HUM system definitions

[hrothgar]

For those players' whose blind spots prevent them from coming up with good defenses to their pet methods, here is what I suggest:

 

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

 

Ask one of them to help you with a defense.

Proponents of an "Anything Goes" style (myself included) claim that a partnership can create an adequate defense to unfamiliar methods using a simple set of meta-agreements. While the suggested defense won't be perfect there are big benefits with respect to memory load and ensuring that the (defending) partnership is on relatively familiar ground.

 

However, this really doesn't do much good if the standard for evaluating suggested defenses requires that the defenses are optimal on a case by case basis.

 

Let's use a concrete example:

 

Assume for the moment that I am playing a MOSCITO style 1♦ opening in which 1♦ shows ~ 9-14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, and could conceal a longer minor.

 

Its incredibly easy to construct a very simple defense to this opening.

 

1. Never cuebid 1H

2. Double shows a hand that would have made a takeout double of 1H

3. All bids from 1S+ mean exactly the same thing that they always did

 

I guaruntee you that this type of defense will get rejected because its not "optimal" against the method in question.

[TimG]

There are many "anything goes" advocates who claim that a few simple rules will allow any partnership to deal with any opposing methods without any discussion at the table.

There is a difference between adequate and optimal. Or, maybe there is a difference. When the ACBL committee in charge of approving defenses reviews a defense, they evaluate it not only for how well it handles the method, but also how easy it is to understand and apply in the time allotted. An optimal defense to some methods would likely be too complex for most playing conditions.

 

In my experience getting defenses approved, I have found that it is best to be thorough (list lots of sequences in an attempt to cover most eventualities) while at the same time keeping things simple. Simple often means non-optimal, but easily applied. One thing the committee does not want is for a pair to be faced with an unfamiliar method and find that the sequence they hear at the table is not covered in the defense. Nor do they want a situation to be covered, but impossible to apply because of the complexity. There actually is incentive for those who submit defenses to submit less than optimal defenses: they are more likely to be approved than a more complex and nearly optimal defense.

 

Chip Martel has spent hundreds of hours preparing defenses to all sorts of unusual methods as part of his (as player and coach) preparation for international events. He, no doubt, has a defense to MOSCITO type transfer openings that he considers near to optimal. I suspect strongly, however, that his methods would be considered too complex for general ABCL defense database use.

 

Which sort of raises the question of what standards are used for approving defenses to mid-chart methods. Should there be objective requirements which, if met, assure that a defense will be approved? Or, is the subjective approach better? Does approval of a defense by ACBL mean that the defense is endorsed by the committee? That is, can the general ABCL public trust that the defense is optimal? Adequate? Complete? Useful?

[JanM]

Case 2:  Developing an appropriate defense to method XYZ.  As things currently stand within the ACBL the players who develop a new bidding convention are also asked to develop the defense to this method.  As I suggested earlier, I think that this might be problematic.  This system works very different in some other organizations.  For example, I know that the Swedish Bridge Federation develops and publishes defenses.

Having spent hours and hours developing defenses to many different methods, and almost always having discovered that the defense had some holes when it was used in competition, I think it is completely unrealistic to expect the organization (whether it is the ACBL, the WBF or some other organization) to develop adequate defenses to all of the things that people want to play. (Richard believes that he was unable to produce an approved defense to transfer opening bids at the one level because the C&C committee was unfair to him. I suggest that perhaps he just doesn't realize how very difficult creating an adequate defense is.) It would be even more unrealistic to suggest that the people who are going to encounter an unfamiliar method should develop a defense "on the fly." So that leaves two reasonable alternatives:

 

1. Allow unusual methods only in situations where they are submitted well in advance and the opponents have an adequate incentive to develop a good defense.

 

2. Allow a pair to play an unusual method only if they, or some other proponent of the method, have developed and submitted an adequate defense.

