[fred]

TimG, on May 1 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

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?

They are not. Perhaps the club owner on the C and C committee would have little to say about midchart. But you can bet that the Regional TDs on the committee (as well as guys like Rick Beye and Gary Blaiss) would and that they would be as well-qualified as anyone to offer an opinion on what the midchart event players want re systems and regulations.

The C and C committee is not concerned only with midchart. They make reccomendations to the ACBL Board concerning all charts. That is why they have made an effort to put people on this committee who are in touch with all the segments of the ACBL membership.

Quote

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

No.

Are you sure that a "best possible midchart" would have a significant positive impact on the best long term interests of the ACBL?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

A general policy of having clear, concise, and consistently applied rules would probably have a small but tangible benefit to ACBL as a whole. There are at least a few players who've been very upset by being unable to play their favorite methods, or by being forced to play against methods they don't understand or know how to defend against. There are also some players who've been upset by inconsistent director rulings about what is allowed and/or alertable. And it would be easier for foreign players visiting the US if they could play their usual methods (most notably multi 2♦) in local tournaments without a lot of paperwork. I agree that this is not the ACBL's first priority, nor should it be, but as long as people are volunteering a great deal of time to think about it why not take suggestions and try to make improvements?

The real issues here (in my mind anyway) don't have all that much to do with what's allowed and what isn't. It seems fairly reasonable to me to disallow transfer openings in a pairs event for example. What's more of a problem is having very complex rules about what's allowed, such that very few players or directors can really decipher them. To give some examples:

(1) ACBL allows any artificial defense to conventional opening bids. This is actually general chart. Does this apply to a 1♣ or 1♦ opening that "could be short"? Keep in mind that many defenses to natural opening bids are mid-chart and require pre-alert and suggested defense. I've talked to many nationally rated directors about this, and they are not on the same page.

(2) ACBL general chart disallows "1NT forcing response guaranteeing invitational or better values" but "invitational or better values" are never defined anywhere. It's also not clear whether highly improbable exceptions "invitational plus, or weak with a ten card suit" are permitted.

(3) Similarly ACBL disallows "relay systems" (general chart) and "non-game-forcing relay systems" (mid-chart). Relay systems are never defined. I've played against a lot of things (and even played a few things myself) which probably could be defined as relay systems, but as far as I can tell no system ever designed can run afoul of this rule.

(4) Openings at the one-level are supposed to require 8 or more points (unless a psych). Frequently opening light is supposed to require a pre-alert. Apparently neither of these regulations applies to third seat openings (several directors including Rick Beye have confirmed this) but this exception and to what degree it applies is not explained anywhere (can you agree to open all hands in third seat? is that even alertable?)

(5) The definition of natural bids is even vague. According to the general chart, the 1NT response to 1♦ in standard american, which is not necessarily a balanced hand (could be a shapely hand with a bunch of clubs assuming you don't play WJS or anything), would not be a natural bid. In fact there's nothing on the general chart really indicating that such a response should be allowed. Similarly a raise of 1M to 2M which is frequently on three cards seems to be artificial and disallowed. Obviously this is not the intent (and no director would ever rule that way) but a literal reading of the charts does lead one to that interpretation.

(6) Similarly, it seems to be hard to tell whether a frelling two is a natural bid (and thus protected) or an artificial convention (and possibly disallowed). In fact the charts are fairly contradictory, defining "any bid of a minor that shows three or more cards in the suit is natural" (and implicitly allowed) and then later saying that "bids showing two-suited hands must promise 5-4 or better shape."

(7) The alert chart too, is an awful mess. In particular no one can decipher which doubles are alertable, since "highly unexpected" is totally a judgement call. Different directors have very different ideas about this, and leaving something like "what's alertable" so totally to director's discretion can be very frustrating for players.

[joshs]

JanM, on Apr 27 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

joshs, on Mar 31 2006, 07:46 PM, said:

At the Philly nationals, two australian friends of mine came and played similar methods (x-fer openers) in the open pairs. Half way through a session, chip martel, single handedly ruled that this was not legal, made them play natural opening bids the 2'nd half of the session, where that had many accidents (not everything carried over well) and essentially gave the people who played them early bad scores relative to the people who played them late.

Since I was sitting at the table when this issue arose, and was in fact the player who called the director to ask whether transfer one bids were allowed, let me correct some of what Josh states and comment a little on the rest - of course, none of this has anything to do with the original question posted here.

1. Chip did not make any ruling - a player cannot do that. In fact, when the pair arrived at our table and I saw that they were playing transfer 1 bids, I called the director to find out if that was allowed. Chip did tell the director that he believed a pair had been told before the tournament that they could not play transfer one bids. The director went off to consult with other directors and returned to our table to explain to the opponents that they were not allowed to play one level transfer opening bids in this event because there was not an approved defense.

2. The opponents left our table and went to the next table where they told their opponents that they were playing transfer openings at the one level. When I heard that, I summoned the director, and they were again told they could not play these methods. I am happy that they then stopped using the method. I agree that it was unfair to the pairs they played earlier that they had used the method against them, but I don't understand how that could have been avoided, since they had not asked before the event whether they could play transfer one bids. In fact, another pair had submitted a similar method in advance and been told that they could not play it.

3. I haven't seen the defense you submitted; there was a time when defenses were posted without review; I don't remember when the "approved defense" concept started, so I don't know whether yours was reviewed. I do know that it's not as trivial as it sounds to defend against transfer 1 bids (because the entire tenor of the auction changes) and that the Conventions & Competition Committee has been working with Moscito proponents to come up with a defense that is both adequate and easily understood, so far with no success.

