[jdonn]

kgr, on May 25 2006, 05:05 AM, said:

Thanks for the answers.
Would following hand qualify as a min and max for this opening?:
AQJT987 xx Ax xx
AKQJxxxx - AQTx x

First hand, not good enough (7 tricks).
Second hand, too good (About 10 tricks).
You are looking for 8-9 tricks.

Edit: I saw first hand wrong and later changed answer.

[joshs]

Mom and Pop are not used to defending against:
1N for takeout
Roman Jump Overcalls
2N opening for the minors

And quite frankly they are poorly prepared for handling:
1m Could be short (frequent accidents about if 2m is natural or not) [the precision nebulous diamond is in fact a much more insideous bid than most anything else we have been discussing on the forum)
Flannary, Mini-Roman, Etc (what does the x show)

Quite frankly they are not even used to a strong club (mom and pop play x for takeout of clubs).. Actually mom and pop think x of a 1N opening is also a takeout x....

Somehow, I don't think what "mom and pop" are prepared for is the criteria here.

[pclayton]

I've always felt that the convention charts have been based on "who" wants to play "what" and making it legal. As a result, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency on what makes the list and what doesn't.

The argument about 'familarity' is circular. Nothing, no matter how simple it is on paper, can become familar if one never gets a chance to play against it. But somehow, strange treatments have made the list.

Transfer preempts are some of the simplest bids to defend against, yet they are relegated to mid-chart. But a 3N opener showing EITHER minor (akin to a multi 2♦) opening is GCC?

I'm glad that Overcall Structure (1N overcall and Roman jumps) is legal under the GCC. Someone did a nice job lobbying for that at one time, and I like to play it.

While I get a dark pleasure out of making a 1N overcall of 1♠ on: x, Axxx, Axxx, Qxxx and watching the client getting a befuddled look on his face and the pro across the table silently cursing me, I still pre-alert my OS bids, even though I don't have to.

The most egregious is a 1N opening showing an unbalanced hand of 16+ HCP. It amazes me how the ROMEX bids received GCC approval. I'd love to know the history on this one and how it got approved. Yet for some reason opening with 1♥ or 1♠ as a strong artificial opening is disallowed.

Doubles aren't regulated! Yep, your RHO can open ANYTHING, and an immediate double can mean ANYTHING. I know a couple of loonies from L.A. that play an immediate double of a one bid is: a) any hand of 15 or more HCP, or b ) a 3 level preempt. Yes its legal!

I hate to sound paranoid, but it appears treatments make the list because an elite group wants them legal. OTOH, certain treatments aren't legal for the same reason.

Its time to pull this whole process out of the smoke-filled back rooms. I would suggest that:

1. All proposed treatments are published on the league's web-site along with the date when C and C is going to consider such a treatment;

2. Proponents and opponents can provide written testimony supporting their views;

3. Written minutes of the meetings are made public after the fact.

I think #3 may already be in place, but I'd personally like it more conspicuously posted at acbl.org.

[jdonn]

Excellent suggestion, I like your ideas.

Maybe some of us can meet with the current ACBL president in Chicago at some point and discuss this. Or even get a petition going to change the way things are done. I understand no one will agree on what should or shouldn't be allowed, or even the general approach of how to allow and disallow things, but at least we could make the whole process more open and transparent to the bridge playing masses.

(I just emailed the CCE and proposed allowing this 3NT bid onto the GCC. If there is interest I will post the email here, but I think that otherwise I would just as soon not do that)

[hrothgar]

Needless to say, I wish you luck with your efforts. Couple suggestions:

Its unclear to me whether the ACBL President is the right spot to apply leverage. My understanding is that the ACBL President is largely ceremonial position with very little real clout. Equally significant, the President's tenure only lasts a year. Even if you were able to convince the President that your position is correct he/she won't be able to do anything. Folks will just humor him for the next six months or so. Things will be right back to normal once the President steps down. In order to get anything accomplished in a large bureaucracy you need to identify those individuals who have real power. In general power is related to control over either spending or hire/fire decisions.

I would focus your proposal on two key elements: Transparency and process.

Personally, I would like to see the following type of system adopted:

1. The Conventions Committee create a set of Convention Charts. Associated with this, the Convention's committee has the right to dictate that players need to provide the opponent's with suggested defense to method's associated with a given Convention Chart. Event organizers are granted the authority to chose whatever Convention Chart they want for a given event. (If the Chief Director wants to use the Superchart for the Beginner's game and the Limited Convention Chart for the Flight A Swiss that's his choice. I'm not sure whether he would ever be invited back, but thats another story)

2. Associated with this, the Convention's Committee will maintain a database containing recommended defense to different bidding conventions. Players are not permitted to conventions that do not have an approved defense listed in the defensive database.