 

The first approach is what WBF tried with Brown Sticker bids - they were allowed only in long matches (long I believe being defined as more than 16 board matches), the people using them had to submit them well in advance, and the submissions were distributed to all of the participants in the event. This method had two fairly serious disadvantages - first, it effectively treated different teams differently. Some teams could afford the time (or money to buy someone else's time) to develop good defenses. Other teams couldn't. The unusual methods were more effective against the latter. Also, some players are better than others at adapting to new conditions. Some players are more willing than others to take the time to read and use a written defense, even after it's been developed for them. So the unusual methods created an unlevel playing field. Of course, unusual methods will always create an unlevel playing field; the issue is how unlevel. The WBF now requires a pair that wishes to employ a BS bid to submit a defense to the bid and that defense is reviewed by the WBF Systems Committee. If it isn't adequate, the method can't be employed.

 

Method 2 places the burden of creating an adequate defense on the pair using the unusual method. But that means someone has to determine whether that defense is in fact adequate. That's far from easy. First, one has to decide what is "adequate" and then one has to decide whether the defense that is submitted meets ones requirements. How far into the auction is it necessary to go? How many unusual sequences need to be covered. How do you decide between optimal and simple? Richard suggested a "simple" defense to 1♦

showing 4 or more hearts. (I haven't figured out how to have more than one quote in a reply, sorry):

1. Never cuebid 1H

2. Double shows a hand that would have made a takeout double of 1H

3. All bids from 1S+ mean exactly the same thing that they always did

 

Certainly that's simple. Certainly it allows the opponents to bid as they would have over a natural 1♥ but of course it isn't optimal - it "wastes" the 1♥ bid that the opponents give us by playing a transfer opening. A good defense (in fact even a reasonable defense) has to take advantage of the holes in an unusual method in order to make up for the times that the method will help the opponents. For example, long ago in Jamaica, the US Bermuda Bowl team had to contend with a strong Pass system (I think, although I'm not sure, this was the start of the WBF regulations on both BS methods and HUM systems). When we were developing a defense, we decided that we had to be able to "get" them some of the times to make up for the times they'd "get" us. So we developed a defense (sorry - it's too long ago for me to have it in front of me!) that included passing with some good hands when they opened an ambiguous 1♣. And that led to a couple of numbers that made up for a couple of bad results.

 

This whole area is incredibly complicated and so far no-one has figured out how to deal with it in a way that is fair to both the people who want to play unusual methods and the people who have to contend with them. And I have to go hold my horses for the farrier, so I'll try to answer some more of the posts here later.

[uday]

If you wonder why JanM knows so much about this stuff, it is because she is, among other things (and in no order), married to another Martel and deeply involved in the USBF

 

http://www.usbf.org/

 

Now, correct me pls. if I gum the rest of this up

 

The UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION ("USBF") is the organization that selects the teams that represent the USA in Bermuda Bowls, Venice Cups and Senior Bowls. it was initially spawned from and funded by the ACBL but is an independent organization.

 

The US Team Trials are broadcast to the world on BBO courtesy of the USBF and in no small part, JanM as well.

 

 

Jan, a question?

 

Does the USBF follow the ACBL lead on things like the defence database, HUMs, etc, at the USBF tourneys, or does it do as it sees fit?

[JanM]

Chip Martel has spent hundreds of hours preparing defenses to all sorts of unusual methods as part of his (as player and coach) preparation for international events.  He, no doubt, has a defense to MOSCITO type transfer openings that he considers near to optimal.  I suspect strongly, however, that his methods would be considered too complex for general ABCL defense database use.

While the first sentence of this quote is accurate, the second happens not to be. We don't in fact have an adequate defense to Moscito. Why? Because we haven't spent the many many hours it would take to develop one. When Chip's team played Paul Marston's team in Dallas, I did produce a *very* simple defense for them to use. Luckily nothing complicated arose and the match was not close.

 

On the other hand, we do have a defense to Multi that we think is fairly complete (note I don't say completely adequate - we constantly find holes in it). That defense is 11 pages long and can't be played without some advance study, as well as a general familiarity with how we write things and how to navigate through the defense. No, I wouldn't propose it as an ACBL "recommended defense" even though I find the actual ACBL approved defense to multi woefully inadequate.

