[JanM]

Phil, on Dec 13 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

Of course, that's not the best defense, although it is clearly the simplest and most intuitive. Best (IMO) is to play that DBL is T/O of the suit shown and the cuebid is Michaels.

[h2osmom]

I really like the idea of the measures Jan suggested for transparency as she outlined them. Jan also stated as a reason for not using the method that the WBF uses is that most people don't do the preparation prior to playing, of looking at posted methods and defenses. To that I would say something along the line of, once burned, twice shy. Of course it's entirely possible that a major event, like a Bermuda Bowl will be played with top players having to scramble to defend against some methods. Maybe even probable. But once that happens, those players will decide whether or not they want to be in that position again. Also, these competitions are watched extensively by the players who are likely to be in future top competitions. So, once it happens a time or 2, people will either learn to check the posted methods, or to be prepared for the unknown. All transition is somewhat painful. That doesn't mean the change is wrong.

[TimG]

Phil, on Dec 13 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Richard, I know you haven't mentioned Moscito specifically, but I think the future bodes well for you.

A few years ago, transfer walsh was greeted with comments like, "an artificial 1♥ call showing spades"? WTF am I supposed to do over THAT? As players found that it isn't that difficult to play double = hearts and 1♥ = TOx, it became routine to defend against it.

I see no reason why the same cannot be true for a 1♥ opening.

I do not share your optimism. A few years ago I submitted a defense to a 1♥ opening which showed a Standard American 1♠ opening. The defense was approved (for 12+ board segments) and included in the Defense Database.

Over a year ago, I submitted a defense to a 1♦ opening bid which showed a Standard American 1♥ opening. I used the exact same defense as was approved for the 1♥ transfer opening (except for where the difference between having shown hearts vs spades was important). After much deliberation (or at least many meetings) the defense to the 1♦ transfer opening was rejected and the existing defense to the 1♥ transfer opening was removed from the Defense Database. (It hasn't been removed from the Defense Database at the ACBL site, but the Committee Chair told me that was the decision of the Committee.)

The C&C Committee is very aware of the slippery slope between Standard American transfer openings and MOSCITO transfer openings. Discussions with former C&C Committee members (when they were still committee members) made it clear that they did not want to approve methods that would give MOSCITO a foot in the door.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response. I know you think that adequate defenses have been submitted. But the defenses that have been submitted haven't been complete.

Jan, do you want me to repost the letters from Conventions Committee members saying that they don't want the METHODS to be allowed in North America and (essentially) state that they won't approve any defense?

If you want, I can try to dredge up the inane requests that Chip was making like explaining every possible response to hypothetical situations three or four rounds into the auction. Then there were all the lovely explanations that this isn't good enough, but not constructive information what-so-ever about what type of changes were necessary. It got to be bit much for me, especially given the crap that the committee was approving as defenses against any one of a number of different bids.

Your husband might enjoy playing asinine little passive aggressive games. I got feed up with it after a couple years.

Of course, the entire point is now moot since the Conventions Committee eliminate the clause in the Midchart that sanctioned transfer opening bids at the one level. In some ways, its almost a relief. Nice that they finally had the balls to do something openly. (In case you don't recall, this was the same Midchart revision from a ways back that you explained really wouldn't have an impact on the methods that folks were able to play)

For what its worth, if the Conventions Committee were to sanction transfer openings on the Mid-Chart, it might help convince people that they were actually willing to approve a defense...

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response.

It is not as easy to defend against a natural opening bid as it is against a transfer opening bid.

In the worst case you can make all of your bids (calls) mean the same thing as over a natural bid and then you have at least one extra step (call).

[akhare]

Cascade, on Dec 13 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response.

It is not as easy to defend against a natural opening bid as it is against a transfer opening bid.

In the worst case you can make all of your bids (calls) mean the same thing as over a natural bid and then you have at least one extra step (call).

Indeed -- but if you wait for a while, we will have another long winded explanation about why the increased space creates more permutations and makes it difficult to defend against a (gasp) transfer opening.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that there are no MidChart events around here (with the possible exception of Flight A events and high brackets of KOs (whatever that means) for which no advertising is required. As I don't play in those events, I have no idea whether the MidChart is allowed in them). It also occurs to me that there are no WC players around here. I wonder if there's a correlation? ("Here", btw, is Rochester, NY – District 4, Unit 112 — if anyone cares).

Jan mentions the internet, and says "if somebody could be persuaded to develop a web page..." That's easy - the ACBL has a Webmaster, so it seems likely that if the CandC asks for a particular web page, at least there's somebody in Memphis (or wherever he is) who not only can do it, but whose job it is to do it. A forum like this, or a blog, would it seems to me work well, and be fairly easy to implement and maintain, using software already available, much of it for free.

