[pbleighton]

"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."

It is very much a double standard. I have no doubt that most of the people on the various ACBL committees have good intentions (I differ from Richard on this). It is also obvious that they pander to the (vocal) element in the ACBL membership which never wants to play against anything they haven't played against a thousand times before (I have run into this element at tournaments and clubs, and they are not only cowardly, some of them are quite rude). Pandering to this element is IMO:
1. Wrong. Bridge is an intellectual endeavor, and dumbing down bidding is a move in the wrong direction.
2. Short sighted. In my brief time (3 years) in the ACBL, I have seen the games get smaller and the people get (even) older. Pretty soon the protected sandbox will become a graveyard, and online bridge will be the only option for U.S. players. Open up ftf bridge to new ideas, and perhaps it would have some chance of survival.

The ACBL should lead, not follow.

Peter

[david_c]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 29 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

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

I think eleven pages sounds quite reasonable for a serious partnership. Multi is genuinely difficult to defend against. For instance, there are lots of sequences where you're hurt by the lack of a cue-bid and if you want to make sure your partnerhip doesn't have any accidents you really need to discuss how else you're going to bid those sorts of hands.

On the other hand, transfer openings are not particularly hard to defend against. Most sequences will not need to be discussed because they are exactly the same as they would have been after a natural opening bid. (And I do mean exactly.) If you take Richard's defence to the MOSCITO 1♦ and add a vaguely sensible meaning for the 1♥ cue (let's say you play it as a "Raptor" hand) then what you get is more than adequate. I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

[kfgauss]

-

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 12:42 AM, said:

If you take Richard's defence to the MOSCITO 1♦ and add a vaguely sensible meaning for the 1♥ cue (let's say you play it as a "Raptor" hand) then what you get is more than adequate. I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

Would one then be required to give all the raptor follow-ups? I'd imagine things could get fairly complicated in competitive auctions in which there's ambiguity about the minor (in addition to just wanting to know what's pass/correct, what's "tell me your minor", what's invitiational, etc. in regular auctions). Raptor isn't hard to play, but I'm not sure one should be foisting it on people who have no experience with it.

It seems to me that good, simple, not necessarily optimal defenses that employ fairly familiar methods are what one should shoot for, and that they shouldn't be too hard to find.

As for defenses to one-level transfer openings, it seems that double = "overcall" of the doubled suit, cuebid = "takeout double", higher = as before (but 2 of the transfer suit is a "weak jump overcall") is a good defense that makes use of the available space (who hasn't wanted a 1H overcall of 1S?). The only issue now is that you can't pass the "takeout double", but that doesn't seem like a big deal. In any case, this defense seems good and simple (of course, it's possible I'm overlooking something). (Yes, one also needs to know what to do over responses, but 1: that seems like a separate issue [ie dependent on whether any of them are midchart responses] and 2: basically only the response that "completes the transfer" can be strange, so there isn't much work to do).

I seem to recall this defense having been proposed and rejected. Does anyone know the reasoning given?

I'm not sure who should come up with the defenses, this seems a difficult issue. I do agree though that either the midchart should be changed or a defense to moscito should be approved in a timely manner (and if the defense given isn't adequate at first, criticism should be given). I sympathise with the players who spend valuable time on these committees and hope what seems necessary in this area can be done without too much burden on them.

Andy

[TimG]

david_c, on Apr 29 2006, 07:12 PM, said:

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?

1. Doubtful, but one could easily be crafted (if you also allow other transfer openings).

2. I believe there are two differences which the committee sees as significant: a) MOSCITO 1H opening (showing 4+ spades) is not forcing -- when I submitted the 1H showing 5+ spades method, I stipulated that the 1H opening was forcing; and b ) the defenders may want to play in spades (since opener may have only 4).

I don't believe 2b should be an issue -- you just play your overcall structure as you would over a canape 1S opening bid, the matter is not complicated by the transfer, in fact it may be easier to defend against canape when it is done via transfer. But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved. If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

[TimG]

JanM, on Apr 29 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

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.)

