Forcing Pass Systems

[csdenmark]

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

[TimG]

I was imagining something like this:

 

"1♥ opening showing 5+ spades.

This defence applies to an opening bid which:

- is forcing, and promises a minimum of at least 10 HCP;

- has a 1♠ response which is non-forcing and includes all hands which would pass a standard 1♠ opening."

 

So, not exactly a "generic" defence, but still something which leaves a little room for variety. The defence on the ACBL site specifies SAYC-style responses, which is going too far. You don't want to have to write out the same thing again when someone comes along wanting to play 2/1. If the committee had to approve separate defences for every minor change in the continuations then their workload would indeed quickly become prohibitive.

The detailed responses were required by the C&C Committee. The original submission was meant to be much more generic in terms of method and defense.

 

For instance, the defense presented for the 1H transfer opening assumes the opening was 1S for all intervenor actions of 1NT and above. That is, (1H)-2S is a cue-bid overcall, specified as Michaels (showing hearts and a minor) in the defense. It was not sufficient to suggest that (1H)-2S meant whatever (1S)-2S meant in the defenders' methods.

 

The original defense specified that defenders should use their normal defenses to a 1S opening for all calls 1NT and higher, but the committee rejected that in favor of spelling out a specific meaning for each call. To me, this makes the suggested defense more confusing. Suppose you play (1S)-2S to show top and bottom, if you use the suggested defense you have to switch methods or risk being on a different page than your partner.

 

It was also required that I spell out the competitive methods the opening side would use. So, I had to list things like negative doubles and unusual vs unusual. In my opinion listing those sort of things has no benefit and makes the suggested defense longer, more intimidating, and more time consuming to use.

 

Yes, if more methods that require suggested defenses were allowed, I believe there would be a short adjustment phase where players get used to using the defenses provided. Not the specific defense, but simply get used to using a suggested defense.

[hrothgar]

Well, I've heard that there will be a new ACBL committee next year to look into "electronic" things - from the standpoint of how better to use the internet and things like electronic scoring devices, not barring cell phones :). That committee might be the appropriate one (along with C&C) to which to present this sort of idea.

 

Your suggestion is close to what is done in the WBF, where all methods are allowed for the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but the methods have to be described in advance, and when opponents ask for clarification so they can develop defenses, the proponents have to provide that clarification. There is usually 2-3 months from the date on which unusual methods have to be disclosed until the date of the tournament. There are some situations where a recommended defense is also required but I've forgotten when.

 

Your approach is pretty much exactly what the USBF does - require disclosure of unusual methods well in advance (disclosure includes submission of a defense); allow the method unless other players object to the disclosure and/or the defense. If there is an objection, the conventions committee gets involved and either approves the submission or works with the proponents to correct what they've submitted or disapproves it.

 

But the situation with the Midchart is quite different from that in either the WBF Championships or the USBF Trials - most of the people who will play against the proposed methods probably aren't going to be involved in looking at a website and reviewing proposed methods and defenses. I don't know whether there will be enough people who are interested in reviewing to make it work. I'm just saying that there is less incentive for people to review methods that they might or might not encounter than there is for people to review methods that they are certain to encounter. And my experience suggests that even in the WBF & USBF not very many people actually review what is submitted. For example, about 2 weeks before one World Championship, someone asked me to look at a BS method that had been submitted by a pair in the Venice Cup. I downloaded the convention card and supplementary notes, only to find that the suit symbols were all garbage. That happens, and Anna Gudge fixed it as soon as I pointed it out. But this was 2 weeks before the tournament, probably about 6-8 weeks after the system cards had been posted, the card and particularly the notes were completely unreadable, and NO-ONE had yet complained. To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event. That experience and some others I've had make me less than confident that review by people not charged with the task will work. But it might - after all, there will be more people who might be interested in reviewing Midchart methods than there are who are playing in a World Championship.

 

I have no idea whether you can convince the ACBL Board that this is the way to go. And it is the Board and not the C&C committee whom you will have to convince.

Hi Jan

 

Couple comments:

 

1. As to your closing remark about convincing the Board...

 

If there is one thing that I have learned from many years in management, its that you don't go into meetings like this one without all your ducks in a raw. Reagrdless of what the Board might think, I really doubt if they set policy. Rather, these types of bodies ratify decisions and consensus that have emerged in other parts of the organization.

 

The Board is not going to chance policy unless key stakeholders - in this case, the members of the Conventions Committee - support the initiative in question. In a siilar vein, I suspect that the new Committee Dealing with "Things Internet" is a distraction. A brand new committee isn't going to go around stepping on any toes or shaking things up. (If they do, they are headed for a a short and unhappy life)

 

I suspect that the impetus for change needs to come out of the Conventions Committee. Unless the CC is willing to support this initiative, nothing is going to happen. If the CC is willing to support these types of changes, its then reasonable to discuss how the recommendation should be forwarded to the Board of Directors....

