TimG

What is the temptation we are supposed to be resisting?

Sort of like this? It used to be very active, but doesn't appear to be anymore. You'll need to allow challenges more than 2 or 3 rungs up, otherwise you will have a very difficult time scheduling matches. I think a great idea would be a team league night. Teams sign up by a certain hour and commit to x boards (maybe over multiple matches) or a certain amount of time. You'd want to keep a league roster so that people don't sign-up and disappear.

In the ACBL, I think appeals are recorded only at the NABC level. There may be some districts that also record appeals, but I suspect if there are there are only a very few. In short, in ACBL-land, an appeal does not record the incident.

Law16A: So indeed what he said is not really the law. Choosing an alternative that isn't logical is not choosing "from among logical alternative actions". So what am I missing? I reiterate that I think it's normal to rule as he is saying, and I agree that what he says is how things should be. I'm just looking for any legal backup... I understand exactly what you are saying. I think the answer lies in a liberal interpretation of "logical" meaning more along the lines of "possible". I suppose any insufficient bid would be illogical...

Law16A:

Yeah, I used to think along those lines. But, I've been told (and it makes sense) that you can't escape the situation by picking an illogical alternative. Here is how it was put to me recently by David Stevenson on RGB: me> If the action taken is DBL, doesn't it matter whether DBL is a logical me> alternative? DS> No. This has been discussed many, many times, in forums, on BLML, DS> and here. There are various different ways to look at the legalities, DS> but the effect is simple: if you choose A, and B is an LA, and A is DS> suggested over B by the UI, you adjust. Whether A is an LA is DS> irrelevant.

What would be "favorable" about the outcome? A committee determination that you were right and they were wrong? I agree that your standing in the event is not the only criteria. The last place pair/team ought to bring forth an appeal if the result of the appeal could have an affect on the placing of teams in the overalls. But, in a KO match where the winner plays on and the loser goes home this is not a consideration.

Committees are generally made up of volunteers who cut short dinner breaks or remain at the game later than usual in order to serve. It doesn't seem right to me to ask for a committee to be convened for the sole purpose of educating a director. In an ideal world, directors would record these situations for peer review at a later time and in a manner that would not inconvenience committee members. In fact, I would view a player pursuing an appeal just to prove a point to a director as rather frivolous and imagine that it could be construed as a violation of the Laws or of ACBL regulations (this case was in an ACBL event, I believe). In the case at hand, I believe the director should have ruled in favor of the non-offending side and left the burden of appeal on the offending side. How to better educate directors to rule in such a manner is a good question. But, I do not believe the answer involves convening more committees. Tim

I used to think that way. But, I have been convinced that the Laws require me to make consideration at the table. L16A includes "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". And, L16A2 is titled "When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen" indicating that selecting such an alternative is actually "illegal" rather than the proper course of action, expecting it to be sorted out later.

I agree. But, par is +200 and you can achieve that by defending 3NT. So, it doesn't seem to me like a disaster not to bid 4♠.

Isn't 3NT down two on a normal spade lead? That's just as good as defending 5DX. I do think a negative double with the south hand is criminal.

Maybe the facts aren't quite right: south intended 4C as a cue-bid, understood north's 4D bid as a cue-bid and bid the grand. I generally don't like speculating that the poster has somehow changed the facts to make the problem more interesting, but if the committee got this wrong on the facts as laid out...well, even in a Flight B GNT they should be able to work out the correct ruling. Actually, I expect the result of this appeal would not have made a difference in the outcome of the match, so it never went to committee. Then again, two people have answered the poll in favor of NS, one indicating that an appeal by EW would be without merit.

Doesn't a poem about God and baseball have to start: "In the big inning"?

Duplimating is a separate job. It could be done by (one of) the directors, but it usually isn't. The directors are supposed to check one board from each set to make sure there isn't a set which has been forgotten, but that's about it. (I was also told to check the boards are in the right order, since if they aren't it's possible they've been given the wrong hands.) Of course you do actually have to get someone to make up the boards, which is why it costs about $10 per set. I think as a practical matter, in an ACBL Regional tournament, the directors would be responsible for duplication. If the District is responsible for hire extra personnel to operate the machines, that would be unattractive to the District (extra cost).