I think we have different ideas of what adequate is in this case. For teams representing ACBL in international events, adequate is probably nearly equal to optimal. For teams playing in a mid-chart event at a regional, the same standard for adequate would not be appropriate. A vast majority of the players in a regional mid-chart event would not have defenses to a weak two-bid that are as detailed as a Bermuda Bowl team's defense against multi. Why should we require they be better prepared for unusual methods than they are for standard methods?

Where transfer openings are concerned, I can provide you a simple defense that is at least as good as the defense any pair I play against has against a non-transfer opening. It has been mentioned here often: double is takeout of the suit shown and all other bids are the same as if the opening bid had been in the suit shown. This is not optimal because it does not take advantage of the extra bid available to the defenders. But, it is at least as good as the opposing pair's defense to natural openings. That is, the side using the transfer opening should not gain from unfamiliarity 99% of the time (I will concede that without some further discussion (1H)-DBL-(P)-1S could cause confusion).

[Nadreck]

As an Aussie who has both played and played against transfer openings I found most of the justifications and arguements around approving optimal defences laughable. Almost all tournament players in Australia will have played against these openings and will have coped quite adequately without needing a 40 page defence that details every auction.

The defences used may not be "Optimal" but then most defences used against conventional bidding will not be optimal. For example look at what people play against a 1NT opening. I have seen at least 40 different defences and seen numerous discussions/arguments about which is best

Suppose the ACBL was just now considering allowing the Diabolical Strong 1NT opening. This opening can routinely have somewhere between 14-18 points and may have between 2 and 6 cards in any suit. Futhermore almost all responses to this opening are artificial!

Before this convention could be allowed the users would need to come up with the optimal defence to 1NT. This may present a problem as nobody in the world can easily agree on just what is the optimal defence to 1NT They will also be required to provide opponents with a defence that covers the bidding to at least 4 levels of bidding. This will ignore the fact that at least 95% of partnerships have never discussed any defensive bidding to this level of detail.

In the interim the bridge world seems to cope quite adequately with very detailed discussions such as "DONT over their NT?".

The level of preperation required by professionals such as Fred Gitelman or Jan/Chip Martel are quite different as they are seeking any extra edge that they can obtain. They should never require or want a written defence prepared by someone else. These players or their coaches are perfectly capable of creating a resonable defence that matches their own style and required level of detail.

[matmat]

though I don't fully agree with the choices made by some of the bridge governing bodies (a*cough*cbl), I do understand where they are coming from.

If you want to play any of the questionable methods live, in a tournament setting, see if there are any university/college clubs around. I think those have a very lax set of convention constraints.

[helene_t]

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 02:42 AM, said:

I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

I agree. I would go even further and say I can find better reasons to disallow 3+ minor openings than transfer openings.

In fact, Moscito is the most beneign system that I know of. There are no nebolous calls saying "we tend to have this suit but we might not" making the opps wonder if they have a cue-bid or not. Besides, one of the main sources of bidding disasters by pick-up partnerships is overcall style. Moscito splits its openings into strong (15+) and intermdiate (9-14), making it obvious to the opps when to defend constructively and when to defend destructively.

But let's say that some system was introduced that required specialized defense. I would not be comfortable having to play such an of-the-shelf defense with my regular partner. We have spend a lot of time discussing overcall methods (what calls are barage/constructive/forcing/lead-directing/artificial in all kinds of obscure competitive situations) as well as style issues.We would not be able to replace all that partnership understanding by something we had two minutes to study at the table.

Therefore, I'll argue that the whole idea of a defense database is inadequate when it comes to sanctioning of the core of the system. The same concerns apply to marginal conventions such as Multi and Capp, but there it is more acceptable to have to play some of-the-shelf defense.

