[rbforster]

Free, on 2010-December-23, 04:47, said:

I'm a bit late but this is blatant cheating... You completely ignore the concept of full disclosure.

You've been misreading my comments apparently. Full disclosure applies to your opponents at the table and I've clearly stated that I would give a complete description for the alert, etc. It doesn't require you to ask the regulators about your conventions in any particular language. If I know they'll auto-deny anything with the word "MOSCITO" in the title (which is pretty close to accurate), I can just ask about your system calling it "New and Improved MOSCITO" and get them to reply that this is not allowed. Now I'll do this for every system I don't like and try to get each team sanctioned for playing those methods, despite the fact that if they may have also asked about their system in a different way and gotten it approved.

Quote

And what makes you think that with approval of "1♦ = 0+ catchall, 10-14 points" you'll be allowed to play "1♦ = 0+D, 4+♠, 10-14 points"? You don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore, which makes it no longer a catchall.

"Catchall" is defined in the context of a system, referring to everything else you don't open something else. In my more-like-MOSCITO-than-Owen's GCC system proposal these are equivalent. What exactly do you mean I "don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore"? Do you think that there's some particular hands you must open 1♦ with under the all-purpose GCC provision, because it sure doesn't give any indication of such in the rule text. Every single system opens 1♦ with some hands and not with others, and catchall is just a convenient name for a wide range of hands that don't fit elsewhere.

Quote

It's a completely different opening, and people will defend completely different against it as well.

It's as completely different as a 0+ precision opener is from a 2+ precision opener is from "unbal, promises a 4cM", all of which people play under that rule now in strong club systems. Each of contains a bunch of hand types and at least 10 points. And remember here in the US defense is your opponents' problem, not yours, since a legal GCC opening requires providing no defense or anything similar. Just alert and explain, and if the opps aren't prepared for that particular conventional opening, well, that's their oversight.

As an aside along the lines already mentioned, 1♦ showing 4♠ unbal or a "Gambling 3NT" opener (solid 7+ minor) should fit the 0+ definition just fine under even the most picky reading of GCC. It promises 0 cards in any suit - just a bunch of misc hands with 10-14 points not opened anything else.

[olien]

*like*

[the hog]

"Just like moscito is a basic system of 12-14 NT's and a 15+ 1♣ opening"

And 4 card Majors, frequent canapé.
"I'll use your own words in saying that Cascade's example is disingenuous because the example he gave doesn't resemble 2/1 GF."
Neither does yours resemble Moscito.
Anyway, do what you like; others including myself, think you are misrepresenting the system - perhaps deliberately to get an advantage.

[glen]

Since it is Legal Moscito, combine the two words to get Lescito

[Cascade]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 20:25, said:

No, because 2/1 is a basic system of 5-card major openings, usually a 15-17 NT, and a forcing 2♣ opening.

Just like moscito is a basic system of 12-14 NT's and a 15+ 1♣ opening. The only difference between the original MOSCITO and our system is what suits we choose to open. Not what the suits change. I'll use your own words in saying that Cascade's example is disingenuous because the example he gave doesn't resemble 2/1 GF.

I don't know where you're from, but your crying to the director would never go here. If you called the director the directors would ask you why you didn't bother to look at the opponent's convention card. It is there for a reason, and not as table decoration.

Similarly your system does not resemble MOSCITO.

It was that comparison that I was trying to make.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the system resembled 2/1.

[Cascade]

rbforster, on 2010-December-23, 21:41, said:

Do you think that there's some particular hands you must open 1♦ with under the all-purpose GCC provision, because it sure doesn't give any indication of such in the rule text.

In fact it strongly suggests otherwise by saying that the all purpose bid can be "natural or artificial".

[Free]

rbforster, on 2010-December-23, 21:41, said:

You've been misreading my comments apparently. Full disclosure applies to your opponents at the table and I've clearly stated that I would give a complete description for the alert, etc. It doesn't require you to ask the regulators about your conventions in any particular language. If I know they'll auto-deny anything with the word "MOSCITO" in the title (which is pretty close to accurate), I can just ask about your system calling it "New and Improved MOSCITO" and get them to reply that this is not allowed. Now I'll do this for every system I don't like and try to get each team sanctioned for playing those methods, despite the fact that if they may have also asked about their system in a different way and gotten it approved.