I played a local club game with a pick-up partner recently and agreed to play Gerber, sure that it would never come up. It did. Turns out my partner thought (probably still thinks) that the responses to Gerber were: 4♦=1 ace; 4♥=2 aces; 4♠=3 aces; 4N=4 aces. I suggested: 4♦=0 or 4; 4♥=1; 4♠=2; 4N=3. He said he'd never heard of that and had always played it the other way. Many years ago I was playing with my wife (probably before she was my wife), I opened 1N and heard (yes, before bidding boxes) this uncontested auction: 1N-3♠; 4♠-4♣*; 4♦**-4N***;... * My RHO passed this without hesitation ** Not quite sure what is going on but, I do have the ♦A *** Can't you just tell me how many aces you have? We ended up in 6♠, making. When I put dummy down there were some odd looks (4♦ was not the correct response to Gerber, you see). After the hand was over, partner and RHO both asked why I hadn't responded properly to Gerber. I told them I wasn't sure that an insufficient 4♣ was Gerber. This received even more odd looks...they still hadn't recognized that there had been an insufficient bid. Anyway, Gerber is a tricky convention.

How long does it take to rearrange matches once you know for certain how many teams/pairs/individuals will show up? I would suggest a mandatory check-in 15 minutes prior to game time so that the organizers have an accurate count of entrants and can arrange the game from there (assuming 15 minutes is enough). Teams that miss the check-in could be included if accommodation is easy, otherwise a "sorry, the movements is set based upon the number of confirmed entries". I think it is a fact of online life that some people will treat a sign-up as an intention to play, but not a commitment to play. I don't think your efforts will be served well by blacklisting any player who signs up and misses the game.

I don't know about the change in routine, but I do know about extra work. When dealing machines are in use, the directing staff would be responsible for the duplication. Given that the status quo is for players to duplicate in pair games and for there to be no duplication in team events, it shouldn't be hard to see why the directing staff would not be enthusiastic about a move to dealing machines.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion initially, but how often do you really buy the contract for 2 of a minor? Maybe preempting the opponents a little more by bidding 2♠ for light takeout of hearts (for example) causes the opponents enough trouble that it's worth the risk? It's not a matter of being able to buy the contract for 2m, but rather a matter of not being forced to 3m where the opponents may be more willing to double you.

It is called Vasilevsky, I believe.

I'm a member of District 25. But, that doesn't mean there aren't 24 Districts.

A dealing machine?

If your opponents are playing canapé, wouldn't you rather they open 1♥ to show 4+ spades (with the possibility of a longer side suit) than open 1♠ with that hand? They've handed you an extra bid, namely a 1♠ overcall. The transfer opening is easier to defend against, not in terms of familiarity but in terms of available bids. You have hit upon a very frustrating item: those on the C&C Committee are legislating through their refusal to approve defenses or restricting the approved defenses to 12+ board segments. In my opinion, if a method is allowed under the mid-chart, a defense should be approved (as long as it is complete). And, the decision about which events to allow the method in should not be made by the C&C Committee, but rather by the organization that decides which convention chart will apply to which of their events.

When the minimum gets to a certain point the non-forcing transfer opening is considered to be destructive or randomizing. ACBL (or those on the C&C Committee) do not want to risk crossing that point.

I like to bash on the ACBL for overly restrictive convention rules as much as next guy, but that's just wrong. You absolutely can open 1♦ showing 10-15 and anything you want under the sun! Forcing, non-forcing, 4+♥, whatever is fine and it's all GCC straight from the chart - and also might have diamonds and hence doesn't meet this test. It's not just about the point range. While you may be correct about the use of 1♦ to show this specific hand type (not quite an "all-purpose" opening), I believe it would be accurate to say that you can use a 1♠ opening to show 4+ spades and 10-15 HCP in a GCC event, but you cannot use a 1♥ opening to show the same 4+ spades and 10-15 HCP. In my opinion, if your interpretation of the "all-purpose" clause is correct, this highlights a general problem with the convention charts, namely their inconsistency. Why would a 1♦ transfer opening be allowed in a GCC event while a 1♥ transfer opening is not? Nearly identical treatments ought to be treated in nearly identical ways. No arguments about familiarity should hold water -- can you say that you have run across 1♦ transfer opening in GCC events? Nor should any argument that one is easier to defend against than the other be taken seriously (they both appear trivially easy to defend against despite the C&C Committee's decision to limit the mid-chart approved 1♥ transfer opening to games with 12+ board segments).

I can tell you from personal experience that the primary reason that the former is allowed and the latter is not is that the transfer opening is not forcing. I spent a lot of time (with Richard) trying to get the transfer opening approved. I did manage to get a defense approved for a single transfer opening. You can find it here. Notice that in the description of the method it says that "The 1♥ transfer opening is forcing to 1♠; it may not be passed." That was a necessary requirement imposed by the C&C Committee without which a defense would not have been approved. Also of note, is that this method, which should be trivial to defend against, is limited to events 12+ board segments/rounds. Jan Martel is the one who told me that 2♣ Multi is harder to defend than 2♦ Multi, and when she told me this, she had recently spent considerable time with her husband preparing defenses for a World Championship. Whether or not we agree, it would seem an opinion that should not be dismissed out of hand.