[the hog]

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 6 2009, 06:28 AM, said:

My "claim" of why this 2♦ bid isn't allowed may seem ridiculous to you, but it is the fact - no defense has been submitted and approved. As far as I know, none has been submitted.

Perhaps you should review what you originally wrote:

Quote

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦.

Your original quotation states that the the reason there is no defense to this 2♦ opening is that no one has bothered to submit a defense.

This is horseshit.

1. The Conventions Committee has stated that they are refusing to look at any new submissions. No ifs, ands, or buts. Just how long has the CC been "Studying" the submissions process? Two years? Three?

2. Ekrens 2♦ is an extremely common preempt outside the US. I'd be shocked if no one has submitted a suggested defense. I know that I've submitted defenses to very similar openings. The CC has refused each and every one. (Wouldn't it be nice if this process took place in an open and transparent manner?)

I'd well aware that you threw in a caveat about submitting an adequate defense, just as you're aware that the Conventions Committee has deemed that there is no such thing as an adequate defense to all sorts of methods.

[paulg]

The_Hog, on Dec 6 2009, 07:45 AM, said:

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

I think that there are a number of reasons.

Firstly players playing Mid Chart methods, such as the Ekrens 2♥ opener, are very rare. My guess is that the vast majority of those playing this method are foreigners and only seen at the Nationals, so there is little incentive to put significant time into devising a defence.

Whatever people may think of the Conventions Committee, the approved defences are adequate for the rarer Mid Chart conventions. They may not be optimal, but they are sufficient given the likelihood of it coming up in any match.

Although the top partnerships would normally have a defence, there are many pro-pro and client-pro combinations in the NABC+ events (especially something like the Open Swiss) who will not have a defence ready.

I play the Ekrens 2♥ version. Earlier this year at Washington Becker-Strul used the ACBL defence in the Spingold and Rosenberg-Feldman used it in the Open Swiss. I'd class all of these as 'self-respecting players' .

Unsurprisingly none of their European team mates (world-class partnerships) blinked when we pre-alerted it.

[kenberg]

The_Hog, on Dec 6 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

I agree with cardsharp but let me also take a crack at this from the view of an advanced but definitely not expert player. The acbl provides two suggested defenses to the multi 2D, and this is the main usage I have had of this approach to regulating systems.

I encounter the milti. Not every day, but often enough that I want to be prepared. I am happy to take the prepared defense, and then discuss with partner the "What happens next" sort of questions. So far, this has proved fully satisfactory. It leaves me with time to discuss other items, of which there are many, in our own uncontested bidding that may not be defined as well as they might be.

I see this approach as a very satisfactory compromise. I remember some years ago a pair brought in a system where a 1M opening was alerted as showing 8-12 hcps and 4+ hearts. OK, but as far as I could find out, the system was written down nowhere. How to prepare against such a system? Sample question: Does pass deny having four hearts and 8-12 hcps or are just some hands of that sort opened? They seemed to ofen have a long minor to run to. Having this system written out for all to see, with suggested defense(s) from thoughtful players, would make it much more acceptable

Bridge, with its varied approaches, is challenging. People who don't like such challenges should take up crazy eights. But it is a game of disclosed methods, and victory is suppose to go to those with the best methods and the best judgment, not to those with the most obscure and hidden devices.

Now I expect myself to be prepared for the multi and many other such methods. I don't expect it of those who just play bridge in order to have an evening out at the club once in a while. So some sort of sorting seems right to me.


Now a comment more closely ties to the original post. It seems to me that the following three sentences cannot peacefully coexist:
1. Method X requires an acbl approved written defense.
2. There is no acbl approved written defense for method X.
3. You are allowed to play method X.


