[jdonn]

awm, on May 26 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

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

This point has been addressed. It is legal to play partner to have forgotten something as long as there was no UI involved, and you owe the opponents no explanation. They probably should fill out a recorder form on you though.

[MickyB]

Is (1NT) 2♦ as ♦ or majors permitted? I think passing 3♦ is evidence of an implicit agreement.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

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

As a side note, I have to say I am impressed by the good ethics shown by Martel-Stansby in that case.

[blackshoe]

Evidence, perhaps, but not very compelling evidence.

If they have an agreement that 2 ♦ is either both majors or diamonds, that would be illegal under the ACBL's General Convention Chart (but might be legal under less restrictive charts or in other jurisdictions). But it seems far more likely to me that the 2 ♦ bidder just forgot they were playing it as majors. Other evidence may (probably would) be available at the table, but absent such, it is folly to assume an implicit agreement.

We have no way of knowing whether such "forgets" are common in any given partnership - unless note has been made of prior incidents. The English have a regulation that treats the 2 ♠ bidder's final pass in this auction as "fielding a misbid", with essentially the same consequences as fielding a psyche. There's no such regulation in the ACBL. So the TD has to use his judgement - and it seems to me that some evidence is required to support that judgement.

There is a club director locally who once told me "I can make any ruling I want". And so she can. But if the ruling is not in accordance with the laws, it is illegal (see Law 82B2), and she is doing her players, her club, and our game a disservice.

[JanM]

cherdano, on May 26 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

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

As a side note, I have to say I am impressed by the good ethics shown by Martel-Stansby in that case.

Good ethics, but foolishness

As I said above, I think that Lew was wrong to believe their clear agreement over gambling 3NT did not apply to 3NT showing a 4m preempt. Of course, his foolishness pales in comparison to the opponents' chutzpah.

At any rate, if you're right, it would argue for removing 3NT = 4m from the GCC, not for adding 3NT = 4M.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on May 26 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

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.

And I'm afraid I find your position on this equally frustrating. Of course it's impossible adequately to cope with preempts (and yes, Josh, I agree that it's harder to cope with 4m natural than with 3NT showing a 4m preempt). But it is far far easier to write an acceptable defense to any 3NT opening bid than to any 1 level opening bid, because since there is so little space, and so many fewer continuations, you don't have to cover nearly as much. The defense won't deal with all the things you'd like to deal with, but that's because of the level of the opening bid, not because it isn't an adequate defense.

[pclayton]

Jan, I can't agree with this.

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

I don't think transfer openings should be GCC, but a midchart definition is appropo.

Defending against 1 level transfer openings is rather simpler than defending against multi 2D, which is allowed. Its the 2-way (or more) nature of the multi that leads to so many variables.

Now if a 1D opening promised hearts, or a black 2 suiter (a la Suction), or something completely different, I would totally agree with you.

Furthermore, transfer openings are 'constructive' while multi 2D is 'destructive'. Which are going to harm 'mom and pop' more?

[MickyB]

pclayton, on May 27 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

Jan, I can't agree with this.

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

Well, you can't expect to get 1100 if you pass it. Not that I disagree with your position.

[JanM]

pclayton, on May 27 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

While I don't play MOSCITO, or TOSR or other systems where 1x = some other suit, the only difference between these systems and a 'natural' system is the 1st call. After the transfer opening, an opposing pair is essentially on the same footing as a pair defending a 1 bid.

Say, (1D) (showing hearts), 1H (takeout double of hearts) - (pass) - ? How is this any different from the sequence (1H) - dbl - (pass) - ?

Defending against 1 level transfer openings is rather simpler than defending against multi 2D, which is allowed. Its the 2-way (or more) nature of the multi that leads to so many variables.

Well, actually it is relevant that advancer can't pass for penalties after 1♦-1♥(T/O)-P, because it changes the possible meanings of Pass by responder (and that's why the auction isn't really the same as 1♥-DBL). In order to have a reasonable defense, you need to know what responder's actions mean and then decide what advancer should do.

