[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 29 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal! You are making up your own rules as you see fit. The attitude you are displaying here is despicable, this is simply more fooling around with words to get the result you want.

Directors, even very high-ranking directors, sometimes make rulings that are wrong. They twist words in or make up regulations that are not contained in the promulgated regulations.

Some players think that this sort of behaviour by a director is despicable. They are making up rules as they see fit. Rules that are contrary to the written regulations. Directors simply do not have this power. The laws state clearly that they are bound by the announced regulations.

If the regulation does not mean what the regulators want it to mean then the only proper way to deal with the situation is for the regulators to amend the regulation. It is not proper for the director to rule contrary to what is written.

That is not your judgment to make. If a judge sentences me to jail, I don't get to walk away even if I strongly believe he is wrong (even if I know for a fact he is wrong!) Nor do I get to go to another judge and present a different case.

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

awm, on Jan 29 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades and a five-card or longer side suit = illegal.

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades, unbalanced, not 4441 = legal.

At least, so I suspect.

I suspect otherwise.

Quote

In any case, I don't understand why Josh seems to take the view that if two authorities are queried and one says "legal" and the other "illegal" then it makes the bid illegal.

I take the view that if one authority says "illegal", and you go to another authority and ask them in a much more vague sounding way because you hope they will say "legal", you have terrible sportsmanship. And that is a kind way to put it.

[awm]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

awm, on Jan 29 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades and a five-card or longer side suit = illegal.

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades, unbalanced, not 4441 = legal.

At least, so I suspect.

I suspect otherwise.

Well he is on record saying that 2♠ showing exactly five spades and a four-plus card side suit is illegal, and that 2♠ showing exactly five spades and not 5332 shape is legal.

The example I gave seems like a simple extrapolation of this point.

But like I said, he's not very consistent, and could easily rule either way (or rule differently to different people, or contradict himself in a single response by saying something like "any 1♠ opening that guarantees four spades is legal" and then later ruling one or both of the definitions described illegal).

[PrecisionL]

awm, on Jan 29 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

I have tried many times to resolve the ambiguity, sent email indicating both of their responses, etc. When I get a reply it is to deny that there is a problem. Rick Beye is also happy to contradict himself in a single email, saying things like "natural bids are always allowed... this bid is natural... it is not allowed."

If you want to make a bid illegal, you make it sound like it shows additional suits. For example:

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades and a five-card or longer side suit = illegal.

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades, unbalanced, not 4441 = legal.

Ah, but canape is GCC legal so 1♠ showing 4♠ and maybe a longer side suit is OK.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jan 29 2009, 02:56 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal! You are making up your own rules as you see fit. The attitude you are displaying here is despicable, this is simply more fooling around with words to get the result you want.

Directors, even very high-ranking directors, sometimes make rulings that are wrong. They twist words in or make up regulations that are not contained in the promulgated regulations.

Some players think that this sort of behaviour by a director is despicable. They are making up rules as they see fit. Rules that are contrary to the written regulations. Directors simply do not have this power. The laws state clearly that they are bound by the announced regulations.

If the regulation does not mean what the regulators want it to mean then the only proper way to deal with the situation is for the regulators to amend the regulation. It is not proper for the director to rule contrary to what is written.

Directors are enjoined by Law 81B2 to apply and be bound by the laws and regulations in force. The Tournament Organizer is enjoined to announce "supplementary regulations not in conflict with these laws." This means that if the TO makes a regulation that is in conflict with the laws, the TD is not required to (and IMO should not) enforce it. But he'd better be right when he doesn't. It also means that absent this determination of illegality, he must enforce it. When a regulation is clear, there should be no problem, although I have seen players insist there is a problem, when they want a ruling other than the one they're getting. When a regulation is ambiguous, it is, in the first instance, the TD who is responsible for interpreting it (Law 81C2). If a player disagrees, his first recourse is to appeal. If it is a judgment call, the AC might overrule the TD. However, the AC cannot do that on a matter of interpretation of law. All they can do is recommend that the TD reconsider his ruling. If the TD then allows his ruling to stand, the only recourse the player has is to appeal to the body which made the regulation. If that body is the ACBL C&C Committee, all I can say is "good luck with that".

Oh, there's another recourse: one can whine in an online forum (or more than one). Won't get the rules changed though.

