[junyi_zhu]

Rossoneri, on Apr 2 2010, 01:21 AM, said:

I am totally losing the point of this thread and I think it's rather unfair to accuse any of the directors of bias.

As it seems that despite at least a few different people posting, there still seems to be a lot of speculation, so I am going to make this clearer.

These were the facts put to me by Ng:
- Part of what transpired was due to miscommunications/misunderstandings as to the position of the players regarding the use of the multi 2D
- They would have agreed to weak 2s if they knew opponents had a problem with multi 2D (They pre-alerted the multi to opponents before every round)
- The Singapore team had difficulty accessing printing resources so they adopted this stance, also Ng copied out the defence from the ACBL website in the morning before the match
- Admittedly, he should have gotten this prepared before flying over to the US
- Against Nickell-Katz, Nickell took out a file with a defence and said they were playing that
- Against Meckwell, they pre-alerted and offered their handwritten copy of the defence as well, but there was no director call until a board where one of them actually opened with a multi 2D.
- Meckwell suggested they should get a Procedural Penalty for the use of multi (Ng was slightly put off at this.)
- Director tried to find printed copies of the defence, could not find any, and allowed them to used weak 2s for the rest of the match.

Only from bridge point of view, it's probably better for Ng's team to play pure weak 2 against Meckwell IMO. Multi-2D is not an effective convention against them. The space multi-2D saved for them to bid 2H/S can occur rather infrequently in that match and a natural 2D weak can occur more frequently. Anyway, I am off topic.

[MFA]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

MFA, on Apr 2 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

In Denmark we say "have a bisquit" if someone is quick to cry.

Why was this problem not solved at the beginning of the set? I mean, did Meckwell intend to use the provided defense or not? If yes, without even examining it? How can they possibly have a problem now?

If they spotted the legibility problem from the start (which we can't be sure of but it is very likely) I think it is grossly inappropriate to wait to addressing it until the bid comes up.

Unless something specific in the regulations told me otherwise, I would rule that Meckwell then had accepted the defense as it was (that is provided that we knew that they were aware at the start of the set) and I would have allowed the opponents to play the convention throughout the set.

It seems to me that Meckwell perhaps should have been awarded a bisquit in this situation.

You admit you can't be sure of what happened, but are making rulings and handing out bisquits.

I'm sure glad to not be meckwell, how annoying it would be for everyone to presume they know everything about me, including what I'm thinking at times when the assumers aren't even there.

Making hypothetical rulings and handing out bisquits. I'm very sorry, if you find a bisquit too offensive, and yes it must be annoying to be the top professional players of a game and have everybody have all sorts of unqualified opinions about you, your game and everything.

We must be able to discuss such things as this incident even when we don't have all facts for sure. As long as it's done with due respect for the players. I have plenty of respect for Meckwell in all aspects and have no intention of degrading them in any way, and I don't think I did by potentially awarding them a bisquit.

[jdonn]

Sorry if I misinterpreted the concept of a bisquit. All I know is your explanation, which seemed to me like the equivalent of calling them crybabies.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on Apr 2 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

What happens when the provided defence contains options and the oppoents accept the legible defence without choosing between the options?

W: 2♦
N: What's that?
E: Multi: weak two in M ...
N: Oh yes, you provided a defence didn't you.
(N read defence, finds the call that best describes his hand.)
N: Partner, we will use option 2.
N: 2♠ (or whatever)



As this is an ACBL scenario, should it be "defense"?

What you describe would contravene at least one law, wouldn't it?

As I understand it, you are expected to choose which defence you are using before the auction starts, or, if you don't, hope that you each select the same defence.

I can vaguely remember a ruling involving someone who received the UI that his parter was loooking at a particular page of the book (in the days when there was a book), so therefore he knew which of the two defences they were playing.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

It is completely unfair to Meckwell to expect them to be "good sports" or to waive any possible penalties when the opponents have committed an infraction.

Agree.

But what they have allegedly done here is not merely failing do be good sports. It is completely outrageous behavior and it would be unacceptable no matter who they were.

It is not at all comparable to taking the maximum advantage of a lead penalty, something which has technical merrits. What is discussed in this thread has no technical merrits. It is pure psychological war.

The Dutch BF magazine ("Bridge") has a sarcastic monthly column (Coba's Corner). Once "Coba" wrote that she had been asked to give some guidance in table manners. She began the column with "if you want to win, above all don't be too well-behaved. Do what you can to distract and intimedidate the opponents. One of the members of the ladie's team once threw a cup of coffee in the lap of an opponent. That is a good trick which you might like to practice".

This is at the same level.

[Bbradley62]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

All I know is your explanation, which seemed to me like the equivalent of calling them crybabies.

I don't see that there's any other way to read it.