There is no point in naming a system. Pretty much everything someone can come up with is something new or something modified. When it's new, a fancy name won't convince anyone. When it's modified and you deliberately hide the modified part, then you're just a lier. It's like trying to get "1NT-2♣ modified stayman" approved, but you "forget" to mention that all responses are different. (this may not be the perfect example for the wacko ACBL regulations, but you should get the idea)

rbforster, on 2010-December-23, 21:41, said:

"Catchall" is defined in the context of a system, referring to everything else you don't open something else. In my more-like-MOSCITO-than-Owen's GCC system proposal these are equivalent. What exactly do you mean I "don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore"? Do you think that there's some particular hands you must open 1♦ with under the all-purpose GCC provision, because it sure doesn't give any indication of such in the rule text. Every single system opens 1♦ with some hands and not with others, and catchall is just a convenient name for a wide range of hands that don't fit elsewhere.

"referring to everything else you don't open something else" is a ridiculous definition. This definition considers a 1♠ opening showing 12-19HCP with 5+♠ a catchall since I can't open anything else with 12-19HCP depending on the definitions of my other openings. Playing Fluffy's style, my other 1-level openings specifically deny 5+♠.
Catchall is just an easy way to describe many hand types into 1 word. In basic precision it's "11-13 balanced or 11-15 natural", but that seems too much already to explain.

rbforster, on 2010-December-23, 21:41, said:

It's as completely different as a 0+ precision opener is from a 2+ precision opener is from "unbal, promises a 4cM", all of which people play under that rule now in strong club systems. Each of contains a bunch of hand types and at least 10 points. And remember here in the US defense is your opponents' problem, not yours, since a legal GCC opening requires providing no defense or anything similar. Just alert and explain, and if the opps aren't prepared for that particular conventional opening, well, that's their oversight.

No it's not as similar as you claim, because 1♦ showing 4♠ has an anchor suit, while a 1♦ opening just denying a 5 card Major, or showing a 4 card M (both 0+♦) has no anchor suit at all. Some people would play 1♠ as takeout and Dbl showing ♦, something they'd never do against the 0+♦ opening without anchor suit.
You basically compare a 1-level transfer preempt with a 1-level multi. Look at the 2-level, it's very similar but probably much clearer. 2♦ promissing a weak hand with 6♠ is not the same as 2♦ showing a weak hand with 6♥ OR 6♠.

[athene]

I guess I am coming to this a bit late but I have done a lot of work on various systems of this type, looking at all the possibilities, optimised for different things like rightsiding, memory, shapes out low, etc.

I am not sure which parts of the system are things you actively wanted and which have been forced on you.

i.e. Did you start out saying "we want to play a 15+ 1♣ with shape relays over all openings, and we want all non-freak shapes to come out under 3NT, and preferably as low as possible" and then just see where that led given the ACBL licensing rules?

Or did you say "we want to play a strong club with a weak notrump and 4-card majors?"

You seem to be trying to optimise just the last small degree of freedom you have left but my first instinct is to 'back off' a bit and ask ok, what are the most important (non-negotiable) features and what are you prepared to change?

Bill Frisby

[etha]

I have played a fair amount of moscito.

With the restrictions in place I wouldn't bother trying full shape relays over anything but 1!c.

I would make up your own non full shape relays similar to AMBRA. Then you can play 1!d 1!h 1!s pretty much how you like.

Do try it out though and if you feel you can get enough out of full shape relays without being too high with the restrictions good luck.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2010-December-23, 21:41, said:

As an aside along the lines already mentioned, 1♦ showing 4♠ unbal or a "Gambling 3NT" opener (solid 7+ minor) should fit the 0+ definition just fine under even the most picky reading of GCC. It promises 0 cards in any suit - just a bunch of misc hands with 10-14 points not opened anything else.

I've seen people discuss using these types of shenanigans to evade convention regulations for 20+
So have the powers that be. Its not allowed.

You really need to grow up.

For what its worth:

1. I think that ACBL system regulations are completely idiotic.
2. I disagree with the ACBL's interpretation of "all purpose". (I think that a reasonable interpretation of "all purpose" 1♦ opening should sanction hands with 4+ Spades)

However, the ACBL has ruled otherwise.

