[awm]

Just a few funny points about how the acbl convention charts and defenses work. Please correct me if I'm wrong here:

(1) Opening 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid. In most cases national organizations don't even have the authority to restrict natural bids (except very light bids at the one-level) according to the laws. In this sense, Frelling twos don't even require a suggested defense. What ACBL has decided to do, is to disallow artificial methods over partner's two-level openings that might show only four cards in the bid suit. This restriction is in the convention charts (both general chart and midchart) and has nothing really to do with the defense database.

(2) Opening 1♦ to show 4+♥ is also general chart. The general chart states that a minor suit opening at the one level is always allowed as long as it shows ten or more points. So I suppose you'd have to amend moscito 1♦ to "10-14" instead of "9-14." Therefore this 1♦ opening also does not require a suggested defense. On the other hand, 1♥ showing spades is strangely much more restricted. Admittedly this makes little sense.

(3) In fact some really weird, hard-to-defend stuff is allowed on the general chart. My favorite example is a 1♦ opening that shows 5+ cards in an unspecified major with opening values, combined with 1M openings showing 4 cards (exactly) with a possible canape. It also seems to be okay to play a 1NT response to 1M as showing "forcing with invitational or better values except for a few rare exceptions" and then subsequently relay. I'm not sure why these things are allowed without even a suggested defense, whereas other things that seem less nefarious are mid-chart (for example 1♠ over 1♥ showing a forcing notrump or drury opposite a 1st seat opener).

[pbleighton]

"Opening 2D that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid."

I'm n ot sure about this, in fact I have wondered about it for a while. The ACBL doesn't respond to emails, so I have given up asking.

2D showing 4+ diamonds is OK. The question is, can you ALSO promise a major side suit? I tend to think not.

Anyone want to give it a shot?

Peter

[fred]

Gerben42, on Apr 30 2006, 04:11 PM, said:

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.

About the 2C on 2-HCP hand. People in the know stated that 2C was the normal systemic action on the hand in question and that the range of this bid was effectively 0-9 HCP.

Quote

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.

Why? Because in your judgment it is possible to construct a defense against various elements of Moscito that mid-chart players will find simple, comprehensible, and effective?

Maybe the committee disagrees with you. Maybe they are right. Maybe they see something that you have missed. You have to admit this is possible - after all, they are pretty good bridge players.

Maybe you are right and the committee has made a mistake.

Maybe the defenses that have been submitted were not good enough (maybe for reasons that none of us know and that not all of us would even understand).

"Abusing their positions" is not the only possible explanation for the committees action re Moscito.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[paulg]

awm, on Apr 30 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

Just a few funny points about how the acbl convention charts and defenses work. Please correct me if I'm wrong here:

(1) Opening 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid. In most cases national organizations don't even have the authority to restrict natural bids (except very light bids at the one-level) according to the laws. In this sense, Frelling twos don't even require a suggested defense. What ACBL has decided to do, is to disallow artificial methods over partner's two-level openings that might show only four cards in the bid suit. This restriction is in the convention charts (both general chart and midchart) and has nothing really to do with the defense database.

This is not a natural bid, it is a 2-suited opening bid. Weak two-suited 2-level openers are not permitted at GCC.

Quote

(2) Opening 1♦ to show 4+♥ is also general chart. The general chart states that a minor suit opening at the one level is always allowed as long as it shows ten or more points. So I suppose you'd have to amend moscito 1♦ to "10-14" instead of "9-14." Therefore this 1♦ opening also does not require a suggested defense. On the other hand, 1♥ showing spades is strangely much more restricted. Admittedly this makes little sense.

(3) In fact some really weird, hard-to-defend stuff is allowed on the general chart. My favorite example is a 1♦ opening that shows 5+ cards in an unspecified major with opening values, combined with 1M openings showing 4 cards (exactly) with a possible canape. It also seems to be okay to play a 1NT response to 1M as showing "forcing with invitational or better values except for a few rare exceptions" and then subsequently relay. I'm not sure why these things are allowed without even a suggested defense, whereas other things that seem less nefarious are mid-chart (for example 1♠ over 1♥ showing a forcing notrump or drury opposite a 1st seat opener).