OTOH, I completely agree with you that multi is much more complex to defend against. The only reason it's midchart and allowed for 2 board rounds, is because so many people play it and it's been around so long. The ACBL defenses are obviously inadequate, but they've also been around for a long time. I suspect there'd be a huge outcry if multi was all at once removed from the "allowed in midchart events" classification.

And there is one reason to allow multi (and Namyats 3NT) and not allow transfer 1 bids - that is frequency. Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session. As an opponent, you can reasonably decide not to worry about it in advance, even knowing that the defence probably isn't adequate, because it likely won't come up against you and if it does, the defense may work on the hands that happen to be dealt. Transfer 1 bids, OTOH, come up, probably, about every other round. So as an opponent, you can't afford to ignore them - you need an adequate defense. As a result, their use is likely to slow down the event more than the use of multi or any artificial 3NT opening.

[Walddk]

JanM, on May 30 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session.

Much more often than that if all you require is 5+ cards and 0-7 hcp. That's a normal development worldwide. 2♦ as garbage Multi (often 5 cards), 2MA as constructive (8-10, 6 cards).

Roland

[hrothgar]

JanM, on May 30 2006, 10:11 PM, said:

Well, actually it is relevant that advancer can't pass for penalties after 1♦-1♥(T/O)-P, because it changes the possible meanings of Pass by responder (and that's why the auction isn't really the same as 1♥-DBL). In order to have a reasonable defense, you need to know what responder's actions mean and then decide what advancer should do.

My understanding has always been that you aren't permitted to define your methods based on the opponent's response. If you permit this to happen, you create a "chicken and the egg" paradox. The classic example has always been

"We're play light preempts"
"Then we play penalty doubles"
"If you play penalty doubles, then we play sound preempts"
"If you're playing sound preempts, then we play takeout doubles"

The solution to this problem has always been based on resolving bids in chronological order. The opening side defines the meaning of its preempts. Once this has been done, the side that is defending choses a definition for double.

The exact same principle is at work here:

I start by defining the meaning of my 1♦ opening.
The defending side then defines a meaning for actions in direct seat.
Once the defending side has chosen appropriate meanings for its direct seat actions, the MOSCITO partnership determines what type of advance schedule we'll use.

[JanM]

Walddk, on May 30 2006, 02:16 PM, said:

JanM, on May 30 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

Multi, even as played by the most aggressive players, comes up, maybe, 2-4 times a session.

Much more often than that if all you require is 5+ cards and 0-7 hcp. That's a normal development worldwide. 2♦ as garbage Multi (often 5 cards), 2MA as constructive (8-10, 6 cards).

Roland

I don't know about going down to 0, but Woolsey-Stewart, who play very aggressive multi, and are always telling me I should have opened one on a hand where I passed, still don't have that many in a session. Take a look at a set of hand records, for one side, where the opponents didn't open the bidding first, and see how many hands there are with a 5 card Major and 3-8 HCPs (and even the most aggressive would not open some of the 5332's Vul), and I'm still going to bet on no more than 2-4 per session.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on May 30 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

My understanding has always been that you aren't permitted to define your methods based on the opponent's response.  If you permit this to happen, you create a "chicken and the egg" paradox.  The classic example has always been

Sorry, I failed to communicate - I'm not suggesting that after finding out how the opening side defines Pass (and DBL and bid) after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O), the overcalling side can change the meaning of 1♥. (I was there when the issue arose and the rule that you can't do that was instituted). What I'm suggesting is that in order to know what advancer's bids after 1♦(♥)-1♥ (T/O)-P/DBL/bid mean, the overcalling side has to know what responder's bids mean, which makes developing a defense more complicated than it might seem at first glance.

[joshs]

In no particular order:

When I submitted a defense to Kaplan Inversion it took over 3 months for the approval to occur, and later the defense to KI disappeared from the defense database. Maybe the process is better now, but maybe it isn't.

The frequency of Mid-chart events depends on where you live. When I lived in DC, the unit game, all the flight A sectional events, etc were all mid-chart. Here in southern california most sectional events and regional events are GCC. The flight A NAOPs were advertised as GCC (but a few players ignored the regulations in the actual event).