4. In the last few years, the C&C committee has decided that it makes more sense to decide what methods to allow depending on the number of boards each opponent will play against the method. This is primarily because of time issues. If it will take a pair 2 minutes at the beginning of the round to understand the method and defense, and another 2 minutes when the method comes up to review the defense and figure out how to bid their hands, that will consume too much time when there are only 2 boards in a round. I know, it won't always take 2 minutes, but sometimes it will take longer. I play multi, and find that the time wasted dealing with pre-alerting and explaining about the written defense is often very frustrating in 2 board rounds. When there are more boards, the time consumed dealing with a compex method won't be as large a percentage of the time allotted to play the round, so more complex methods can be allowed. In long matches, even more complex methods are allowed. For systems issues, it makes a lot more sense to classify events by the length of the round than by the "level" of the event. One result of this approach is that methods that were previously allowed in NABC+ pair events (and BAM teams) are no longer allowed.

The policy of approving defenses started 6 months prior to Toronto nationals, and almost 2 years prior to the Philly nationals. Right when the policy started, I submitted 3 sets of defenses along which (the required) detailed notes on the methods. I was informed by the ACBL head director that the methods were approved for mid-chart use, and the defenses were posted on the acbl web page and remained there unp until the middle of philly nationals.

(In addition to TOSR, I submitted defenses to, and got approval for
a. Kaplan inversion
b. x-fers responses to a natural and non-forcing 1C opener (Which at that time was played by Me and Marc Umeno, Jeff Roman and Hugh Grosvenor, Chris Willenkin and Glenn Milgram, and possibly some others)

These were all approved and put on the website under a section titled "defenses to x-fer type methods".
)

The conditions of contest for the national events were that midchart methods were legal if there was an approved defense for the method provided on the acbl website, under the defense database. In this case, a pair flew halfway around the world expecting to be able to play methods that were specially allowed according to the conditions of contest (since this defense was in fact provided in the ACBL's defense database). Somehow, it was decided that those methods getting approved and posted on the website was an accident (so why did the head director e-mail me telling me that the methods were approved?), and despite that those methods were specifically allowed by the written conditions of contest, they we told to stop playing it in the middle of the event.

I just think think that the ACBL was lucky to not have gotten sued...



Anyway, if I got details of the story wrong I apologize. What happened was told to me by Mark and Mike (who were staying at my mom's house in Philly) back at philly nationals, which was around 3-4 years ago, so my memory is fading. I do know the details of the part of the story that I was involved in, which was the process of getting the defenses approved in the first place.





If desired, I can try to find my orginal TOSR writeup that appeared on the acbl website. Here is my current write up. There are three differences with the orginal:

a. The original submission to the ACBL (and what was posted on the website) had 2 alternative defenses (the second one was play x as 12-14 balanced, or a 18+ hand instead of natural)
b. Our 1D-2D and 1H-2H auctions have changed from what they used to be (they used to be natural and constructive (8-11ish) but not forcing)
c. What was posted on the website accidently left out a few paragraphs pertaining to the 1S opening (e.g. It gave the defense, but left out the mention that it was a defense to a 1S opening showing the minors).

Anyway, here is my current methods overview/defense document. Note that the ACBL requires this complete writeup to explain your methods completely. At the table, I would assume that defenders would just want to use the suggested defense without having to read the entire document.

Note: All opening ranges are 2 points higher in ¾ seat and all responding ranges are 2 points lower. Also note, we are not bean counters so sometimes hands are a point heavier or lighter than the announced range (for instance a hand with a stiff honor will be demoted by a point)

Method: 1D opener showing 4+Hearts, may contain a longer side suit. A 1D opener never contains 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors. In ½ seat, 1D is never 4432 or 4333 (in ¾ seat, it might be these shapes with 12-13 HCP).
This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Diamonds.

Responding Structure:
Pass: 5+D, 0-10 HCP, usually not balanced.

1H: 10+HCP and is ART (by a passed hand 8-11). With 10-11 must have a fit or a great suit. With a minimum, opener bids 1S. All other bids confirm a sound opening bid (usually 12-14 HCP with 3+ controls over a ½ seat opening bid).

At responder’s next bid he can make a natural non-forcing invitational bid, or can bid the cheapest step (other than 1N) as a game forcing relay.

1S: 4+S 0-11 HCP, Non-Forcing. Opener is only allowed to pass with exactly 3S and a min.

1N: 0-11 HCP, asks for openers longest suit. 1N rarely contains a singleton. Opener will pass this if and only if he is 4441 shape. (Special Rebid: 1H-1N-2H shows 5+S and 3H )

2C:0-11 HCP, 5+C, not balanced, non-forcing.

2D: Good raise of hearts. Usually only 3 hearts. Typically 10-11 HCP.

2H: 4+H or 3H and a singleton. 0-9 Support points.

2S: 8-10 HCP, 4+H, singleton somewhere

2N: 8-10 HCP, 5+S, 4+H.

3C: 8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+H.

3D:8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+H

3H: 4+H, 0-8 HCP


Competitive Auctions:
X by responder always asks opener to bid his longest suit (except x of 1H is the same as 1D-P-1H) (Note: when forced to bid at the 3 level 2N shows 5 hearts and 3H shows 6).
Negative free bids at the 2 level.
X-fer Leb at the 3 level. (Some x-fer fit jumps)

Suggested Defense:
1D-x Shows Diamonds (at least a good enough hand to overcall 1D over 1C).
1D-1H is a takeout x of hearts, and is forcing.
1D-2D is pre-emptive.
Everything else is as if there was a natural 1H opener.

1D-P-1H or 1D-P-1N or 1D-P-2D:
x is takeout
2H is Michaels
2N is minors
Others natural.

For all non-forcing auctions:
e.g. 1D-P-1S, 1D-P-2C, 1D-P-P (or the same auctions with 2'nd hand xing to show diamonds)

x is a 3 suited takeout of the current strain. Bids of Hearts are natural (it’s very common for responder to have a stiff heart on these auctions). Cue bidding the non-forcing suit bid is the only cue bid)

For all other auctions, bid as if there was a natural 1H opening.









Method: 1H opener showing 4+Spades, 0-3 Hearts, may contain a longer minor. Never 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors. In ½ seat this is never 4432 or 4333 (in ¾ seat it might be these shapes with 12-13 HCP).
This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Hearts.

Responding Structure:
Pass: 5+H, 0-10 HCP, usually not balanced.

