bridge maestros

[jtfanclub]

Comment 3:  Wilkosz is most certainly NOT legal at the Midchart level

I thought I knew somebody who played it in midchart events. I guess not.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, I played against somebody in a Regional Unlimited KO match last year using Polish Club with Wilkosz. I guess nobody called them on it.

[kenrexford]

I have been appalled at some of the posts made by Ken... I agree that he appears to be a 'rules lawyer'... and he is also a real life lawyer.. but that is (I trust) a coincidence.

I just cannot understand this hostility.

 

Let's try this once again. After all, my integrity is being challenged for something that seems nonsensical.

 

First, I'll preface this by noting that I play a completely recognizable 2/1 GF system most of the time, basically SAYC the rest. So, I do no actual "Rules Lawyering" in any actual practice.

 

However, years ago, I played a canape style. Canape is allowed, under the GCC. However, some bids from some recognized canape structures are not. So, what did I actually do to deal with this? Resign from the ACBL? No. Petition for change? Yes, with no effect. "Rules Lawyer" things? Maybe -- let's play it out.

 

With one canape structure that I used in Washington, D.C., taught to me by a friend and partner from Croatia who did not know about the GCC problems, 2M showed 5+M/4+minor (minor unknown), 11-15 with exactly six losers. With five losers, you would open the minor and then jump in the major. With seven losers, you treated it as a one-suited major hand. The whole structure of the system required this bid.

 

So, I approached the old (pre-Flader) national TD who wrote articles in the Bulletin (Brian something I think) about the problem. We pulled out the GCC. We also pulled out some weird source I'd never heard of -- written decisions of a sort from prior inquiries and prior rulings. No one I knew had known that this resource existed. Anyway, we decided that there was no specific "loophole" to cover this problem.

 

I then discussed this more with the TD. We both realized that limiting the range of LTC to exactly six losers, with only 5-6 cards in the major allowed, sort of forced the hand tro be unbalanced, if the HCP range was right. Because 2♦ showed major two-suiter with six losers, we could inference out that type of unbalanced hands. So, simply defining HCP's and Losing Trick Count and major-suit length accomplished limitation of the call to only hands where a minor of 4-card length happened to be present. This convinced the TD that the call would be GCC legal if defined under those allowable criteria. The ACBL confirmed this, and the call was allowed.

 

So, what is the problem here? I wanted to play a recognized system (apparently called "Rosso e Merro," similar to Leghorn/Livorno). That system was not entirely allowed. So, I need to tweak some aspects of the system. Other aspects were actually "allowed" if the definition of the bid was changed. So, I consulted the TD's and the ACBL and was told that the changes made the system OK. (Some aspects could not be fixed.) Am I "Rules Lawyering" and slimy because I actually researched the Rules, found ways to change aspects of the system to fit the Rules, and then sought approval from the Powers-that-be for those changes? If so, why is that a bad thing? Is it somehow good form to guess what the Rules really mean, never ask, never try to adapt your idea to fit the Rules, and just play Standard American because the Rules errantly seem to restrict my idea?

 

Consider the LIA 1♦ opening. Good bridge theory suggests to some that a Kamikazee 1NT (8-10) might be a great preemptive move. But, it is impossible to use effectively when no systems are allowed. So, you want to do something similar anyway. 1♦ can be 8-10 if you have at least three diamonds, and systems are allowed. This is not as effective as 1NT, but it works OK. So, you take an idea (LIA), look at the Rules, find a method that is allowed, think through whether it would be a satisfactory substitute, theoretically, develop a response structure, and start using that technique. Again, where is the problem? Am I not supposed to play 1♦ as possibly a balanced 8-10 with three diamonds because a Kamikazee 1NT with 8-10 is disallowed and this new idea is trying to accomplish the same goals?