[Sigi_BC84]

On the other hand, we do have a defense to Multi that we think is fairly complete (note I don't say completely adequate - we constantly find holes in it). That defense is 11 pages long

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi?? Tell me you are kidding here.

 

I'm not wondering any longer why you guys are that opposed against unusual methods...

 

--Sigi

[JanM]

Jan, a question?

 

Does the USBF follow the ACBL lead on things like the defence database, HUMs, etc, at the USBF tourneys, or does it do as it sees fit?

Well, some of both. The USBF Systems Policy is set forth in our General Conditions of Contest, which are posted at http://www.usbf.org/GeneralCoC2005.htm. Looking at that URL, I suspect I need to post an updated version, but although I've worked on format in the last 6 months, the substance hasn't changed.

 

Because our events require advance entry and consist primarily of long matches, we are in a situation similar to the WBF. Because our events are played in the United States and we want them to be attractive to US experts, we use some of the ACBL policies. USBCs (Open, Women's & Senior - I'm not certain about Junior, but I think this applies there too) permit Super Chart methods. Without getting into definitions, that's virtually everything except what the WBF calls HUM. The USBF requires advance submission of some (but not all) Midchart and higher methods. We have tried to require advance submission for those methods that the average expert would not be familiar with. You can judge for yourself whether our list is correct &/or understandable. If not, we welcome suggestions for improvement.

 

When advance submission is required, the submission has to include a recommended defense. We (USBF) do not review those advance submissions and defenses. Instead, we encourage the other players in the USBC to review the advance submissions and complain to the tournament conventions committee if they think the description of the method, or the proposed defense, is not adequate. If no such complaint is made in advance, it will not be successful at the event (unless the description of the method is inaccurate or incomplete). If a complaint is made (and they are - after all, the players in these events are generally fairly sophisticated and care about this), the conventions committee reviews the submission and if it finds that the description or defense are not adequate, works with the players submitting the method to get something that is.

 

When a method requires advance submission, players are allowed to consult a written defense (either the one submitted by the pair playing the method or their own) at the table.

 

If there is an ACBL approved defense for a method, that defense is deemed adequate for USBF events and need not be submitted in advance (it does have to be provided to the opponents at the table).

 

That's a long, and probably incomplete, answer to a short question. Hope it's responsive :lol:

[JanM]

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi??  Tell me you are kidding here.

In the 20 years I've been producing written defenses, I've learned that it's better to be complete than to assume that people will be able to fill in the blanks in the heat of battle. Our defense is long in part because it deals separately with auctions where the opening bidder's suit turned out to be spades and those where it turned out to be hearts, and in part because I repeat things so it is as clear as I can make it what bid comes where in an auction. But it's also true that multi can lead to some complex auctions, and people have a difficult time applying their general rules to an unfamiliar situation. Thus it's important to clarify things like when 2NT is Lebensohl and when it isn't, when bids are "scrambling" and when they show real length in the bid suit.

 

Here's a simple example, and an area that isn't covered at all in most multi defenses. The auction goes:

 

(2♦)-3♦(I assume virtually everyone would play this as natural)-(P).

As advancer, you have enough values to want to bid a game, a heart stopper but not a spade stopper. What do you bid? OR

As advancer, you have reasonable values and 5 good hearts. What do you bid?

 

I suspect that if I asked either question without the other, you would say "3♥, wtp?" Of course, the problem is that either hand is equally likely on this auction. In fact, we bid 3♥ with both hands. The overcaller then bids 3♠ with interest in playing hearts if advancer has a heart suit (advancer bids 3NT with a heart stopper), and 3NT with no interest in hearts and a spade stopper. I think this works well, and maybe it's obvious (but in fact it wasn't until we spent some time on it), but it is a good example of why just defining the bids over 2♦ isn't adequate.