Although you may get to open these hands, I don't think you will be able to respond legally at GCC!

Paul

[david_c]

awm, on Apr 30 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

(1) Opening 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid.

I don't agree: this is conventional. The meaning of "convention" is defined in the Laws and clearly applies to this 2♦ bid because it promises a major.

Quote

(2) Opening 1♦ to show 4+♥ is also general chart. The general chart states that a minor suit opening at the one level is always allowed as long as it shows ten or more points.

Isn't the precise wording that any "catchall" bid is allowed? I suspect that a transfer 1♦ opening would not be considered a catchall. It's not entirely satisfactory that such a poorly-defined term is used as part of the reguations, but I think the interpretation is fairly clear in this case.

[Edit: it's "all-purpose", not "catchall" - thanks to kfgauss for the correction. Same point applies though.]

[Gerben42]

Quote

About the 2C on 2-HCP hand. People in the know stated that 2C was the normal systemic action on the hand in question and that the range of this bid was effectively 0-9 HCP.

In that case I agree that there was misinformation, I didn't get that out of the thread... I assumed the 2♣ bid might have had a lower minimum than for "standard" players, but would still show more than "nothing".

Quote

"Abusing their positions" is not the only possible explanation for the committees action re Moscito.

As I've stated, I have no idea what is going on in the ACBL, but IF committee members are just saying "I will not have Moscito allowed, period" as some posters have suggested, then THAT is abusing their position.

It would be wrong to have a "legal Midchart" - i.e. what is theoretically allowed, this was no doubt constructed by very good bridge players also, and then have a "practical Midchart" which depends on the personal preferences of the committee members.

However if no defence submitted to Moscito so far was good, I would not expect them to be accepted. I have not seen the submitted defences so I have no way to find out if they are any good.

Anyway, I'm glad not to be playing under the ACBL restrictions.

[kfgauss]

[quote name='david_c' date='Apr 30 2006, 05:34 PM'][quote name='awm' date='Apr 30 2006, 05:47 PM'](1) Opening 2[di] that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree: this is conventional. The meaning of "convention" is defined in the Laws and clearly applies to this 2[di] bid because it promises a major.[/QUOTE]

In the GCC they define natural: "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. [snip stuff about NT]"

Embarrassingly I don't find where they allow natural bids, but they presumably intended to do so (or I'm just missing it), else the GCC doesn't allow 1S to show 4+ spades and 8+ points (they disallow fewer than 8 pts in a 1-level opening specifically), for example. (I feel like I've come across this issue before and I forget what the conclusion was.)

In any case, 2D showing 4+D and 4+M seems to qualify. Unfortunately, unless it's changed to 5+D and 4+M or to promise 10+ pts, then conventional responses are disallowed (it's a weak two-bid with only 4 cards in the suit).

[quote name='david_c' date='Apr 30 2006, 05:34 PM'][quote name='awm' date='Apr 30 2006, 05:47 PM']
[QUOTE](2) Opening 1[di] to show 4+[he] is also general chart. The general chart states that a minor suit opening at the one level is always allowed as long as it shows ten or more points.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the precise wording that any "catchall" bid is allowed? I suspect that a transfer 1[di] opening would not be considered a catchall. It's not entirely satisfactory that such a poorly-defined term is used as part of the reguations, but I think the interpretation is fairly clear in this case.[/QUOTE]
The precise wording is "1C or 1D may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points." I've been assuming this means any meaning is fine, but perhaps something else was intended (what if my catchall is "hands that don't fit in other opening bids" and that happens to be precisely those with primary hearts?).

Andy

[Trinidad]

fred, on Apr 30 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

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 experience, in general, "natural" players are less forthcoming than those who play artificial systems.