 

Why on earth this would be unethical is beyond me. Or, why this would be juvenile and immature is beyond me. I'll even go so far as to say that I am proud that, apparently unlike others, I was able to develop working systemic approaches that were GCC legal and that delved into strange LIA approaches and advanced canape approaches. That took some work, both at understanding the GCC and in grasping bridge theory. Not many theoreticians can develop a working system where a 1♦ opening shows 8-22 HCP's, with a constructive response structure that does not randomize results but that actually leads to consistently good results. Not many could grasp the problem exceptions to the light opening, the tweaking of 1♣ and its responses to accommodate the strange 1♦, and the necessary additions at the two-level openings to blend all of this together. Not many would use their head and contact the right people at the ACBL, research and find the existence of policy statements and prior rulings and minutes of the GCC forming committes, and otherwise prepare themselves adequately to develop a GCC-compliant, highly innovative systemic structure.

 

Who is the immature child? The one who reads and understands the Rules of the Game, or the one who takes his ball home and refuses to play anymore?

 

BTW -- One last point may be worthwhile. Why do I play 2/1 GF now, instead of canape or LIA or relay or Moscito or Livorno or the like? No matter how talented you are at the game, the masses and the powers that be view "those people" as freaks, poor players who use weird and untested theories to gain advantage over others because the others cannot handle on-the-spot guesses under weird circumstances. I disagree, somewhat, with that assessment. But, I got tired of everyone I knew who played weird stuff being terrible bridge players.

 

I wonder, sometimes, whether the frustration of the weird-system folks is displaced. I also believe that the ACBL is less concerned about development of theory as they are about stopping terrible players from using bizarre approaches to gain a non-theory advantage.

[mikeh]

Ken, when saying that I was appalled, I had in mind the (several) posts in which you recount a story that usually involves you and a partner making completely bizarre bids, and being on the same wavelength and ending up with a great result. While I have never really believed that your stories were accurate, the attitude displayed in the stories, if they actually happened as described, appalled and continues to appall me.

 

I have no problem with anyone playing any method they like, so long as it is lawful and so long as it is adequately announced. And I commend anyone who, when thinking of playing something unusual, aproaches the directing staff to ensure that they are abiding by the rules.

[pbleighton]

1. The GCC bans two-suited major openings at the two-level unless 10+ and unless the second suit is known. Many give up there when thinking about using 2M for 5+M/4+minor. As a lawyer, I "got around" that problem through a GCC-based innovation, one that might not be technically as sound but one that worked well enough. 2M showed 5+ in the major and 11-15. However, 5332's were opened 1NT if 13-16, or 1M if 11-12. So, the inference was that 2M showed an unbalanced hand. We then added a LTC of 5-6 losers and required that the major length be only 5-card or 6-card. When we, finally, defined 1M-2OM well, the 2M inferentially could not be opened without a side minor. That was not part of the definition of the bid; it was required logically to meet the acceptable definitions. Then, a 2NT response asked for a four-card minor "if Opener happened to have one." Problem solved. (Plus, using my tricky lawyer talk, I convinced the TD's and the ACBL that this was acceptable.)

 

Ken, what was your alert on this one?

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Ken, when saying that I was appalled, I had in mind the (several) posts in which you recount a story that usually involves you and a partner making completely bizarre bids, and being on the same wavelength and ending up with a great result. While I have never really believed that your stories were accurate, the attitude displayed in the stories, if they actually happened as described, appalled and continues to appall me.

I'm not sure how that reference also offended you.

 

To re-state the facts:

 

1. We had an undiscussed auction (surely others do as well).

2. My partner, who is a professional player, knows very well how my mind thinks about undiscussed auctions.

3. That person made a call that seems bizarre to people who find my general thinking bizarre but that seemed to him to be somethin I would understand.

4. He was right -- I understood his bid without discussion. Hence, we had a good partnership. I don't think that is a problem.

5. I did not alert his call, because...

(a.) it is not alertable,

(b.) you are not supposed to alert calls above 3NT that late in the auction anyway -- as it might help partner more than the opponents, and

(c.) the alert policy is in effect for this very situation -- if I alerted 4♠ as RKCB with their suit as the focus suit, this would tell partner what my bids mean and help us more than them.