I'm not sure I understand why there's an ACBL employee in the middle of the path between someone emailing a request for approval of a method and the CandC (the email link on the ACBL website claims, at least, to go to the CandC). Actually, it would probably be best if "candc@acbl.org" were a mailing list to all the members of the committee (here I'm assuming that the members of the approval subcommittee are members of the full CandC, although since the web site's listing of committee members is out of date I'm not sure). And maybe it is such a mailing list, but then how does this employee in Memphis get in the middle of things?

I certainly don't understand the committee's antipathy towards MOSCITO, but it seems to me that's a separate issue from that of the mechanics of the approval process. Or at least, something to be left until after the more fundamental problems are fixed.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

It's not as easy to defend against a transfer opening as it is to defend against a transfer response. I know you think that adequate defenses have been submitted. But the defenses that have been submitted haven't been complete.

Jan, do you want me to repost the letters from Conventions Committee members saying that they don't want the METHODS to be allowed in North America and (essentially) state that they won't approve any defense?

Of course, the entire point is now moot since the Conventions Committee eliminate the clause in the Midchart that sanctioned transfer opening bids at the one level. In some ways, its almost a relief. Nice that they finally had the balls to do something openly. (In case you don't recall, this was the same Midchart revision from a ways back that you explained really wouldn't have an impact on the methods that folks were able to play)

I really don't want to get involved in arguments over history. I'm sure you think the Moscito proponents were reasonable and I'm sure that Chip & Jeff think they were reasonable. Whether the antagonism that arose from all of that will prevent part or all of Moscito from being approved for the Midchart I don't know.

However, I do know that you are wrong that the re-writing of the Midchart changed the rules about what could be aprroved. The Midchart used to contain a list of types of methods that would be Midchart legal if a defense was approved. That list, which was there to provide examples of methods that would be appropriate for the Midchart, confused people (including you, I guess; certainly some directors) into thinking that the listed types of methods were Midchart legal even though no defense had been approved. The Midchart was therefore re-written to list only those methods for which no defense was required (such as defenses to 1NT openings) and methods for which there is an approved defense. That re-writing did not change the general purpose of the Midchart and did not mean that things that had previously been listed as appropriate for Midchart approval weren't. What it (hopefully) did was to make clear to both players and directors which bids are currently legal in Midchart events. Other bids will be added to the list when defenses are approved.

Quote

For what its worth, if the Conventions Committee were to sanction transfer openings on the Mid-Chart, it might help convince people that they were actually willing to approve a defense...

The Midchart doesn't "sanction" methods unless they don't need a defense or there is an approved defense. That transfer openings at the 1-level can be Midchart legal is demonstrated by the fact that there is an approved defense for a 1♥ bid showing a 1 spade opening.

[JanM]

h2osmom, on Dec 13 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

I really like the idea of the measures Jan suggested for transparency as she outlined them.  Jan also stated as a reason for not using the method that the WBF uses is that most people don't do the preparation prior to playing,  of looking at posted methods and defenses.  To that I would say something along the line of,  once burned,  twice shy.  Of course it's entirely possible that a major event, like a Bermuda Bowl will be played with top players having to scramble to defend against some methods.  Maybe even probable.  But once that happens,  those players will decide whether or not they want to be in that position again.  Also,  these competitions are watched extensively by the players who are likely to be in future top competitions.  So,  once it happens a time or 2,  people will either learn to check the posted methods,  or to be prepared for the unknown.  All transition is somewhat painful.  That doesn't mean the change is wrong.

Not surprisingly, I obviously wasn't clear. Richard's suggestion is quite different from what the USBF & WBF do. The reason I discussed the fact that the WBF/USBF method (basically having the players in an event serve as a convention & defense review committee) doesn't work very well was to point out that even when you have very interested parties involved, they don't seem to want to work on reviewing unusual methods and defenses. I therefore don't think that having bridge players at large submit defenses to proposed methods will work. And of course there's also Tim's point that it isn't really in any one particular player's best interest to make sure there's an adequate published defense to a proposed method.

[awm]

People read the old mid-chart as listing a bunch of things that would be legal if a reasonable defense were offered and added to the defense database. Obviously this didn't mean you could just sit down and play transfer openings without an approved defense, but the implication was that the only obstacle to playing them was writing an adequate defense. The reason some folks feel betrayed, is that there is a fair amount of evidence that some members of the committee (in particular Jeff and Chip) were absolutely never going to sanction Moscito-style transfer openings regardless of the defenses submitted for approval. This gave people the impression that the folks on the committee were acting as regulators, deciding which methods should be allowed on the mid chart on the basis of their opinion of the methods, whereas the committee's supposed job was to judge and approve the defenses and not the methods themselves.

