awm, on Apr 1 2010, 05:12 PM, said:
JanM, on Apr 1 2010, 06:40 PM, said:
I happen to have the "inside information" that this method is not Midchart legal and that Superchart methods require advance submission of a recommended defense.
....
Did I get a more favorable ruling than my opponents because all the directors know me (of course they do, I'm always there doing Vugraph)? Because I'm famous? Because I'm married to someone famous? Or was it because I know the rules and wasn't willing to let my opponents completely ignore them?
I wouldn't say this is exactly a matter of knowing the rules. It's more a matter of the director believing that you know the rules, which I think is influenced in part by your being involved with USBF and/or your husband's involvement with the committees that make these rules.
To explain, the director probably lacks a way to verify your "inside information." You told him that you know this bid is illegal, and he ruled accordingly. If I were to encounter the exact same situation you did and do the exact same thing, the director simply would not believe that I have "inside information." He would look at the charts, which are extremely unclear about this issue, and make a ruling (which would quite possibly be that the bid is allowed).
No, I didn't tell the director what the rules are; I just called and explained that they were playing 2
♥ as weak with hearts and any other suit. True, I might not have called if I didn't know the rules, but I didn't tell the director that the bid was not allowed, I simply told him they were playing it. And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read, but the Midchart now SPECIFICALLY lists allowed bids, and 2
♥ showing hearts and any other suit (as opposed to hearts and a minor) isn't listed, so it's easy to ascertain that it isn't a Midchart method. The rules about submitting a description and defense for Superchart methods are clearly set forth in the Superchart and the Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt. I am confident that if anyone else against whom this method was being used had called the director, they would have received the same ruling. The problem is that other people didn't call.
Quote
To take things a step further, suppose that you were to call the director about an issue like this and your "inside information" were actually incorrect. I'm not suggesting you would do this deliberately, but it's possible that what you believe to be the rule has been recently changed, or that you misremembered and stated (say) Chip's opinion rather than official policy. I am almost completely certain that the director would still rule in your favor and ban your opponents from playing the method in question! After all, these rules are very ambiguous and your "inside information" is probably more reliable than anything else the director can get his hands on easily.
All I can say is you're nuts. In fact, a few years ago, when there was some ambiguity about whether weird methods were allowed against a 1
♣ opening that could be 2, I called the director when an opponent played (1
♣)-2
♥ as weak with either Major. The director ruled against me. And again, these rules aren't ambiguous, whatever you think.
Quote
At the same time, opponents can get around my complaint that their methods are a non-game-forcing relay system by saying "it's not a relay" without further discussion! The fact is that quite often the director has to decide who to believe. This decision is made based on who the people are, and not what the rules say, if only because the rules tend to be incomplete as written with a lot of "inside information" floating around.
I apologize for using the words "inside information" - I put them in quotes to try (apparently unsuccessfully) to make it clear that the information wasn't in fact anything secret. It ISN'T inside information what is allowed, and it is actually easy to tell what is allowed under the Midchart. Whether something is a "relay system" is of course not so clear. But I strongly disagree that decisions about things like that are made based on who is asking for a ruling.
Jan Martel, who should probably state that she is not speaking on behalf of the USBF, the ACBL, the WBF Systems Committee, or any member of any Systems Committee or Laws Commission.