6. the bid was VERY strange and thus not likely to be made without an explanation requested when explanation matters.

 

So, as disclosure would have been given if requested, but none was requested, non-disclosure cannot be the problem.

 

The problem cannot be the strange agreement, as there is nothing unethical about the agreement.

 

Is the problem making weird bids in a frivolous manner, that partner cannot possibly field, just as a ruse to enable a true psychic? Not if both partners understood the meaning -- that simply is a good, well-tuned partnership.

 

Apparently, then, the problem seems to be that I and my partner makes bids that you believe to be "completely bizarre." I cannot imagine that it is unethical to not agree with your way of thinking about bidding problems.

 

As to the "attitude," I cannot really address that, as I'm not sure what attitude problem you perceive and whether that perception is based upon your extreme irritation with my "bizarre" thinking.

 

Your main point seemed to be that I often comment on auctions where I and a partner both think in a way that is completely foreign to your way of thinking, that we think the same way, that we act consistently along the same lines of thinking, and that we get great results for that absurdity, which appalls you. I can understand that. Half the idiots I play against stumble-bunny into golden contracts all the time, and drive me nuts. Maybe my partners and I are, to your elite world, stumble-bunnies extraordinaire. I'm not sure that would be unethical or slimy or Rules Lawyering. That might be just lucky results from bad bridge, if your assessment is correct.

[kenrexford]

1. The GCC bans two-suited major openings at the two-level unless 10+ and unless the second suit is known. Many give up there when thinking about using 2M for 5+M/4+minor. As a lawyer, I "got around" that problem through a GCC-based innovation, one that might not be technically as sound but one that worked well enough. 2M showed 5+ in the major and 11-15. However, 5332's were opened 1NT if 13-16, or 1M if 11-12. So, the inference was that 2M showed an unbalanced hand. We then added a LTC of 5-6 losers and required that the major length be only 5-card or 6-card. When we, finally, defined 1M-2OM well, the 2M inferentially could not be opened without a side minor. That was not part of the definition of the bid; it was required logically to meet the acceptable definitions. Then, a 2NT response asked for a four-card minor "if Opener happened to have one." Problem solved. (Plus, using my tricky lawyer talk, I convinced the TD's and the ACBL that this was acceptable.)

 

Ken, what was your alert on this one?

 

Peter

It has been a while. The ACBL had some weird rules they put on us, including my favorite, which was that we could make 3+ major responses so long as the system was designed to not take advantage of it. This meant per force playing some Moysian contracts in part scores. We were not to alert the calls, because we treated them as 4+ even though we knew 3+ was the real holding. I fought that one, thinking it was unethical in spirit and begged to be able to alert the opponents, but I was told repeatedly to not do that.

 

On the 2M opening, I think it went something like this:

 

"Alert." ("Yes?") "My partner has exactly 5 or 6 hearts, with less than four spades. He has 11-15 HCP's and a six-loser hand. [Explain this if questioned.] To have that hand, partner almost certainly has an unbalanced hand, meaning a stiff or two doubletons at a minimum. As you can see, that means that he will assuredly have a four-card or longer minor suit, but that is not technically required."

 

I forgot to mention the exception. Just remembered. We had to have a non-two-suited possibility, which we decided to be a seven-card suit with three doubletons and six losers, all outside the suit. This, of course, meant AKQxxxx-xx-xx-xx, with at least two Jacks or another Queen somewhere.

 

BTW -- if you find this call questionable under the GCC, I'll ask you to please assess Bread-and-Butter Precision. With B&BP, 2♣ shows a two-suited hand (clubs and an unknown four-card side suit) or 6+ clubs; 5332 is not allowed. That's a limitation on a call, an agreement, a treatment, that cannot be found on the GCC. A convention regularly played but that is not allowed without interpretation of the Rules. 2M as unbalanced (or 7222) is essentially identical, as is 2M as unbalanced even without 7222. Where is the difference?