1S: 10+HCP and is ART (by a passed hand 8-11). With 10-11 must have a fit or a great suit. With a minimum, opener bids 1N. All other bids confirm a sound opening bid (usually 12-14 HCP with 3+ controls over a ½ seat opening bid).

At responder’s next bid he can make a natural non-forcing invitational bid, or can bid the cheapest step as a game forcing relay.

1N: 0-11 HCP, asks for openers longest suit. 1N rarely contains a singleton. A ½ seat opener will never pass this.

2C:0-11 HCP, 5+C, not balanced, non-forcing.

2D: 0-11 HCP, 5+D, not balanced, non-forcing.

2H: Good raise of spades. Usually only 3 spades. Typically 10-11 HCP

2S: 4+S or 3 with a singleton. 0-9 Support Points.

2N: 8-10 HCP, 4+S, singleton somewhere

3C: 8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+S

3D:8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+S

3H: 5+H, 4+S 8-10 HCP

3S: 4+S, 0-8 HCP


Suggested Defense:
1H-x Shows Hearts (at least a good enough hand to overcall 1H over 1m).
1H-1S is a takeout x of spades, and is forcing.
1H-2H is pre-emptive.
Everything else is as if there was a natural 1S opener.

1H-P-1S or 1H-P-1N 1H-P-2H:
x is takeout
2S is Michaels
2N is minors
Others natural.

For all non-forcing auctions:
e.g. 1H-P-2m, 1H-P-P (or the same auctions with 2'nd hand xing to show hearts)


x is a 3 suited takeout of the current strain. Bids of Spades are natural (it’s very common for responder to have a stiff spade on these auctions). Cue bidding the non-forcing suit bid is the only cue bid)


For all other auctions, bid as if there was a natural 1S opening.

Method 1S: at least 4-4 in the minors, unbalanced. Might have a 4 or 5 card major. This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Spades.

Responding structure:
Pass: 0-10 5+Spades
1N: 0-11 with No Game Interest. Asks opener to bid his longest suit
2C: Game Forcing Relay, Typically 14+ HCP
2D: ART Game Invitation, about 11-13 HCP
2H: 5+H About 9-13 HCP, Not Forcing (With 6 hearts its 9- 11ish, With 5H its 11-13ish)
2S: 5+S About 9-13 HCP, Not Forcing (With 6 spades its 9- 11ish, With 5S its 11-13ish)
2N: Pre-empt with both minors (0-10ish)
3m: Pre-empt (0-10ish)
3M: Splinter, both minors, Game Forcing
3N and higher: To Play

Competitive Auctions:
Bids of 2C and 2D in comp retain their normal meaning (or x’s of 2C or 2D).
X by responder of bids other than 2C or 2D asks opener to bid his longest suit (Except x of 1S is the same as 1H-P-1S)
Negative free bids at the 2 level.
Leb at the 3 level. (Some fit jumps)



Suggested Defense:
1S-x is takeout of the minors or a big hand
1S-1N is 15-18 Balanced
1S-2C is 5-5 in the Majors, 12+ HCP
1S-2D is 5-5 in the Majors, 6-11 HCP
1S-2M is natural
1S-2N is 20-21 Balanced
1S-3Anything is pre-emptive

After 1S-1N,2C,2D
X=Majors or big hand
2C(If Available): 5-5 Majors, 12+
2D(If Available):5-5 Majors, 6-11ish
2N: At least 6-5 in Majors over 2m, 20-21 balanced over 1N)
Others Natural

After 1S-2M
X Takeout

After 1S-2N:
X=cards (14+). Balanced or close to it (or a huge hand). Treat the rest of the auction as if your hand opened 1N and the opps pre-empted in a minor.
3C=Majors, better hearts
3D=Majors, better spades

After 1S-3m:
Treat as a normal 3m pre-empt.

[jdonn]

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(1) ACBL allows any artificial defense to conventional opening bids. This is actually general chart. Does this apply to a 1♣ or 1♦ opening that "could be short"? Keep in mind that many defenses to natural opening bids are mid-chart and require pre-alert and suggested defense. I've talked to many nationally rated directors about this, and they are not on the same page.

No, those bids aren't necessarilly conventional. As someone has pointed out before, the opposite of natural isn't conventional, it's artificial. Some bids are both natural and conventional. Some bids are technically neither.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(2) ACBL general chart disallows "1NT forcing response guaranteeing invitational or better values" but "invitational or better values" are never defined anywhere. It's also not clear whether highly improbable exceptions "invitational plus, or weak with a ten card suit" are permitted.

When used in the context of a response to an opening bid, I think it's pretty well understood what invitational means, which is invitational to game assuming opener is in the minimum range for his opening bid. In other words, given a minimum range opener, he goes on with some upper portion of that range, else passes with some corresponding lower portion. Yes that just came from my head, and they probably ought to state such a thing.

Attempting to include an extremely rare hand type to circumvent the rules is disallowed, I believe.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(3) Similarly ACBL disallows "relay systems" (general chart) and "non-game-forcing relay systems" (mid-chart). Relay systems are never defined. I've played against a lot of things (and even played a few things myself) which probably could be defined as relay systems, but as far as I can tell no system ever designed can run afoul of this rule.

Relay systems are defined. On the general chart, definition 3, "A sequence of relay bids are defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's rebid." Relay is "an artificial, non-descriptive bid that asks partner for a description" according to the Bridge World website, which the ACBL website links to.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(4) Openings at the one-level are supposed to require 8 or more points (unless a psych). Frequently opening light is supposed to require a pre-alert. Apparently neither of these regulations applies to third seat openings (several directors including Rick Beye have confirmed this) but this exception and to what degree it applies is not explained anywhere (can you agree to open all hands in third seat? is that even alertable?)