3. Players who wish to use a method that is permitted by a given convention chart but does not have a suggested defense will follow a formal submission process. Players will submit a detailed description of the method to the Conventions Committee. The Conventions Committee is required to provide a rough draft of a suggested defense for public comment within 6 weeks of the initial submission. The Conventions Committee is required to provide a formal suggested defense within three months of the initial submission. (I recommend that this entire process take place using a web based forum like the one we're using right now)

[kfgauss]

Another suggestion is to (in addition to other means) write a Bridge World letter to the editor on this subject. I'm not really sure how influential these are, but Bridge World editorials seem associated with changes that have occurred over the years.

Andy

[JanM]

jdonn, on May 25 2006, 01:31 AM, said:

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on May 25 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

Its unclear to me whether the ACBL President is the right spot to apply leverage.  My understanding is that the ACBL President is largely ceremonial position with very little real clout.  Equally significant, the President's tenure only lasts a year.  Even if you were able to convince the President that your position is correct he/she won't be able to do anything.  Folks will just humor him for the next six months or so.  Things will be right back to normal once the President steps down.  In order to get anything accomplished in a large bureaucracy you need to identify those individuals who have real power.  In general power is related to control over either spending or hire/fire decisions.

I think you're very wrong about the power of the ACBL president, and although you're right that the president serves for only one year, s/he usually remains on the Board after that year, so still has considerable influence. And the ACBL Board is in fact the entity that has control over spending and hire/fire decisions. Having said that, I do agree with you that the way to get things changed is not by trying to influence the ACBL president or Board, but rather by talking to the C&C committee, whose purview this is. That is probably particularly true this year, when we have an excellent President who is strongly in favor of appointing good people to expert committees and then listening to those committees.

hrothgar, on May 25 2006,1:43 PM, said:

Personally, I would like to see the following type of system adopted:

1. The Conventions Committee create a set of Convention Charts.  Associated with this, the Convention's committee has the right to dictate that players need to provide the opponent's with suggested defense to method's associated with a given Convention Chart.  Event organizers are granted the authority to chose whatever Convention Chart they want for a given event.  (If the Chief Director wants to use the Superchart for the Beginner's game and the Limited Convention Chart for the Flight A Swiss that's his choice.  I'm not sure whether he would ever be invited back, but thats another story)

2. Associated with this, the Convention's Committee will maintain a database containing recommended defense to different bidding conventions.  Players are not permitted to conventions that do not have an approved defense listed in the defensive database.

3. Players who wish to use a method that is permitted by a given convention chart but does not have a suggested defense will follow a formal submission process.  Players will submit a detailed description of the method to the Conventions Committee.  The Conventions Committee is required to provide a rough draft of a suggested defense for public comment within 6 weeks of the initial submission.  The Conventions Committee is required to provide a formal suggested defense within three months of the initial submission.  (I recommend that this entire process take place using a web based forum like the one we're using right now)

That sounds like what we now have, with the exception of number 3, where you suggest putting the burden of developing defenses on the Conventions Committee instead of the proponents of a method. Not only is that completely unrealistic (the members of the Conventions Committee are unpaid volunteers who normally get paid for things like developing defenses - they're not going to accept the burden of developing defenses to proposed conventions) but also the people best able to develop a defense are in fact the proponents of the method, since they are (or should be) the most knowledgeable about what sort of hands they'll have, what they'll do over different interference, what problems will be caused by the bid, etc. So the proponents have both the incentive and the ability to produce an adequate defense.

[Free]

Are we really going back to ACBL commité discussions? Plz! Create a new topic for heaven's sake...

[hrothgar]

JanM, on May 26 2006, 02:46 AM, said:

That sounds like what we now have, with the exception of number 3, where you suggest putting the burden of developing defenses on the Conventions Committee instead of the proponents of a method. Not only is that completely unrealistic (the members of the Conventions Committee are unpaid volunteers who normally get paid for things like developing defenses - they're not going to accept the burden of developing defenses to proposed conventions) but also the people best able to develop a defense are in fact the proponents of the method, since they are (or should be) the most knowledgeable about what sort of hands they'll have, what they'll do over different interference, what problems will be caused by the bid, etc. So the proponents have both the incentive and the ability to produce an adequate defense.

I honestly don't really care who develops the suggested defenses. I suspect that the best way to work is actually some kind of cooperative development model based on an open forum, however, I consider the question "who writes the defense" a red herring.

The current system is designed such that the Conventions Committee to can use the Defensive Database as a chokepoint in the convention licensing system.

The system that I suggest requires that the Conventions Committee facilitate the development/distribution of defenses. I consider the requirement to publish defenses to legal methods critical to eliminate incentives to abuse the system.