[rbforster]

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right". Suppose in a regular ACBL event your opponents complain when you open 2♣ for the majors (5/4+ 10-15 pts), and isn't that illegal? They call the TD and the TD agrees with them. Maybe you have to abide by the TDs ruling until you appeal, but I don't think anyone would go so as to say "the TD was right". Mr. Baye can jump up and down and say 2♣ for the majors isn't sanctioned under the GCC and he's still wrong and I'm still going to (try to) play it in my local club. If I can't convince the local TD while pointing at the specific part of the GCC that allows this, I guess I'll have to deal with the consequences. But they still won't be right since (at least that part of) the laws is clear.

Furthermore, the "TD is always right" is a flawed premise anyway - directors are often inconsistent and what are we supposed to make of that? I try to play 1♦ as 4+♠, the opps call the director, and the TD says "sorry that's illegal". I stop playing it. My friends in another section are playing the same thing, get the same director call, and are told it is legal. When we meet in the second session of that event, will it be legal for them to play that system against me but illegal for me to play it against them? I hope even Josh will admit that no one has done anything wrong here and yet the outcome is just ridiculous.

PrecisionL, on Jan 29 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

Ah, but canape is GCC legal so 1♠ showing 4♠ and maybe a longer side suit is OK.

But if you try to play canape weak twos (or rather ask Mr Baye about them), you'll find that the standards for "natural and legal" change for no good reason. There is nothing written in the rules about opening bids that distinguishes between natural 1 level openings and natural 2 level openings (aside from certain conventional followups), and yet as you say canape 1 level bids are historically allowed but canape (unbalanced) weak twos are going to be claimed to be conventional and not allowed. Personally I think this is wrong and unless they are willing to ban canape altogether they should allow canape weak twos, but I'm willing to bet any requests to the ACBL officials to sanction "2♠ 4+♠ and a longer side suit" are going to get struck down as conventional.

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Jan 29 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right".

Do you actually read posts before you reply to them? It's a useful habit. Please show me where I said the director is always right. Or even where I said it matters if the director is right or not.

Let me help you out. I have in fact implied the exact opposite. What I said is you have to do what the director says regardless of whether or not he is right.

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says.

Law 81 c 2
(of course if you need a law to tell you this...)
DIRECTOR'S DUTIES AND POWERS
to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

[blackshoe]

I won't presume to speak for josh, but I did not read what he said as "the TD is always right" so much as "don't argue with the TD".

It is obviously not the case that the director is always right. We are, after all, human. It is nonetheless incumbent on players at the table to act as if the director is right, given always their right to appeal. As I pointed out a minute ago, players are supposed to accept the director's ruling with good grace, even if they disagree, and even if they intend to appeal. It is important not to waste time arguing with the TD - after all, you have other boards to play. So, if you think the director is wrong, simply say "I would like to appeal", and get on with the game.

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jan 29 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right".

Do you actually read posts before you reply to them? It's a useful habit. Please show me where I said the director is always right. Or even where I said it matters if the director is right or not.

Let me help you out. I have in fact implied the exact opposite. What I said is you have to do what the director says regardless of whether or not he is right.

I read what you said, but we're disagreeing over the semantics over what it means to be "illegal". I was referring to illegal in the sense that

1) the laws actually forbid something, while you seem to have meant it as
2) you can't play it here because the TD just said not to (regardless of the merit of his ruling)

This is what I read:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal!
...
I take the view that if one authority says "illegal", and you go to another authority and ask them in a much more vague sounding way because you hope they will say "legal", you have terrible sportsmanship. And that is a kind way to put it. 

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD. Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense. In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense. You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating. I disagree.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

You have a different definition of cheating than I have.

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then it is that action that comes much closer to what I would consider cheating than the player that defies the unconscionable ruling by the director.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jan 29 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD. Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense. In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense. You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating. I disagree.

Lets be perfectly clear about what I described as cheating

shevek went as asked for official Guidance from Memphis.
He talked to Rick Baye directly.
He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go
Rich directly stated that the method can not legally be played

You recommended resubmitting the the same opening but changing the verbiage to disguise the fact that you are playing a method that is identical to where you got an adverse ruling.

We aren't dealing with a confused local director

We are dealing with a case where you directly recommended piss poor disclosure to the regulatory authority to try to get a ruling changed.

I share folks disgust with the ACBL.

I don't believe that Memphis is capable of finding its ass with both hands, let alone issue coherent rulings.

I think that the lot of them should be ***** canned because they are grossy incompetant.

However, none of this justifies the behaviour that you are recommending...

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Jan 29 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD.  Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense.  In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense.  You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating.  I disagree.

If your point is director's sometimes make terrible rulings, I agree. It has certainly happened to me. However it's not your place to judge at the time you get ruled against. Players often argue very strongly against completely correct rulings too. This is why there are directors. Officials in any sport or game make awful rulings, and bridge is probably worse than any in that regard.