I think agreeing to always open in third seat would be disallowed as it's primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods, which is expressly disallowed. You could try to convince the director that you are doing it for constructive or lead directing reasons, but it seems like an impossible sell.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(5) The definition of natural bids is even vague. According to the general chart, the 1NT response to 1♦ in standard american, which is not necessarily a balanced hand (could be a shapely hand with a bunch of clubs assuming you don't play WJS or anything), would not be a natural bid. In fact there's nothing on the general chart really indicating that such a response should be allowed. Similarly a raise of 1M to 2M which is frequently on three cards seems to be artificial and disallowed. Obviously this is not the intent (and no director would ever rule that way) but a literal reading of the charts does lead one to that interpretation.

The GCC (intentionally I assume) doesn't define natural notrump responses, just notrump openings and overcalls. According to Bridge World again though, it is natural ("indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain") It's true a 1NT response to 1D that could be unbalanced with long clubs is neither specifically allowed or disallowed, but I suppose a technical reading doesn't allow any one level response to a 1D opening at all, since none are mentioned.

Likewise for raising a major suit, I think when they talk about a natural suit response, it is implicit they aren't referring to a raise (though not explicitly stated I admit.) Then by the above definition, such a bid is natural. You even admit in the following that natural bids are implicitly allowed.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(6) Similarly, it seems to be hard to tell whether a frelling two is a natural bid (and thus protected) or an artificial convention (and possibly disallowed). In fact the charts are fairly contradictory, defining "any bid of a minor that shows three or more cards in the suit is natural" (and implicitly allowed) and then later saying that "bids showing two-suited hands must promise 5-4 or better shape."

It is a natural bid that is disallowed, there is no contradiction. By stating a requirement for two-suited opening bids, it is clear that such bids which do not meet those requirements are disallowed.

awm, on May 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

(7) The alert chart too, is an awful mess. In particular no one can decipher which doubles are alertable, since "highly unexpected" is totally a judgement call. Different directors have very different ideas about this, and leaving something like "what's alertable" so totally to director's discretion can be very frustrating for players.

It is in the regulations that you must alert bids if you aren't sure whether or not they are alertable. Thus if you believe there is any reasonable chance that your double has a highly unexpected meaning, you are required to alert it even if you aren't sure. So the only problems occurs if you are certain your double does not have a highly unexpected meaning but others think it does, a pretty unlikely situation when reasonable people are involved.

[awm]

Well ACBL never specifically defines "conventional" or "artificial" as far as I can tell. If we look in the laws, we see that a "convention" is A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. So a short minor opening certainly doesn't show high-card strength or length in the suit (length defined as three or more). Is it an offer to play there? Well it's possible, in that it's a non-forcing bid, but that has to be looked at very sceptically because a 2♥ opening showing a weak two in either major (for example) is in fact an "offer to play in hearts" and probably more likely to be passed than a short minor suit opening. Regardless of what the "answer" is to permitting artificial defenses to short club/diamond openings, the fact that several different nationally rated directors have given different answers on the topic is probably a bad sign. Apparently there is now a memo going around amongst the directors that artificial defenses to short minor are allowed, and I've actually noticed a recent shift from "most directors think artificial defenses not allowed" to "most directors think artificial defenses allowed" because of this.

I also believe that including a very rare hand type to circumvent the rules should not be allowed. But what is "very rare"? I know a pair here in LA who plays a 1NT response to 1♠ as showing either invitational or better values, or a weak hand with five or more hearts. Is this okay? Is it okay if the weak hand with hearts needs six hearts? Seven?

As for relay systems, I agree that a relay system is defined: "A sequence of relay bids are defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's rebid." But the word relay is never defined. The Bridge World definition is deficient. People have successfully made the following argument: "Partner opens 1M. I respond 2♣; this is artificial but it's not non-descriptive because it announces game forcing (if GCC) or invitational or better (midchart) values. Then partner rebids something descriptive, although possibly artificial. At this point my next call is a relay, but this is subsequent to opener's rebid..." In fact, I'm not sure how a game-forcing relay system could ever be a problem since the first relay says "I have game values" and is therefore descriptive. Also, it seems like you can start with a forcing notrump (which is essentially a relay, but specifically allowed) and then relay later and argue that "my second call after the 1NT was descriptive because it is value showing" or simply that "my first bid was 1NT forcing, relays started at responders second call." This is not just hypothetical, as I have played against methods like ice relay (where 2♣ over a major suit opener is artificial game force and starts relays) in GCC events and they are routinely ruled legal.

Purely destructive or no, it'd just be nice to have some information that the rules about first seat openings don't apply to third seat (this is documented nowhere as far as I can tell) and specifics about what the lower limits are for third seat non-psychs (and what requires pre-alert). Apparently "rule of 17" for third seat openings is okay, dunno about "rule of 16" or "KQJxx and out." It seems like the rule is basically "if the director/committee in question would open the hand, it's okay, and if not, it's not okay" which seems like a really bad way to do things.

I agree that natural bids are implicitly allowed. I don't understand why the charts define "natural" so specifically with a definition that is apparently deficient (in that certain bids like raises and NF 1NT respones that really should be natural are not defined as such). It seems quite inconsistent, to refer specifically to relays without even bothering to define them and then be quite careful to define natural bids but without ever stating that natural bids are allowed (in fact there is a statement that what's not specifically allowed is actually disallowed, which seems to disallow natural major suit openings).

I also think there's a serious issue with trying to disallow negative inferences. This encourages people to not disclose methods. It seems like opening 2♦ which shows "four or more diamonds weak" is okay, but opening 2♦ which shows "four or more diamonds and four or more hearts weak" is not okay? Doesn't this encourage people to officially agree "2♦ shows four or more diamonds weak" and just never bid it without a second suit? Of course, there's no indication that 2♦ showing any particular number of diamonds is actually a legal bid unless we assume natural calls are okay.

As to alerting bids if in doubt, sure it's a good safety measure. The problem is that sometimes people don't alert bids. Now the director (or committee) decides whether the meaning was unexpected. In some cases this is obvious, but in others it is not. For example: 1♣-Pass-1♥-1♠-X or 1♠-Pass-1NT-Pass-2♣-X. Is takeout unexpected here? Is penalty? Is "cards"? I've seen all three of these meanings used in each sequence without an alert, and certainly people have been taken by surprise when the meaning in use didn't match the meaning they use or prefer. In fact on one occasion when the auction ended (I was declarer) I actually asked opponents about one of these doubles (and they were an established partnership known for being ethical) and was told "it's just bridge."