The current mid-chart does not give any real indication that it's possible to add more treatments to what's mid-chart legal. So while it does not, in practice, change the set of legal methods... it changes the impression of what's going on substantially. The old impression was that any bid showing a known suit was potentially legal, if only a good defense was proposed. The new impression is that what's allowed now is all there is, and that's the end of the story. There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

As for the "1♥ showing spades" method, this was initially approved, then moved to the "12 board rounds" category, and now apparently is no longer approved (although the mid-chart does not reflect this). Attempts to get a 1♦ opening showing five or more hearts with essentially the same defense approved failed utterly, and without this extra opening bid it's not clear what use the "1♥ showing spades" method would be anyway.

It may also be worth mentioning that a ridiculous standard sometimes seems to be applied to new defenses. If an adequate defense must list all possible follow-up sequences through possibly three or four rounds of the auction, then you could write dozens of pages of defense. This is a standard that no defense in the current database comes close to meeting. And even if someone proposed something that met this ridiculous standard, it'd be easy to argue that "this is not an optimum defense" (who says we have anything remotely close to an optimum defense to a natural 1♣? I doubt we do) or to argue that "this defense is too long/complicated" (which it basically had to be, to cover all those sequences). It's certainly the case that defenses which are substantially more complete than anything in the current database have been rejected as insufficient.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

It occurs to me that there are no MidChart events around here (with the possible exception of Flight A events and high brackets of KOs (whatever that means) for which no advertising is required. As I don't play in those events, I have no idea whether the MidChart is allowed in them). It also occurs to me that there are no WC players around here. I wonder if there's a correlation? ("Here", btw, is Rochester, NY – District 4, Unit 112 — if anyone cares).

I suspect that the actual correlation is a different one, and somewhat chicken and egg: there aren't any WC players because there aren't any WC players. People get better when they play against better players. That's one of the reasons that BBO is so great - you don't have to live where there are better players to have an opportunity to play against them. And of course that's also why a lot of top players come from a few geographic areas.

Quote

Jan mentions the internet, and says "if somebody could be persuaded to develop a web page..." That's easy - the ACBL has a Webmaster, so it seems likely that if the CandC asks for a particular web page, at least there's somebody in Memphis (or wherever he is) who not only can do it, but whose job it is to do it. A forum like this, or a blog, would it seems to me work well, and be fairly easy to implement and maintain, using software already available, much of it for free.

Certainly the someone could well be the ACBL webmaster. I'm working on persuading the defense approval subcommittee and the C&C chair that such a web page would be a better way to handle things than what is now being done. If they agree, hopefully the ACBL webmaster will set up the web page.

I also think it would be better to have a clearer link to where defense submission is discussed and a better explanation about it than is now on the ACBL website. It took me a while to find "Convention and Defense Approval" - it's on the Defense Database page, which I suppose makes sense, but wasn't intuitively obvious to me. I also now understand someone's statement in a thread on here that the defense approval committee isn't approving new things. What is actually said is: "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." That's not a clear sentence, but the "for 2 board segments" is supposed to modify the whole sentence. You're unlikely to get an opening that doesn't promise length in the suit bid (especially if it's weak) approved for 2 board segments. That doesn't mean you won't get it approved for longer segments.

Quote

I'm not sure I understand why there's an ACBL employee in the middle of the path between someone emailing a request for approval of a method and the CandC (the email link on the ACBL website claims, at least, to go to the CandC). Actually, it would probably be best if "candc@acbl.org" were a mailing list to all the members of the committee (here I'm assuming that the members of the approval subcommittee are members of the full CandC, although since the web site's listing of committee members is out of date I'm not sure). And maybe it is such a mailing list, but then how does this employee in Memphis get in the middle of things?

I don't know about all of the members of the approval subcommittee, but I do know that Chip is no longer a member of C&C (for which I am grateful on the first Monday & Tuesday of each NABC when I don't get waked up early). "Candc@acbl.org" goes to an ACBL employee (who it is seems to change over time; I don't know who the current person is), whose job it is to forward emails with proposed defenses to the defense approval committee and to forward emails about other things to the chair of the CandC committee or maybe to someone else who is best able to deal with the question, as well as redirecting emails that should have gone someplace else.

[JanM]

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

The current mid-chart does not give any real indication that it's possible to add more treatments to what's mid-chart legal. So while it does not, in practice, change the set of legal methods... it changes the impression of what's going on substantially. The old impression was that any bid showing a known suit was potentially legal, if only a good defense was proposed. The new impression is that what's allowed now is all there is, and that's the end of the story.