So what?

I have no problem with going to another tournament next week and asking that director if your convention is legal. Or a different event at the same tournament, or whatever. But you admitted you think it's fine to to obscure the wording (instead of saying what the bid shows, say what every other bid shows then call the bid in question 'all purpose, showing everything else') in order to circumvent the decision of the first director. THAT is cheating.

Cascade, on Jan 29 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then it is that action that comes much closer to what I would consider cheating than the player that defies the unconscionable ruling by the director.

Do you think it's just barely possible a director can be right and a player wrong, no matter how strongly the player feels? That is why it's only the job of one of them to make this type of decision.

Anyway I'm not particularly interested in a discussion of what director's may do that may constitute cheating. It has nothing to do with the responsibilities of a player.

[fred]

Let's all play a game where is OK for the players to defy the referee's decisions whenever they disagree with them.

That sounds like a fun game.

Hello?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jmc]

When one body makes rules that are ambiguous and another body interprets them, these kinds of problems will occur. It reminds me of Ken's signature. If lawyers, judges, and appellate judges can't interpret the law, how can ordinary folk?

The ACBL should just admit that they don't want the situation clarified. They want the majority of the players to feel secure and happy to pay the table fees. Opening 1D to show 4S might scare someone into giving up on sectionals.

The current situation is very frustrating to people interested in systems and pushing the envelope who play in non-national events. It matters hardly at all to systems people who always play in mid-chart or better events. This means it doesn't create a problem for the group most able to get the rules changed.

I think it stinks that the ACBL doesn't fix the problem.

jmc

[straube]

Could I play a strong 1D and an artificial 1C where...

1C-6 diamonds or both minors or balanced, such that it promises 2+ diamonds
1D-artificial strong
1H-5-card major
1S-5-card major
1N-14-16 NT
2C-6 clubs
2D-4414

This would be a stupid system, but would it meet the same objection as 1D showing 4 spades? After all, it promise a 2-card holding in a suit not named. And isn't that what the ACBL finds objectionable?

[rbforster]

straube, on Jan 29 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

1C-6 diamonds or both minors or balanced, such that it promises 2+ diamonds
...
This would be a stupid system, but would it meet the same objection as 1D showing 4 spades?  After all, it promise a 2-card holding in a suit not named.  And isn't that what the ACBL finds objectionable?

You're playing 1♣ the same as a precision 1♦ (2+♦) which clearly has been allowed as "all purpose" and not because it promises 2 diamonds (being the suit opened). I don't think anyone here knows exactly why this is allowed and other things (like promising spades) are not, but your 1♣ should be fine in any case.

Perhaps a better example might be having 1♦ to promise 4+♣s. I think this might be an interesting test case for the officials since a) it doesn't involve majors, so it probably won't trip the "1 or 2-under openings in the majors should be banned" circuit, and b) it's clearly not an efficient transfer opening, but rather some sort of weird minor catchall. And yet, I can't possibly see how you can consistently rule that 1♦ promising 4+ in one suit (♣) should be treated any differently than in another suit(♠). This might be part of a system like this:

1♣ strong 15+
1♦ 4+ ♣ unbal, 10-14. not 4441, equal or longer diamonds ok, but only shorter majors
1M 5+ 10-14 "standard"
1N 12-14 bal "standard"
2♣ 10-14 any 4441
2♦ 5+♦ 10-14

[straube]

Yes, that's a good example of what I was getting at.

Or what if someone played...

1C-15+
1D-balanced
1M-4+
1N-balanced
2C-minors, unbalanced
2D-diamonds
3C-clubs

Again, probably not a good system, but is it legal? In this case, 1D promises
2 cards in each suit.

Also, like another poster, I've played that 1D promises one or both 4-card majors.
I'm sure numerous directors have heard it explained an no one's objected.

This opening doesn't promise a specific suit, but it allows for some interesting bidding. For instance, we can assign 1D-4H as pass or correct for whenever responder has both majors.

Not the sort of bidding that the ACBL intended?

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

He talked to Rick Baye directly.
He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go

This turns out not to be the case. The ACBL agency with the remit to define what agreements as to the meaning of calls and plays are and are not legal is the Competition and Conventions Committee, subject to the approval (or disapproval) of the Board of Directors. The BoD is "as high in the food chain as it's possible to go".

OTOH, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said about the ACBL.

[Cascade]

fred, on Jan 30 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

Let's all play a game where is OK for the players to defy the referee's decisions whenever they disagree with them.

That sounds like a fun game.

Hello?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

Where do you draw the line?

Is failing to be bound by the laws and announced regulations not enough to cross the line?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.