I can imagine that someone in the ACBL had thought along the samle lines which lead to the policy of not allowing Moscito even if there is an adequate defense. Of course Tood and Richard are right that they should have been open about this policy instead of pretending to use the defense database criterion.

Maybe a better criterion for sanctioning one-level openings would be:
1) Some generic defense against weird stuff should be approved.
2) A new system or convention is approved only if the approved generic defense is adequate against it.

Then the opps don't have to study a specific defense everytime they encounter a pair of weirdos in a pair tournament but could learn the generic defense once and for all. And adapt the generic defense to their own style.

[Free]

Defending against moscito 1♦ and 1♥ transfer openings is extremely easy. Dbl = the suit bid, transfer = takeout dbl, the rest natural like there was no transfer. Is it optimal? Perhaps, but when is something really optimal (can you prove something is or is not optimal?)? Is it adequate? YES! You have more possibilities to show than after a natural 1M opening, so where's the problem? And passing the takeout Dbl IS possible! If the bidding starts 1♦-1♥ (1♦ transfer), or the bidding goes 1♥-Dbl (1♥ natural), if you pass, you expect to make at least 7 tricks with ♥ as trumps. Guess what, 1♥ needs 7 tricks... And if you somehow go -1, you'll score better than opps making 1♥*=.
You say you want to be able to play in the suit the transfer shows? Big deal, how do you do this when you play against an ACOL 1M opening? Btw, I've seen other defenses which use Dbl as takeout and the transfer bid as natural showing 5+ cards. This solves your problem.
Ok, the transfers may be canapé, but that's not a real problem. You and your partner won't end up playing in their 5 card minor anyway... But if one starts to focus on this, then any discussion can never end.

Defending against the 1♠ opening (showing ♦), that's a problem! This doesn't give away extra bidding space, no, it takes away 2 steps! The preemptive nature of the bid certainly helps for the opening pair... Still, with my usual overcall system (FREEWILL) we don't have much problems handling this.

I also agree that it's a VERY natural system, every limited opening shows at least 4 cards in a known suit, so it's not diabolic at all. It's more natural than any 5 card Major system, or any standard precision system with nebulous 1♦ (and 2♦ as 3-suiter starting with 4-3M). Apparently some people just don't realize this, because they don't have an objective look at the facts. The example of the 1NT opening really is a good one! No optimal defense, so ... they still allow it

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Apr 30 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved.  If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

As I recall, the main focus of the discussions surround suggested defenses to a Frelling 2♦ was the definition of the initial double.

The 2D opening was defined as showing

4+ Diamonds and 4+ Cards in either major
Could be balanced (4432) but denies 4441 or 5440 shape
Promises at least Hxxx or xxxxx in a major

When I submitted the initial defense it was based on penalty oriented direct seat double. I chose this for a couple reasons. First and foremost, all the "authorities" on these types of "Assumed Fit" methods recommend using penalty doubles. (For example almost all of the Scandinavians use penalty doubles over a Ekren's style 2♥). Equally significant, when I ran some sims, the penalty doubles looked a lot better.

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles. Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players. Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted. Please note the casual chain here: Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods.

(I'll note in passing that the ACBL recent permitted players to use a 2♥ opening that shows both majors, but, low and behold, the suggested defense is based on penalty doubles. Furthermore, the opening must promise at least 5-5 shape in two round events / 5-4 shape in 6 round events. Openings that could be made on 4-4 shape have been labelled inherently destructive)

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 30 2006, 07:28 AM, said:

TimG, on Apr 30 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved.  If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

As I recall, the main focus of the discussions surround suggested defenses to a Frelling 2♦ was the definition of the initial double.

No doubt there were many issues. Including a few comments from committee members along the lines of: "why would you want to play such methods?" and "I've always gotten along just fine without using a method of this type."

[fred]

hrothgar, on Apr 30 2006, 12:28 PM, said:

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles. Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players. Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted. Please note the casual chain here: Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods.