[DrTodd13]

The primary purpose of preempts are to destroy opponents methods with minimal risk, ergo the 2/3 rule of vulnerability. Since this rule is "legal," it must be ok for people to judge for themselves how much risk is worth it and how much risk is too much. Oops..I spoke too soon. It seems that preempts are legal at every level except at the one level. Explain that one to me. If I judge that a certain hand type is suitable for a preempt at the one level in third seat, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? What is so magical about the 2-level? If you are thinking clearly, I think you have to admit that this is nothing but a grandfathered-in bias as to what a "preempt" is.

[jdonn]

There is nothing magical about any of these regulations, they are all based on bias to some extent. Opening one bids showing fewer than 8 points are disallowed, well what is so special about 8, why not 9, or 7? Some people that we would hope are reasonable and had good intentions just had to make cutoffs and decisions about these things at some point, based on their gut, their experience, their personal opinions of what bridge should be, etc.

At it's most basic level, you could certainly argue that no regulation of any kind makes sense regarding what bids are legal, and I know some people (likely you included, although I'm just assuming) believe this. But there is a much larger population of ACBL members who would rather certain bids be restricted in certain ways. Maybe there is no technical reason that bids on the one level should have to show a minimal amount of strength, except that either the majority or a minority in power feel that bridge is better or more fun or more popular if that is the case. And I'm fine with that. The word "bias" doesn't have to have negative connotations.

There are absolutely parts of the convention charts that could be worded more clearly or include more details. But in almost all cases it seems like the intentions are clear, and lots of these things are probably left vague on purpose so they can be decided on a case by case basis, which I'm also fine with.

[joshs]

When the defense database was started it was explained as serving the following noble purpose:
to allow for more methods to be approved that conform with the ACBL mid-chart regulations, by ensuring that an adequite defense is available to those methods.

Thats what was actually said in the ACBL bulleton when they announced the new policy.

As presented the stated purpose of the defense database, and the approving comittee, was not to determine which methods should be allowed, that was already determined by the mid-chart, it was to ensure that adequite defenses were made available, so that players did not get an unfair advantage by providing bad defenses or hard to understand defenses.

This is not meant as an attack on those players who volunteered there time for the committe, but I think that there are still some gaps between that noble purpose and what has happened.

For one thing, I think the process is no longer about
"did you provide an adequite and easy to understand defense"
but is instead about
"should we approve the method in the first place"

If methods don't belong in the mid-chart, change the mid-chart, don't use the process of not approving defenses as a loophole to make methods illegal.

In the second place, even longstanding approved defenses are terrible. By terrible I mean that they often don't even cover the meaning of bids on the 1'st or second round of a common auction. I faced the following auction in nationals a few years ago:
2N(Diamond Pre-empt) by LHO
x by partner (The defense says 14+, it doesn't say if its 14+ balanced, although there is a different bid for a takeout of diamonds, so its implied that this should be balanced, but not explicitly stated)
3D by RHO
Now is a 3H bid by me forcing or not? The defense doesn't say. I felt it logically was analogous to 1N by partner, 3D on my right, 3H (i.e. forcing) and partner didn't think it was and passed. It should be in the defense, so partnerships don't have to guess.

I really think that the idea of having a committee insure that there are adequite defenses to unusual methods being used is a good idea, but this doesn't appear to be part of what the committe is currently doing.


There has also been the more recent change where some methods are approved only when you play a lot of boards against the same pair.
Now, I am am the first person to say that some things should be legal at teams that are not legal at pairs since you do not have adequite time for full disclosure at pairs. But I think setting length of board limits so that these methods can't be played in the national swisses are going a bit overboard.

I also think that in someways the (boards per round) requirements should be cumulative. Essentially, the total pre-alerts and associated brief discussions should not waste more than about 5% of the time of the round. If you have 10 different "2 bds/round" methods to announce, how is that worse than 1 or 2 8 boards/round methods. Its at the point that you no longer have the time to figure out what your opponents are playing, that they derive an unfair advantage from them. How many times have a pair showed up with an index card of 10 pre-alerts, that you actually spent the time to read it over during a pair movement? I usually just go, you have defenses to all that? They nod and we play.
And I don't derive the benefit of all the negative inferences about passes and such that are available if I had the time to figure out what my opponents are playing.

As to x-fer opening bids. I would much rather face a x-fer opener, than a natural and GCC legal potentially canape opening bid. The x-fer openers are much easier to defend against. What chip told me in Philly when I went to speak to him, is that since the second rounds of auctions may be wierd they need to restrict the methods. Since either:
a. the second round of the auction is identical to what would happen playing natural canape methods (How is 1D(4+H)-1N-2C(5+C)-3C(natural INV) different from
1H (4+H)-1N-2C(canape)-3C?)
b. we are in the middle of a game forcing sequence

I didn't understand chip's objection.

Quite frankly, the precision 1D opening is hard enough to handle, especially when it can be very very short ( 0 or more diamonds, sometimes less) ....

Josh

BTW, Jan, I do appreciating your posting. I still remember your article about coming up with defenses to all the wierd methods at one national championship (including how many different fert openings?) I know its a lot of work, just as coming up with good costructive or desructive methods are in the first place....

[joshs]

I was recently informed that:
2H showing 5 or 6 hearts AND 2 or 3 spades, was not conventional, even though it suggested playing in some denomination other than the bid suit, and thus GCC legal
but
2H showing 5 or 6 hearts and a 4 card minor was conventional because it suggested playing in a different strain than the suit bid, and since the second suit was unknown its mid-chart

I never understood this.

And how about:
2H showing a 5 card suit, and an unbalanced hand

It doesn't mention a second suit in the description, but it logically has one, and there is no point playing this method if you have no way of ever playing in the second suit....

