3N Namyats

[pclayton]

Matt and I are playing our 3N Namyats opening in SF. It's midchart but there isn't a recommended defense in the ACBL database. We have a makeshift defense on our pre-alerts however.

 

I asked Henry Cukoff one of the directors at the tourney about this. He said the directors don't really worry about conventions of this ilk because of the relative frequency.

[whereagles]

So.. what is it you want us to say? :)

[jdonn]

So.. what is it you want us to say? :)

I think he wants to know your defense over the 3NT opening?

[awm]

Why is it mid-chart? It definitely looks super-chart to me.

 

I tried to get this convention approved for mid-chart with a simple defense but apparently it takes more than a couple months to get this done (I tried in September or so and was told too late).

[hrothgar]

Matt and I are playing our 3N Namyats opening in SF. It's midchart but there isn't a recommended defense in the ACBL database. We have a makeshift defense on our pre-alerts however.

 

I asked Henry Cukoff one of the directors at the tourney about this. He said the directors don't really worry about conventions of this ilk because of the relative frequency.

Hi Phil:

 

My understanding is that if there isn't an approved defense, you don't get to use the method. The fact that you choose to provide your own homebrew defense is completely irrelevant.

 

My suspicion is that Henry Cukoff doesn't have the authority to over ride the Conventions Committee on this one (regardless of what he might think)

 

I'm all for liberalizing the Convention Chart. Hell, I've played this same 3NT opening in a few partnerships. However, I have severe issues with Directors who believe that they can selectively enforce the rules.

 

No offense, but you (and Matt) should both know better than this. You're willfully breaking the rules.

 

I don't have an issue with this if you're doing this as some part of a protest. (You plan to call the Director if/when a 3NT opening comes up and have some kind of Rosa Parks moment). If you're doing this because you want to play this convention and you don't care what the rule book says... that's a very different story.

 

In all seriousness, what do you think the reply would be if you asked Rick Beye or Mike Flader about whether or not you could play this method? Moreover, why didn't you ask them?

 

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

[han]

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

That seems too mild! They should be banned from international competition for at least a year for trying to play a convention that the director told them they could play.

[jonottawa]

Or at least prevented from ever playing with each other again. Except maybe in midnights.

[the hog]

Excuse me, but you guys are all kidding us, right? A 3NT opening showing a good Major pre empt not beiing allowed throughout all levels of competition. Sheesh! Play the same defence you play over a gambling 3NT - X = strong bal, bids natural.

[jdonn]

Excuse me, but you guys are all kidding us, right? A 3NT opening showing a good Major pre empt not beiing allowed throughout all levels of competition. Sheesh! Play the same defence you play over a gambling 3NT - X = strong bal, bids natural.

Isn't it fairly well agreed upon that you need at least one way to show majors over a gambling 3NT? Anyway I agree with you, this opening is if anything even easier to defend since showing minors is relatively unimportant in comparison to showing majors on other auctions, and the fact opponents have a major makes it that much less likely you want to come in anyway. It is simply not allowed due to lack of familiarity by the majority, which I know leads to the inevitable catch-22 that they can't thus become familiar with it. So be it.

[hrothgar]

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

That seems too mild! They should be banned from international competition for at least a year for trying to play a convention that the director told them they could play.

That's not the issue and you know it:

 

1. I think that it is patently obvious that Rick Beye / Mike Flader would not allow this convention to be played without an approved defense. I could very well be wrong: I was wrong about they're willingness to approve encrypted bidding structures. However, I'd be shocked if they threw process out the window like this.

 

2. The ACBL has a process for getting conventions approved. For whatever reason, Phil has made a deliberate decision to side step this normal process. I don't consider it acceptable that

 

A. Adam follows the correct procedures and is denied the ability to blame this convention.

 

B. Phil and Matt decide to make an end run around the system and go shopping for an opinion. They find a director who is willing to go along with their idea (we have no way of knowing how many directors might refused permission)

 

3. This is a National Level event. This isn't a case where a local district can impose its own regulations. Even though the event is taking place in California, you still don't don't get play Suction as a defense over a NT opening.

[jonottawa]

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

That seems too mild! They should be banned from international competition for at least a year for trying to play a convention that the director told them they could play.

That's not the issue and you know it:

 

1. I think that it is patently obvious that Rick Beye / Mike Flader would not allow this convention to be played without an approved defense. I could very well be wrong: I was wrong about they're willingness to approve encrypted bidding structures. However, I'd be shocked if they threw process out the window like this.

