[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 26 2008, 01:12 AM, said:

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds).

I have looked at the new mid-chart. The most notable change in my opinion is the removal of the item allowing "any call which promises four or more cards in a known suit". Before this change, I could look to the mid-chart and know that transfer openings should be allowed with the submission of a proper defense (though "proper defense" was nowhere defined -- there are still no guidelines for what a defense must contain in order to be approved).

With the new chart, I am left wondering about transfer openings. Except for the single approved transfer opening, it is clear that transfer openings are not allowed because there are no approved defenses. But, there is nothing in the "DISALLOWED" section that would preclude transfer openings. So, I am left to think that there is some chance that, if I submit a "complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense", further transfer openings could be allowed.

The big problem I have with this is that the C&C Committee can basically do with my submission what they want. They could (I'm not saying they have or they would) disallow my submission on whatever grounds they want, for whatever reason they want. If they think there is a slippery slope between my method and MOSCITO, they could disallow my method to prevent MOSCITO from ever being approved, for instance.

The mid-chart ought to be written in such a way as to not allow the Committee to effectively or apparently create their own legislation. If a method is allowed (or not disapproved, if you prefer), then a defense ought to be approved (or a clearly written explanation of the failures of the submitted defense ought to be provided).

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played. But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved. The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

(Please note that, in my opinion, the real legislators are at fault for approving a mid-chart that contains this gray area and for not demanding clear and complete reports. The committee is dealing with the hand they were dealt, they did not create the gray area, but must deal with it.)

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

Except that new methods and defenses may be submitted for approval. If no method that isn't already listed would be allowed, why the approval process?

There are effectively three categories:

Disallowed
Allowed -- unapproved
Allowed -- approved

[hotShot]

It seems logical that anything that is submitted for approval is disallowed until it is approved and listed in the database.

[TimG]

hotShot, on Dec 26 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

It seems logical that anything that is submitted for approval is disallowed until it is approved and listed in the database.

It may seem logical, but the specifically disallowed methods:

• 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
  the opponents’ methods.
  
• 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses
  thereto.
  
• 3. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if
  used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that
  psych.)
  
• 4. Forcing pass systems.
  
• 5. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game-forcing.
  
• 6. Opening one-bids which by partnership agreement could show
  fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)
  
• 7. Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than
  10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention
  Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these
  methods.
  
• 8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not
  include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened).

are things that will not be approved no matter what. If I submit an opening one-bid which by partnership agreement could show 6 HCP, there will be no approval, no questions asked.

There are other disallowed methods (anything not specifically allowed or disallowed) which might be approved. Not all disallowed methods are treated equally.

Maybe my three categories may be better described as:

Disallowed -- absolutely
Disallowed -- possible approval
Allowed

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

Except that new methods and defenses may be submitted for approval. If no method that isn't already listed would be allowed, why the approval process?

There are effectively three categories:

Disallowed
Allowed -- unapproved
Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

[TimG]

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

There are effectively three categories:

Disallowed
Allowed -- unapproved
Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

Whether you look at it that way, or the way I changed it to:

Disallowed -- absolutely
Disallowed -- possible approval
Allowed

you have a category where methods may or may not be approved based upon the thinking of the current committee. There should be objective criteria in all cases rather than relying upon the subjective views of the committee.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

There are effectively three categories:

Disallowed
Allowed -- unapproved
Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

Whether you look at it that way, or the way I changed it to:

Disallowed -- absolutely
Disallowed -- possible approval
Allowed

you have a category where methods may or may not be approved based upon the thinking of the current committee. There should be objective criteria in all cases rather than relying upon the subjective views of the committee.

I understand your point as long as you realize the category you are referring to is called "Disallowed". All these viewpoints of creating a third category are just imaginary and distractions, no such thing exists. But I understand your complaint that the process to allow disallowed methods should be less subjective. I just don't think it will ever happen, although I think I largely agree with you that it would be better.

[TimG]

I do understand that "allowed" means "approved" for purposes of the chart. It might be useful to call some methods "permitted" or "approved" distinctly from allowed or disallowed.

Some methods are specifically allowed, some are permitted (so allowed) and some are specifically disallowed.

To cover all other possibilities, avoiding ambiguity in rulings, all other methods are called disallowed, but this is not the same "disallowed" as those methods "specifically disallowed". Not all of these methods that have not been specifically disallowed are destined to forever be disallowed or unapproved.

What you want to call this category of methods does not really matter to me as long as we recognize that they are distinct from those methods specifically disallowed.

[jdonn]

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

I think Tim wants to know for which methods it might make sense to submit a defense for approval to the C&C committee.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Dec 26 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

I think Tim wants to know for which methods it might make sense to submit a defense for approval to the C&C committee.

The answer to that seems obvious to me.

Any methods that aren't specifically disallowed (meaning that are only disallowed because they aren't specifically allowed) and that he wants to play.

And then he should hope for the best. I am not bothered that this is less convenient for system designers than a procedure that would let them know ahead of time which methods have a better chance of being approved. When I write letters to my congressman I have no idea if it will make a difference or not, but if it's something important to me then it's worthwhile to try.

(In fairness, when the committee disapproves a method they should be specific as to why the decision was reached.)

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

The mid-chart says:

Quote

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org

What is gray, or at least a bit unclear, is which of these "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" will be considered by the C&C Committee and what criteria will be used by the Committee when considering whether or not to approve such methods.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Any methods that aren't specifically disallowed (meaning that are only disallowed because they aren't specifically allowed) and that he wants to play.

I am reasonably confident that if I wanted to use a 2D opening bid to show a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and a 4+ card major, the committee would not consider* my submission. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed.