Like it or not, if I am going to play in ACBL events, I need to follow the ACBL's rules.
More importantly, I have an obligation not to make things worse.

Using stupid little word games in an attempt to justify lying about your methods makes things worse.

If you really believe in what you're saying, you should do something like the following:

Prior to some major event, tell the Director in Charge that you

1. Asked the ACBL whether you could use a 1D opening to show all hands with 4+ Spades
2. Were explicitly told that you can't do so.
3. You're using the following "dodge" to get around the ruling
4. You're going to go and play these methods
5. The Director is welcome to take whatever action he sees fit

Simply put, if the success of your argument depends on concealing facts from the Director and the opponents, I don't think its sound or moral.

[mgoetze]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-24, 09:01, said:

Prior to some major event, tell the Director in Charge that you

1. Asked the ACBL whether you could use a 1D opening to show all hands with 4+ Spades
2. Were explicitly told that you can't do so.
3. You're using the following "dodge" to get around the ruling
4. You're going to go and play these methods
5. The Director is welcome to take whatever action he sees fit

ITYM:

1. Asked one random person at ACBL HQ a question about the GCC and got an answer
2. Asked another random person at ACBL HQ another question about the GCC and got an answer
3. Have no idea who is responsible for authoritative rulings on these matters
4. Are going to play these methods
5. Invite the Director to read the GCC and try to understand whether these methods are allowed or not

[hrothgar]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-24, 09:09, said:

ITYM:

1. Asked one random person at ACBL HQ a question about the GCC and got an answer
2. Asked another random person at ACBL HQ another question about the GCC and got an answer

Try:

1. Submitted the method to "rulings@acbl.org" and received a ruling from the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director that stated that this isn't allowed

2. Resubmitted the exact same method - described it differently - and got a conflicting opinion (from ????)

[blackshoe]

Last I heard, the ACBL no longer has a Chief TD. IAC, Mike Flader wouldn't be him. Note: I sometimes get answers from other people (besides Flader) when I write to rulings. In fact the last response I got to a message I wrote to "rulings" came from Keith Wells, whoever he is (I've never heard of him).

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-24, 09:01, said:

Prior to some major event, tell the Director in Charge that you

1. Asked the ACBL whether you could use a 1D opening to show all hands with 4+ Spades
2. Were explicitly told that you can't do so.
3. You're using the following "dodge" to get around the ruling
4. You're going to go and play these methods
5. The Director is welcome to take whatever action he sees fit

Simply put, if the success of your argument depends on concealing facts from the Director and the opponents, I don't think its sound or moral.

It would be nice, in my opinion, if there were some way to obtain a definitive ruling that would be disseminated and carried out by all directors. That way, there would be no temptation to resort to this type of civil disobedience. A clear convention chart would be a nice start, but official interpretations that in effect become regulation would be nice, and would be useful no matter how clear the convention charts may become.

[straube]

As an aside, I wouldn't use "Moscito" in whatever name you ultimately pick. Not to give you a hard time, but as an opponent I would feel misinformed. I know to protect myself more against folks who say they play Precision.

As you say, your 1H is cramped for relays. I feel like you're getting the worst of both worlds with that opening. If I wanted to open 4cd heart suits, I would do so with more hand types and give up on relays...like you preumably do for your 2C opening. I see that you must put your 5M332s into 1N and that seems not ideal for such weak hands. I would want to open 44(32) with 1H as well.

As you've constructed it, your 1H opening shows 5 most of the time, but 4 often enough that you still have to worry about it and devote machinery to it.

1S relays are fine. We don't get to show our 5440s since we need that room for the 5332s. I would think your 2C openings would be difficult.

You sure get a lot of nice tradeoffs with all of your preempts and your natural diamond opening.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on 2010-December-24, 13:06, said:

It would be nice, in my opinion, if there were some way to obtain a definitive ruling that would be disseminated and carried out by all directors. That way, there would be no temptation to resort to this type of civil disobedience. A clear convention chart would be a nice start, but official interpretations that in effect become regulation would be nice, and would be useful no matter how clear the convention charts may become.

