[TimG]

olegru, on Dec 7 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

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

You're looking at an old version, or perhaps the Defense Database has not been updated to reflect earlier decisions. The 1♥ transfer opening has been removed from the mid-chart (at the same time as they rejected my request for a similar 1♦ transfer opening).

Edit: yep, it's still there on the current copy at ACBL's website.

Consider a 1♦ transfer opening as an answer to your question.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

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

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

Depends upon how you define "briefly". The method was approved at the spring 2005 meetings.

I was notified by Steve Beatty (current chair of the committee, I believe) in August 2009 that the committee had decided to remove it from the mid-chart.

I just checked and the method is still part of the mid-chart and a defense is still in the defense database. This brings up the question of whether it is a mid-chart legal method until it had been removed from the charts or whether the decision of the committee is in effect even though the charts have not been updated. I suppose if minutes of the meeting were available that would be something....

[blackshoe]

Perhaps someone should test this - if they can find a MidChart event at which to do so.

The argument to the director, committee, or National Authority would be "it's legal, the published information on the ACBL website says so".

Law 80 gives the TO the responsibility to "announce regulations". I don't think that means "we didn't tell you ahead of time what the regulations were, but now that you're here, we'll tell you that you are violating them".

[blackshoe]

Given that the minutes of CandC committtee meetings are not available to the public, and given that new convention charts and defense database listings have not been made available to the public, I would say that the method is still legal, whatever Steve Beatty said.

[nige1]

TimG, on Dec 7 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

 I just checked and the method is still part of the mid-chart and a defense is still in the defense database.  This brings up the question of whether it is a mid-chart legal method until it had been removed from the charts or whether the decision of the committee is in effect even though the charts have not been updated.  I suppose if minutes of the meeting were available that would be something....

When I read the original post, the case against the putative offending players seemed clear-cut; but subsequent posts indicate that the C&C committee is in chaos; and the ACBL seems remiss in allowing it

[blackshoe]

On Saturday, I wrote to the CandC committee, copy to the ACBL webmaster, asking about these things we've been discussing. Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info

Quote

All proposals must include:
a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid
Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

from the Defense Database page. He didn't say what the committee were doing wrt approvals in general. He said he would check on the question of minutes and agendas on the web. He listed the changes since 2008 in the committee, and said that the conventional approval committee currently consists of two people: Barry Harper and Chip Martel. Unfortunately, he didn't include the webmaster on his reply to me.

I have received no reply as yet from anyone on the CandC committee, nor from the webmaster.

[blackshoe]

Deleted, as I reported something missing from the defense database, but in fact it's still there - just not in an obvious place.

Minor Suit Namyats? Come on.

[olegru]

[quote name='blackshoe' date='Dec 7 2009, 05:15 PM'] Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info[QUOTE]All proposals must include:
a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid
Submissions missing these details will not be approved. [/quote]
It is a first step.
After you will submit your proposal with all requested details you will receive the reply that submitions with size more than 1 page will not be approved.
Back to step 1.
Been there.

[pooltuna]

[quote name='olegru' date='Dec 8 2009, 04:51 PM'][quote name='blackshoe' date='Dec 7 2009, 05:15 PM'] Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info[QUOTE]All proposals must include:
a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid
Submissions missing these details will not be approved. [/QUOTE]
It is a first step.
After you will submit your proposal with all requested details you will receive the reply that submitions with size more than 1 page will not be approved.
Back to step 1.
Been there.[/QUOTE]
did you try a 4 point font