 

BTW #2 -- The weak takeout was around in the 50's -- Baron 1NT Overcall. The original Michaels was a three-suited weak cuebid as takeout. That's why the GCC describes the limitations as it does. Research told me this.

 

BTW #3 -- 1♦ as all-purpose was added long after Precision players were using the Nebulous Diamond, and getting away with it. A Kamikazee Nebulous Diamond actually promises a suit, which was allowed before the Rules change done to accommodate Precision players.

[Guest Jlall]

woah this thread ended up being pretty sweet :)

 

I just researched foo on RGB lol.

[jtfanclub]

"Alert." ("Yes?") "My partner has exactly 5 or 6 hearts, with less than four spades. He has 11-15 HCP's and a six-loser hand. [Explain this if questioned.] To have that hand, partner almost certainly has an unbalanced hand, meaning a stiff or two doubletons at a minimum. As you can see, that means that he will assuredly have a four-card or longer minor suit,

No it doesn't.

 

QJT9xx

QJT

Ax

Ax

 

 

14 hcp, 6 losers, not only no 4 card minor, but no 3 card minor.

 

Find me a bid, any bid, where

-It promises any range that does not include 0-7 hcp.

-It is 'natural' for the suit bid (3+ for a minor, 4+ for a major)

-It includes 6-3-2-2 with the 6 in the suit bid.

 

Which is illegal in the GCC in the ACBL. Of course, lots of calls don't fit these criteria which are legal in the ACBL. But if you fit all three criteria, it's legal.

[pbleighton]

I forgot to mention the exception. Just remembered. We had to have a non-two-suited possibility, which we decided to be a seven-card suit with three doubletons and six losers, all outside the suit. This, of course, meant AKQxxxx-xx-xx-xx, with at least two Jacks or another Queen somewhere.

 

BTW -- if you find this call questionable under the GCC, I'll ask you to please assess Bread-and-Butter Precision. With B&BP, 2♣ shows a two-suited hand (clubs and an unknown four-card side suit) or 6+ clubs; 5332 is not allowed. That's a limitation on a call, an agreement, a treatment, that cannot be found on the GCC. A convention regularly played but that is not allowed without interpretation of the Rules. 2M as unbalanced (or 7222) is essentially identical, as is 2M as unbalanced even without 7222. Where is the difference?

 

The addition of the non two suited hands makes this technically legal. Without it, you are clearly in violation.

 

I'm not sure that you are home free, however. At an earlier point in my life (undoubtedly as a punishment for sins in a past life, which must have been a LOT of fun), I had extensive exposure to tax law, and opinion letters by various counsel. One thing I remember quite clearly is *substance over form*. You may (if you decide to play this again) find a TD who takes this approach, in which case you are toast. Your single-suited hand will be so unlikely that the responder can safely play for the existence of a four+ card minor. This is quite differnt from the Precision 2C example.

 

Let me give you another example. A 1NT forcing response to a 1M opening can't have only invitational or better values. What about an approach which says it has either invitational or better values OR a hand with zero hcp and at least six cards in partner's major. This is a more extreme example (meaning the *other* hand is even more rare) than yours. Do you think this would survive an appeal? If not, then at some level *frequency matters*, and your approach may be ruled illegal.

 

I don't know the answer to this, BTW.

 

Also BTW, your Kamikaze diamond and R.U.N.T./Son-of-RUNT seem totally legal to me. As far as interference over a strong club, there are actually limits. The 1S overcall as 13 cards has, I believed, been banned as destructive. Your approach is probably OK, as it seems like a Suction variant, which is legal.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

As a fair disclosure, when my partner and I received rulings on the two key problems (2M and 3-card responses), we had a write-up of the OK and took it to a TD prior to play in each new tournament. This was done for our own protection and as a courtesy. When and if a TD was called to the table, they were prepared to immediately answer that the approach has been approved.

 

 

 

And Now for Something Completely Different:

 

Find me a bid, any bid, where

-It promises any range that does not include 0-7 hcp.

-It is 'natural' for the suit bid (3+ for a minor, 4+ for a major)

-It includes 6-3-2-2 with the 6 in the suit bid.