 

2. The ACBL has a process for getting conventions approved. For whatever reason, Phil has made a deliberate decision to side step this normal process. I don't consider it acceptable that

 

A. Adam follows the correct procedures and is denied the ability to blame this convention.

 

B. Phil and Matt decide to make an end run around the system and go shopping for an opinion. They find a director who is willing to go along with their idea (we have no way of knowing how many directors might refused permission)

 

3. This is a National Level event. This isn't a case where a local district can impose its own regulations. Even though the event is taking place in California, you still don't don't get play Suction as a defense over a NT opening.

I think Hannie's reaction was to your 'hauled off for cheating' line.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but don't bring the C word into this.

 

To play this treatment is really really dumb if it's illegal. If I played against a pair who played an illegal convention I'd call the director and say 'This convention is illegal. I'd like an adjusted score on this board.' And I'd deserve one. And I'd get one.

 

Did you intend to say 'denied the ability to blame this convention' or was that a Freudian slip? The rest of your post seemed serious so I couldn't tell if this was a joke or not.

[han]

Yes, my reaction was to "hauled off for cheating" only.

 

Further, it seems to me that ACBL should be blamed for this situation, not Phil and Matt. With this situation I mean having a director at this national level event tell Phil and Matt that they can use Namyats while others have been told by higher up that they can't.

[blackshoe]

Sounds to me like Mr. Cukoff made a mistake. That should be corrected, but I don't think we need to hang anyone.

[brianshark]

One of my partner's asked me to play this method and I foolishly agreed. Now if only I knew the responses. *crosses fingers that it doesn't come up*

 

I think he mentioned something about 4♣ being transfer to your Major and 4♦ being bid your Major. And take it as it comes after that. What do you guys play?

[pclayton]

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

That seems too mild! They should be banned from international competition for at least a year for trying to play a convention that the director told them they could play.

That's not the issue and you know it:

 

1. I think that it is patently obvious that Rick Beye / Mike Flader would not allow this convention to be played without an approved defense. I could very well be wrong: I was wrong about they're willingness to approve encrypted bidding structures. However, I'd be shocked if they threw process out the window like this.

 

2. The ACBL has a process for getting conventions approved. For whatever reason, Phil has made a deliberate decision to side step this normal process. I don't consider it acceptable that

 

A. Adam follows the correct procedures and is denied the ability to blame this convention.

 

B. Phil and Matt decide to make an end run around the system and go shopping for an opinion. They find a director who is willing to go along with their idea (we have no way of knowing how many directors might refused permission)

 

3. This is a National Level event. This isn't a case where a local district can impose its own regulations. Even though the event is taking place in California, you still don't don't get play Suction as a defense over a NT opening.

Richard you are making assumptions here. Had to point out the obvious. Frankly I'm a little pissed you suggested I went 'shopping' for an opinion. Go to hell.

 

I asked one director who has been around for a long long time. I suppose I should have kept asking until I received a dissenting opinion.

 

I'm too tired to pull up the convention charts but its midchart. If this was superchart I wouldn't have tried to suggest it. I thought Adam had applied to the ACBL and they wouldn't approve what he requested for whatever reason.

 

Oh and Suction is approved in these events, by the way.

[jikl]

This is why bridge is dying. Bridge in the US and ACBL-land is so over-regulated noone can play it except in real competitions. This is such a pathetically simple convention to defend against when you are used to playing against weird stuff. Bridge in the US is so over regulated that it comes down to when does one use their brain and actually think. Oops, you thought, automatic minus for BIT, shoot the sort of person that thought and give them a bottom. I would expect any partner I played with to know the meta-defense to this convention without discussion. I wouldn't even be concerned about coming up against this in a 2 board round MP pairs.

 

Sean

[Echognome]

Hi Phil:

 

My understanding is that if there isn't an approved defense, you don't get to use the method. The fact that you choose to provide your own homebrew defense is completely irrelevant.

 

My suspicion is that Henry Cukoff doesn't have the authority to over ride the Conventions Committee on this one (regardless of what he might think)

 

I'm all for liberalizing the Convention Chart. Hell, I've played this same 3NT opening in a few partnerships. However, I have severe issues with Directors who believe that they can selectively enforce the rules.

 

No offense, but you (and Matt) should both know better than this. You're willfully breaking the rules.