 

2. As to your comments regrding differences between the Midchart and the USBF/Bermuda Bowl/whatever...

 

In my mind, the salient issue is the number of the people that compete in various events. [You noted this as well] ere are a handful of folks who compete in the USBF. In a similar vein, the number of folks who compete in the Bermuda Bowl is miniscule. In contrast, I suspect that that the total number of people who compete in Midchart events is quite a bit higher. Moreover, I am willing to beat that the age profile of these players skews quite a bit lower. (They are more likely to be computer savey and more likely to be familar with web based forums)

 

In short, I think that this type of distributed system is more useful for the ACBL Midchart than for top tier events.

[TimG]

The detailed responses were required by the C&C Committee. The original submission was meant to be much more generic in terms of method and defense.

As an aside, I've often wondered whether a slight change in methods would invalidate the approved defense. Suppose we decided to play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles, for instance, or change our jump raise from preemptive to limit, would this require a new approval, or would it be OK to simply note this change in the methods section and carry the suggested defense as modified.

[nige1]

As an aside, I've often wondered whether a slight change in methods would invalidate the approved defense.  Suppose we decided to play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles, for instance, or change our jump raise from preemptive to limit, would this require a new approval, or would it be OK to simply note this change in the methods section and carry the suggested defense as modified.

IMO the committee should license conventions not systems; and have to resubmit a defence with each change to the convention.

 

Doubts have been expressed about the innovators being the best choice to concoct a defence. I still think it should be the innovators' responsibility because

• As far as I can make out, this closely mirrors existing ratification protocol.
  
• The inventors are well-placed to know the strengths and weaknesses of their own convention.
  
• While devising their new idea, they will consider likely counters.
  
• It's unreasonable to expect others to spend time devising defences to lots of different new conventions. (but, of course it would be quite OK for the innovators, to consult others in formulating a defence).
  
• If, after all, the innovators submit a half-baked defence, the committee will reject the whole caboodle, and the innovators will have to go back to the drawing board.
  
• After ratification, if a more popular defence is devised, then the committee can change the official defence.
  
• This protocol puts the onus on the innovators themselves, and accelerates the process of ratification..
  

[helene_t]

Seems to me that all this "approved defense" bureaucracy isn't worth it. Either allow it (and those who can't stand it can play in GCC events) or ban it (and those who can't live without it can play superchart).

[MFA]

Seems to me that all this "approved defense" bureaucracy isn't worth it. Either allow it (and those who can't stand it can play in GCC events) or ban it (and those who can't live without it can play superchart).

Exactly, I agree.

[TimG]

Seems to me that all this "approved defense" bureaucracy isn't worth it. Either allow it (and those who can't stand it can play in GCC events) or ban it (and those who can't live without it can play superchart).

One trouble with this is that there is not currently a great variety of events offered; I can't go to a regional and decide between the GCC Swiss and the mid-chart Swiss. It's sort of a one-size fits all approach.

[helene_t]

If there was widespread interest in the issue discussed in this thread, there would be a market for events with various levels of legal agreements. The fact that it's one size fits all shows that most don't care, I think.

[csdenmark]

Seems to me that all this "approved defense" bureaucracy isn't worth it. Either allow it (and those who can't stand it can play in GCC events) or ban it (and those who can't live without it can play superchart).

One trouble with this is that there is not currently a great variety of events offered; I can't go to a regional and decide between the GCC Swiss and the mid-chart Swiss. It's sort of a one-size fits all approach.

Tim it is for an organizer to organize fair and just events. It is for the participants to see to they apply to rules according to such. Your organization and other bridge organizations seems to be more interested what you have nothing to do with instead of handling your own responsibility in a decent way.

 

Earlier in this thread Uday tried to make a comparison to boxing events. That was a good comparison. Look to division into men-women-seniors-youth. Fair enough to have some protection for youth but the others are nothing but remains from an old patriarcalic society. There are no physically reasons in bridge for such.

 

An outdated format for convention cards are for WBF mandatory. For USBF a format is in fact not existing. For other national organizations I doubt they are even there. You may scratch 75% of your odd rules simply by making 'Full Disclosure' the way to describe your methods. The rules will simply be in depth level to be described. Such is simple and fair.

 

In other sports(cycling, ski and golf) they create handicaps to create fair contests where level of competitors differs fairly much as the case is in bridge. Thats the way for bridge too and bridge organizations ought to be very busy to make reforms which can help the gasping game to re-vitalize.

[blackshoe]

Well, I've heard that there will be a new ACBL committee next year to look into "electronic" things - from the standpoint of how better to use the internet and things like electronic scoring devices, not barring cell phones :). That committee might be the appropriate one (along with C&C) to which to present this sort of idea.

Hey, ACBL! Welcome to the 1990s! :P

 

I do agree that one might start with this committee, assuming it comes to pass.

 

 

As for the rest, true, the Mid-Chart situation is different from the "big championship" situation. For one thing, in the latter, nothing changes for the pair playing unusual methods just because they played the same methods (and submitted the same descriptions and recommended defenses) last time. In the Mid-Chart situation, however, the submission and vetting has only to be undertaken once.

