[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Feb 2 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

Positing ridiculous scenarios ("director says 5-card majors are illegal under the GCC") is not helpful. Neither is calling people cheats, even by implication.

In the ACBL, wilfully walking out of an event you have started is a violation of the general (and probably the specific) conditions of contest. It may well result in a disciplinary hearing.

Under the laws of bridge, willful defiance or disregard of a director's instructions is subject to penalty, and rightly so. Note that the laws don't distinguish between legal and allegedly illegal instructions.

Bottom line: Wayne, if you actually do these things you claim you'd do when you disagree with the director, you should IMO be expelled from the organization in which you do them. Permanently.

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

I don't understand where the boundary is that you are forming.

jdonn not me said he would walk out or rather he would choose not to play that day when the real most likely possibility is that you would only become aware of that possibility part way through a session so the implication is that you would need to walk out if you were going to choose not to play.

Which things are you specifically saying would require expulsion? Disobeying illegal instructions?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 2 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

[matmat]

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 2 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

i don't think i agree with this.

[Cascade]

fred, on Feb 2 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment.

Fred

The problem is that I do not believe that this is a workable solution.

How would you like it if you turned up one week and your methods were allowed and then the next week under the same conditions the TD decided your methods were not allowed?

To me this is completely unreasonable. And that unreasonableness is independent of the particular methods that you play. Hence my example regarding 5-card majors and 15-17 1NT.

At the very least it should be clear in advance what methods I and my opponents are allowed to play and any restrictions that may occur e.g. loss of seating rights or the opponents are allowed a written defense or we are not entitled to play conventions etc.

It is a serious flaw if these matters are up to the whim of a particular TD.

I enjoy playing bridge. I especially enjoy playing in a regular partnership in which we have spent considerable time preparing our methods in advance. At times I have needed to take some care to make sure that our methods complied with the system regulations. Having taken that care to make sure that our methods comply I think that it is completely unacceptable that you and others seem to think that is acceptable for a TD to decide on a whim part way through an event that our methods are illegal and thus force us to abandon our methods and continue playing.

To me the most important reason for having system regulations is so that I can know in advance what I am allowed to play and what my opponents are allowed to play. If the regulations do not achieve that then far from being "...the only workable solution..." they are completely unworkable.

[JanM]

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

You may think that rules that define 1♦ as showing 4+ spades are ridiculous, but those are in fact the rules that pertain in the ACBL. For a director to rule that 5 card Majors are illegal would be ridiculous and impossible - it just wouldn't happen. For a director to rule that 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not only not ridiculous, it is the correct ruling.

Your comments on this thread remind me of a time many years ago when I was playing in an NABC pair event with Chip. A pair came to our table and explained that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades. I asked Chip what we did against that and he said that we called the director because it was illegal. We called the director; the opponents said that the method was legal because the Midchart said you could play any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Chip said that he knew it was illegal because the Midchart also requires an approved defense. The director looked confused, went off to consult with someone else and eventually returned to say that (surprise) Chip was right and the opponents could not use their methods in this event. We played the two boards against them. They went off to the next table, where we heard them explaining to their new opponents that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades! Of course, by this time we were late, so although we did call the Director, we didn't pay attention to what went on at the next table, so I don't know whether they were penalized or just told not to do that any more.

As I've been reading the various threads here about the C&C committee (or the Convention Approval Subcommittee) not approving these particular bids, I can't help but wonder whether the attitude of this pair might make Chip, subconsciously at least, less positively inclined towards the method. And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

[fred]

Cascade, on Feb 2 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

fred, on Feb 2 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment.

Fred

The problem is that I do not believe that this is a workable solution.

How would you like it if you turned up one week and your methods were allowed and then the next week under the same conditions the TD decided your methods were not allowed?

I can't say I would be thrilled, but I would deal with it. I strongly suspect it wouldn't ruin my day.

I would be considerably less thrilled if I had to constantly call the TD because my opponents thought it was appropriate to intentionally violate the TD's interpretation of the rules. That might well ruin my day.

Quote

It is a serious flaw if these matters are up to the whim of a particular TD. 

Well I have a little more respect for most TDs than to refer to their judgment as "whims", but let's call it that if it makes you happy.