I love regulations that encourage a lack of complete disclosure. Lovely....



On another topic, personally I don't think 1M-2C showing an ART GF is a relay since it does show something, the next bid after that if it doesn't show anything else is a relay....

Examples:
1C(strong)-1S(3 controls, gfing) = not a relay

1N-2C stayman = relay
1N-2D ART GF = not a relay

In tosr, 1D-1H and 1H-1S are not relays. They show something. Its just strength not shape. The next cheap bid by responder is a relay....

[jdonn]

Well, technically you are right, sort of. When a 2H opening shows 2-3 spades, it may well make it much safer for partner to bid spades, but I think that bid exists with different primary intentions, mostly safety in doubling if they overcall. Just because a message is sent about a suit doesn't mean it has been suggested we play in that suit. Perhaps the regulation should be reworded that a bid in one suit (when they want these bids to be illegal) should not be allowed to promise 'natural' length in any other suit, so promising some amount of spades for a 2H opening would be ok if that amount is three or fewer. I think this would fit more closely with the intentions of the regulation, and explain the discrepancy you noted.

Regarding relays, it is not illegal to play the first bid is a relay, just that it can't be the start of a sequence of relays (whatever that is, two or more I guess.) I think what makes, say, an artificial GF 2C response a relay for the purposes of this rule is the fact that the player bidding it plans to continue with relays on his next bid, regardless of opener's rebid, until he can place the contract. I mean technically no bid is a relay as long as any other bid could have been chosen, since it must thus tell something about your hand, but that is circumventing the clear intention of the rule. I think a 1H response to the 1D opening bid in tosr is a relay as they mean it. Stayman is different since responder doesn't intend to break into a series of questions beginning with his next bid, but rather to show something about his hand or place the contract.

Or to put it another way, even if a bid that would otherwise be a relay carries a strength message of say game forcing value, I would still consider it a relay if it's the beginning of a sequence of cheap asking bids, and the reason is that the partner of the bidder is not going to use the strength information, but is just going to describe.

[joshs]

JanM, on Apr 29 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

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.

Thats a nice example, and I really wish the published defenses were this complete....

Personally, I just want to be able to play constructive methods based on x-fers, since they provide more room for constructive auctions. There are roughly 40% more hand types that can be shown over 1D than over 1H. Further, if you open 1H and want to play relay methods
a. using 1S as an ART GF deprives you of a very useful natural bid
b. so the cheapist bid you can use for an ART GF starting relays is 1N which is 2 steps higher than bidding a 1H, hence you can show only half as many bits of information over it before 3N than you can over 1D-1H (and 1N is also too useful a bid to give up in my opinion)
c. relaying out declarers hand is not a good stategy. So playing relays over natural opening bids, usually results in opener declaring the hand and the opps knowing everything about his hand. This is a bad idea in general. So I only like relays when the relayer can arrange to be declarer most of the time.....

Further, over these low level constructive bids, the defenses are really easy...
Either it becomes a natural auction which is isomorphic to a completely natural auction with the opening bid being 1 bid lower OR
Its a strong and ART auction, where, if you want to bud in on the second round of the auction at all, its usually just to x an ART bid for the lead....

And on the first round of the auction you basically get 1 free bid in addition to what you would normally have.

Yes there are subtle differences since 1D(showing hearts)-x(showing diamonds)-1S(natural and non-forcing)
is not isomorphic to anything else since you can't overcall 1D over 1H normally, thats why these things should be provided in a complete suggested defense:
(When a non-forcing suit bid is made, treat it as the only suit bid by that side)

[DelfinoD]

Free, on May 1 2006, 09:44 AM, said:

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).

Sorry, because I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of bid which is not possible or very hard to defend against?

I can bet it's easier to defend than against natural 1♥or 1nt, but I'm ready to be convinced.

[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


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

Fred, let me try again. Many bids which are illegal under the ACBL's GCC (which governs the vast majority of tournament events), and which are problematic under the mid chart, are legal in many/most other jurisdictions. Why does the ACBL feel that bids which are so widely played (and defended against) are so difficult to deal with that GCC event players must be shielded from them?

Peter

[joshs]

jdonn, on May 1 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

Well, technically you are right, sort of. When a 2H opening shows 2-3 spades, it may well make it much safer for partner to bid spades, but I think that bid exists with different primary intentions, mostly safety in doubling if they overcall. Just because a message is sent about a suit doesn't mean it has been suggested we play in that suit. Perhaps the regulation should be reworded that a bid in one suit (when they want these bids to be illegal) should not be allowed to promise 'natural' length in any other suit, so promising some amount of spades for a 2H opening would be ok if that amount is three or fewer. I think this would fit more closely with the intentions of the regulation, and explain the discrepancy you noted.

Regarding relays, it is not illegal to play the first bid is a relay, just that it can't be the start of a sequence of relays (whatever that is, two or more I guess.) I think what makes, say, an artificial GF 2C response a relay for the purposes of this rule is the fact that the player bidding it plans to continue with relays on his next bid, regardless of opener's rebid, until he can place the contract. I mean technically no bid is a relay as long as any other bid could have been chosen, since it must thus tell something about your hand, but that is circumventing the clear intention of the rule. I think a 1H response to the 1D opening bid in tosr is a relay as they mean it. Stayman is different since responder doesn't intend to break into a series of questions beginning with his next bid, but rather to show something about his hand or place the contract.

Or to put it another way, even if a bid that would otherwise be a relay carries a strength message of say game forcing value, I would still consider it a relay if it's the beginning of a sequence of cheap asking bids, and the reason is that the partner of the bidder is not going to use the strength information, but is just going to describe.

Well I disagree with how you use the terminology. I don't think a bid that is showing a or b or c constitutes showing something. And the definition of a relay is "a bid that does not show anything about the bidders hand, but instead asks partner to show something." A relay is often, but not always the cheapist bid.

