bridge maestros

[Trinidad]

The only things "banned" in the ACBL are =illegal= methods such a encrypted signals.

 

(and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.)

It seems like you don't know what an encrypted signal is.

 

What is legal and what is not is written in the bridge laws. There is nothing in the bridge laws that says that encrypted signals are illegal. Apart from that, SO's (read "lawyers" :P ) can decide to ban certain bidding and playing conventions. In the case of encrypted signals SO's have chosen to pretty much ban them universally. Thus, encrypted signals fall in the same category as e.g. forcing pass opening systems, or a Wilkosz 2♦ opening. An SO can choose to allow them. (They are actually allowed at my bridge club.) They are not illegal, they are banned.

 

A quick introduction to encrypted signals:

 

Suppose the opponents bid to 4♠ through a Stayman auction: (1NT-2♣; 2♠-4♠) or after a negative double auction like 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl-(Pass); 2♠-(Pass)-4♠-All Pass. You can be fairly sure that they play in an eight card fit. If you look at two trumps, you know that your partner has three. At the same time, partner sees his three and knows that you have two trumps. Declarer doesn't have this information and you can use it as a key to the encryption of your signals.

 

Say declarer leads clubs. Now you could simply signal count and tell everybody whether you have an even or odd number of clubs as is standard. On the other hand, you can also signal count not for clubs, but for the black cards. Given the fact that partner knows that you have two spades, he will know that you have an even number of clubs when you signal an even number of black cards. Declarer only knows that you have an even number of black cards, while partner has the - generally more useful- information that you have an even number of clubs, since he already knew about your two spades.

 

This is an agreement that is simple to disclose: "Partner shows an even number of black cards." (The whole agreement in 8 words!) Encrypted signals don't even come near cheating.

 

A well known problem with banning encrypted signals is that in real life people use them all the time. Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks. This passes the encrypted information to me that partner has an odd number of clubs. Declarer doesn't get that information. But this encrypted signal is "obviously" allowed.

 

It is beyond me why one would want to ban encrypted signals... and at the same time allow them. And these signals are not just banned at the club level where my grandparents are playing. They are banned in the Bermuda Bowl too!

[pbleighton]

MOSCITO is not "banned" in the ACBL....

 

The ACBL uses 3 levels of conventions: GCC, mid-chart, and superchart

 

Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC.

 

Foo, your comments about aggressive bidding methods are consistently ill-informed.

 

FYI, you can't play transfer openings (the current version of MOSCITO uses them) even in Super Chart events. The ACBL has disallowed all defenses to them, and therefore, even though they are technically legal, they may not be played.

 

Therefore, MOSCITO is effectively banned in the ACBL

 

This has been true for some years now.

 

Peter

[awm]

In fact there are many cases where encrypted bidding is possible too. Consider the following simple auction:

 

1♠ - 3♠; 4NT - 5♣; 5NT

 

Let's say 4NT is RKC. The 5♣ bid shows zero or three keycards. The 5NT call guarantees all the keycards and asks about kings. At this point:

 

The opponents know only that the opening side has (between them) all five keycards, and that responder has zero or three.

 

Opener knows exactly how many keycards responder has (he can tell by counting points and looking at his own hand). He also knows which keycards responder has, since responder has "exactly the ones opener doesn't have."

 

Eventually this hand may come to the defenders selecting an opening lead against 6♠. It would certainly help the opening leader to know which aces are in responder's hand. But the defense does not have this information, even though declarer does.

 

Nonetheless, "encrypted bidding" is outlawed in most of the world (if not everywhere) even though I doubt anyone would have problems with this particular auction.

[foo]

As a matter of fact, I found encrypted signals fascinating when I first heard of them and spent some time studying and playing them in contexts where all concerned knew the experiment was going on and were willing participants.

(IOW, !not! in any sanctioned Bridge tournament!)

 

The problem with the sort of encrypted signals that are banned is that We can agree to completely change Our defensive methods based on the presence or the absence of the Key. Say standard signals in the presence of the key and UDCA in the absence of the key; =and Declarer has no chance of knowing what our carding means until it is too late.=

 

OTOH,

A well known problem with banning encrypted signals is that in real life people use them all the time. Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks. This passes the encrypted information to me that partner has an odd number of clubs. Declarer doesn't get that information. But this encrypted signal is "obviously" allowed.

Declarer =does= have the chance to work out the same things the Defenders do here.

 

The situations are not analogous.

 

It should also be noted that encrypted =bidding= systems =are= perfectly legal.

As long as the opponents are told everything they are entitled to before the opening lead is made.

 

An example would be any GF relay sequence where one hand is strong and the other hand is weak- and only the bidding side tends to know which hand is which.

NZ Symmetric Relay worked on this principle.