Yes, this is a flaw, but the source is something that I was assuming as a given: that the GCC itself is flawed. This necessitates *someone's* whims being used to resolve ambiguity.

Can't you see that it is better to have the whims of a single person (who is in theory unbiased and in theory skilled in such matters) being the only whims that count as opposed to the whims of all the players (who are biased and who, by and large, have no skills and training in this area)?

Quote

To me the most important reason for having system regulations is so that I can know in advance what I am allowed to play and what my opponents are allowed to play.  If the regulations do not achieve that then far from being "...the only workable solution..." they are completely unworkable.

Well if you accept my given that the GCC is flawed (something you seem to believe in a lot more strongly than I do), then please suggest a more workable solution.

"Fix the GCC" is not a meaningful answer. The TD can't fix the GCC and the players can't fix the GCC. The goal is to find the best possible solution for the players and the TD given that they all inhabit a world that contains a flawed GCC.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

JanM, on Feb 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read [Cascade's] posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

And that's at least part of the problem - favoritism shouldn't be a part of the rules of the game. Methods should be legal or not independent of who's proposing them. "Allowing" someone's methods IMO should be a matter of law, not a favor to the player.

Don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think this is true. I've heard of plenty of convention issues go like this:

Opps - we don't like these weird methods, aren't they illegal?
TD - hmm, seems weird, yessir. I say they're illegal
Junior SystemsFreak - but Meckwell play these! (or insert locally respected pro player)
TD - oh, well I guess they're ok then.

[the hog]

Rob F, on Feb 2 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

JanM, on Feb 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read [Cascade's] posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

And that's at least part of the problem - favoritism shouldn't be a part of the rules of the game. Methods should be legal or not independent of who's proposing them. "Allowing" someone's methods IMO should be a matter of law, not a favor to the player.

Don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think this is true. I've heard of plenty of convention issues go like this:

Opps - we don't like these weird methods, aren't they illegal?
TD - hmm, seems weird, yessir. I say they're illegal
Junior SystemsFreak - but Meckwell play these! (or insert locally respected pro player)
TD - oh, well I guess they're ok then.

Rob has hit the nail on the head here. It appears that some methods are allowed simply BECAUSE they are played by particular people.

I also think Wayne has a totally legitimate point. Directors have made mistakes, they are not infallibale and some directors are better at interpreting the written word than others. To totally dismiss Wayne's hypothetical example with the throwaway line "It couldn't happen", is not answering his argument.

[straube]

I think it's pretty clear one has to defer to the TD. It's the rules and common sense besides. It doesn't mean that the TD's ruling is correct.

Fred, is use of 1D as four spades prohibited or not by the ACBL? Who has final authority to say so? From this thread, it seems like one authority says yes and another says no.

It seems that having it show four spades qualifies under the plain meaning of 1D being legal as an all purpose bid (meaning, I think more than one purpose) because, after all, there are lots of different hands with four spades. For example, it could be balanced or unbalanced.

The all purpose openings of 1C or 1D are also commonly regarded as a bid for hands with opening strength that don't qualify for any other bid....and that's what some of us are trying to argue.

Also, if it's not allowed, then that means that my system all together is being judged and not just that opening. For instance, it's legal to play that 1N denies a four-card major. It's also legal for me to open 2C with clubs and no major. The ACBL would be saying "Well, all your non-diamond openings are legal, we're allowing your opponents to play them, but we're not letting you play all those openings at the same time." I think that's a funny sort of statement to make.

Do you know if I can switch the meanings of a Precision club and Precision diamond such that 1C promises two or more diamonds whereas 1D is strong? Why or why not? Seems like I can't if 1D can't "show" four spades. At least, I can't see a difference except that 1D to show four spades is much more useful.

David

[fred]

straube, on Feb 2 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

Fred, is use of 1D as four spades prohibited or not by the ACBL? Who has final authority to say so?  From this thread, it seems like one authority says yes and another says no. 

I don't know. This is not my area of expertise.