 

Which is illegal in the GCC in the ACBL. Of course, lots of calls don't fit these criteria which are legal in the ACBL. But if you fit all three criteria, it's legal.

 

2♦ showing 3+ diamonds, 10-13 HCP's, with either 6322 pattern and diamonds OR 5-5 in a major and clubs, with three diamonds.

 

No way would that be allowed, unless all 2♦ openings showing 3+ diamonds were allowed (10+). Clearly not, as 3+ diamonds and a two-suiter is not. Where, by the way, is this "6332" criteria from? Sounds like you whipped it out of a dark place under your belt.

[jtfanclub]

It comes from discussing Muiderberg 2s with Mike Flader. It's not an official criteria, nor did I claim that it was.

 

The 2♦ opening bid you mention looks legal to me, at least by the letter of the law. Why, have you tried it? They might kick you out on general principle, but there's nothing about the bid that's illegal.

 

Clearly not, as 3+ diamonds and a two-suiter is not.

 

But playing it as 3+ diamonds and a one or two suiter is legal. Or as a one or three suiter.

[awm]

What's frustrating about the regulations (and the folks like KenRexford who try to find ways around them) is not so much the regulations themselves as the fact that what's allowed seems to depend a lot on:

 

(1) Who's the director?

(2) How do you describe your methods?

(3) Who are you, and to what extent does director believe you?

 

This basically means that methods can be legal for some players while the same methods are illegal for other players, which is not exactly a level playing field. It can also mean that certain methods are legal if they are poorly disclosed but become illegal with more accurate disclosure.

 

This seems to create a consistent competitive advantage for people who are willing to flout the "spirit of the laws" (obeying the "letter of the laws") while penalizing people who go out of their way to be ethical with regard to their methods and disclosure.

 

Even if you email the "higher ups" at ACBL this problem persists, since Mike Flader (laws) gives answers that routinely conflict with Rick Beye (rulings).

[matmat]

I'm not sure how that reference also offended you.

 

To re-state the facts:

 

1. We had an undiscussed auction (surely others do as well).

2. My partner, who is a professional player, knows very well how my mind thinks about undiscussed auctions.

3. That person made a call that seems bizarre to people who find my general thinking bizarre but that seemed to him to be somethin I would understand.

4. He was right -- I understood his bid without discussion.  Hence, we had a good partnership.  I don't think that is a problem.

5. I did not alert his call, because...

(a.) it is not alertable,

(b.) you are not supposed to alert calls above 3NT that late in the auction anyway -- as it might help partner more than the opponents, and

(c.) the alert policy is in effect for this very situation -- if I alerted 4♠ as RKCB with their suit as the focus suit, this would tell partner what my bids mean and help us more than them.

6. the bid was VERY strange and thus not likely to be made without an explanation requested when explanation matters.

hmmm... say i sit down to play with someone and have no discussion regarding system. I notice after playing a few sessions with them that they interfere over opps 1NT with, say, Hamilton. We never discussed these bids, they're not part of our agreements. so is it okay for me not to alert his calls? at what point do observed tendencies become tacit agreements? at which point do they become alertable? it seems like a totally gray area and you can either skirt the law or ethically disclose observations. i dunno... the actions above smell fishy.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure how that reference also offended you.

 

To re-state the facts:

 

1. We had an undiscussed auction (surely others do as well).

2. My partner, who is a professional player, knows very well how my mind thinks about undiscussed auctions.

3. That person made a call that seems bizarre to people who find my general thinking bizarre but that seemed to him to be somethin I would understand.

4. He was right -- I understood his bid without discussion.  Hence, we had a good partnership.  I don't think that is a problem.

5. I did not alert his call, because...

(a.) it is not alertable,

(b.) you are not supposed to alert calls above 3NT that late in the auction anyway -- as it might help partner more than the opponents, and

(c.) the alert policy is in effect for this very situation -- if I alerted 4♠ as RKCB with their suit as the focus suit, this would tell partner what my bids mean and help us more than them.