[Bbradley62]

helene_t, on Apr 2 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

It is completely unfair to Meckwell to expect them to be "good sports" or to waive any possible penalties when the opponents have committed an infraction.

Agree.

But what they have allegedly done here is not merely failing do be good sports. It is completely outrageous behavior and it would be unacceptable no matter who they were.

"[U]nacceptable" to whom? Apparently not to the on-site director who was responsible for enforcing the rules of the event and who (presumably) knew all of the facts of the case.

[Dirk Kuijt]

JanM said:

And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read ...

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so.

I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say.

[JanM]

Dirk Kuijt, on Apr 2 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

JanM said:

And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read ...

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so.

I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say.

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't. The Superchart is pretty simple.

[jdonn]

JanM, on Apr 2 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Uhhh....

Midchart said:

ALLOWED
1. All of the ACBL General Convention Chart.
...

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Apr 2 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

For what its worth, we have clear proof showing the senior regulators issuing completely inconsistent - and in some cases completely incoherent - rulings.

Are the charts really that unambiguous?
Alternatively, is the senior staff mentally challenged?

Perhaps there is some other explanation?
Maybe Memphis just likes dicking with people...

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2010, 03:17 PM, said:

JanM, on Apr 2 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

[cherdanno]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

JanM, on Apr 2 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

Lol.

Maybe you can explain why Michael Schumacher made a comeback in a second-rate car?

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Apr 3 2010, 02:11 AM, said:

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

You made a specific claim: The Midchart "has has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't."

I don't think that claim is remotely true. As evidence, I noted that two of the most senior members of the ACBL had completely inconsistent interpretations regarding a fairly trivial example.

From the sounds of things, you're modifying your claim. You seem to be saying that there is there is a clear understanding what is/is not legal at the Midchart/Superchart level. However, even this claim falls flat:

You brought forth the following example:

Quote

On the first day of the Vanderbilt, one of my opponents was playing Polish 2♥ (a 2♥ opening bid is weak with 5+ hearts and 5+ in any other suit). 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.

We have rulings from Memphis that state the following:

Quote

Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically mentioned is allowed.

A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed.

This isn't a random opinion from some random Tournament Director.

This was an official ruling from an Associate National Tournament director, serving in his capacity as "Rulings@ACBL.org".

For what its worth, I think that Flader got this completely wrong.
I agree with your interpretation that this bid is only legal at the Superchart level.

Where I disagree is your assertion that any of this can be considered "clear"...

[Dirk Kuijt]

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

1. I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list. It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be. When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits. (That is a problem.)

2. When I eventually did find "Charts, Rules and Regulations" the rules for Mid-chart, or any other list weren't apparent to me. I did eventually click on something which was called convention charts, having tried alert charts and changes to the laws of duplicate bridge first; this is apparently the right answer. (Yes, I know, I'm stupid. I should have figured that out first. Remember, they all look easy when you know the answer.).

3. I get to a page marked, "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART". However, that wasn't what I was looking for. Hmm. Oh, yes, I see. I have to scroll down.

4. Finally, I'm at least looking at the regulations (I think). I'm trying to find out if a method of mine is legal. (Don't ask if this is a good idea, that is a totally separate question.) Opener bids 1 ♦, showing at least 4 diamonds and a traditional opening hand. Responder's 1♥ shows 6-15 without 5 spades, or 5 ♥ and 12 HCP, or without 5 ♣ and 12 HCP or 5 ♦ and 12 HCP. That is, a catch all with some values, but not spades, and not a really strong hand. Hmm. This is not a relay system that promises game forcing values (which is allowed). On the other hand, it is not a relay system that doesn't promise game forcing values (which is not allowed) IMHO, since there are many bids that are not relays. Double Hmm. This doesn't seem to be fish nor fowl. It is not a destructive method; that seems clear. It is not a forcing pass method. There are no psychics nor psychic controls. So, the things which are clearly forbidden don't apply. But, is this a "relay system" or not? I can't tell.

JanM entered into this discussion and was, I'm sure, genuinely trying to be helpful. I'm not trying to get after her (really, I'm not). I know that she didn't write the rules nor create the ACBL website.

But the regulations aren't clear to me, and I don't know what to do about it. (Of course, there is always the answer "Back away from the drawing board. Don't do things that are questionable according to our rules and you won't get into trouble. Be a good little boy and don't make waves; original thinking by peons is out of place here; we know what is best for you, and that is to play as your father did. Concentrate on improving your card play, and forget about original thinking in bidding. Some of your betters might devise better methods. We'll decide about that, and, if so, maybe we'll let you play them, sometime." For some reason, I find that approach patronizing and offensive.)

It isn't all that easy to find the regulations and it definitely isn't easy to interpret them (to be sure, it is hard to write regulations covering this, which is why I think they shouldn't try).