Maybe the answer depends on which set of regulations (there are at least 3 different sets) is in effect in the ACBL-sanctioned game in question. Jan (and Chip) Martel, who know a lot more about these things than I do, suggested that in the relatively recent past this method would not be legal in ACBL games in which the Mid-chart is in effect. Assuming she is right (very likely IMO), the same would be true for GCC, but perhaps spade-showing 1D is allowed in ACBL games where the Super-chart is in effect (I have no idea either way).

I also don't know who has the final authority at the ACBL to make decisions like this. In a perfect world I suppose nobody would have to make these decisions - everything would be fully described and defined in the various convention charts.

Given that the world is less than perfect, if I wanted to play the spade-showing 1D convention, this is what I would do:

1. I would read the various charts and try to figure it out for myself.

2. Probably, for at least some of the charts, I would not be able to figure it out for myself because I would not be sure what was meant by "all purpose".

3. I would then contact the ACBL and find out who had the final authority.

4. I would then contact that person by e-mail and ask them under what circumstances, if any, spade-showing 1D was legal.

5. Assuming the answer was something other than "never", I would then decide if I wanted to devote the time and effort to play spade-showing 1D under the (presumably limited) circumstances that it was deemed legal.

6. If I decided "yes", I would print a copy of the e-mail and take it with me to tournaments I played in. If a TD gave me a hard time I would show him a copy of that e-mail.

7. If the TD said "I don't care what your e-mail says - you can't play that here" (not likely IMO), I would do as I was told and try to control myself by not getting upset at the TD (probably also not likely ).

8. If that were to happen I would complain to the ACBL about the TD's behavior and hope that the ACBL would take steps to ensure that it did not happen again.

9. If the same sort of thing continued to happen, I would either stop playing spade-showing 1D or I would stop playing in ACBL tournaments. In my particular case I would almost certainly stop playing spade-showing 1D, but since I would be most unlikely to want to play that in the first place, the whole point of this hypthetical story is rather moot (for me at least).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Thanks, I think I will contact the ACBL then. Perhaps if Jan is still following the thread she can post what she knows of the reasoning behind why 1D as four spades might be illegal. I'm not sure I want to play it either, but I think it would make for an interesting system.

[akhare]

The_Hog, on Feb 1 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

Rob has hit the nail on the head here. It appears that some methods are allowed simply BECAUSE they are played by particular people.

I second that -- until there's transparency about why some non-mainstream methods are deemed kosher and others are not, suspicions about the ulterior motives of the powers that be will remain.

Quote

As I've been reading the various threads here about the C&C committee (or the Convention Approval Subcommittee) not approving these particular bids, I can't help but wonder whether the attitude of this pair might make Chip, subconsciously at least, less positively inclined towards the method. And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now

The above statement seems to be emblematic of the problem. One way of interepreting it might that C&C members can rule a particular method illegal based on their personal prejudices regardless of its legal merits.

[akhare]

JanM, on Feb 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

I can't speak for the high and mighty C&C folks, but if they are indeed reading this forum, a better approach might be to simply reply to a posting and logically explain why their ruling makes sense.

To me, it makes more sense than bearing silent grudges (as implied by your post)...

[fred]

straube, on Feb 2 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

Thanks, I think I will contact the ACBL then. Perhaps if Jan is still following the thread she can post what she knows of the reasoning behind why 1D as four spades might be illegal. I'm not sure I want to play it either, but I think it would make for an interesting system.

I hope it works out for you, David.

If you are told that spade-showing 1D is not legal in some/all circumtances, ACBL and/or Jan might be able to recommend a course of action that will result in the powers-that-be reconsidering the status of this method.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

"And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now."

This statement concerns me, too. I hope that the C&C committee members wouldn't make a ruling on the legality of a convention based on what a few might post on a forum such as this. It makes it sound like their decision-making is capricious or retaliatory.

[straube]

Thanks Fred

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn not me said he would walk out or rather he would choose not to play that day when the real most likely possibility is that you would only become aware of that possibility part way through a session so the implication is that you would need to walk out if you were going to choose not to play.

To clarify, if I found out in the middle of the session that the director says I can't play something I thought I could play (this has happened to me once, and the director was completely correct), then by far my most likely course of action would be to finish the session playing something the director deems legal before deciding on any further course of action (which is what I did when it happened to me.) In fact, I have a hard time envisioning myself following any other course of action.