6. the bid was VERY strange and thus not likely to be made without an explanation requested when explanation matters.

hmmm... say i sit down to play with someone and have no discussion regarding system. I notice after playing a few sessions with them that they interfere over opps 1NT with, say, Hamilton. We never discussed these bids, they're not part of our agreements. so is it okay for me not to alert his calls? at what point do observed tendencies become tacit agreements? at which point do they become alertable? it seems like a totally gray area and you can either skirt the law or ethically disclose observations. i dunno... the actions above smell fishy.

There is a WILD difference between an undiscussed Hamilton auction coming up with a supposed pick-up partner being fielded and then not alerted, and a very strange bid in the middle of a completitive auction being made by one partner of an established partnership at the four-level.

 

The wild difference is that the Alert Policy very specifically says that you are not supposed to alert any late action above 3NT. The reason for this policy is most effectively shown by the actual auction. Your side has shown slam interest in a competitive auction. The guy to your left made a preempt in the middle of this, his partner previously passing. Now, RHO sticks in a strange 4♠ call, which makes NO sense.

 

You could ask what that means, but your guess is that it shows some sort of heart raise and is funny. You do not care. So, you do not ask at this point -- maybe later. However, LHO now pipes in with an alert. NOW, you suspect that this alert has informed RHO that LHO believes 4♠ to be some sort of specialized bid. Sure enough, when you now ask, LHO informs you that 4♠ asked how many Aces and club honors (our suit) LHO holds. But for this alert, I'm sure RHO would not have a clue that LHO took his 4♠ for THAT!?!?! But, we will never know...

 

This is not a tacit agreement, in the way you suggest. It is "tacit" in the sense of "not alerted immediately" because the Rules, designed to protect the other side, bar you from alerting this call and explaining this call unless asked by the opponents, because a weird 4♠ call, out of the blue, alerts itself by its very act of being bid. It is "tacit" in the sense of not being described in advance on the convention card (tacit as not discussed between the partners themselves even) because this never comes up and the CC is too small to put every possible auction against every possible opposition technique on the card.

 

I'm not sure what the "observed tendencies" idea is, either. Keep in mind, again, that this is not just a call that need not be alerted, it is a call that you are specifically not supposed to alert. It seems like the suggestion is for these types of alerts:

 

"ALERT!!!"

("Yes?")

 

"Partner has a tendency to expect me to understand bids in undiscussed situations as more likely slam-approach than game-approach (or game-before-slam)."

 

"Partner is tilted in mindset toward the artificial more often than most (or he believes that unknowns are natural if they could be natural)."

 

"Partner is of the [aces-first, traditional Italian, Gitelman new Italian, Rexfordian] cuebidding style."

 

Or, it gets even better:

 

"Partner's 4♣ call probably says nothing about clubs -- she just wants me to pick something other than 3NT, my guess."

 

"Partner's 4♥ call suggests that he never understands my Gerber calls."

 

This seems so incredibly simple. My partner and I did not discuss every possible auction. However, we have discussed enough to understand each other in undiscussed auction, even to the point of the "weird" being readable even when undiscussed. This came up, tested our partnership, and we passed the test. We alerted the opponents ONLY when we were finally alllowed to alert them. The bids in question were OBVIOUSLY not natural and by themselves would suggest a possible interest in inquiring without the need for an alert. Had we alerted immediately, we would have broken the Rules of the game, so we did not.

[inquiry]

I have edited some of the post that invaded someone's privacy. It is not clear if the person named is the actual person, but come on... you all know the rules.

[jtfanclub]

I have edited some of the post that invaded someone's privacy. It is not clear if the person named is the actual person, but come on... you all know the rules.

Evidently, I don't.

 

I don't see any posts on the person in question's IP address, or telephone number, or other 'private information'. I see his name, and a link to other boards where he posted.

 

In a thread this week about child prodigies, you mentioned jdonn's name and where to find a picture of him. Now, while most of us could have guessed his actual name, I assume that if he wanted it publicly banded about, he'd have put it in his profile, which he did not.