I've mentioned the killing defense: pass with strong hands so the bidding side doesn't know that both hands are weak.

[jdonn]

Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks.

No, he has signalled his hearts and diamonds. You inferred the rest.

[Trumpace]

Rixi Markus is purported to have said that "lawyers make better bridge players than mathematicians". If true, I wonder why.

Maybe because mathematicians are always looking for "elegant" solutions to bridge problems and don't really care about winning.

 

Lawyers might make better bridge players on the table, but mathematicians will make better bridge analysts off the table.

[foo]

Foo, your comments about aggressive bidding methods are consistently ill-informed.

 

FYI, you can't play transfer openings (the current version of MOSCITO uses them) even in Super Chart events.  The ACBL has disallowed all defenses to them, and therefore, even though they are technically legal, they may not be played.

 

Therefore, MOSCITO is effectively banned in the ACBL

 

This has been true for some years now.

 

Peter

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

 

As for transfer openings not being legal within the ACBL, I agree with you that this is a very hard to understand or accept stance by the ACBL C&C committee.

Especially given that transfer =responses= to openings are considered OK.

 

OTOH, some long conversations with folks who have sat on that committee has convinced me that the task is far harder than most of us not doing it understand.

...and that for the most part the task is thankless. It's an unpaid volunteer position where no matter what you do as a member of the C&C committee, you are going to p*ss off someone.

 

I've also developed a better appreciation of just how hard it is to put together a database of adequate defenses (as in "has a reasonable chance to restore equity") to many of these gadgets that can be used by the average tournament player who is not a system freak.

 

IMHO, the ACBL tends to err too far on the side of caution. But I understand why they feel that is more justifiable and safer than the alternative.

[blackshoe]

Little old ladies in Australia play stuff that would not only get them banned from the ACBL, but everybody who played against them would have to go through a special clensing ritual.

Hm. What's Australia's current immigration policy? :P

[kenrexford]

I find the comments about the restrictions on bidding systems humorous, especially as explanations for mathematicians not wanting to play or being frustrated.

 

The ACBL, for instance, has some rules. These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1♦ openings can mean anything, canape is allowed, and much can be done late and in competition. Sure, some of the limitations seem silly, but there is a lot in the way of complexity that can be achieved. Most complain that the level of complexity I have sometimes suggested to partners would make their heads explode, in a basically natural approach.

 

That being said, the complaint is somewhat silly. Years ago, I taught some people a game we called Riverboat. In Riverboat, anything was allowed, and the bids went from 1 to 13 (no book).

 

If bridge allowed you to start the bidding at 0 spades, or -2 clubs, there would be more space with which to describe hands, at least as opener. This would help tremendously. But, you cannot do that.

 

So, the ACBL says you must start by contracting to take 7 tricks (1♣). They do not allow you to start contracting for tricks with a sub-minimum hand (6-9 HCP) unless you contract to take 8 tricks (sort of). The opening bids, to some degree, then have standards that must be met.

 

Complaints about the conditions a priori, as to bidding tools allowed, are fair, to a degree. But, to claim that barring innovation outside of the rules frustrates those who would be good at innovation outside of the rules makes little sense. The same restrictions barring innovation, in a sense, for relay-based systems also creates barriers for natural-based system designers. As a simple case in point, I cannot open 2♠ to show spades (natural) and an unknown minor (pattern treatment), which affects my handling of high reverses (1♠-P-2♥-P-3♣) negatively. I cannot agree to bid a natural 1♠ as a response to 1♥ with 3+ spades, even though bidding 1♠ with 3+ makes natural sense in a canape structure. So, the rules affect both styles.

 

For that matter, I cannot open 0♠ with 8-10 HCP's and five spades, which seems outrageous from one perspective, nor can I bid 8♥, which may well be a good sacrifice over 7♠.

 

Do mathematicians get angry because of a known speed of light? Is that unfair? Or, do mathematicians accept the speed of light and figure stuff out using that known variable?

 

Finally, 2/1 is not the only system in the ACBL. I for years played a system where 1♦ was the strong, forcing opening, where 1♣ showed any number of wildly different hands, with canape major opening, a three-suited 2♣ that was 10-34 HCPs, 2-bids that were two-suited, and 2NT for the minors, all GCC legal. I doubt that many would call this basic 2/1 GF.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW I have no math training, I don't even know calc, and it does not hurt my bridge. Most of the people I've known who are really good at math are not that good at bridge (bart bramley and bob hamman being the biggest exceptions). There are a lot of guys I know like Joe Grue/me/Joel Wooldridge who pretty much suck at math. I don't think there's really a big correlation. If I had to bet on a lawyer vs a math person I would bet on the lawyer.