I want to make my final point in a way that is the least likely possible to fan any more flames, but I feel it needs to be said. Wayne, I think you might consider that when you have this to say on the topic of something being 'ridiculous'

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

I don't understand where the boundary is that you are forming.

but this to say on the topic of something being 'nonsense'

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 2 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

then I don't feel you should be surprised that you find I can 'twist your words' from time to time. Words like these come pre-twisted long before I reply to them.

[akhare]

straube, on Feb 1 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

"And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now."

This statement concerns me, too. I hope that the C&C committee members wouldn't make a ruling on the legality of a convention based on what a few might post on a forum such as this. It makes it sound like their decision-making is capricious or retaliatory.

I am sure that Richard has a few choice words to say in this regard, unless years of trying to get Moscito defences approved have worn him out ...

[Phil]

To me, C and C isn't a lot different than a lot of other legislative bodies. Reminds me of a lot of Planning Commissions I've had to deal with over the years. Appointed (but knowledgeable) members with a lot of power making a lot of discretionary decisions.

Capricious? Sometimes.

Retaliatory? Never.

Transparent? Usually, except there are always off-the-record discussions with applicants and stakeholders.

Prejudiced? Everyone comes with their pre-conceived ideas.

What I do know is that the applicants that walk into hearings with their chest puffed out feeling high-minded frequently get their projects rejected, or "redesigned" so that the deal becomes unfeasible.

If I wanted to get something approved by C and C, I would immediately lose the self-righteous attitude, and adopt a more constructive and empathetic one.

[JanM]

I see that I didn't phrase my statement about Cascade's attitude in this thread well. First, I don't think that any C&C members are reading this thread. Second, I don't think that C&C members act capriciously or based on their own personal prejudices. What I do think is that attitudes like Cascade's are less likely to get positive responses than attitudes like Fred's. If you think that means people are prejudiced and the "high and mighty" C&C committee in particular act in their own best interests, so be it.

As far as the legality of 1♦ showing spades:

• I believe that in order for a 1♦ bid showing 4 spades to be a "catchall" it would have to be played as part of a system that no one would seriously want to play (a system where every other bid denied 4 spades). In addition, it would probably have to show exactly 4 spades, not 4 or more spades. When someone suggested that was the way to get a 1♦ bid showing spades approved it sounded to me as if that was somewhat facetious.
  
• What you really want to play is 1♦ showing 4+ spades and an opening bid (at least I think that's what you really want to play)
  
• That bid is clearly not GCC legal; it isn't a catchall 1♦ bid and that's the only way it would qualify under the GCC.
  
• That bid is currently not Midchart legal because no defense to it has been approved. To the best of my knowledge there is no defense being reviewed for approval, but I could be wrong on that. I believe that there is a defense to 1♦ showing 5+ spades being reviewed, but I am not certain of that either.
  
• The current Midchart makes it very clear (I think) what bids are and are not allowed; you shouldn't be guessing about whether something that is not GCC-legal is allowed under the Midchart. The argument for 1♦ showing 4 spades as a "catchall" is based on the GCC. Once you realize that it is very unlikely for that argument to apply to a system anyone would want to play, it is easy to see that the transfer 1 bids are not Midchart legal because they are not listed in opening bids that are allowed.
  
• 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades are Superchart legal. No recommended defense is required for Superchart events. On the other hand, there aren't very many of them (perhaps only the Vanderbilt, Spingold and Team Trials KO stages). Marston played Moscito in the Vanderbilt a couple of years ago (I know that because Chip's team played them so we put together a quick and dirty defense). They had rolled over their first few opponents and then lost badly to Chip's team. Whether that means that Moscito is more successful against unprepared opponents or simply that Chip's team was significantly better than the ones they had played earlier I do not know.

I see that your initial post also asked about responses to the 1♣ and 1♦ bids should you be allowed to play them. The responses would have to be included in the recommended defense - IOW, the defense needs to include what bids should mean after your response, so I suppose that means that your response structure is reviewed in the context of whether your defense works against it, but in general constructive responses and rebids are allowed (I don't know why the chart lists rebids before responses).