 

So, is a person's name private information, or not?

 

Matthew Huntington (as if anyone cares)

[blackshoe]

hmmm... say i sit down to play with someone and have no discussion regarding system. I notice after playing a few sessions with them that they interfere over opps 1NT with, say, Hamilton. We never discussed these bids, they're not part of our agreements. so is it okay for me not to alert his calls? at what point do observed tendencies become tacit agreements? at which point do they become alertable? it seems like a totally gray area and you can either skirt the law or ethically disclose observations. i dunno... the actions above smell fishy.

If he has done it often enough that this time you think to yourself "looks like he's bidding Hamilton again", you have an implicit partnership understanding which must be disclosed "IAW the SO's regulations", which means you must alert his bid.

[inquiry]

I  have edited some of the post that invaded someone's privacy. It is not clear if the person named is the actual person, but come on... you all know the rules.

Evidently, I don't.

 

I don't see any posts on the person in question's IP address, or telephone number, or other 'private information'. I see his name, and a link to other boards where he posted.

 

In a thread this week about child prodigies, you mentioned jdonn's name and where to find a picture of him. Now, while most of us could have guessed his actual name, I assume that if he wanted it publicly banded about, he'd have put it in his profile, which he did not.

 

So, is a person's name private information, or not?

 

Matthew Huntington (as if anyone cares)

jdonn post his name on his profile.... on BBO.... same name as used here. Jdonn name was used in a very positive light....

 

This is not the case here. Here the tone of the post was to try to "attack" the poster. In the jdonn case, it was not. Here, things were said about the alleged poster (in fact, it may or not be, then person in question), that could not be support... for example.. "Why he stopped" posting somewhere. Here, some one (not the poster in question) called the post to my attention, and I agreed with the sentiment. If jdonn would like, I can remove his real name. The context is important. Flames, and starting flames that went on at rgb and at a school posting site is not something we want here.

 

I assure you the same "be nice" rules apply here as to the BBO gaming site. A lot that has gone here has not "been nice".

[jdonn]

In a thread this week about child prodigies, you mentioned jdonn's name and where to find a picture of him.  Now, while most of us could have guessed his actual name, I assume that if he wanted it publicly banded about, he'd have put it in his profile, which he did not.

Actually it's just a combination of laziness and apathy. On the same note if my full name was in there by default, I wouldn't be inclined to remove it either. Plus as Ben said, his post about me was complimentary. And only a masochist would look at pictures of me for good times.

 

I guess if I really didn't want anyone to know, then the email address in my bbo profile wouldn't be josh (at symbol) thedonns (dot) com (before even more people ask, yes it really works!)

 

 

[Josh, i editted you email address, because otherwise, experience shows you would be flooded with extra spam]

Edited June 9, 2007 by inquiry

[Impact]

Also, I'm curious, is Moscito banned in the US (that's what my teachers play, they tried to explain it to me once when I asked them about it but I was totally bewildered)?

Yes, it's banned. No, I don't know why.

 

They lift the bans for unlimited national events, but if you're playing at that level, you're probably doing it for money. Can't sell books on systems that are banned, can't get hired by a client who'll know these systems. And, of course, 99% of ACBL members don't play exclusively in Superchart events.

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

 

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.

Encrypted signals are NOT cheating- albeit they have been rendered illegal.

 

No one is entitled to know what you hold in your hand, but they are entitled to know your agreements.

 

If declarer shows out in a suit, the defenders know exactly which pips the other holds.

 

They can, and should, disguise their signals form declarer by playing less obvious middle cards if they can afford so to do: forcing declarer to guess whether it is high or low.

 

Failing to signal count when declarer's handshape has been revealed by the bidding is not "cheating" - yet on a strict interpretation of encryption a partnership which played "count" as their primary signal might be said to do so when they fail to give unnecessary information here.

 

Changing your signals based on information from the play and bidding is similarly sensible.

 

Once the bidding or play gives you information and your partner has it too, the fact that you are on defence should not preclude your options at all.