[DrTodd13]

What I would like to prohibit is a pair who invents a new system or convention every week for the purpose of getting good scores from opps unfamiliarity. What I don't want to ban is a pair playing an unusual system or convention who want to play that system consistently over time, especially when said system is played without difficulty in other parts of the world. If they start playing the system and opps lose through unfamiliarity then this is simply motivation for people to get off their lazy butts and make their own damned optimized defense. I don't have a problem with requiring a sketch of a defense to be provided but this definition of "adequate defense" that seems to be in use stretches the bounds of the word adequate. To me, adequate does not mean optimal. Most people don't have such explicit agreements about all possible sequences for most of the conventions they can already legally encounter. So, requiring this of new conventions seems like a double standard to me.

[david_c]

As a passing note, the defense to 1♥ showing a standard-american 1♠ opening has apparently been approved....

That's interesting, it makes me wonder two things:

 

1. Does there exist a playable system which uses this 1♥ opening and is otherwise already legal? (I can't think of one.)

 

2. Why would this defence not also be considered an acceptable defence to a MOSCITO 1♥ opening?

[pbleighton]

"Most people don't have such explicit agreements about all possible sequences for most of the conventions they can already legally encounter. So, requiring this of new conventions seems like a double standard to me."

 

It is very much a double standard. I have no doubt that most of the people on the various ACBL committees have good intentions (I differ from Richard on this). It is also obvious that they pander to the (vocal) element in the ACBL membership which never wants to play against anything they haven't played against a thousand times before (I have run into this element at tournaments and clubs, and they are not only cowardly, some of them are quite rude). Pandering to this element is IMO:

1. Wrong. Bridge is an intellectual endeavor, and dumbing down bidding is a move in the wrong direction.

2. Short sighted. In my brief time (3 years) in the ACBL, I have seen the games get smaller and the people get (even) older. Pretty soon the protected sandbox will become a graveyard, and online bridge will be the only option for U.S. players. Open up ftf bridge to new ideas, and perhaps it would have some chance of survival.

 

The ACBL should lead, not follow.

 

Peter

[david_c]

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi??  Tell me you are kidding here.

I think eleven pages sounds quite reasonable for a serious partnership. Multi is genuinely difficult to defend against. For instance, there are lots of sequences where you're hurt by the lack of a cue-bid and if you want to make sure your partnerhip doesn't have any accidents you really need to discuss how else you're going to bid those sorts of hands.

 

On the other hand, transfer openings are not particularly hard to defend against. Most sequences will not need to be discussed because they are exactly the same as they would have been after a natural opening bid. (And I do mean exactly.) If you take Richard's defence to the MOSCITO 1♦ and add a vaguely sensible meaning for the 1♥ cue (let's say you play it as a "Raptor" hand) then what you get is more than adequate. I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

[kfgauss]

-

If you take Richard's defence to the MOSCITO 1♦ and add a vaguely sensible meaning for the 1♥ cue (let's say you play it as a "Raptor" hand) then what you get is more than adequate. I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

Would one then be required to give all the raptor follow-ups? I'd imagine things could get fairly complicated in competitive auctions in which there's ambiguity about the minor (in addition to just wanting to know what's pass/correct, what's "tell me your minor", what's invitiational, etc. in regular auctions). Raptor isn't hard to play, but I'm not sure one should be foisting it on people who have no experience with it.

 

It seems to me that good, simple, not necessarily optimal defenses that employ fairly familiar methods are what one should shoot for, and that they shouldn't be too hard to find.

 

As for defenses to one-level transfer openings, it seems that double = "overcall" of the doubled suit, cuebid = "takeout double", higher = as before (but 2 of the transfer suit is a "weak jump overcall") is a good defense that makes use of the available space (who hasn't wanted a 1H overcall of 1S?). The only issue now is that you can't pass the "takeout double", but that doesn't seem like a big deal. In any case, this defense seems good and simple (of course, it's possible I'm overlooking something). (Yes, one also needs to know what to do over responses, but 1: that seems like a separate issue [ie dependent on whether any of them are midchart responses] and 2: basically only the response that "completes the transfer" can be strange, so there isn't much work to do).

 

I seem to recall this defense having been proposed and rejected. Does anyone know the reasoning given?