I'm not sure how that could have been avoided without running into what had been happening before (maybe you don't think it was unclear, but I know people who convinced directors that what they wanted to play was "listed on the Midchart" and thus allowed, despite the fact there wasn't an approved defense). The current Midchart includes the following statement, which I would have thought made it clear that new methods could be approved:

Quote

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org
NOTE: Weak artificial openings, or bids which require a defense of more than one page, are unlikely to be approved for two board segments.

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

I think you're getting that from the statement on the Defense Database page that "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." I have already said that I agree that it would be better if the things that had been submitted for approval and the responses to those submissions were public. I think you are wrong that nothing has been added, although you are probably correct that nothing has been added for 2 board rounds.

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

As for the "1♥ showing spades" method, this was initially approved, then moved to the "12 board rounds" category, and now apparently is no longer approved (although the mid-chart does not reflect this). Attempts to get a 1♦ opening showing five or more hearts with essentially the same defense approved failed utterly, and without this extra opening bid it's not clear what use the "1♥ showing spades" method would be anyway.

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

It may also be worth mentioning that a ridiculous standard sometimes seems to be applied to new defenses. If an adequate defense must list all possible follow-up sequences through possibly three or four rounds of the auction, then you could write dozens of pages of defense. This is a standard that no defense in the current database comes close to meeting. And even if someone proposed something that met this ridiculous standard, it'd be easy to argue that "this is not an optimum defense" (who says we have anything remotely close to an optimum defense to a natural 1♣? I doubt we do) or to argue that "this defense is too long/complicated" (which it basically had to be, to cover all those sequences). It's certainly the case that defenses which are substantially more complete than anything in the current database have been rejected as insufficient.

I'm sure that if the standard now being applied were applied to the existing defenses most, if not all, of them would fail. But I think you're also being unrealistic when you say that dealing with subsequent rounds of the auction is always going to be difficult. The best way to provide a defense that people can actually play is to try to get back to something "normal" as quickly as possible. So, for instance, our defense for 2♦ showing Majors, although it's missing a lot, does say that after (2♦)-DBL which is usually a balanced 12-14 HCP hand-(2/3M), the bidding is the same as after 1NT-(2/3M natural). That way the defenders are back on reasonably familiar ground (more familiar for weak NT'ers of course). No one is suggesting that an "optimum" defense is required, just that the defense needs to be adequate and mustn't leave people at sea in the middle of the auction.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

From the defense database:

"SUGGESTED DEFENSE
Treat the opening as a Standard American 1S opening bid and use normal defensive
methods:"

The suggested defense does not even have a meaning for the 1♠ cue-bid overcall.

It is hard to imagine why this needs "more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment".

That argument is so flimsy that I would be willing to speculate that the reality is quite different than that being the real reason for the "12 board round" requirement.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 13 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

So even though we are more than happy to share our defenses with anyone who asks...

I'll bite

A few years back, the following exchange took place on rec.games.bridge

>In article <36q2ke$...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip
>Martel) wrotes:

>> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
>> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
>> prepared to play against that system.

>>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
>>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
>>>standard'.

>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to
>discourage others from playing these methods after all.

Any chance that we could finally see the defense to Polish Club?

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

Quote

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org
NOTE: Weak artificial openings, or bids which require a defense of more than one page, are unlikely to be approved for two board segments.

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

There have been some additional indications that the relevant committee is "no longer considering new proposed methods" and indeed nothing has been added to the defense database in years.

I think you're getting that from the statement on the Defense Database page that "The committee is unlikely to approve requests for artificial openings that do not promise length in the suit bid or any weak openings for 2 board segments." I have already said that I agree that it would be better if the things that had been submitted for approval and the responses to those submissions were public. I think you are wrong that nothing has been added, although you are probably correct that nothing has been added for 2 board rounds.

I cannot speak for Adam, but my impression that new defenses are not being approved for weak openings comes straight from Butch Campbell (who I believe is the person currently responsible for handling submissions).

On June 12, 2009, I submitted a defense to a weak (6-11 HCP) 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a side 5+ card suit. The defense was modeled after the existing approved defense for a weak 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4-card minor (which can be played in events with 2-board segments).

The response from Mr. Campbell was:

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

In follow-up conversation, he added:

"I am sure they will keep your request on file and address it at a later date."

"They" being the C&C Committee. I have, on multiple occasions, asked both Mr. Campbell and Steve Beatty (chair of the C&C Committee) how long this moratorium might last, neither has given me an answer.