To the contrary - like complex bidding systems this is a large part of the fascination of the game.

 

Classic encryption occurred following certain knowledge such as the showing out by declarer at trick one and the changing of signals depending upon whether opening leader held (say) an odd or even number of even pips in the suit.

 

Similar positions arise following Stayman response by declarer, where defenders know how many cards in a particular suit declarer must have (and hence how many partner holds).

 

It is often sensible to communicate based on such information -and it is not cheating.

 

Of course, you must disclose the basis of the key to the opponents and cunning declarers can then make discovery plays (se Woolsey's Partnership Defence from recollection) to uncover more information ie deciphering whether you are giving normal or reverse count in a sidesuit may give the clue as to whether opening leader holds an odd or even number of cards in the Stayman suit etc.

 

The tenet of using logic is correct: but not necessarily to get the right answer. You don't have the right to perfect information : you have the right to knowledge of opponents' full methods, and then have to make your own decision as to how to work out how best to counter those methods and/or discover additional information.

 

THis was another example of mindless banning of the sophisticated method because the "average" person found it all too hard!

[kenrexford]

Encrypted signals are NOT cheating- albeit they have been rendered illegal.

 

Classic encryption occurred following certain knowledge such as the showing out by declarer at trick one and the changing of signals depending upon whether opening leader held (say) an odd or even number of even pips in the suit.

 

Similar positions arise following Stayman response by declarer, where defenders know how many cards in a particular suit declarer must have (and hence how many partner holds).

 

It is often sensible to communicate based on such information -and it is not cheating.

 

Of course, you must disclose the basis of the key to the opponents and cunning declarers can then make discovery plays (se Woolsey's Partnership Defence from recollection) to uncover more information ie deciphering whether you are giving normal or reverse count in a sidesuit may give the clue as to whether opening leader holds an odd or even number of cards in the Stayman suit etc.

 

The tenet of using logic is correct: but not necessarily to get the right answer. You don't have the right to perfect information : you have the right to knowledge of opponents' full methods, and then have to make your own decision as to how to work out how best to counter those methods and/or discover additional information.

 

THis was another example of mindless banning of the sophisticated method because the "average" person found it all too hard!

Yeah, I agree with this one completely. Stupid rule. We have to follow it, as part of the game, but this really should be changed.

[helene_t]

Lawyers are undoubtedly better at exploiting their opponents' weaknesses.

Interesting point. In game theory (a branch of math), it is almost always assumed that opps make no mistakes in the future (other than what follows from them having incomplete information). Even if there is evidence of them having made mistakes so far and seem to be following a flawed strategy. Of course it's dangerous to try to reconstruct such a flawed strategy since they may be bluffing.

 

Not sure if this is something a lawyer is good at dealing with.

 

As for encrypted (coded) signals: we all use them. If declarer has shown out of a side suit and I hold 932, I know that patner knows what I hold so that I can play the 3 as a "high" card. Maybe it does not count as a coded signal because the purpose is to spare a card (the 9) that could provide a trick, rather than preventing declarer from reading the signal. But that may not be true, and even if it's true it may be impossible for the TD to tell.

[Gerben42]

Lawyers sure seem to be good at making Bridge laws and regulations in such a way that simple mathematicians like me can't figure them out anymore.

[kenrexford]

Mathematicians start their career with 2+2=4, and then branch off from there.

 

Lawyers start with trying to figure out what "i" equals, making arguments for various things that "i" is. We never really care about what 2+2 is, as that is not subject to argument. But, let's talk more about "i."

 

As noted, that might help at bridge.

[Quantumcat]

I guess since the root of Minus One is imaginary, lawyers might be able to discuss the concept at great length :)

 

On a serious note do you know if encrypted signals are banned in Australia too or just the US? They sound amazing. Of course at the moment I hardly remember to pay attention to any of partner's spots anyhow :rolleyes: but the concept is so interesting to read about.

 

[Edit: the first line is a joke. I don't know if a non-aussie would understand it though]