 

I'm not sure who should come up with the defenses, this seems a difficult issue. I do agree though that either the midchart should be changed or a defense to moscito should be approved in a timely manner (and if the defense given isn't adequate at first, criticism should be given). I sympathise with the players who spend valuable time on these committees and hope what seems necessary in this area can be done without too much burden on them.

 

Andy

[TimG]

As a passing note, the defense to 1♥ showing a standard-american 1♠ opening has apparently been approved....

That's interesting, it makes me wonder two things:

 

1. Does there exist a playable system which uses this 1♥ opening and is otherwise already legal? (I can't think of one.)

 

2. Why would this defence not also be considered an acceptable defence to a MOSCITO 1♥ opening?

1. Doubtful, but one could easily be crafted (if you also allow other transfer openings).

 

2. I believe there are two differences which the committee sees as significant: a) MOSCITO 1H opening (showing 4+ spades) is not forcing -- when I submitted the 1H showing 5+ spades method, I stipulated that the 1H opening was forcing; and b ) the defenders may want to play in spades (since opener may have only 4).

 

I don't believe 2b should be an issue -- you just play your overcall structure as you would over a canape 1S opening bid, the matter is not complicated by the transfer, in fact it may be easier to defend against canape when it is done via transfer. But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved. If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

[TimG]

Having spent hours and hours developing defenses to many different methods, and almost always having discovered that the defense had some holes when it was used in competition, I think it is completely unrealistic to expect the organization (whether it is the ACBL, the WBF or some other organization) to develop adequate defenses to all of the things that people want to play. (Richard believes that he was unable to produce an approved defense to transfer opening bids at the one level because the C&C committee was unfair to him. I suggest that perhaps he just doesn't realize how very difficult creating an adequate defense is.)

I think we have different ideas of what adequate is in this case. For teams representing ACBL in international events, adequate is probably nearly equal to optimal. For teams playing in a mid-chart event at a regional, the same standard for adequate would not be appropriate. A vast majority of the players in a regional mid-chart event would not have defenses to a weak two-bid that are as detailed as a Bermuda Bowl team's defense against multi. Why should we require they be better prepared for unusual methods than they are for standard methods?

 

Where transfer openings are concerned, I can provide you a simple defense that is at least as good as the defense any pair I play against has against a non-transfer opening. It has been mentioned here often: double is takeout of the suit shown and all other bids are the same as if the opening bid had been in the suit shown. This is not optimal because it does not take advantage of the extra bid available to the defenders. But, it is at least as good as the opposing pair's defense to natural openings. That is, the side using the transfer opening should not gain from unfamiliarity 99% of the time (I will concede that without some further discussion (1H)-DBL-(P)-1S could cause confusion).

[Nadreck]

As an Aussie who has both played and played against transfer openings I found most of the justifications and arguements around approving optimal defences laughable. Almost all tournament players in Australia will have played against these openings and will have coped quite adequately without needing a 40 page defence that details every auction.

 

The defences used may not be "Optimal" but then most defences used against conventional bidding will not be optimal. For example look at what people play against a 1NT opening. I have seen at least 40 different defences and seen numerous discussions/arguments about which is best

 

Suppose the ACBL was just now considering allowing the Diabolical Strong 1NT opening. This opening can routinely have somewhere between 14-18 points and may have between 2 and 6 cards in any suit. Futhermore almost all responses to this opening are artificial!

 

Before this convention could be allowed the users would need to come up with the optimal defence to 1NT. This may present a problem as nobody in the world can easily agree on just what is the optimal defence to 1NT They will also be required to provide opponents with a defence that covers the bidding to at least 4 levels of bidding. This will ignore the fact that at least 95% of partnerships have never discussed any defensive bidding to this level of detail.

 

In the interim the bridge world seems to cope quite adequately with very detailed discussions such as "DONT over their NT?".

 

The level of preperation required by professionals such as Fred Gitelman or Jan/Chip Martel are quite different as they are seeking any extra edge that they can obtain. They should never require or want a written defence prepared by someone else. These players or their coaches are perfectly capable of creating a resonable defence that matches their own style and required level of detail.