[hrothgar]

I find the comments about the restrictions on bidding systems humorous, especially as explanations for mathematicians not wanting to play or being frustrated.

 

The ACBL, for instance, has some rules. These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1♦ openings can mean anything, canape is allowed, and much can be done late and in competition. Sure, some of the limitations seem silly, but there is a lot in the way of complexity that can be achieved.

 

...

 

Complaints about the conditions a priori, as to bidding tools allowed, are fair, to a degree. But, to claim that barring innovation outside of the rules frustrates those who would be good at innovation outside of the rules makes little sense.

There is one point that you fail to consider...

 

In recent years, the ACBL introduced a series of new restrictions which (essentially) destroyed the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods. The ACBL Midchart explicitly allows players to use any bid that shows 4+ cards in a known suit. This clause actually permits a wdie variety of methods. For example, most of MOSCITO is legal at the Midchart level.

 

However, a few years back, the ACBL introduced the Defensive Database and announced that players may not use any methods that don't have a published defense. Furthermore, the Conventions Committee refused to approved suggested defenses to a wide variety of methods. (Including MOSCITO). What was most annoying about this, was that the ACBL neutered the Midchart while explaining that they were liberalizing the sanctioning regime.

 

I started out as a fan of the Defensive Database. Back during my more naive days, when I still had a modicum of faith in the Conventions Committee I thought that the ACBL had implemented something good.

 

I got a bit annoyed when I kept running into roadblocks getting defense approved to MOSCITO opening. I got VERY annoyed when Meckstroth was stupid enough to CC me on an email stating that the CC couldn't sanction a defense to an opening because this would open the door for people to start playing MOSCITO.

 

I go extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently destructive and banned them all together.

 

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

[hrothgar]

OTOH, some long conversations with folks who have sat on that committee has convinced me that the task is far harder than most of us not doing it understand.

...and that for the most part the task is thankless.  It's an unpaid volunteer position where no matter what you do as a member of the C&C committee, you are going to p*ss off someone.

It may be an thankless, unpaid position. At the same time, Meckstoth, Martel and the like make quite a handy living selling themselves to the highest bidder as bridge pros. All of the members of the Conventions COmmittee have a significant investment in preserving the status quo.

 

Low and behold, they're restricting the ability of players to use anything different from their preferred methods.

 

Spare me the descriptions about the noble sacrifice of the members of the Conventions Committee.

[hrothgar]

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

These days, MOSCITO is (essentially) defined by

 

1. Light and limited constructive openings anchored by a 15+ HCP strong club

2. Majors first bidding with 4 card majors

3. Transfer opening bids

4. Light 2/1's (~7 - 11 HCP)

5. Extensive use of relays with strong hands

 

Take away the transfer openings and the relays and the resulting system isn't recognizable as MOSCITO

[pbleighton]

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

 

I believe you are referring to Honeymoon Moscito, which doesn't have true relays (or transfer openings), but which are technically relays, so that the system is Mid Chart. It's not a serious system.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1D openings can mean anything

 

In theory, you are right. 1C and 1D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, and 2C and 2D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, subject to being *strong*. Alas, this is not how the ACBL does its business. I was playing 2C and 2D as strong transfer openings (showing 15 hcp and 5+H and 5S respectively). A TD banned it. I wrote to rulings@acbl, and wa told it was legal, as it clearly was, by Mike Flader. The TD appealed the ruling, and Rick Beye overturned the ruling, and said that since it was a transfer opening, the obvious language of the GCC which allowed the bid didn't apply, that it was obviously the intent of the framers that the Mid Chart clause applied.

 

The depth of dishonesty is appalling. This is a separate issue from the restrictiveness of the regulations.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I got a bit annoyed when I kept running into roadblocks getting defense approved to MOSCITO opening. I got VERY annoyed when Meckstroth was stupid enough to CC me on an email stating that the CC couldn't sanction a defense to an opening because this would open the door for people to start playing MOSCITO.

Which is why I referred to it as being banned. There is no rule against it, and yet you're not allowed to play it.

[whereagles]

I'd like to enter this discussion, but I'm too scared it would drain the last remnants of my spare time :)

[foo]

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

These days, MOSCITO is (essentially) defined by

 

1. Light and limited constructive openings anchored by a 15+ HCP strong club

2. Majors first bidding with 4 card majors

3. Transfer opening bids

4. Light 2/1's (~7 - 11 HCP)

5. Extensive use of relays with strong hands

 

Take away the transfer openings and the relays and the resulting system isn't recognizable as MOSCITO

Huh. The one I remember seeing, IIRC, did not have the 1 level transfer openings but did have the relays. Looked reasonable to me, but since I did not play test it, my opinion is necessarily superficial.