It would be good for rules to be optimal. It's more important, to me at least, that rules be clear. If I understand the posts of TimG and JanM correctly, the midchart rules now do provide clarity. If so, I am glad to hear it. It is not reasonable to have the rules be such that there can be extended debate among high level players as to whether this 2D opening is or is not allowed. If someone thinks it is crazy for 2H to be allowed and 2D not, applying to the same sort of hand, well, yeah, it seems a bit nuts. Just as I don't think much of, in the general chart, allowing 2C over 1NT to show a single suit but not allowing 2D over 1NT to show a single major. These rules do not seem optimal, but if they are clear then I will play by them and expect others to do so also.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2009, 06:00 AM, said:

1.  The Conventions Committee has stated that they are refusing to look at any new submissions.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Just how long has the CC been "Studying" the submissions process?  Two years?  Three?

I think it has been less than a year that they have officially been refusing to look at any new weak preempt submissions, but they may have been refusing for practical purposes a bit longer than that.

I know that my last submission was made in April 2008 and acted upon until the Spring 2009 meetings. I believe those Spring 2009 meetings are also when the committee officially decided not to review new weak preemptive methods. I don't believe this committee has produced minutes for their meetings for quite some time, so these things can't be easily verified.

[olegru]

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

I think it has been less than a year that they have officially been refusing to look at any new submissions, but they may have been refusing for practical purposes a bit longer than that.

And at least 3 more years unofficially.
By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.
Just the silent veto to prohibet the use of the legal conventions.

[peachy]

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

I don't believe this committee has produced minutes for their meetings for quite some time, so these things can't be easily verified.

I have it from good authority (e-mail correspondence with Butch Campbell) that
a) the CC committee does not keep meeting minutes or record of any kind
b ) even if they have occasional minutes, those are not published
c) it is improper to ask individual committee members directly anything about the decision process
c) the committee or its individual members will not give reasons for any of their decisions and no part of the process is published on ACBL website.

I found this out months ago when I asked what the reason is why the CC committee has designated Multi a Mid Chart method that is allowed only in events where the round length is at least 6 boards. Which means it is never allowed in any pairs events, even the Blue Ribbon.

All of that makes no sense. First, it should be a requirement for all committees to keep meeting records. Second, the reasons for a decision should not be a well-guarded secret kept hidden from members.

[TimG]

olegru, on Dec 6 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

olegru, on Dec 6 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

The Midchart has been completely neutered. Its a joke these days.

However, a couple years back the Midchart explicitly sanctions any bid that promised 4+ cards in a known suit. I can provide all sorts of examples of Midchart legal bids that were banned by refusing to sanction any kind of defense.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

olegru, on Dec 6 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

The Midchart has been completely neutered. Its a joke these days.

However, a couple years back the Midchart explicitly sanctions any bid that promised 4+ cards in a known suit. I can provide all sorts of examples of Midchart legal bids that were banned by refusing to sanction any kind of defense.

I agree and can produce some of my own examples (I know you know that).

But, as currently constructed, there aren't methods "clearly inside the mid-chart definition" that are not permitted. Perhaps "inside the original spirit of the mid-chart".

[olegru]

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

olegru, on Dec 6 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

I guess you were talking about years they "been refusing to look at any new submissions for practical purposes" before they officially killed development of new convencions in ACBL land by closing the list of mid chart.

[nige1]

rbouskila, on Dec 5 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

so I always get a kick out of the ACBL appeals committee rulings. anyways, i just had to share this one. how awesome is bobby wolff's commentary at the end? ♥ what a guy.

Quote

[....] For this unseemly combination of errors and illegality this committee decided to penalize the field by giving these two pairs a combined average and an extra 3 IMP bonus for N/S. To make matters worse it was made by ostensibly a better than average committee. For our group to ever be party to such a thing is off the charts impossible, but, at least to me, it seems that this committee wanted to make love to at least the N/S pair and also be kind to the pair who were (possibly) wantonly playing this illegal convention. Until our group has enough leadership to call this aberration to everyone's attention and boil in oil a future guilty committee we have no chance to succeed.

Thank you rbouskila. Great stuff! Appeals committee reports are hilarious and perform a vital service, showing us how hard it is for directors and committees to apply complex sophisticated and subjective rules even in simple basic cases. I hope that they trigger a rule-simplification process so that, eventually, most ordinary players and directors will be able to understand the rules.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 6 2009, 06:28 AM, said:

My "claim" of why this 2♦ bid isn't allowed may seem ridiculous to you, but it is the fact - no defense has been submitted and approved. As far as I know, none has been submitted.