[matmat]

though I don't fully agree with the choices made by some of the bridge governing bodies (a*cough*cbl), I do understand where they are coming from.

 

If you want to play any of the questionable methods live, in a tournament setting, see if there are any university/college clubs around. I think those have a very lax set of convention constraints.

[helene_t]

I think these transfer openings are much easier to defend against than, say, a Precision 1♦ opening.

I agree. I would go even further and say I can find better reasons to disallow 3+ minor openings than transfer openings.

 

In fact, Moscito is the most beneign system that I know of. There are no nebolous calls saying "we tend to have this suit but we might not" making the opps wonder if they have a cue-bid or not. Besides, one of the main sources of bidding disasters by pick-up partnerships is overcall style. Moscito splits its openings into strong (15+) and intermdiate (9-14), making it obvious to the opps when to defend constructively and when to defend destructively.

 

But let's say that some system was introduced that required specialized defense. I would not be comfortable having to play such an of-the-shelf defense with my regular partner. We have spend a lot of time discussing overcall methods (what calls are barage/constructive/forcing/lead-directing/artificial in all kinds of obscure competitive situations) as well as style issues.We would not be able to replace all that partnership understanding by something we had two minutes to study at the table.

 

Therefore, I'll argue that the whole idea of a defense database is inadequate when it comes to sanctioning of the core of the system. The same concerns apply to marginal conventions such as Multi and Capp, but there it is more acceptable to have to play some of-the-shelf defense.

 

I can imagine that someone in the ACBL had thought along the samle lines which lead to the policy of not allowing Moscito even if there is an adequate defense. Of course Tood and Richard are right that they should have been open about this policy instead of pretending to use the defense database criterion.

 

Maybe a better criterion for sanctioning one-level openings would be:

1) Some generic defense against weird stuff should be approved.

2) A new system or convention is approved only if the approved generic defense is adequate against it.

 

Then the opps don't have to study a specific defense everytime they encounter a pair of weirdos in a pair tournament but could learn the generic defense once and for all. And adapt the generic defense to their own style.

[Free]

Defending against moscito 1♦ and 1♥ transfer openings is extremely easy. Dbl = the suit bid, transfer = takeout dbl, the rest natural like there was no transfer. Is it optimal? Perhaps, but when is something really optimal (can you prove something is or is not optimal?)? Is it adequate? YES! You have more possibilities to show than after a natural 1M opening, so where's the problem? And passing the takeout Dbl IS possible! If the bidding starts 1♦-1♥ (1♦ transfer), or the bidding goes 1♥-Dbl (1♥ natural), if you pass, you expect to make at least 7 tricks with ♥ as trumps. Guess what, 1♥ needs 7 tricks... And if you somehow go -1, you'll score better than opps making 1♥*=.

You say you want to be able to play in the suit the transfer shows? Big deal, how do you do this when you play against an ACOL 1M opening? Btw, I've seen other defenses which use Dbl as takeout and the transfer bid as natural showing 5+ cards. This solves your problem.

Ok, the transfers may be canapé, but that's not a real problem. You and your partner won't end up playing in their 5 card minor anyway... But if one starts to focus on this, then any discussion can never end.

 

Defending against the 1♠ opening (showing ♦), that's a problem! This doesn't give away extra bidding space, no, it takes away 2 steps! The preemptive nature of the bid certainly helps for the opening pair... Still, with my usual overcall system (FREEWILL) we don't have much problems handling this.

 

I also agree that it's a VERY natural system, every limited opening shows at least 4 cards in a known suit, so it's not diabolic at all. It's more natural than any 5 card Major system, or any standard precision system with nebulous 1♦ (and 2♦ as 3-suiter starting with 4-3M). Apparently some people just don't realize this, because they don't have an objective look at the facts. The example of the 1NT opening really is a good one! No optimal defense, so ... they still allow it :(

[hrothgar]

But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved.  If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

As I recall, the main focus of the discussions surround suggested defenses to a Frelling 2♦ was the definition of the initial double.