[awm]

Since the committee is required to accept/reject the suggested defense anyway, perhaps a reasonable compromise is to have them post their reasons for rejecting a defense they found insufficient. This way the proponents of the method have some guidelines as to why their defense was rejected, and the committee can't use the requirement of a defense as a blank check to ban methods which would be otherwise legal (at least not without public scrutiny).

[jdonn]

JanM, on May 25 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2006, 01:31 AM, said:

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

I forget in which one, but in one of the NABC casebooks on the ACBL site it was not too long ago your own husband had an appeal brought against him because he and Lew, one of the most established partnerships in the world, had a mixup involving what they play over a 3NT opening bid showing a minor suit preempt. It turned out they didn't even have an agreed defense over that 3NT bid. You can't say it's allowed because it allows for a simple defense when the best pairs in the world haven't even thought to agree a defense, and then have a misunderstanding due to that.

Anyway, that's not what you said earlier. Is the criterion it is familiar to mom and pop club players, or that there is a simple defense?

This whole discussion about 3NT showing a major went something like this
me: It should be allowed because it's simple to defend against
you: But it's unfamiliar to inexperienced players
me: Perhaps, but many such bids including very similar ones are already allowed
you: But it would be tough to defend against

I feel like I'm travelling in circles. And I feel that on both criterion it should be allowed anyway. It is simple to defend against, and they already allow similar bids that are nearly as unfamiliar to inexperienced players.

Oh and the defense to 3NT showing an unspecified major would be this immensely complicated scheme (which except for 4NT, something 'mom and pop' players would never bid anyway, is EXACTLY the same as they would use over a gambling 3NT).

All suit bids are natural. Double, and pass then double, are exactly the same as whatever the pair uses over a gambling 3NT opening bid. 4NT is minors.

[JanM]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

JanM, on May 25 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2006, 01:31 AM, said:

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

And the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is different from the defense to gambling 3NT how? Whereas the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid will be very different from that to gambling 3NT.

Anyway, that's not what you said earlier. Is the criterion it is familiar to mom and pop club players, or that there is a simple defense?

This whole discussion about 3NT showing a major went something like this
me: It should be allowed because it's simple to defend against
you: But it's unfamiliar to inexperienced players
me: Perhaps, but many such bids including very similar ones are already allowed
you: But it would be tough to defend against

I feel like I'm travelling in circles. And I feel that on both criterion it should be allowed anyway. It is simple to defend against, and they already allow similar bids that are nearly as unfamiliar to inexperienced players.

I did not say that 3NT = 4M is more difficult to defend against than either gambling 3NT or 3NT = 4m. What I said is that gambling 3NT is "mainstream" and that 3NT = 4m is the same as gambling 3NT (as far as the opponents are concerned), so there is no reason to treat it differently.

To restate my position:
1. Many Mom & Pop pairs play gambling 3NT. They would be unhappy if it were not on the GCC, so it is.
2. It is obvious to me (even if not to my former husband) that the defense to 3NT showing a 4 of a minor preempt is the same as the defense to gambling 3NT.
3. Therefore, since gambling 3NT is allowed there is no reason not to allow 3NT = 4m preempt. It shouldn't cause a problem to relatively inexperienced, unsophisticated players because they are (or think they are) comfortable having their opponents open a gambling 3NT, so they will be equally comfortable if their opponents open 3NT showing a 4m preempt.

OTOH, the defense that I think most people use against a gambling 3NT (one or both 4m bids showing both majors) would be extremely inappropriate against 3NT showing a 4 of a Major bid. Therefore, the fact that people are comfortable with gambling 3NT would not make them comfortable with 3NT = 4M, and for that reason it is different, in a relevant way, from gambling 3NT.

To put it another way: I'm not suggesting that gambling 3NT is either a good method or one that should be easier to defend against than 3NT showing a 4M bid. But it is a method that a large number of less than expert players use (I don't know why), so it was put on the GCC. And since 3NT showing a 4m preempt is essentially the same as gambling 3NT for the opponents, it makes sense that it is also on the GCC even if not so many people play it. 3NT showing a 4M bid is not the same. It is obviously included in the Midchart definitions, so long as there is an approved defense. You're right that a reasonable defense isn't complicated, but what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to everyone, which is the whole reason for having approved defenses. So submit a defense, get it on the defense database and you won't have a problem. There aren't a lot of GCC events anyway

[jdonn]

You are wrong about the defense most people use over a gambling 3NT. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that <5% (I really think it's <1%) of acbl members don't have any defense at all over it, even if being able to show both majors is optimal. Over any of these bids, all these moms and pops just double with good hands or otherwise bid a suit naturally, it is irrelevent what 3NT means. I still find this whole thing completely ridiculous. I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I still find restrictions like this completely random and arbitrary, and they do nothing to protect anyone.