 

I don't have an issue with this if you're doing this as some part of a protest. (You plan to call the Director if/when a 3NT opening comes up and have some kind of Rosa Parks moment). If you're doing this because you want to play this convention and you don't care what the rule book says... that's a very different story.

 

In all seriousness, what do you think the reply would be if you asked Rick Beye or Mike Flader about whether or not you could play this method? Moreover, why didn't you ask them?

 

If I were playing against you and you/Matt opened 3N and handed me a homebrew defense I'd try to see you hauled off for cheating...

Richard,

 

I think you're being really over the top here.

 

First off, I could tell you precisely what is allowed in the EBU at various levels of competition. That's where I played most of my f2f bridge. I'm learning the various charts here in the acbl, but certainly do not know them to the extent that those that have played here for much longer do. I also do not believe the rules are nearly as clear here as they are from reading the Orange book in England. So to say that I should know better is an overbid to say the least.

 

Second, I find your suggestion that we are trying to flaut the rules very offensive. What is your problem here? We don't know if something is allowed. We go to a director and ask. What more do you want from us? I have few words for your suggestion that you think we are trying to cheat. I only recommend you issue a sincere apology.

 

Matt

[david_c]

I think Richard may be right. Phil said in his original post, "It's midchart but there isn't a recommended defense in the ACBL database." Hence it's not legal. You didn't need to ask a director to confirm this.

 

So don't play it. I've been caught playing illegal conventions twice (in England the levels are clearly defined, but organisers aren't always terribly good at telling you which level applies in their event), and it's really not worth it.

[SoTired]

This is why bridge is dying. Bridge in the US and ACBL-land is so over-regulated noone can play it except in real competitions. [snip]

Sean

This sorry argument again.

 

Bridge is dying because it is a complex game that takes a long time to learn to play reasonably well and must compete with a huge number of easier-to-learn games and pastimes, like TV and poker.

 

Please compare the number of young (<30) people who have played bridge seriously for a year (that is min experience to be able to know enuf to experiment) who quit because they were not allowed to play their experimental conventions to the number of young people who don't want to bother learning a game it takes a year of playing before you are ready to play seriously.

[hrothgar]

Richard,

 

I think you're being really over the top here.

 

First off, I could tell you precisely what is allowed in the EBU at various levels of competition. That's where I played most of my f2f bridge. I'm learning the various charts here in the acbl, but certainly do not know them to the extent that those that have played here for much longer do. I also do not believe the rules are nearly as clear here as they are from reading the Orange book in England. So to say that I should know better is an overbid to say the least.

 

Second, I find your suggestion that we are trying to flaut the rules very offensive. What is your problem here? We don't know if something is allowed. We go to a director and ask. What more do you want from us? I have few words for your suggestion that you think we are trying to cheat. I only recommend you issue a sincere apology.

 

Matt

Matt:

 

I agree with a lot of what you have to say:

 

1. The rules here in the US are often ambiguous

2. The ACBL doesn't have anything equivalent to the Orange Book

3. Individual directors are often poorly informed about regulations

4. The director that you talked to directly stated that directors feel free to ignore the actual regulations.

 

However, I would claim that this makes it even more obvious that you don't go and ask some random director for an opinion. Rather, the correct thing to do is to go straight to the horse's mouth (so to speak) and ask for a ruling from Memphis. [On a good day, they'll give you the same answer that they provided to the last person that asked]

 

To me, it seems clear that Phil knew the correct proceedures and understands the issue involved, but didn't feel like following them

 

1. His original post stated that he knew that this was a Midchart Convention without any approved defense

 

Matt and I are playing our 3N Namyats opening in SF. It's midchart but there isn't a recommended defense in the ACBL database. We have a makeshift defense on our pre-alerts however.

 

2. In a later post, Phil wrote the following:

 

I thought Adam had applied to the ACBL and they wouldn't approve what he requested for whatever reason.

 

You've both been on these forums for years. You've seen any number of discussions and arguments about the Conventions approval process as well as the calibre of the ACBL's directors. (Hell, we've discussed these issues over dinner)

 

For the life of me, I don't understand what possessed you to believe that its appropriate to submit your own "makeshift" defense regardless of what some random director might say.

 

As for my use of the word "Cheating". I agree that this is an inflamatory phrase. However, to me, this looks like a case where the partnership is deliberately circumventing the rules.

 

If Phil (or anyone) has said:

 

Matt and I went to play in San Francisco.

We weren't sure whether a NAMYATS 3N opening is legal at the Midchart level.