The explanation for that is quite simple. The "scientists" have been talking and thinking extensively about their system. Almost always they have had to put their ideas into words, otherwise it is impossible to discuss the system. If that is the case, it is rather easy to describe the bid as it was discussed.

"Naturalists" have built up their system, not through discussion, but through partnership experience. Natural systems are not as efficient as scientific systems which means that naturalists have to "invent" more bids. Naturalists know (through partnership experience) what bids could be slightly less than natural and what bids are absolutely reliable. I have not yet met a naturalist who explained unprompted that a certain "natural" bid will often be made on a three card suit. After all, by agreement, it shows four. It just happens to be so that there are no agreements for an aweful lot of hands. Natural systems have holes all over the place, but they are rarely disclosed.

A funny thing happened to me when I started playing in Sweden. We came from the USA and played 2/1 GF with a few gadgets. (Believe it or not, in this story, it will function as the artificial and unusual system.) My partner opens 1♣ and I didn't know that it needs to be alerted and explained as "could be three". Of course, my partner has a three card suit. There is clearly no damage, but the opponents are upset, call the TD and make sure that I get a stern warning. (I didn't even speak Swedish at the time, so I guess it shouldn't have come as a complete surprise that I hadn't mastered the Swedish alert rules yet.)

On the very next board, they open 1♠, respond 2♣ and end up in 4♠. Dummy hits with about 14 HCPs and 3343 distribution (4 diamonds, 3 clubs). I smile, dummy sees it and reacts: "Obviously, everybody knows that 2♦ and 2♥ show five and it's obvious that 2NT is a forcing spade raise with four card support. And, obviously, everybody knows that 2♣ could be a three card suit. What else should I have bid?"

I didn't ask what they would bid with 3442 distribution and I didn't say that I would have bid a conventional 3NT ... obviously.

Rik

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 30 2006, 09:04 AM, said:

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.

To be fair, you ought to note that shortly after we submitted this method and defense, the ACBL Board of Directors modified the mid-chart by defining an opening two-bid which shows two suits, could be weak, and could be based on 44 distribution to be destructive. Destructive methods are banned. Considering the usual pace of ACBL legislation, I imagine this proposal was in the pipeline before our submission.

[TimG]

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 30 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

(1) Opening 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid.

I don't agree: this is conventional. The meaning of "convention" is defined in the Laws and clearly applies to this 2♦ bid because it promises a major.

I think it is natural and conventional. The opposite of natural is not conventional, but rather artificial.

[david_c]

TimG, on Apr 30 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

david_c, on Apr 30 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 30 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

(1) Opening 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds and a 4+ major is general chart because it's a natural bid.

I don't agree: this is conventional. The meaning of "convention" is defined in the Laws and clearly applies to this 2♦ bid because it promises a major.

I think it is natural and conventional. The opposite of natural is not conventional, but rather artificial.

Oh, my head hurts! OK, after thinking about this for a few minutes, and a brief pause to lie down, I agree that "artificial" is the opposite of "natural" but it seems there is disagreement about whether it is natural (the ACBL definition appears to say yes; the EBU definition - which makes more sense to me - says no). Whatever, it is most certainly conventional, so it can be regulated via Law 40D.

[akhare]

fred, on Apr 30 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

"Abusing their positions" is not the only possible explanation for the committees action re Moscito.

As noted, there a lot of possible explanations, but in the absence of transparency in the process, the offended parties (Richard and many others like me) have to assume either administrative incomptency or vested interest (in banning certain systems or conventions for whatever reason).

To that end, emails like the one that Richard posted seem especially damning. IMO, if the powers that be cannot be bothered to explain their action in a public forum like this one, they should at least try to provide coherent explanations as why they deem certain things verboten. Waiting for the best possible defence to a method simply isn't a good enough explanation.

After all, it's our (ACBL members') interests that they profess to protect and we are entitled to know just how harmful these methods are.

Atul

[pbleighton]

Two questions for Fred, and anyone else who supports restrictive system regulations:

1. How do players in the rest of the world ever manage to play bridge, given that they have to play against such diabolical things as the Multi, Muiderberg, transfer openings, transfer responses to suit bids, etc?