[pclayton]

1) I've never felt a competent pair is unprepared to play against something simple, just because they've never encountered it. Out of habit, Brian and I quickly look at our opps cc's to see if there is anything funny. Usually it takes us about 5 seconds to come up with something appropriate.

2) I agree with the others that the C and C members are the proper folks to lobby to effectuate change. Still, it smacks of having political 'access'.

3)Against Gambling or Minor Namyats 3N, we play Ripstra. I think some sort of defense against a Major Namyats would be more complicated but:

1. 4 of a new suit: natural

2. Double - takeout of spades

3. Delayed double of 4H - takeout

4. Delayed double of 4S - penalty

5. 4N - minors.

[JanM]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on May 24 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

Our 3NT opener is a 'Namyats' type hand, showing a strong playing hand (8-9 tricks) in a major with a self sufficient suit. By definition, this should be a suit which should on average play for no more than one loser opposite a small singleton. Opener should avoid opening this bid with high card controls in 2 side suits. We would tend to find a different opening for a hand like AQJT987 Ax Axx x.

Josh, not trying to belittle this "infinite" difference between 3N Namyats and 4m Namyats, but I think this is the more important part of your post. It's infinitely better to play Namyats with a good definition then to play it with a bad one, and I have seen many play it with a bad one. In fact, with Han I dropped it after we agreed we didn't know what it shows...

[hrothgar]

JanM, on May 26 2006, 07:01 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

I find this comment incredibly frustrating:

Designing a defense to a transfer opening at the 1 level is MUCH simplier than designing a defense for a multi-style 3N opening.

The transfer opening has a known anchor suit and provides a known cue bid.
The transfer opening is at the one level, permitting many more opportunities to use simple overcalls and jump overcalls to clarify hand types.

The only reason that it would be "simple" to create a defense to a multi 3NT opening is if you are apply very different criteria to measure whether or not a suggested is adequate.

Throughout this entire process, my main complaint has been that the Conventions Committee is applying very subjective criteria when they are evaluating suggested defenses. Josh shouldn't expect any trouble getting a defense approved to his brown sticker convention. But god forbid any attempt to get a license for MOSCITO.

[jdonn]

JanM, on May 26 2006, 11:01 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

I wouldn't want it on the GCC because I think there are tons of such events anyway, it's because then I wouldn't have to go through the whole process of submitting a defense. You make it sound like just snapping your fingers and poof, defense approved, but we all know it's a gigantic and long lasting pain.

I think you are generalizing from the difficulties you have heard people having with getting a defense to transfer one bids approved. For something as simple as 3NT showing a major, the process is simple. Why don't you try an experiment - submit a defense and see whether it is "a gigantic and long lasting pain" or a straighforward process.

You are probably right I'm generalizing based on what others have said, and my experience with how the ACBL and its associated committees work. I guess we'll see....

http://web2.acbl.org...uston_Spr02.pdf
Case 14. Not so obvious, is it.

Also to prove my point about the treatment itself. Look how easy it was (other than the misunderstanding) for north to come in over 3NT (I would play 4♣ as majors, but apparently they technically had no such agreement). A lot harder over 4♦ instead.

[awm]

The appeal from the casebook brings up an interesting point that I haven't really seen addressed.

Suppose partner makes some bid for which you have a conventional agreement. You bid according to the agreement. Partner then makes another bid, which has a "normal" meaning under the agreement but could also indicate a "forget." You play partner for the forget. Some examples:

3NT(1) - 4♣(2) - P - 4♠(3)
P - 5♣(4) - All Pass

(1) Minor preempt
(2) Agreed as majors
(3) Preference
(4) Could be a cuebid or exclusion, but actually "I forgot 4♣ wasn't natural" and fielded.

1NT - 2♦(1) - P - 2♠(2)
P - 3♦(3) - All Pass

(1) Agreed as majors
(2) Preference
(3) Could be a cuebid or a strong 4441, but actually "I forgot 2♦ wasn't natural" and fielded.

Presuming that partner wasn't making faces at the spade bid or the alert, it's not clear that any unethical bids have been made. Certainly advancer was taking a risk when he decided that a forget was more likely than a cuebid. But it seems like at some point the opponents should have been informed of what was going on. In the first auction, it sounds like this is a slam going auction in the majors. The opponent responding to 3NT has no incentive to bid 5♦ here, since the auction is not about to end anyway and he has no reason to think his partner has diamonds rather than clubs (in fact rather the opposite). Shouldn't there be some information that "a forget or misunderstanding is likely here" especially since advancer decided it was more likely than anything else?