 

The 2D opening was defined as showing

 

4+ Diamonds and 4+ Cards in either major

Could be balanced (4432) but denies 4441 or 5440 shape

Promises at least Hxxx or xxxxx in a major

 

When I submitted the initial defense it was based on penalty oriented direct seat double. I chose this for a couple reasons. First and foremost, all the "authorities" on these types of "Assumed Fit" methods recommend using penalty doubles. (For example almost all of the Scandinavians use penalty doubles over a Ekren's style 2♥). Equally significant, when I ran some sims, the penalty doubles looked a lot better.

 

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles. Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players. Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted. Please note the casual chain here: Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods.

 

(I'll note in passing that the ACBL recent permitted players to use a 2♥ opening that shows both majors, but, low and behold, the suggested defense is based on penalty doubles. Furthermore, the opening must promise at least 5-5 shape in two round events / 5-4 shape in 6 round events. Openings that could be made on 4-4 shape have been labelled inherently destructive)

[TimG]

But, the potential for a 4-card suit (and the possibility that the defenders might want to make a natural bid in that suit) was an issue when attempting to get a 2D opening which showed 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major approved.  If you allow for this extra consideration, the defense would not be identical to the one already approved.

As I recall, the main focus of the discussions surround suggested defenses to a Frelling 2♦ was the definition of the initial double.

No doubt there were many issues. Including a few comments from committee members along the lines of: "why would you want to play such methods?" and "I've always gotten along just fine without using a method of this type."

[fred]

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles. Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players. Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted. Please note the casual chain here: Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods.

I think you probably meant to use the word "causal" (though "casual" is better description of the type of reasoning that you are using).

 

Perhaps part of Chip's reasoning was that most mid-chart players do not want to play in an event where is legal to open 2D with:

 

xx

Jxxx

Jxxx

xxx

 

Perhaps Chip concluded that any defensive method based on penalty doubles is not playable. Despite your sims, your vast bridge knowledge and experience, and your extensive survey of Scandanavian defensive methods, if that is what Chip concluded then I think there is a pretty good chance that he is right.

 

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

 

Perhaps Chip reasoned that the conflicts caused by such events, the randomness that such methods generate, and the wishes of most of the participants to avoid these things, were sufficient justification for his position.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

Chip Martel explained that any suggested defense must be based on takeout doubles.  Penalty oriented doubles are too complicated/foreign for North American players.  Furthermore, if players submitted methods where a direct seat penalty double was not optimal the methods would not be permitted.  Please note the casual chain here:  Protecting a preferred defensive style determines the legality of the methods. 

IMO that is how it should be. The conventions allowed in a midchart pairs event (say) should be precisely those which a good partnership will be able to defend against with at most a few seconds' discussion. (Because this is all the time you have in a pairs event.) Of course this is still very subjective. But it does imply that if you have generic permission for a type of convention ("any bid which shows 4+ cards in a specified suit") then this makes sense only if there is a defence, or a small number of different defences, which works against any convention of that type. [Or else there should be some other reason why defending against the convention is easy.]

 

I suspect that when it was decided to allow any 2♦ bid which promised 4+ diamonds, the reasoning was "This will be OK because we can always use take-out doubles and cue-bids against it." But this has been shown not to be true for some conventions, so it is reasonable to disallow those. But of course, if this is what the committee has decided, then they should amend the midchart to say so.

[david_c]

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

That's a disclosure issue, not a system regulation issue. It should be dealt with under the disclosure regulations.

[fred]

Perhaps Chip knows from experience that many pairs who play such methods, when asked, do not volunteer information like "he could have a truly horrible hand". Instead they offer definitions like the one that you did and leave it to the opponents to draw their own inferences and probe for what they really want to know.

That's a disclosure issue, not a system regulation issue. It should be dealt with under the disclosure regulations.

Once the system is allowed it becomes a disclosure issue.

 

In considering whether or not the system should be allowed, it is surely reasonable for the committee to say "no" if they judge that allowing the system will result in serious problems of disclosure when it is used.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com