database, HUMs, etc, at the USBF tourneys, or does it do as it sees fit?

Well, some of both. The USBF Systems Policy is set forth in our General Conditions of Contest, which are posted at http://www.usbf.org/GeneralCoC2005.htm. Looking at that URL, I suspect I need to post an updated version, but although I've worked on format in the last 6 months, the substance hasn't changed.

Because our events require advance entry and consist primarily of long matches, we are in a situation similar to the WBF. Because our events are played in the United States and we want them to be attractive to US experts, we use some of the ACBL policies. USBCs (Open, Women's & Senior - I'm not certain about Junior, but I think this applies there too) permit Super Chart methods. Without getting into definitions, that's virtually everything except what the WBF calls HUM. The USBF requires advance submission of some (but not all) Midchart and higher methods. We have tried to require advance submission for those methods that the average expert would not be familiar with. You can judge for yourself whether our list is correct &/or understandable. If not, we welcome suggestions for improvement.

When advance submission is required, the submission has to include a recommended defense. We (USBF) do not review those advance submissions and defenses. Instead, we encourage the other players in the USBC to review the advance submissions and complain to the tournament conventions committee if they think the description of the method, or the proposed defense, is not adequate. If no such complaint is made in advance, it will not be successful at the event (unless the description of the method is inaccurate or incomplete). If a complaint is made (and they are - after all, the players in these events are generally fairly sophisticated and care about this), the conventions committee reviews the submission and if it finds that the description or defense are not adequate, works with the players submitting the method to get something that is.

When a method requires advance submission, players are allowed to consult a written defense (either the one submitted by the pair playing the method or their own) at the table.

If there is an ACBL approved defense for a method, that defense is deemed adequate for USBF events and need not be submitted in advance (it does have to be provided to the opponents at the table).

That's a long, and probably incomplete, answer to a short question. Hope it's responsive

[JanM]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 29 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi??  Tell me you are kidding here.

In the 20 years I've been producing written defenses, I've learned that it's better to be complete than to assume that people will be able to fill in the blanks in the heat of battle. Our defense is long in part because it deals separately with auctions where the opening bidder's suit turned out to be spades and those where it turned out to be hearts, and in part because I repeat things so it is as clear as I can make it what bid comes where in an auction. But it's also true that multi can lead to some complex auctions, and people have a difficult time applying their general rules to an unfamiliar situation. Thus it's important to clarify things like when 2NT is Lebensohl and when it isn't, when bids are "scrambling" and when they show real length in the bid suit.

Here's a simple example, and an area that isn't covered at all in most multi defenses. The auction goes:

(2♦)-3♦(I assume virtually everyone would play this as natural)-(P).
As advancer, you have enough values to want to bid a game, a heart stopper but not a spade stopper. What do you bid? OR
As advancer, you have reasonable values and 5 good hearts. What do you bid?

I suspect that if I asked either question without the other, you would say "3♥, wtp?" Of course, the problem is that either hand is equally likely on this auction. In fact, we bid 3♥ with both hands. The overcaller then bids 3♠ with interest in playing hearts if advancer has a heart suit (advancer bids 3NT with a heart stopper), and 3NT with no interest in hearts and a spade stopper. I think this works well, and maybe it's obvious (but in fact it wasn't until we spent some time on it), but it is a good example of why just defining the bids over 2♦ isn't adequate.

[DrTodd13]

What I would like to prohibit is a pair who invents a new system or convention every week for the purpose of getting good scores from opps unfamiliarity. What I don't want to ban is a pair playing an unusual system or convention who want to play that system consistently over time, especially when said system is played without difficulty in other parts of the world. If they start playing the system and opps lose through unfamiliarity then this is simply motivation for people to get off their lazy butts and make their own damned optimized defense. I don't have a problem with requiring a sketch of a defense to be provided but this definition of "adequate defense" that seems to be in use stretches the bounds of the word adequate. To me, adequate does not mean optimal. Most people don't have such explicit agreements about all possible sequences for most of the conventions they can already legally encounter. So, requiring this of new conventions seems like a double standard to me.

[david_c]

awm, on Apr 27 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

As a passing note, the defense to 1♥ showing a standard-american 1♠ opening has apparently been approved....

That's interesting, it makes me wonder two things:

1. Does there exist a playable system which uses this 1♥ opening and is otherwise already legal? (I can't think of one.)

2. Why would this defence not also be considered an acceptable defence to a MOSCITO 1♥ opening?