Stayman "shows" either
a. both majors any strength OR
b. an invite in NT
OR
C an INV or better hand with a major
OR
D. A game force with just a minor
OR
E. A weak 3 suiter short in clubs
OR
F. Maybe some other hands.

30 years ago, stayman and then 3 of a minor was the way to drop dead in a minor.

In any case these hand types have nothing in common in strength or in distribution and as a result you are not showing anything with the 2C bid alone.

A x-fer is not a relay. A x-fer is a bid that shows length/strength in a different suit. Its exactly the opposite of a relay.

There is an other type of bid that people confuse with relays, they are puppets. A puppet is a bid that forces another bid, but doesn't actually show anything yet. When you play 2 way checkback a common treatment is that 2C FORCES 2D and then responder can pass with diamonds
or do something else. This is a puppet.

Interestingly puppet stayman is not a puppet.

Walsh Relays, are misnamed, since these are in fact puppet sequences:
the 2D bid over 1N requests partner to bid 2H but doesn't actually show hearts, you can have a strong hand with a minor instead.

As to what constitutes a relay sequence, if its:
1D(H)-1H(12+)-1N(12+ hearts and spades)-2C(GFing relay)-2H(4S, 5+H)-2S(relay)

Who cares if a "sequence of relays" has occured after the 2C bid or the 2S bid. (I think technically it has occured at the 2S bid, but I have always treated it as if its the 2C bid which triggers this being a relay sequence) I don't know how many bids constitute a sequence, or if breaking out of the relays into natural bidding later means we no longer had a relay sequence or lots of other things. I think the spirit of the rules are that:
you should not be able to make a long sequence of bids that say nothing with a weak hand and then suddenly drop the auction short of game to the suprise of all. Maybe thats not what is intended but I think it is....

Actually how you interprete this vague rule does matter somewhat. In TOSR, the following might be a technical improvement which I did not implement because of the worry about the ACBL mid-chart defintion of a relay sequence:
1D(H)-1H(strong)-
1S both majors
1N Min <4 spades
higher max <4 spades as in TOSR

then over 1D-1H-1S
1N(relay):
2C min (then 2D=GFing relay, and other are natural and INV)
2D and higher max identical to normal tosr sequences.

I was concerned about whether we can break out of relays to an INV auction after the 1N relay here, so I didn't go this way with the system.

There are many other things I did to the system to cater to the ACBL mid-chart. What a waste of my time that all was....

[Free]

DelfinoD, on May 2 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

Free, on May 1 2006, 09:44 AM, said:

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).

Sorry, because I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of bid which is not possible or very hard to defend against?

I can bet it's easier to defend than against natural 1♥or 1nt, but I'm ready to be convinced.

If you play a 2 board MP tournament and you get a different BSC at every table, you'll understand the problem. How about this one:

1st pair plays 2♥ as 6+♥ or 55+♠-♣
2nd pair plays 2♥ as 6+♠ or 55+♣-♦
3rd pair plays 2♥ as 55+♥-♠ or 6+♣
4th pair plays 2♥ as 55+♥-♣ or 6+♠
...

Lots of fun when you have to invent some meta defense against such openings! Is there any way to prepare? Imo NO. There's no suit known, you don't have cuebids to set up some forcing,...

To give you my old time favorite:
1NT = 0-5HCP any hand (aka "random 1NT")
Responder can pass with almost anything, or psych like hell. Good luck!

I prefer to defend against a natural 1♥ opening, how about you?

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Apr 30 2006, 02:28 PM, 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.

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.

Richard, this all sounds very reasonable to me. Let me try to explain:

For me, how well I do in a partnership in competitive bidding situations depends a lot on how comfortable I feel with this partner. What does this depend on? It has almost nothing to do with whether we have agreed a good system for many situations (although I do play quite a bit of system with some), very little with knowing which bids are forcing vs non-forcing, or which bids are cues vs natural. It has mostly to do with whether I know partners style and judgement. With a partner I know well I can tell pretty well which hands would be a 3-level overcall for him over a w2, which would be a double, which would be a stopper-asking cuebid. I know this because I have seen him bidding, maybe because of discussion afterwards, maybe because of common experience by BBF discussions or because I know he reads Bridge World, too.

The style for every single of these bids would change FUNDAMENTALLY if you switched from takeout double to a penalty double. Different shapes possible for 3-level overcalls, for cuebids, for direct 3N, etc. etc. If you can't realize this (which I doubt), then maybe you would do better leaving this kind of judgement to Martel and the rest of the committee.

Note, I am not saying this method should be disallowed. What I am saying is that you are doing your credibility a big disfavour if you dismiss Martel's point here as a logical fallacy or a non-issue.

Having said that, back to Moscito: I find it hard to believe, too, that players at a Midchart event would need protection from one-level transfer openings. They are a very constructive method, not so hard to defend against, and Moscito is by now a well-established system in international tournaments.

Arend

[DelfinoD]

Free, on May 2 2006, 03:32 AM, said:

1st pair plays 2♥ as 6+♥ or 55+♠-♣
2nd pair plays 2♥ as 6+♠ or 55+♣-♦
3rd pair plays 2♥ as 55+♥-♠ or 6+♣
4th pair plays 2♥ as 55+♥-♣ or 6+♠
...

Lots of fun when you have to invent some meta defense against such openings!  Is there any way to prepare?  Imo NO.  There's no suit known, you don't have cuebids to set up some forcing,...

To give you my old time favorite:
1NT = 0-5HCP any hand (aka "random 1NT")
Responder can pass with almost anything, or psych like hell.  Good luck!

I prefer to defend against a natural 1♥ opening, how about you? 

Nothing really difficult. This is the easiest I could find at the table. I don't think spending much time thinking on it would improve the situation much.

For all these openings x=take-out to the single suit (for example in 3rd take-out to clubs). If you are concerned about strong hands they can be bid few different ways: x and then suit, artificial 2nt or just pass. You can prepare bidding after such 2nt overcall earlier, because it would be used against all artificial openings.

And what happends if you have a take-out to the other combination? Nothing, you can pass and in a moment the bidding goes something like this (second example)

2♥ - pass - 2♠ - pass
2nt (minors) - ?