We asked a director and he told us it was fine.

Someone called us on it and a senior director ruled that we were playing an illegal convention

 

I would have a lot of sympathy for you and would have joined the chorus of posters complaining about the dismal state of the regulatory structure and called for more transparency in the process.

 

However, what happened here is very different...

[PassedOut]

I know I'm missing something here because I haven't played seriously for such a long time.

 

Unless you use 3N Namyats with weaker major suits, wouldn't the following GCC opening bid paragraph apply?

8. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of

     a ) a solid suit or

     b ) a minor one-suiter.

Trying to get my head around what is legal/illegal these days in the ACBL. Thanks.

[jdonn]

Unless you use 3N Namyats with weaker major suits,

exactly

[mikeh]

I have great sympathy for Phil and Matt, but I really don't agree with their playing a convention that at least one of them presumably knows is illegal, notwithstanding that a director told them that it was legal. I say this because I assume, based both on Phil's earlier track record of posts, where he comes across as knowledgable, and his reference to it being midchart but with no approved defence. Certainly my read of the midchart says that this call (3N showing a major... assuming it might not be 'solid') is illegal unless an approved defence exists.

 

Checking with a director, even one of Henry's standing, is no excuse, altho it may feel like one. I suspect Phil 'knew' or at least suspected that Henry was mistaken in his interpretation of the law. I may be being unfair, but did Phil tell Henry that the midchart seemed to make the convention illegal? Or did he simply explain the bid and ask if it was ok? And in any event, while we'd like our directors to be infallible, the truth is that they are not. And the chart is unambiguous.

 

So playing the illegal method is unfair to those of us who, equally irritated and frustrated by the ACBL's attitude towards thinking, abide by the rules. And it is unfair to Phil's opponents: sure, their defence may make sense; sure the opps SHOULD be able to cope... but his opps are being confronted with an unfamiliar convention with a defence they have to take on faith, that they have had no chance to learn beforehand, because it is not in the ACBL approved defences. Some opps will be discomfited by this, and this isn't fair.... unless that discomfiture is part of the conditions of contest. I personally believe that it should be, but as long as it isn't then it isn't fair for Phil and Matt to make it so for their particular opps.

 

So my sympathies, but not my endorsement. BTW, no way do I call this 'cheating' and, while I understand Richard's point, I think that he owed Phil and Matt an apology for the suggestion that it is. It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating. There is nothing at all surreptitious about their behaviour.

[awm]

Here's what's legal on the ACBL mid-chart. Things with * in front require suggested defense:

 

1. All of the ACBL general chart.

2. Relay systems that promise GF values.

3. All constructive rebids and responses except for:

--- 3a. Relay systems that show less than GF values.

--- 3b. Conventional calls after a 1NT opening with minimum <10 hcp or range >5 hcp.

--- 3c. Conventional calls after a weak two bid with a range >7 hcp or length that maybe 4 cards.

*4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except weak two-suited bids must be 5-4 or better.

*5. Opening 2♦ to show a weak two in an unspecified major, with or without strong options.

*6. A 2♠ or 2NT opening to show an unspecified minor or both minors.

*7. A transfer bid at the 2-level or higher showing a weak hand in suit transferred to, plus possible strong options.

*8. Any strong (15+ hcp) opening bid.

*9. Notrump overcall as two-suited takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution.

10. Any defense to natural notrump opening bids or overcalls.

*11. Any opening bid at the three-level or above showing an undisclosed solid suit.

 

An opening 3NT showing a weak hand with a major has nothing to do with relay systems (2). It's not the responses that are at issue, so (3) doesn't apply. It doesn't promise four cards in a known suit, since it could be either major, so (4) doesn't apply. Both (5) and (6) are specific other opening calls so don't apply. Since there is no "suit transferred to" as it could be either major, (7) doesn't apply. Presumably even though it's a "good 4M bid" there is nothing close to a guarantee of 15+ hcp so (8) doesn't apply. It seems obvious that (9) and (10) have nothing to do with this opening, and (11) only applies if you guarantee a suit headed by AKQ which most people don't want to. That leaves only (1), and I think we all know this is not on the general chart.

 

So I honestly don't see why it would be mid-chart regardless of defense.

 

Honestly if you require your suit to be headed by AKQ it does become general chart.

[sceptic]

It is an intentional violation of the rules, and should attract a sanction, but it is not the same as what we normally think of when we think of cheating

 

haha I cant believe you wrote that