[PassedOut]

I know I'm missing something here because I haven't played seriously for such a long time.

Unless you use 3N Namyats with weaker major suits, wouldn't the following GCC opening bid paragraph apply?

Quote

8. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of
     a ) a solid suit or
     b ) a minor one-suiter.

Trying to get my head around what is legal/illegal these days in the ACBL. Thanks.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Nov 29 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

Unless you use 3N Namyats with weaker major suits,

exactly

[mikeh]

I have great sympathy for Phil and Matt, but I really don't agree with their playing a convention that at least one of them presumably knows is illegal, notwithstanding that a director told them that it was legal. I say this because I assume, based both on Phil's earlier track record of posts, where he comes across as knowledgable, and his reference to it being midchart but with no approved defence. Certainly my read of the midchart says that this call (3N showing a major... assuming it might not be 'solid') is illegal unless an approved defence exists.

Checking with a director, even one of Henry's standing, is no excuse, altho it may feel like one. I suspect Phil 'knew' or at least suspected that Henry was mistaken in his interpretation of the law. I may be being unfair, but did Phil tell Henry that the midchart seemed to make the convention illegal? Or did he simply explain the bid and ask if it was ok? And in any event, while we'd like our directors to be infallible, the truth is that they are not. And the chart is unambiguous.

So playing the illegal method is unfair to those of us who, equally irritated and frustrated by the ACBL's attitude towards thinking, abide by the rules. And it is unfair to Phil's opponents: sure, their defence may make sense; sure the opps SHOULD be able to cope... but his opps are being confronted with an unfamiliar convention with a defence they have to take on faith, that they have had no chance to learn beforehand, because it is not in the ACBL approved defences. Some opps will be discomfited by this, and this isn't fair.... unless that discomfiture is part of the conditions of contest. I personally believe that it should be, but as long as it isn't then it isn't fair for Phil and Matt to make it so for their particular opps.

So my sympathies, but not my endorsement. BTW, no way do I call this 'cheating' and, while I understand Richard's point, I think that he owed Phil and Matt an apology for the suggestion that it is. It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating. There is nothing at all surreptitious about their behaviour.

[awm]

Here's what's legal on the ACBL mid-chart. Things with * in front require suggested defense:

1. All of the ACBL general chart.
2. Relay systems that promise GF values.
3. All constructive rebids and responses except for:
--- 3a. Relay systems that show less than GF values.
--- 3b. Conventional calls after a 1NT opening with minimum <10 hcp or range >5 hcp.
--- 3c. Conventional calls after a weak two bid with a range >7 hcp or length that maybe 4 cards.
*4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except weak two-suited bids must be 5-4 or better.
*5. Opening 2♦ to show a weak two in an unspecified major, with or without strong options.
*6. A 2♠ or 2NT opening to show an unspecified minor or both minors.
*7. A transfer bid at the 2-level or higher showing a weak hand in suit transferred to, plus possible strong options.
*8. Any strong (15+ hcp) opening bid.
*9. Notrump overcall as two-suited takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution.
10. Any defense to natural notrump opening bids or overcalls.
*11. Any opening bid at the three-level or above showing an undisclosed solid suit.

An opening 3NT showing a weak hand with a major has nothing to do with relay systems (2). It's not the responses that are at issue, so (3) doesn't apply. It doesn't promise four cards in a known suit, since it could be either major, so (4) doesn't apply. Both (5) and (6) are specific other opening calls so don't apply. Since there is no "suit transferred to" as it could be either major, (7) doesn't apply. Presumably even though it's a "good 4M bid" there is nothing close to a guarantee of 15+ hcp so (8) doesn't apply. It seems obvious that (9) and (10) have nothing to do with this opening, and (11) only applies if you guarantee a suit headed by AKQ which most people don't want to. That leaves only (1), and I think we all know this is not on the general chart.

So I honestly don't see why it would be mid-chart regardless of defense.

Honestly if you require your suit to be headed by AKQ it does become general chart.

[sceptic]

Quote

It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating

haha I cant believe you wrote that

[SoTired]

sceptic, on Nov 29 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

Quote

It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating

haha I cant believe you wrote that

i agree, too. intentional violation of the rules, sneaky getting a misled director to agree,

sure, not as severe as hand signals, but still.....

similar to a friend who said, "I did not steal your car, I just borrowed it without your permission."

[rbforster]

mikeh, on Nov 29 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

Checking with a director, even one of Henry's standing, is no excuse, altho it may feel like one...

So playing the illegal method is unfair to those of us who, equally irritated and frustrated by the ACBL's attitude towards thinking, abide by the rules.

And it is unfair to Phil's opponents... unless that is part of the conditions of contest.