Perhaps you should review what you originally wrote:

Quote

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦.

Your original quotation states that the the reason there is no defense to this 2♦ opening is that no one has bothered to submit a defense.

This is horseshit.

1. The Conventions Committee has stated that they are refusing to look at any new submissions. No ifs, ands, or buts. Just how long has the CC been "Studying" the submissions process? Two years? Three?

2. Ekrens 2♦ is an extremely common preempt outside the US. I'd be shocked if no one has submitted a suggested defense. I know that I've submitted defenses to very similar openings. The CC has refused each and every one. (Wouldn't it be nice if this process took place in an open and transparent manner?)

I'd well aware that you threw in a caveat about submitting an adequate defense, just as you're aware that the Conventions Committee has deemed that there is no such thing as an adequate defense to all sorts of methods.

I do not believe that a defense to 2♦ showing a weak hand with both majors has been submitted. Nor do I think that the Conventions committee has refused to review defenses. In fact I know that they have reviewed some recently.

You are correct that there are some methods for which it is probably not possible to submit an adequate defense. I do not think this is one of those.

[JanM]

The_Hog, on Dec 6 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

Believe it or not, Ron, there are some people who don't enjoy creating defenses to unusual methods that they encounter very rarely, but do want to know what their bids mean when the methods come up. I happen to enjoy creating defenses, but then I spent my working life as a tax lawyer, and I can understand that other people don't find that an enjoyable "game" to play. Of course it's better to have developed or at least discussed and understand the defense you are using, but having someone else's defense, that has been found to be adequate, is better than having to invent something on the fly when you encounter the method.

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 6 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

I do not believe that a defense to 2♦ showing a weak hand with both majors has been submitted. Nor do I think that the Conventions committee has refused to review defenses. In fact I know that they have reviewed some recently.

In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts. They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls. Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

Tim

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

Quote

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>
date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
subject Re: Defense Database submission
mailed-by acbl.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

Regards,
Butch

[the hog]

JanM, on Dec 7 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 6 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

Believe it or not, Ron, there are some people who don't enjoy creating defenses to unusual methods that they encounter very rarely, but do want to know what their bids mean when the methods come up. I happen to enjoy creating defenses, but then I spent my working life as a tax lawyer, and I can understand that other people don't find that an enjoyable "game" to play. Of course it's better to have developed or at least discussed and understand the defense you are using, but having someone else's defense, that has been found to be adequate, is better than having to invent something on the fly when you encounter the method.

Thanks Jan, (and others who answered my query). I must admit that while I have read your answer, I do find the reasoning behind it hard to understand. For me, Bridge consists of an intellectual exercise involving numerous components - bidding, play, cooperation with partners etc. This also includes using ones intellect to counter unusual situations. To remove one aspect of the above is to remove an important part of the game and smacks of intellectual laziness. Anyway, that is my opinion.
(By the way, I think that being a tax lawyer could be a very interesting and challenging occupation. Maybe I am strange.)

[olegru]

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

[In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts. They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls. Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

Tim

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

Quote

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>
date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
subject Re: Defense Database submission
mailed-by acbl.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

Regards,
Butch

Nice wording.
Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?
For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

[TimG]

olegru, on Dec 7 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

[In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts.  They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls.  Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

Tim

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

Quote

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>
date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
subject Re: Defense Database submission
mailed-by acbl.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

Regards,
Butch

Nice wording.
Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?
For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

[olegru]

It is already there
I am wondering if any new once (having any sence to use them) are possible.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Dec 7 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

olegru, on Dec 7 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 6 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

[In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts.  They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls.  Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

Tim

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

Quote

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org
to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>
date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
subject Re: Defense Database submission
mailed-by acbl.org

Hi Tim,

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

Regards,
Butch

Nice wording.
Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?
For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

I seem to recall that a defense to said open was (briefly) allowed, but that the sanction was then yanked