I certainly agree that it would be great if the ACBL actually adopted some mechanism to distribute official rulings to its members, however, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

One area where I disagree is characterizing this as civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is a public act. You deliberately violate a law that you believe is unjust, hoping to caught and punished.
The goal of civil disobedience is to draw attention to the law.

These wankers are deliberately concealing their behavior.

[TimG]

TimG said:

hrothgar, on 2010-December-24, 09:01, said:

If you really believe in what you're saying, you should do something like the following:

Prior to some major event, tell the Director in Charge that you

1. Asked the ACBL whether you could use a 1D opening to show all hands with 4+ Spades
2. Were explicitly told that you can't do so.
3. You're using the following "dodge" to get around the ruling
4. You're going to go and play these methods
5. The Director is welcome to take whatever action he sees fit

It would be nice, in my opinion, if there were some way to obtain a definitive ruling that would be disseminated and carried out by all directors. That way, there would be no temptation to resort to this type of civil disobedience.

hrothgar, on 2010-December-24, 15:15, said:

One area where I disagree is characterizing this as civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is a public act. You deliberately violate a law that you believe is unjust, hoping to caught and punished.
The goal of civil disobedience is to draw attention to the law.

The part of your message to which I was replying, the part that I quoted, certainly sounded to me like an attempt to draw attention to the regulations by getting caught.

[awm]

Here's another option:

1♣ = 15+ any
1♦ = 4+♦, unbalanced, might have 4♠ but will not have 4♥
1♥ = 4+♥, unbalanced, could have a longer minor
1♠ = 5+♠
1NT = 11-14 balanced
2♣ = 6+♣, no four-card major
2♦ = weak two either major
2♥ = weak both majors
2♠ = 4♠ and 5+♣, opening strength
2N = lousy minor preempt (good ♣ preempt can open 2♣, good ♦ preempt can open 3♦)
3♣ = weak minors
3♦ = sound natural

The 1♥ opening has more of a moscito flavor, and you can use 1♠ as the relay and have plenty of space. This way of handling the 4♠/5♣ problem seems not very costly compared to putting those hands into 1♠ (which is otherwise 5+) or 2♣ (which is otherwise 6+ and no major) or 1♦ (which is otherwise natural). Over 1♦ you can potentially play 1♥ as either 5+♥ or start of GF relay.

------

On a different (but related) note, is it clear that the regular moscito openings are better than 1♥=4+♥ and 1♦=4+♠? You gain some siding advantage on relay hands by playing the transfer openings, but you lose the ability to play in 1M when responder's hand is lousy...

[1eyedjack]

Re. the ethics discussion, I work in taxes during my other life, and there may be some parallels. We regularly apply to the tax authority for clearance that a particular transaction will be taxed in a certain way. The clearance, if awarded, is always couched with the caveat that the conclusion is based on the information provided. Should it subsequently emerge that relevant facts were omitted from the application, then the clearance is worthless. The conclusion concerning the adopted treatment may or may not remain valid, but no reliance can be made on the clearance. If the supplicant wishes the clearance to be a reliable document it is in his interests to minimise the possibility that some omitted factor of possibly contentious relevance might subsequently emerge so as to invalidate the clearance. The tax authority has no incentive to audit the quality of the application at the time of providing the clearance. All of the running is done by the supplicant.

I think that this caveat attached to the clearance should be a "given", whether in the world of tax or in the world of bridge.

When translating the principle to the bridge world, much depends on whether the TD in a tournament is bound by the response of the governing body. Is their response in effect a "certificate of legality" the production of which in a tourney is then binding on the TD? Or is it nothing more than an opinion given on the evidence provided at the time, with the TD free to make more in-depth system enquiries at the time and on that basis countermand the opinion from on high? If the latter, then I think that the approach by the other correspondent in this thread is not cheating, but definitely a foolish waste of time.

[straube]

http://www.bridgehan...L_Mid_Chart.htm

This link seems to suggest (for the Midchart) that any call (a call can be an opening, right?) is allowed as long as it shows 4 cards in a known suit. Also, relay systems are allowed as long as they are GF.

What then prevents...

1D (four hearts)-1H (GF relay)

1H (four spades)-1S (GF relay)

1S-(four diamonds)-1N (GF relay)

Is the link out of date or am I misapplying it or...?