I am also reasonably confident that the committee would not consider a 1D opening which shows 8-15 HCP, 4+ hearts and is non-forcing. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed.

I do not have a real problem with either of these methods being disallowed. But, I would like to know upon what basis these methods are disallowed. And, I would prefer this basis not to be a general "the committee feels it is against the best interests of ACBL membership to approve these methods" but rather reference some objective criteria.


* By "consider" I mean get so far as to evaluate the merits of the defense and provide feedback where they think the defense is lacking. They would dismiss these methods.

[jdonn]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

I did not mean to gripe about an inconvenience, but I can see how it may have sounded that way. The gripe about guessing was not about the inefficiency of the process but rather the apparent arbitrary nature of the decisions.

[RichMor]

glen, on Dec 25 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

<snip out first part>

RichMor, on Dec 24 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

I believe that preparing a defense to one ususual system is easier that preparing defenses to three very different ususual systems all being played by various pairs in a multi-team event.

Do you disagree ?

No, I agree that preparing 1 defense is easier than preparing 3. However that does not "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests", but just makes some contests easier than others.

<snip out last part>

glen,

Think I need to back up and take another run at 'fundamental'.

A simple and limited meaning:
1. basic: relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something.
2. central: serving as an essential part of something.
(from MSN Encarta)

With that definition, I agree than 'preparing 3 defenses instead of 1' is not a fundamental change - but it seems like a significant change. And '6 instead of 1' is more significant - but still not fundamental.


I mean to use the term 'fundamental change' only for scenarios featuring artificial weak-opening systems. That is what I have tried to do in previous posts. Since I have not been asked to represent my country in any international events(still hoping but it's probably not happening) all I can do is imagine what it would be like to compete against one or more artificial weak-opening systems.

This is what I imagine:
1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades.

2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits.

3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution.

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years. Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

[DrTodd13]

No, if anything, the game you are playing now is fundamentally not bridge. Bridge intends to have you listen to the opponents bidding and adapt to it. You are just used to playing a crippled version of the game that allows you to not think and you've gotten used to it.

[glen]

RichMor, on Dec 26 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

... I agree that 'preparing 3 defenses instead of 1' is not a fundamental change - but it seems like a significant change. And '6 instead of 1' is more significant - but still not fundamental.

I mean to use the term 'fundamental change' only for scenarios featuring artificial weak-opening systems. That is what I have tried to do in previous posts. Since I have not been asked to represent my country in any international events(still hoping but it's probably not happening) all I can do is imagine what it would be like to compete against one or more artificial weak-opening systems.

This is what I imagine:
1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades.

2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits.

3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution.

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years.  Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

First, if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned. Thus you would not face case 1. I don't believe cases 2 and 3 should stress a world class partnership out.

Second, at the top levels, strong teams have supporting individuals including non-playing captains, coaches, and advisors, and some of these are assigned the task of reviewing the methods of the opponents and preparing countermeasures. Two of the best pairs in the world for doing this are Eric Kokish/Bev Kraft, and Chip and Jan Martel. If you were to represent your country, I hope you would have the appropriate support for your team, and you would have had the opportunity and time to participate in practice sessions that involved some of these strange methods.

Third, for all openings that involve a suit bid (i.e. not a notrump bid, or a call) in an either/or variation, such as in cases 2 and 3, the base countermeasure is relatively consistent and straight forward (double as value showing, or passable takeout, depending on the situation, mostly natural bidding, see Countering Vexing Bids). After a little while, you will find that your opponents, while good and experienced, are being placed in uncomfortable spots by their systems, and soon, instead of being stressed when an opponent "opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution" you are looking forward to a good result. And then you realize these nasty methods of the opponents do not actually fundamentally change bridge, which is about bidding to your spots, and nailing the opponents if they are in a bad spot. So your partnership is still "trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgment", except your best bidding methods include countermeasures to the opponents methods, which is nothing new to the demands of top level bridge.

RichMor, on Dec 26 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

There was a reason why I quoted my musical reference on the morning of the 25th. As to your reference, I vastly prefer the overproduced Don Was Bonnie to the Was Not barebones Bonnie. And this response was composed to the sound of the US scoring their third and fourth goals.

[ASkolnick]

There are a couple of problems with Forcing Pass in general:

1) Short rounds

How am I going to say 5 minutes before a pair comes (let's say 12 pairs), let's look at the suggested defense, maybe I like it, maybe I don't. I certainly won't have time to do it.

2) It does not allow you to play your system. Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not. I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.


So, I will disagree with Dr. Todd saying it is reasonable to play against.

However, that being said, there is no reason I should not have to play against it in a National Trial or International Event (Even real KO events such as Spingold) with the following:

A) Notes submitted in Advance
Defence submitted in Advance

I don't care if you put on a website or whatever. I can look at my draw and figure out if I need to concoct something or I like what was suggested.

If more people play something and more people defend against it, eventually the defense will catch up.

While I understand why Forcing Pass may be a problem, what I don't understand being illegal are:

1) Transfer Openings
Disadvantages: Overcaller now has two extra calls, Dbl and bidding the xfer suit.
2) Multi 2D - Really not that hard
Disadvantages: 2H over 2S
3) 2H Muitenberg - Which is natural.
Disadvantage: Don't know, but it is no different than 2 Hearts and less likely you want to come in.
4) Power 2D (4+-4+ in Majors) - I can plau natural, but I know I have bad splits.

So, having the ACBL draw a line in the sand somewhere is OK as long as its clear. But there needs to be at least a more liberal policy and I think people will think of adequate defenses against all of these if given the ability to play against them.