[foo]

2x post

[foo]

In theory, ... 1C and 1D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, and 2C and 2D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, subject to being *strong*. Alas, this is not how the ACBL does its business. I was playing 2C and 2D as strong transfer openings (showing 15 hcp and 5+H and 5S respectively). A TD banned it. I wrote to rulings@acbl, and wa told it was legal, as it clearly was, by Mike Flader. The TD appealed the ruling, and Rick Beye overturned the ruling, and said that since it was a transfer opening, the obvious language of the GCC which allowed the bid didn't apply, that it was obviously the intent of the framers that the Mid Chart clause applied.

 

The depth of dishonesty is appalling. This is a separate issue from the restrictiveness of the regulations.

=definitely= a separate issue; and =definitely= infuriatingly unjust if you are relaying events correctly. :)

 

I'm perfectly willing to accept that perhaps the regs needed more clarity to them or that they were misleading as written compared to intent. But at that point the onus is on the ACBL to rewrite things to fix it. If the regs clearly state you can play a certain method at a certain level, then you should be allowed to do so. Period.

[foo]

I got extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently Destructive (in the Bridge legal sense- Foo as editor) and banned them all together.

 

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

 

I've often wondered what the outcome would've been if you had presented your assumed fit preempts with a range of say 7-12 HCP. The same range as Schenken's original range for Weak Two's...

 

Such a 2bid would've been far harder to dismiss as being Destructive IMHO.

[pbleighton]

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

 

I've often wondered what the outcome would've been if you had presented your assumed fit preempts with a range of say 7-12 HCP. The same range as Schenken's original range for Weak Two's...

 

Such a 2bid would've been far harder to dismiss as being Destructive IMHO.

 

The ACBL changed the rules so that 2 suited openers have to have a minimum of 10 hcp, so that 9-12 would be illegal.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

I got extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently Destructive (in the Bridge legal sense- Foo as editor) and banned them all together. 

 

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

For Christ's sake...

 

Are you xxxx? (If so, I should have recognized the posting style earlier)

 

Regardless, the reason that the assumed fit preempts was rejected had nothing to do with the range of the opening bid. The defense that I submitted to the Conventions Committee used a penalty oriented double in direct seat. I made a the decision to use a penalty double based on a couple criteria

 

1. Assumed Fit methods like the Ekrens 2♦ opening are quite common in several parts of Europe. The players who have the most experience competing against these methods recommend using a direct seat penalty double.

 

2. I ran some simulations. The penalty double looked to be a big winner. Josh She (who I respect a lot) did the same and independently came up with similar results.

 

Chip Martel bounced the defense because it didn't use a direct seat double as a takeout double. I said that I could develop a new defense based on a takeout double, however, I recommended a penalty double for the following reasons...

 

Martel looked the structure over. Agreed that a penalty double was (probably) the right way to go, and then banned the method as destructive stating that Americans aren't experienced with penalty doubles and should be expected to play defenses that utilize them.

[the hog]

Quote Foo:

NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands.

Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems.

 

Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC.

 

"(and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.) "

 

Foo, you have as much idea of what you are talking about as the man in the moon. Your comments are incorrect, illogical and foolish. The comment that encrypted signals is "cheating" is hilarious in the extreme. Further you appear to deride destructive methods. Pray tell, what is wrong with playing destructive methods when bridge is a game of play AND bidding. Further, please get your facts right before making blanket incorrect statements about systems you clearly know nothing about.

 

Perhaps you would also like to explain why passing with a good hand over a 1C opening is the "killer defence" If the bidding proceeds 1C (P) 1D (P) 1S (x)

why am I killed? This is nonsense; a lot of work has gone into looking at effective/optimal defences in Os and pretty much the expert opinion is that 1C (X) should show a good hand with a willingness to compete.

[foo]

Chip Martel bounced the defense because it didn't use a direct seat double as a takeout double.  I said that I could develop a new defense based on a takeout double, however, I recommended a penalty double for the following reasons...

 

Martel looked the structure over.  Agreed that a penalty double was (probably) the right way to go, and then banned the method as destructive stating that Americans aren't experienced with penalty doubles and should be expected to play defenses that utilize them.

...and if Chip Martel did those things as you say them and for the reasons you say he did, he was IMNSHO 100% in the wrong.

 

It's one thing to say that a method distorts the spirit of the game to the point where it's no longer the same game. As it's been explained to me, that's the basis for the objection to Destructive and Dominant methods.

Agree or not, it's a reasonable rationale.

 

OTOH, It's quite another thing to ban a method strictly because the opponents aren't used to using something as simple as penalty doubles...

That smacks strongly of personal prejudice of some kind.

 

Your story reminds me of the stupidity within the ACBL regarding the Multi-2D that existed for many years. Such things weren't right then and they aren't ever going to be IMHO.