Now x is take-out to 5♣5♦, so it shows majors. 3♣ should be undestood as better ♥ than ♠, and 3♦ as better ♠ etc, so typical defence against unusual 2nt.

If the bidding goes:

2♥ - pass - 2♠ - pass
pass - ?

Now x should be still take-out to minors so it would mean: I have both majors and big strength. I want to play ♥ or 2♠x.

You should notice that after such an opening, as a defender, you are in a way better situation than after weak-two. First of all responder doesn't usually know which combinations his partner has (he can guess, but so can you), so he won't use a preempt like 2♥ - 4♥, so you can pass without worries. Second of all after your overcall he will have to lead blind. Third of all you can kill him with a bluff. I've seen people playing 4♠ on 2 trumps because I bluffed after such an alternative opening. Finnaly forth - he is practically forced to bid, so you gain lots of space (you can pass and then overcall etc.).

And as for this 1NT = 0-5 I would love opponets to play it against me.

The defence is really easy: x = 13+pc bal, 2suit = 12-18 unbalanced hand

You will usually double and now all doubles are penalty. Opponents are in real trouble. 1NT 0-5pc is the worst opening I have ever seen. If you don't believie you can play it against me. I'm not a good player, but I'm sure if you use it, you'll have no chance. Want to try on BBO?

I often play (also against it) 1♦ = 0-7pc, any distribution, and it's very effective, but 1NT is way to high. And the NT nature is such that it's easy to double it.

It's not really true that the lack of cue-bid or no suit known makes any trouble. In natural bidding you bid your suits and there is really no problem that you don't know opponents suit. It's rather THEIR problem that they don't know. After natural 1nt opening (may be weak NT) you neither know the suit nor have a cue-bid, but you can defend quite well. I think the problem is that most people never played against those methods (and they often play against natural 1nt), that's why they are a bit puzzled. So what should they do is to play a bit against them, get fammiliar with them, learn just a bit about theory of those strange openings, and the defence. This way they would become better players and no bans would be needed.

Anyway you can always make a universal defence against any artificial opening (not showing 3+ in the suit). It wouldn't be less efective than universal defence against natural opening, which all people use. The defence is:

x = 13+ balanced
suit = 13-19 natural, not balanced
nt = 20+pc, artificial forcing

That's all. I played this against different strong pass systems and it worked well.

And as for my prefference I like to defend against all types of openings because it's more fun than just against one.

I played many differend systems like strong pass, with very artificial openings like those alternative, or showing shortages etc. In my opinion they don't really give a big advantage. They are good because there's a big theory behind them (like frequency of hands etc.). They were never constructed for destruction, but for giving as much information to partner, as possible. Anyway many experts would agree that it's not the system who makes a good player. Expert can win playing any system and against any system. So there's really nothing unfair in them.

[fred]

pbleighton, on May 2 2006, 02:14 AM, 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."

Fred, let me try again.  Many bids which are illegal under the ACBL's GCC (which governs the vast majority of tournament events), and which are problematic under the mid chart, are legal in many/most other jurisdictions.  Why does the ACBL feel that bids which are so widely played (and defended against) are so difficult to deal with that GCC event players must be shielded from them?

Peter

Thanks for clarifying, but I have already explained this (several times). It is really very simple and I am starting to think that some people do not understand because they do not want to understand. I will try another approach.

Most tournaments throughout the world set up tables where a player can pour himself a glass a water when he gets thirsty.

In ACBL tournaments they tend to put ice in the water. In many other parts of the world the water contains no ice.

You could ask "why does the ACBL find it necessary to protect their players from ice-free water at their tournaments when ice-free water is standard elsewhere?".

The obvious answer is "it is not a matter of necessity - most Americans prefer to have ice in their water and the ACBL is trying to do what its members want".

Same goes with systems regulations. ACBL thinks that most of its players would prefer to play in events with conservative (compared with other parts of the world) systems regulations.

Why does the ACBL think this? Presumably because they have asked their players as well as those who have a lot of direct contact with those players (TDs for example).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

awm, on May 1 2006, 11:01 PM, said:

Well ACBL never specifically defines "conventional" or "artificial" as far as I can tell. If we look in the laws, we see that a "convention" is A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

Hi Adam

I agree with main of the issues that you raise with the definition of "Conventional". Indeed, there have been some odd debates on the Bridge Laws mailing list that have focused on this very issue.

From my perspective, the most interesting hypothetical is the following:

Assume for the moment that a partnership is playing a highly disciplined weak two opening style. According to their agreements, a weak 2♥ opening promises a six card heart suit with two of the top three honors and denies four spades or a side suit void.

The 2♥ opening is clearly natural. At the same time, it is also clearly a conventional bid. The 2♥ explictly promises 1-3 Spades which is clearly a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named. However, if you ask the majority of regulators whether this two heart opening is convention they will say that it is not.

From my perspective, I don't really care if a disciplined 2♥ opening is a convention or not. (I can see reasonable arguments on both sides). However, I think there is a big problem if the legal definition says that a bid is conventional but the regulators don't want the bid to be treated as a convention.

[jdonn]

joshs, on May 1 2006, 11:37 PM, said:

Well I disagree with how you use the terminology. I don't think a bid that is showing a or b or c constitutes showing something.  And the definition of a relay is "a bid that does not show anything about the bidders hand, but instead asks partner to show something." A relay is often, but not always the cheapist bid.

Stayman "shows" either
a. both majors any strength OR
b. an invite in NT
OR
C an INV or better hand with a major
OR
D. A game force with just a minor
OR
E. A weak 3 suiter short in clubs
OR
F. Maybe some other hands.

30 years ago, stayman and then 3 of a minor was the way to drop dead in a minor.

In any case these hand types have nothing in common in strength or in distribution and as a result you are not showing anything with the 2C bid alone.

You weren't disagreeing with me. I was saying Stayman is a relay, just not the start of a sequence of relays, and that's why it is legal.