I do have to say its a pain to have to play 2 (sometimes radically) different systems because of the CC rules. If you can't play a method often enough, its really not worth it to play it at all. Imagine the advantage a pair who gets to play multi and against multi all the time has at nationals when facing a pair that only sees those conventions at nationals. There are situations where the more experienced player has a significant advantage. In order for methods to truly be propogated in a fair manner, they need to be allowed in enough events that players become familiar with them. This is not a chicken and egg problem. You have to allow methods before players become familiar with them. Wehn we started allowing midchart conventions in albuquerque sectionals and unit games, all of a sudden 1/4 of the field started experimenting with them. I think that is good.

Basically the current mapping is:
Superchart: Spingold, Vandy, Team Trials, Washington DC's round robin league
Midchart: National Events, Some Regional Events, Sectional events in enlightened areas
GCC: Most everything else


I think there should be 5 different categories:
Open (e.g. Flight A) Team Events
Open (e.g. Flight A) Pairs Events
Restricted Teams Events
Restricted Pairs Events
Novice events (but novices never know what is and isn't allowed so there is not much point in this category...)

So players can get used to facing "non mom and pop" conventions at local open events and not have to wait until nationals roll around.



Finally, since I have seen many mom and pop players open 2C strong on the hands that Donn proposes opening 3N on, I can't see how having another "strong" opening bid can possibly inconvenyance anyone. Especially since mom and pop play the following defense to gambling 3N:
x "I think you are stealing from me"
4C Natural
4D natural
4H Natural
4S Natural
4N Never used
5m Natural

Of course the same defense applies to 3N as a major suit pre-empt. In fact its even a good defense vs that convention.... So personally, I think this is one convention that I would put in the GCC or in my parlence allow in resticted team and maybe in restricted pair events.

[jdonn]

For what it's worth, 8 days and counting and still waiting for a reply. I included a polite request to at least be told the message had been received, and was/wasn't on tap to be considered.

The email address I sent it from will only exist for another month. I don't like my odds.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.
Via the Web site of the Flemish Bridge federation I asked if this opening is allowed in Liga1.
To give you some idea of what Liga1 is in Flanders; we have:
National Belgian Level:
- Eredivision, Nat 1, Nat 2, Nat 3
Flanders level (under Balgian level):
- Liga1, Liga2, District1, District2

After 1 day I received following answer:
"This opening is strong, so falls not under the brown convedntions.
Becuase this is not an elementary convention and also not included
in the list of permitted conventions for Liga2, it is not allowed in Liga2."
==
...and a second reaction to this:
"a small correction:
opening 3NT never falls in brown convention, because they only relate to openings
2C to 3S. So this convention is not bown.
Because question was for Liga1, the above remark concerning allowed conventions is not important.
Moreover I think that because this convention can be described as "gambling", this convention should als be allowed in Liga2"
====
I don't really understand this last emark about "gambling", but the answer is clear. Allowed in Liga1. Not allowed in Liga2 where we have a stict list of allowed conventions, but seems it would be added to this list for Liga2 if somebody would ask for it.

[Free]

kgr, on May 31 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

Thanks all for the answers.
Via the Web site of the Flemish Bridge federation I asked if this opening is allowed in Liga1.
To give you some idea of what Liga1 is in Flanders; we have:
National Belgian Level:
- Eredivision, Nat 1, Nat 2, Nat 3
Flanders level (under Balgian level):
- Liga1, Liga2, District1, District2

After 1 day I received following answer:
"This opening is strong, so falls not under the brown convedntions.
Becuase this is not an elementary convention and also not included
in the list of permitted conventions for Liga2, it is not allowed in Liga2."
==
...and a second reaction to this:
"a small correction:
opening 3NT never falls in brown convention, because they only relate to openings
2C to 3S. So this convention is not bown.
Because question was for Liga1, the above remark concerning allowed conventions is not important.
Moreover I think that because this convention can be described as "gambling", this convention should als be allowed in Liga2"
====
I don't really understand this last emark about "gambling", but the answer is clear. Allowed in Liga1. Not allowed in Liga2 where we have a stict list of allowed conventions, but seems it would be added to this list for Liga2 if somebody would ask for it.

Lol, read the second reply...