[CSGibson]

Dirk Kuijt, on Apr 2 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

1.  I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list.  It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be.  When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits.  (That is a problem.)

Funny, I did a search for mid chart and it was my first hit.

Here is the link.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Also the link for my search

http://googlemini.acbl.org/search?site=ACB...dtd&q=mid+chart

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

JanM, on Apr 3 2010, 02:11 AM, said:

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

You made a specific claim: The Midchart "has has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't."

I don't think that claim is remotely true. As evidence, I noted that two of the most senior members of the ACBL had completely inconsistent interpretations regarding a fairly trivial example.

But your example is about the GCC - and if you would READ what I said, you would see that I did not claim the GCC was clear or easy to understand. What I claimed, and continue to claim, is that the methods allowed by the Midchart are now set forth clearly.

I assume that you aren't seriously arguing that a 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with hearts and any other suit is either GCC or Midchart legal, so I'm not rising to that bait.

[JanM]

Dirk Kuijt, on Apr 2 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

1.  I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list.  It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be.  When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits.  (That is a problem.)

2.  When I eventually did find "Charts, Rules and Regulations" the rules for Mid-chart, or any other list weren't apparent to me.  I did eventually click on something which was called convention charts, having tried alert charts and changes to the laws of duplicate bridge first; this is apparently the right answer.  (Yes, I know, I'm stupid.  I should have figured that out first.  Remember, they all look easy when you know the answer.).

I also had a hard time finding the convention charts when I first looked for them - I don't know who organized the ACBL website, but I do know that it isn't easy to organize a website so that people are able to find what they're looking for. The USBF is enough smaller than the ACBL that the website organizer (me) is also the one who has to answer questions when people can't find things, and this has taught me that what appears obvious to me isn't obvious to others. "Do you have any information about next year's Trials?" is a very common question. I thought a menu item named "Future Trials" would be sufficiently obvious that people wouldn't have to ask that question, but it isn't. Presumably, whoever set up the ACBL website thought "Charts, Rules & Regulations" was clear, but it isn't.

Quote

3. I get to a page marked, "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART".  However, that wasn't what I was looking for.  Hmm.  Oh, yes, I see.  I have to scroll down.

4.  Finally, I'm at least looking at the regulations (I think).  I'm trying to find out if a method of mine is legal.  (Don't ask if this is a good idea, that is a totally separate question.)  Opener bids 1 ♦, showing at least 4 diamonds and a traditional opening hand.  Responder's 1♥ shows 6-15 without 5 spades, or 5 ♥ and 12 HCP, or without 5 ♣ and 12 HCP or 5 ♦ and 12 HCP.  That is, a catch all with some values, but not spades, and not a really strong hand.  Hmm.  This is not a relay system that promises game forcing values (which is allowed).  On the other hand, it is not a relay system that doesn't promise game forcing values (which is not allowed) IMHO, since there are many bids that are not relays.  Double Hmm.  This doesn't seem to be fish nor fowl.  It is not a destructive method; that seems clear.  It is not a forcing pass method.  There are no psychics nor psychic controls.  So, the things which are clearly forbidden don't apply.  But, is this a "relay system" or not?  I can't tell.

I would have thought that "All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:" was pretty clear. And also that one bid doesn't make a "system" so the restriction on "relay systems" wouldn't apply to this bid. Admittedly, people disagree about whether something is a "relay system" or not, but that's usually in the context of extensive relays, not one bid that has several meanings.

Quote

JanM entered into this discussion and was, I'm sure, genuinely trying to be helpful.  I'm not trying to get after her (really, I'm not).  I know that she didn't write the rules nor create the ACBL website. 

But the regulations aren't clear to me, and I don't know what to do about it.  (Of course, there is always the answer "Back away from the drawing board.  Don't do things that are questionable according to our rules and you won't get into trouble.  Be a good little boy and don't make waves; original thinking by peons is out of place here; we know what is best for you, and that is to play as your father did.  Concentrate on improving your card play, and forget about original thinking in bidding.  Some of your betters might devise better methods.  We'll decide about that, and, if so, maybe we'll let you play them, sometime."  For some reason, I find that approach patronizing and offensive.)

It isn't all that easy to find the regulations and it definitely isn't easy to interpret them (to be sure, it is hard to write regulations covering this, which is why I think they shouldn't try).

But unless they are going to allow unlimited methods, which even the most vehement here don't really propose, there need to be some regulations. And yes, it's hard to write regulations. I tried to improve on the ACBL regulations for the USBF Conditions of Contest and discovered just how hard.

[helene_t]

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

[mohitz]

helene_t, on Apr 3 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

lol.. perhaps the ACBL convention regulation issues are more important than global warming issues!