I think you probably meant to use the word "causal" (though "casual" is better description of the type of reasoning that you are using).

Perhaps part of Chip's reasoning was that most mid-chart players do not want to play in an event where is legal to open 2D with:

xx
Jxxx
Jxxx
xxx

Perhaps Chip concluded that any defensive method based on penalty doubles is not playable. Despite your sims, your vast bridge knowledge and experience, and your extensive survey of Scandanavian defensive methods, if that is what Chip concluded then I think there is a pretty good chance that he is right.

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

Perhaps Chip reasoned that the conflicts caused by such events, the randomness that such methods generate, and the wishes of most of the participants to avoid these things, were sufficient justification for his position.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Apr 30 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles.  Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players.  Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted.  Please note the casual chain here:  Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods. 

IMO that is how it should be. The conventions allowed in a midchart pairs event (say) should be precisely those which a good partnership will be able to defend against with at most a few seconds' discussion. (Because this is all the time you have in a pairs event.) Of course this is still very subjective. But it does imply that if you have generic permission for a type of convention ("any bid which shows 4+ cards in a specified suit") then this makes sense only if there is a defence, or a small number of different defences, which works against any convention of that type. [Or else there should be some other reason why defending against the convention is easy.]

I suspect that when it was decided to allow any 2♦ bid which promised 4+ diamonds, the reasoning was "This will be OK because we can always use take-out doubles and cue-bids against it." But this has been shown not to be true for some conventions, so it is reasonable to disallow those. But of course, if this is what the committee has decided, then they should amend the midchart to say so.

[david_c]

fred, on Apr 30 2006, 02:35 PM, said:

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

That's a disclosure issue, not a system regulation issue. It should be dealt with under the disclosure regulations.

[fred]

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 01:51 PM, said:

fred, on Apr 30 2006, 02:35 PM, said:

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

That's a disclosure issue, not a system regulation issue. It should be dealt with under the disclosure regulations.

Once the system is allowed it becomes a disclosure issue.

In considering whether or not the system should be allowed, it is surely reasonable for the committee to say "no" if they judge that allowing the system will result in serious problems of disclosure when it is used.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

>Perhaps Chip concluded that any defensive method based on penalty
>doubles is not playable. Despite your sims, your vast bridge knowledge
> and experience, and your extensive survey of Scandanavian defensive
> methods, if that is what Chip concluded then I think there is a pretty
>good chance that he is right.

Lets be perfectly clear: Martel didn't dispute my assertion that using a direct seat penalty doubles was the best defense to the method in question. Rather, he argued that methods where a direct seat penalty double is the best defense should not be allowed.

>Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods,
>when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible
>hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the
>opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want
>to know.

>Perhaps Chip reasoned that the conflicts caused by such events, the
>randomness that such methods generate, and the wishes of most of the
>participants to avoid these things, were sufficient justification for his position.

Earlier during this discussion I noted my concern with process. I might have a remarkably naive view of the world, but I'd really prefer a system in which the legality of conventions is defined by the "Conventions Charts" while the Defensive Database is used to provide players with the best possible defense to any legal methods. Furthermore, I noted that leveraging the Defensive Database to achieve Convention Regulation hurts the transparency of the process and smacks of rules lawyering.

You have raised a number of objections to this method. That's all fine and dandy. All that I am asking is that if the Powers that Be want ban assumed fit preempts or some other methods that they do so by openly ammending the Conventions Chart rather than back channel discussions regarding the approval process for Suggested Defenses.

In a similar fashion, if you have issues regarding the disclosure of methods, the appropriate way to accomplish this end is to enforce regulations surrounding disclosure, not refusing to sanction a defense to the methods in question.

[hrothgar]

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

I suspect that when it was decided to allow any 2♦ bid which promised 4+ diamonds, the reasoning was "This will be OK because we can always use take-out doubles and cue-bids against it." But this has been shown not to be true for some conventions, so it is reasonable to disallow those.