2. Why do you think ACBL players need extra protection? Are we dumber?

Peter

[akhare]

pbleighton, on Apr 30 2006, 04:33 PM, said:

2.  Why do you think ACBL players need extra protection?  Are we dumber?

Indeed -- by that token, bridge players in Australia, where almost anything under the sun goes, must be geniuses. I am told that even LOLs out there have no trouble rolling out and coping w/ Purple Twos.

However, in ACBL-land, we have WCs who declare that their congregation can't deal w/ a system (Moscito in this context) that's vanilla in comparision.

Atul

[DelfinoD]

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

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

Don't you think that this is only a good strategy in short-term? What is the average age of bridge players in USA? Why is it so high? Isn't finding new young players the primary objective?

What I have seen many times were young players who prefered computer games from bridge, because they were more fun. They were just bored because they had to play one system against the same one all the time.

What I think is that youth needs experimets it needs some nuttines in the bidding.

When you are facing something completily artificial like strong pass or singleton suit opening, you really have to think. It's not only a matter of finding a simmilar deal in your memory, because there can be no such. This way a player who has played for 40 years have simmilar conditions as the one who has played for two. They both have to use only their intelect.

And bridge sould be more intelect game then a memory one, shouldn't it?

And as for those approved defences I still can't understand why not approve one defence against all types of artificial openings? I find this plot very usefull:

Against strong artificial openings (PASS, 1c etc.)

pass = bad hand or very strong
x, 1 suit = weak, for lead
1nt = two-suiter
other = destructive preemvptive

Against weak artificial openings:

x = bal, 3+ in the suit, 13+pc
suit = 5+, 12+pc
1nt = can be used for take-out or forcing hands
jump suit = constructive preemprive (10-15pc or so)

It this really so difficult to use? What I know is that it's very effective.

Let the bidding go:

1 ♦ (0-7pc any) - 1♠ - pas - ? you bid as after normal 1♠ opening
1 ♥ (0-1♥) - x - pas - ? now it's very easy to pass with 8+pc and 3+♥, and ops are in trouble

Because there are many situations in which you overcall an artificial bid, only a good knowledge of natural bidding can win. All those conventions get useless, so the bidding is getting more intelectual again.

And all those commetties could spend their time and effort on other important issues like bridge law etc.

And as for the total happines I still wonder if prohibiting squeezes wouldn't raise it. Have anyone made a poll?

[fred]

pbleighton, on Apr 30 2006, 09:33 PM, said:

Two questions for Fred, and anyone else who supports restrictive system regulations:

1.  How do players in the rest of the world ever manage to play bridge, given that they have to play against such diabolical things as the Multi, Muiderberg, transfer openings, transfer responses to suit bids, etc?

2.  Why do you think ACBL players need extra protection?  Are we dumber?

Peter

I don't understand what you are asking in your first question.

As for the 2nd question, it is not a matter of "needing extra protection", it is a matter of "wanting extra protection".

The ACBL does not just invent these policies out of thin air or rely purely on the opinions of their best players (which is good since some of the best players are as out of touch as reality as some of the members of the "allow anything" crowd).

The C and C committee also includes people who run bridge clubs, tournament directors, representatives of the Board of Directors, Board of Governors, and ACBL management. Some of those people are there specifically because the ACBL thinks it is important to seek the opinions of those who have a lot of direct contact with "average players". Furthermore, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that ACBL has actually done some "market research" to find out what their players want.

The ACBL and the C and C committee are trying to do what is best for the ACBL membership. Of this I have no doubt. The issues of whether or not they are right about what the membership wants and whether or not they are doing a good job is not the reason I got involved in this thread to begin with.

I posted here because I found it highly offensive that people who objected to the actions of this committee saw fit to launch a series of unjustified personal attacks against the members of this committee.

