TimG

I could easily have remembered incorrectly, but this thread reinforced my thinking that Tartan Twos were strong with the suit named or weak with the next higher suit. Sorry if I have called the method by the incorrect name. Still, I'm interested in defenses.

Don't your defenses include mention of sequences such as: 2♦-P-2♥-DBL; 2♦-P-2♥-P, P-DBL; 2♦-P-2♥-P, P-2NT; or 2♦-P-P-?

Edit: Sorry I got the name wrong. Recent discussions have me wondering about this method: 2♣ = strong with clubs or weak with diamonds; 2♦ = strong with diamonds or weak with hearts; 2♥ = strong with hearts or weak with spades; 2♠ = strong with spades or weak with clubs; and possible defenses. Does anyone face this or similar and have a devised defense?

Recent discussions have me wondering what are some common defenses to a 2♦ opening which shows a weak hand with the majors. In the US we don't face such opening regularly, so nothing is common or standard, but I'm sure some of you from places with more liberal system regulations must have a variety of defenses. What are the defenses? Does it matter if the opening shows 4+♠/4+♥, 5+♠/4+♥, 4+♠/5+♥ or at least 45 either way?

I believe the number of people who have real interest in this is very small and that they are considered something of a nuisance by those in charge. If a couple of people showed up at the membership meeting and requested minutes for past C&C Committee meetings, they would be met with an attitude along the lines of: these people are volunteers doing a very difficult job, if we insist upon minutes they will have less time to do their job and we will have fewer qualified people who will agree to volunteer. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, just that I believe it is reality.

In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts. They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls. Sorry if I suggested otherwise. Tim Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense? The Midchart has been completely neutered. Its a joke these days. However, a couple years back the Midchart explicitly sanctions any bid that promised 4+ cards in a known suit. I can provide all sorts of examples of Midchart legal bids that were banned by refusing to sanction any kind of defense. I agree and can produce some of my own examples (I know you know that). But, as currently constructed, there aren't methods "clearly inside the mid-chart definition" that are not permitted. Perhaps "inside the original spirit of the mid-chart".

I would suggest that you attempt to create a mid-chart such as you'd like to see. I'd be very interested in seeing what people come up with.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

I think it has been less than a year that they have officially been refusing to look at any new weak preempt submissions, but they may have been refusing for practical purposes a bit longer than that. I know that my last submission was made in April 2008 and acted upon until the Spring 2009 meetings. I believe those Spring 2009 meetings are also when the committee officially decided not to review new weak preemptive methods. I don't believe this committee has produced minutes for their meetings for quite some time, so these things can't be easily verified.

Is there a special place to post GIB "oddities"? Earlier today I experienced this auction: 1♥-DBL-P-2♦ P-? and when I looked at my options found that 2♥ showed 25+, forcing to 3N; and 3D showed 12-14 with 4 diamonds. I had no heart stopper, so 2N or 3N seemed out of line, but there was no option appropriate to show extras without also bypassing 3N.

A big problem is the answer depends upon who they ask. When they ask a director and the director says it is OK to play the method, why should they care what JanM has to say about it? (Because JanM is right, and they know they're wrong, does not factor into it for some people.) I am sure that a defense to a 2♦ opening which is weak with majors has been submitted. I guess it falls into the category of a defense which the committee deemed inadequate. As we both know, there are no objective criteria set out for determining whether or not a defense is adequate. Oh, and it's worth pointing out that the C&C Committee is not currently accepting new submissions for weak preempts, so submitting a defense at this point will not accomplish anything. Tim

From the SuperChart: The chart says only that they must be submitted the day prior, not that they must be approved.

That it was hand written does not mean it did not correspond to one of the defenses in the database. From where did they copy this hand written defense? So, this pair apparently went to the defense database and could not find any defense to the method that a director told them they could use, so they made up their own and tried to pass it off as an approved suggested defense? No, I don't actually mean to suggest this is what the pair did. But the presence of a hand written defense that is not a copy of one in the defense database is evidence that this pair did not make a real attempt to follow the rules. One does not have to be a mid-chart scholar to understand: The midchart is just a single page and not really difficult to understand.

I don't understand why it took several minutes to determine that this convention is not permitted in mid-chart events. There are 20 items specifically permitted by the mid-chart and it is a simple matter to determine that this method is not described by any of those 20. Quite often there is no need to go past the first few words of an item. For instance "3. All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted" no need to read any further, the method under consideration is not a rebid or response, next. A reading of the mid-chart also reveals "3. Except for those methods authorized by sections #1 – 5 below, have a copy of the approved suggested defense available for each opponent." The pair in question had a hand written defense. If the pair thought their method qualified under one of #1-#5, they should have said which. If they thought it qualified under one of #6-#20 they should have had the officially approved defense available. The pair in question clearly had not taken these minimal steps and as such it seems to me that they deserve very little sympathy. Even if a director had told them the method was mid-chart legal, this does not get them off the approved defense hook.

Google will someday (probably soon) incorporate google docs into google wave which would allow you to do just what you were doing with etherpad: simultaneous edits of a document. Edit: Ah, I see that the etherpad folks are joining the google wave team in Australia.

Isn't it the case that every call should be deliberate?

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to automatically (or by request) generate some hand history e-mails? After a tournament, for instance, perhaps I could request a hand history for tournament #xyz and receive an e-mail with the hand history. Or, request the results and receive an e-mail with the results. In addition, it would be nice to be able to request a hand history for a particular day (or other time period) with the generated history e-mailed to me. I'd want these hand histories sent in text format, but there could be an option for some other format(s) to suit individual preferences. Tim

This doesn't signal an end to the system documentation website, does it?

In slam with a trump suit of JT62 opposite AK74 (there was one outside loser, but transportation to both hands) GIB started with the Jack and, when next hand played low, went up with the Ace, dropping the stiff Queen. Is this a case of thinking that 2nd hand will always cover with the Queen, so GIB changed course and "hoped" for Qx offside? Tim

Josh, what happen in #24?

While I understand these bids are not integral to the system, I cannot play WJ2005 as published in most ACBL events because the 2D, 2H and 2S openings are not GCC legal.

One hurdle to this is that there often aren't "suitable games". Pair games are not suitable because of the short rounds and team games are often bracketed so that newer players* can't play in (or think they can't play in) the higher brackets where "supersystems" are permitted. * A team of players with 1000-2000 masterpoints each would not be in the top bracket of nearly any team event on ACBL's calendar. So, we're really not talking about newcomers.

In my experience, it is highly correlated to age. Older newcomers (and experienced players) are often put off by exotic methods, younger newcomers are not. There are many more older newcomers than young newcomers, so you are probably correct that more people are turned off by facing the exotic than turned off by not being able to play the exotic. I agree with others, that this is unlikely to be a major consideration for most newcomers (or new-to-tournament players).

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions Oh really? A quick Google search turns up : http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/results/2009/04/0904035.htm Richard Willey earned 1.28 masterpoints in April 2009. http://www.nebridge.org/dist25results/2008/GNT08totalMPs.htm Richard Willey earned 13.78 masterpoints for the 2008 Flight B GNTs. You may have started your boycott after April. I wonder if the ACBL has even noticed. I readily admit, I play in ACBL events once in a blue moon. Normally, if I'm playing, I'm playing socially with Tim Goodwin and/or Sue Ostrowski. He missed http://www.nebridge.org/dist25results/2009/Ind/Overall.htm Richard Willey won 18.91 masterpoints in a Flight B KO.