I introduced the comments about direct seat penalty for a specific reason.

We've had a fair amount of discussion regarding some of the tradeoffs involved in creating suggested defenses. Much of the discussion has focused on the relatively advantages of simple blanket generic defensives compared to highly specific/detailed "optimal" defenses.

The Conventions Committe is obviously concerned that it produces suggested defenses that are simple enough for average players to use but still prove to be effective.

I simply wanted to note some of the constraints being placed on the system. More specifically, that the Conventions Committee asserted that any defense based on a direct seat penalty double was automatically too complicated for North American player to cope with. In turn, this suggests a mighty small target for suggested defenses on the "complexity" front.

[pbleighton]

"Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know."

Fred, I respect you, but I find this statement to be incredibly offensive. You are essentially saying that pairs who play aggressive and/or unusual methods are likely to cheat by deliberately avoiding full disclosure.

As someone who plays an agressive and unusual system, and who is QUITE scrupulous about alerts and explanations, I say:

Shame on you.

Peter

[fred]

pbleighton, on Apr 30 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

"Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know."

Fred, I respect you, but I find this statement to be incredibly offensive.  You are essentially saying that pairs who play aggressive and/or unusual methods are likely to cheat by deliberately avoiding full disclosure.

As someone who plays an agressive and unusual system, and who is QUITE scrupulous about alerts and explanations, I say:

Shame on you.

Peter

I never accused you (or any other specifc players) of cheating.

However, in my experience I have noticed that many pairs who play unusual methods are not as forthcoming as they should be. I am willing to give most of these people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they just don't understand their obligations (as opposed to intentionally not living up to them).

In my post that offended you I suggested that *maybe* Chip Martel has had similar experiences (I have no idea if he really has).

For a good example of this, have a look at the recent thread where a player using P-P-1H-P-2C explained 2C as "natural" when a (minimally) proper explanation of their agreements would have been something like "long clubs any strength". Some of the mad scientists out there seemed to think that "natural" was a perfectly acceptable explanation. In my opinion they don't get it.

Of course this problem is not limited to players who use unusual methods. There are plenty of "mainstream" players who fail miserably in this department as well.

But an improper explanation is far more likely to damage the opponents if the bid that is being explained is a non-mainstream bid.

No offense intended, by the way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Quote

For a good example of this, have a look at the recent thread where a player using P-P-1H-P-2C explained 2C as "natural" when a (minimally) proper explanation of their agreements would have been something like "long clubs any strength". Some of the mad scientists out there seemed to think that "natural" was a perfectly acceptable explanation. In my opinion they don't get it.

Here the issue also was if the bid was systemic, i.e. if partner of the 2-HCP hand would know about this. I felt that the bid was so "strange" that I felt partner was a surprised as everyone else.

Quote

But an improper explanation is far more likely to damage the opponents if the bid that is being explained is a non-mainstream bid.

Against that, if it needed explanation it probably wasn't a mainstream bid to start with.

I'm all in favour to require high standards for full disclosure for those playing unusual methods and hard punishments if this is violated. As someone who is normally playing in partnerships that end up alerting most of our bids in uncontested auctions (a bit less in contested auctions) I also get VERY annoyed if other pairs do not explain fully. But banning non-standard systems in the first place is not good, I think.

And here we are not talking about things no one can understand. The two conventions under discussion (1-red transfer openings and 2♦ opening bid showing 4+♦ and 4+major) in the later part of the thread are allowed in most club tournaments around the world.

IF there really is some kind of "anti-Moscito" policy, which I have no way of telling from this side of the big pond, those on the committee supporting this are in my opinion unfit to be on the committee as they are misusing their position.

Also IF you decide that you do not want Moscito in the Midchart, change it so that the opening bids 1♥ and 1♠ must promise at least 4 cards in the bid suit instead of turning down every suggested defence against such bids. Saves you a lot of work, too