Tim

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2009, 11:23 PM, said:

As for the "1♥ showing spades" method, this was initially approved, then moved to the "12 board rounds" category, and now apparently is no longer approved (although the mid-chart does not reflect this). Attempts to get a 1♦ opening showing five or more hearts with essentially the same defense approved failed utterly, and without this extra opening bid it's not clear what use the "1♥ showing spades" method would be anyway.

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

The defense to a 1♥ opening bid which shows spades that is in the Defense Database is:

"Treat the opening as a Standard American 1♠ opening bid and use normal defensive
methods" and then goes on to outline "normal defensive methods". There is one change from "normal defensive methods" and that is using the available 1♠ bid as "mini-Michaels".

Using this approved defense should not require more discussion than there is time for in a short segment. You may argue that the defense is not optimum or ideal and that to defend optimally against this method would require more discussion than there is time for. But, that is a very different thing.

Tim

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

As far as I know it's legal for 12 board rounds. It was approved only for 12 board rounds, along with a bunch of other things, because it needs more discussion than there is time for in a shorter segment.

From the defense database:

"SUGGESTED DEFENSE
Treat the opening as a Standard American 1S opening bid and use normal defensive
methods:"

The suggested defense does not even have a meaning for the 1♠ cue-bid overcall.

Yes, it does.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

However, I do know that you are wrong that the re-writing of the Midchart changed the rules about what could be aprroved. The Midchart used to contain a list of types of methods that would be Midchart legal if a defense was approved. That list, which was there to provide examples of methods that would be appropriate for the Midchart, confused people (including you, I guess; certainly some directors) into thinking that the listed types of methods were Midchart legal even though no defense had been approved. The Midchart was therefore re-written to list only those methods for which no defense was required (such as defenses to 1NT openings) and methods for which there is an approved defense. That re-writing did not change the general purpose of the Midchart and did not mean that things that had previously been listed as appropriate for Midchart approval weren't. What it (hopefully) did was to make clear to both players and directors which bids are currently legal in Midchart events. Other bids will be added to the list when defenses are approved.

Any one care to dredge up the timeline that was produced the last time Jan made these claims?

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

Quote

For what its worth, if the Conventions Committee were to sanction transfer openings on the Mid-Chart, it might help convince people that they were actually willing to approve a defense...

The Midchart doesn't "sanction" methods unless they don't need a defense or there is an approved defense. That transfer openings at the 1-level can be Midchart legal is demonstrated by the fact that there is an approved defense for a 1♥ bid showing a 1 spade opening.

This is a comparatively recent change.

Historically, the Mid-chart described a broad set of conventions that could be played in Mid-chart legal events.

This was (later) amended such that:

If any of your methods were listed in the ACBL Yellow Book, then you must provide a written copy of these defenses to the opposing pair.
Later on, further changes were made, such that (many) methods that were sanctioned by the Mid-chart required an approved defense in the Defensive database.

The latest set of changes removed most of this language. In its current incarnation, the Mid-chart contains a listing of methods that don’t require an approved defense as well as a list of bids for which defenses have been approved.

This version of the Mid-chart provides absolutely no guidance regarding what type of bids are/are not permitted. I guess that intent is that we should develop defenses any/all methods that we might, hypothetically, want to play and the Convention Committee will get back to us if/when they ever decide to accept new submissions.

Brilliant scheme to decrease the workload on the committee, I must say...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

However, I do know that you are wrong that the re-writing of the Midchart changed the rules about what could be aprroved. The Midchart used to contain a list of types of methods that would be Midchart legal if a defense was approved. That list, which was there to provide examples of methods that would be appropriate for the Midchart, confused people (including you, I guess; certainly some directors) into thinking that the listed types of methods were Midchart legal even though no defense had been approved. The Midchart was therefore re-written to list only those methods for which no defense was required (such as defenses to 1NT openings) and methods for which there is an approved defense. That re-writing did not change the general purpose of the Midchart and did not mean that things that had previously been listed as appropriate for Midchart approval weren't. What it (hopefully) did was to make clear to both players and directors which bids are currently legal in Midchart events. Other bids will be added to the list when defenses are approved.

Any one care to dredge up the timeline that was produced the last time Jan made these claims?

Jan's claims here seem accurate to me.

I like the old way where the mid-chart included what were essentially guidelines for what types of methods it could be expected defenses would be approved. (Though that expectation often proved false.) If directors were confused into thinking that the listed types of methods were mid-chart legal even without an approved defense, it would seem easy to fix that through clear wording on the chart and education of directors. It is astounding that the rule was evidently so complicated that ACBL directors could not understand it or could not be bothered to properly understand.