TimG

What would be the incentive for players to submit good defenses under your proposal? Suppose the XYZ 2D is submitted and I have what I consider a good defense to the method. If I wait out the six months and nothing as good as my defense comes along, I have an advantage over the field when this method is played. Earlier this week, I posted two methods in the "General Bridge" section and asked what people had for defenses. There didn't seem to be much interest and the defenses that people did post were not nearly complete. Why would it be any different if those methods were submitted to an official at ACBL and open to six-month review? Even if there is a review process of the submitted defenses so that in order for a method to be approved an adequate defense (in the opinion of the committee) must be submitted, there is incentive to submit a defense that will just meet the requirements rather than one that might approach best. And, we'd really be back to where we were when the C&C Committee was reviewing all submissions. This kind of secretiveness regarding defenses has been in play for quite some time. Some of the methods that have been submitted to the C&C Committee have been played in World Championships. At least one member of the C&C Committee has been responsible for generating defenses for ACBL teams playing against those methods in WC play. Yet, when the methods were submitted to the C&C Committee, that member did not whip out the WC defense and put it in the defense database. I honestly do not think the C&C Committee members should be required to share the work they did in preparation for WC play, but it does highlight that the fact that there is little incentive for players to submit good defenses. It may also be the case that the WC defenses are considered too complicated for ACBL's rank and file. But, there again, you have a criteria that would have to be judged by the committee. What if the only adequate defenses submitted during the six month period were deemed too complicated?

A NFL team's offense must meet certain rules, things like a minimum number of men on the line of scrimmage and certain players must be set at the time of the hike. This, to me, is similar to system restrictions in bridge. Also worth noting is that the NFL and CFL (Canadian Football League) have different rules, but both are still football.

Normal tempo after a skip bid should involve a pause whether or not there has been a skip bid warning or stop card used. I think one problem with the stop card is that by using it only after skip bids there is an implication that only those auctions are tempo sensitive.

Yes, that is now covered more generally by #6: It is covered more strictly by specifying that "both majors" now requires 5/4+. Before you could use 4/4 as both majors. Perhaps I misused "generally". But, previously one could not open 2♣ to show the majors (and 10+) or 2♣ to show diamonds and hearts (and 10+), but could open 2♦ to show the majors (and 10+). It was an obvious exception for Flannery 2♦. Now all suits are treated equally as far as two-level openings that show two known suits and 10+ points. It was, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

Yes, that is now covered more generally by #6:

I know you did not ask, but I think you should design your system so that you can open 1♠ with ♠QJTxx ♥KQx ♦AJxx ♣x (and especially ♠QJTxx ♥x ♦AJxx ♣KQx) for the preemptive value. That is, with a minimum opening bid, you want to open your highest ranking 4+-card suit rather than strictly follow the second-longest-first canape principle.

I don't believe that a 1NT response to 1S must be forcing to be legal in GCC events. I cannot find a specific item on the GCC that allows a non-forcing 1NT response to 1S, but neither can I find a specific item that allows a non-forcing 1NT response to 1H, 1D or 1C.

The C&C Committee is responsible for more than just the convention charts, even if you think there should be no system regulation, the committee would still be needed. I think you are in a very small minority if you think there should be no system regulation. The vocal supporters of a more permissive environment generally agree that there should be some regulation even in top flight competition. Most, I think, have little problem with regulation at lower levels. They (we) may think it should be more consistent, but we agree that it is necessary.

Google maps says Rochester to Boston is a 6 hour drive.

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/MartelStansby.jpg ACCESS FORBIDDEN One of the reasons NABCs move around the country is to make it affordable for most people to attend them sometimes. Hopefully, that will happen for you. In my experience, it is not the travel (airfare) that makes a NABC expensive.

Yes, I was asking about a FD CC.

a tournament, I suppose. Ah, that obvious. I thought maybe it was some sort of club for tournaments.

I'm looking for an answer to this question, too.

What's a "tr"?

I have corresponded with members of the committee regarding convention approval and minutes. Conventions is only a part of what the C&C Committee is responsible for and is generally dealt with by a small sub-committee.

Are these the kind of defenses that partnerships with system notes have? Although I wouldn't expect quite the detail required by ACBL for inclusion in the Defense Database, I expected more detailed agreements. I do understand that some of the defense can be covered by meta agreements, but still I expected more. Not that I am complaining about the quality/quantity. Part of this exercise was to find out what kinds of agreements people who play in more permissive environments have and part of it was to start toward a complete defense that could be submitted for approval by ACBL. For the latter, I was fully aware that I would have to put things together.

That comment was facetious (about how I'll never learn), and my bid was both abnormal for me and completely tactical. I believe I was 2272 that hand. I also mentioned in my first post in this thread that I think it's wrong to upgrade into 2NT in these tournament. I hadn't read your first post in this thread (or at least don't remember reading it). I thought you might not have been serious about the 2NT opening, I can't imagine GIB not bidding to a too high level after mis-describing by an Ace, but well sometimes strange things are right in these tournaments.

I was referring to this.

How many non-passouts? The most I've managed to play is 19. The most deals I've played is 34 (with 17 passouts). I tend to open balanced hands only if I would accept an invite, so a minimum of 16+-17. But, it is frustrating getting passed out there so I've been thinking about bumping that up a tad. I read in one thread or another that you sometimes open these ~17-18 point hands 2NT. Are you still doing that? How is your success now compared to when you had the challenge match with Justin?

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....

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.

Nice wording. :) Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts? For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol. A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

So, you can bid a natural 2♥ directly, but not a natural 2♠? Does this mean that 2♦-P-2/3♥-P, P-2/3♠ is also natural? After a natural 2♥, are spade bids cue-bids or natural? After 2♦-2♠-P, where 2♠ is takeout for the minors, is 2N by advancer natural, some sort of good/bad, or something of a scramble (asking intervenor to bid his longer minor)? How strong or weak can this minor suit takeout be? Is 3M by advancer a cue-bid or natural or a stopper showing?

Shouldn't you switch 2♥ and 2♠ so that intervenor bids the suit/fragment that he has, leaving open the possibility of playing in 2M? Or, do you mean for these to be forcing to the three-level?

The defense listed on that page is: "It's generally best to sit back and then double them at the three level!" Much as I'd like to submit that defense to ACBL's C&C Committee, I'm quite confident that it would be rejected! Does anyone have a more detailed defense? :)