All very reasonable in theory. Of course asking a "senior" director for your area is probably the best way to determine what will be allowed in practice at that event (even if that's not what the letter of the national law says). And we all know that waiting for conventions to be approved at that national level is about like waiting for chimps to get the right to vote so if the locals have taken a broader view perhaps we shouldn't chastise them for being a little ahead of Memphis.

pclayton, on Nov 29 2007, 05:30 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 28 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

3.  This is a National Level event.  This isn't a case where a local district can impose its own regulations.  Even though the event is taking place in California, you still don't don't get play Suction as a defense over a NT opening.

Oh and Suction is approved in these events, by the way.

This just illustrates the problem. The rules on the books say one thing (which Richard cites), but as a matter of practice everyone ignores this in CA and allows Suction defenses to NT. Is this "fair"? Well, to the extent that everyone knows that all NT defenses are ok and hence are forewarned (if not prepared) for Suction over their NT, the only people who are wronged are those didn't get the message and mistakenly read the national rules instead of the local ones (whether they be those unprepared to allowed Suction defenses, or those who played an inferior defense in place of Suction). I understand that having the localities allow inconsistently advertised conventions causes some problems, but that really seems like the only way forward for innovation so put me in the locals-first camp.

FWIW, I've heard that at least a few West Coast experts play 3N Namytas nominally under the "solid suit" provision which of course they don't always have when they "occasionally stretch" for their 3N bid. My sources tell me they "get away with it" as most non-junior experts do when the directors respect them professionally. Once the favored experts adopt their pet conventions and start widely (if illegally) playing them, then the rest of us can tell the directors that we're playing the same thing as Superflight Pro X does and so it must be ok. And like NT defenses, eventually it is pretty much ok.

[blackshoe]

A sponsoring organization can make whatever regulations it likes, provided they don't conflict with the laws. See Law 80F. However that organization also has an obligation to publish those regulations. IMO, if a district wishes to make suction legal in an otherwise GCC event, they must make sure that prospective players are aware of that before they pay their entry fees.

From the Mid-Chart:

Quote

This chart (or any part) may apply to any sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor's option provided that this has been included in tournament advertising. (The requirement for advertising does not extend to use in Flt. A or high brackets of KOs.)

If a District or Unit wants to make one or more Mid-Chart conventions legal at their otherwise GCC events, they can do so - provided they publish that fact ahead of time.

BTW, the SuperChart says

Quote

This chart (or any part) may be used at a sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor’s option in any event with 12-board or longer segments provided this has been included in tournament advertising.

[mikeh]

SoTired, on Nov 29 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

sceptic, on Nov 29 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

Quote

It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating

haha I cant believe you wrote that

i agree, too. intentional violation of the rules, sneaky getting a misled director to agree,

sure, not as severe as hand signals, but still.....

similar to a friend who said, "I did not steal your car, I just borrowed it without your permission."

You guys are missing the point

If I park at a meter and don't put money in, I am breaking the rules, and may be doing so intentionally. But this is a mickey-mouse offence, punishable by a tiny fine. If I rob a bank, shooting a teller, this is a felony and the punishment for being caught is severe.

Now, both could be described as a 'crime' but no rational person would say they are morally equivalent...would they? And I think most people, when asked to consider examples of criminal conduct would not think of a parking offence

So what Phil and Matt did may have been the bridge equivalent of not putting money in the meter (how close the analogy is depends on your view of traffic regulation and/or the ACBL GCC restrictions) while 'cheating' as Sion did, as Katz and Cohen were suspected of doing, etc, is the bridge equivalent of armed robbery, with shooting of a teller. Ask any experienced bridge player to describe examples of cheating he has heard about, and he'll tell you about rearranging the pencils to suggest specific suits, or sniffing and coughing, or head-bobbing to scoop opps' cards and so on, but surely not many would come up with what Phil and Matt did as exemplars of what 'cheating' means.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Nov 30 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

So what Phil and Matt did may have been the bridge equivalent of not putting money in the meter

Actually, it's equivalent to parking at a meter on a Sunday, knowing that you still need to put money in it. You then ask the cop patrolling the area if the meter needs to be paid on Sundays (even though you know the answer is yes) and when he says "no" not putting money in. Later, a different cop gives you a ticket.

To which I say...pay the darn ticket. But it's not anything serious.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on Nov 30 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

If I rob a bank, shooting a teller, this is a felony...

Actually, it's at least two felonies. Probably more.

[hrothgar]

Out of curiousity, whatever happened with the NAMYATS 3N?

1. Did you continue to use the methods in San Francisco?
2. Did you every check with Rick Beye about the legality of the methods?
3. Have you checked with Memphis to see whether this is legal at the Midchart level? (I think that AWM raised some valid points)
4. Have you submitted your homebrew defense for approval?

[pclayton]

As an update, I sent this to C and C on January 11.

Nothing yet, although its only been 3 weeks.