You were offended when I suggested that some of the people who play unusual systems do not do an adequate job of disclosing their agreements to their opponents. How would you have felt if I had named names? How would you have felt if some of the names I named were those of your friends? How would you have felt if I had called these people cheaters (as opposed to leaving open the possibility that their lack of full disclosure was unintentional)?

Can you see how I (and others) might have been offended by some of the posts of some of the people on your side of this issue?

I thought there might be some healing if I pointed this out. I thought the attackers might feel some remorse and might even issue some kind of public policy for their highly inappropriate actions.

In retrospect perhaps this was naive.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

I'm a system freak myself, but I can understand the acbl policy. However, it's contradictory to itself on many occasions, and this causes people to lose faith in it. Where one rule allows a convention, another one bans it. I guess we all know I'm not a big fan of the acbl because of that reason. If they'd use strict rules of what is allowed, with or without approved defenses, and without 'double' rules for certain systems, I'd have a lot more sympathy than I have now. One rule allows something, another disallows it, now what's it gonna be?

In Belgium (I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm quite happy with it) we use the WBF color codes, and when only green and blue systems are allowed (low level competition and some clubs), there are some extra conventions allowed as well. These are the most common like stayman, blackwood,... Most tourneys however allow green, blue and red systems, but don't allow HUM and BSC. Imo this is close to perfect: everyone can toy with new idea's to a certain level, and destructive methods (which is basicly a subjective definition anyway) are allowed. Our policy is basicly to let the people play methods that are not impossible to defend against (HUM or especially BSC are quite difficult imo, red systems are not).
If you want to play something new, just read the rules about colors, and you'll know when it's allowed or not. No rubish about approved defenses, no whining about 2/6/16/32 board matches,... People get along very well, and when they encounter a 'weird' system they usually are interested in it! Most of the old folks don't go to tourneys and don't like the new systems as well. But should any systems be banned for people who don't even go to the places where they are currently allowed? Perhaps at clublevel, but not in any decent tournament.

Anyway, imo this discussion is interesting, but it's also quite waste of time. Most system freaks seem not to want to understand the other side's view on things, and the other side clearly doesn't see the vision of the system freaks. There's like an enormous force field in between! People keep talking to eachother without listening to what they really want to say.

[TimG]

fred, on May 1 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

As for the 2nd question, it is not a matter of "needing extra protection", it is a matter of "wanting extra protection".

[T]he ACBL thinks it is important to seek the opinions of those who have a lot of direct contact with "average players". Furthermore, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that ACBL has actually done some "market research" to find out what their players want.

Why are the desires of the average ACBL member (who is still eligible for non-life master events and plays most of their bridge at local clubs) particularly relevant when it comes to decisions about the mid-chart?

And, are you sure that doing what the current ACBL membership wants rigth now is in the best long term interests of the ACBL?

[jdonn]

TimG, on May 1 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

And, are you sure that doing what the current ACBL membership wants rigth now is in the best long term interests of the ACBL?

Yes, and to think otherwise would be moronic in my opinion. The biggest problem by far that the ACBL has is declining membership. They should cater just about every decision to what most members currently want.

I have no opinion on how good a job of that they are actually doing. But surely antagonizing the majority of current members would just be a step toward the end of the ACBL.

[EricK]

jdonn, on May 1 2006, 04:46 PM, said:

TimG, on May 1 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

And, are you sure that doing what the current ACBL membership wants rigth now is in the best long term interests of the ACBL?

Yes, and to think otherwise would be moronic in my opinion. The biggest problem by far that the ACBL has is declining membership. They should cater just about every decision to what most members currently want.

I have no opinion on how good a job of that they are actually doing. But surely antagonizing the majority of current members would just be a step toward the end of the ACBL.

If the membership is declining because current members are leaving then arguably they should try to appeal to the current membership.

If the membership is declining because old people are dying (or becoming to ill to play) and they are not being replaced then they should try to attract new members - because they will not succeed if they try to prevent people dying!

But since they will always lose some membership as a result of death and illness, then they should be doing things which encourage new members anyway.