 

I agree that it is the BoD that will need to be convinced, and also that it may be difficult to do so. That is not, however, a reason not to try.

 

Edit: Hrothgar makes a good point about the BoD simply ratifying what its subordinates recommend. Either way, there will no doubt be difficulty getting it done, but that's still no reason not to try.

Edited December 7, 2008 by blackshoe

[nige1]

If there was widespread interest in the issue discussed in this thread, there would be a market for events with various levels of legal agreements. The fact that it's one size fits all shows that most don't care, I think

1000s of views, 100s of replies, more than 90 votes :P

[JanM]

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF. I gave that example to suggest that although we expect people to review methods that need defenses in order to devise defenses, surprisingly few do it. Richard's suggestion is for Midchart methods. That means that a great number of players would face the particular method without any advance disclosure, except a pre-alert before the round. In that situation, the ACBL has concluded (and I agree) that it is the responsibility of the proponents of the method and the C&C committee to make sure that the people who face that method are given an adequate defense.

 

I think in some of this discussion, people have lost track of the fact that the Super Chart applies to long events at the very top level (Vanderbilt, Spingold, GNT, Team Trials). The Super Chart allows virtually anything (only things that are really impossible to describe adequately are barred). Players playing in Super Chart events are responsible for devising their own defenses. We aren't hearing any complaints from either the proponents or opponents of unusual methods in that context. The Midchart covers a very large amount of ground - from many Regional events through the Reisinger. Maybe that's too large a field and causes some of the unhappiness here.

 

Oh, and while I'm on the Midchart, I think there's some confusion (caused I am sure by the way the Midchart was originally presented) about what is "Midchart legal." The original presentation of the Midchart listed a bunch of things that would be allowed IF & ONLY IF the proponents presented an adequate defense. Many people, including some ACBL Directors, didn't understand the requirement for a defense. So when it said that a bid showing 4 or more cards in a known suit was okay, players and even some directors, thought that a transfer 1 bid was automatically allowed. The intention was always that bids falling into the allowed categories would only become legal when an adequate defense was posted on the ACBL defenses list. The poor communication caused a lot of frustration - people would be told they could play something one time and then told they couldn't another time. Add to that the fact that there wasn't a great deal of clarity about what makes a defense "adequate" (in part more failure of communication, in part the fact that to some extent it depends on the sort of bid you're defending against), and there was a lot of frustration (both among the proponents of methods and the reviewers of defenses).

[Cascade]

I think in some of this discussion, people have lost track of the fact that the Super Chart applies to long events at the very top level (Vanderbilt, Spingold, GNT, Team Trials). The Super Chart allows virtually anything (only things that are really impossible to describe adequately are barred). Players playing in Super Chart events are responsible for devising their own defenses. We aren't hearing any complaints from either the proponents or opponents of unusual methods in that context. The Midchart covers a very large amount of ground - from many Regional events through the Reisinger. Maybe that's too large a field and causes some of the unhappiness here.

I am not sure what the practice is on the ground but what Jan is saying is simply not what is stated in the super chart:

 

"Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing." ACBL Superchart

 

If as Jan states it is intended that this is for the opponents of the method then is seems unduly onerous that I am not allowed to play a defense unless I write it down. I am certain however that it is intended for the proponent of the non-General Convention Chart methods.

 

The superchart also disallows "destructive" methods as far as I can tell without defining what "destructive" means; and relevant to this thread it disallows "forcing pass". There are several other prohibitions.

 

 

Oh, and while I'm on the Midchart, I think there's some confusion (caused I am sure by the way the Midchart was originally presented) about what is "Midchart legal." The original presentation of the Midchart listed a bunch of things that would be allowed IF & ONLY IF the proponents presented an adequate defense.

 

This seems to fall short of the actual practice. Presenting an adequate defense seems not to be sufficient. That defense needs to be approved by a committee that seems to have decided in some cases to restrict mid-chart events by going out of their way to not approve defenses even when they were adequate if the evidence can be believed. And further some have indicated a bias against ever approving a defense against otherwise legal methods like MOSQITO.

[hrothgar]

Oh, and while I'm on the Midchart, I think there's some confusion (caused I am sure by the way the Midchart was originally presented) about what is "Midchart legal." The original presentation of the Midchart listed a bunch of things that would be allowed IF & ONLY IF the proponents presented an adequate defense. Many people, including some ACBL Directors, didn't understand the requirement for a defense. So when it said that a bid showing 4 or more cards in a known suit was okay, players and even some directors, thought that a transfer 1 bid was automatically allowed. The intention was always that bids falling into the allowed categories would only become legal when an adequate defense was posted on the ACBL defenses list. The poor communication caused a lot of frustration - people would be told they could play something one time and then told they couldn't another time. Add to that the fact that there wasn't a great deal of clarity about what makes a defense "adequate" (in part more failure of communication, in part the fact that to some extent it depends on the sort of bid you're defending against), and there was a lot of frustration (both among the proponents of methods and the reviewers of defenses).

Excuse me????

 

As I recall, the ACBL Midchart pre-dated any kind of Defensive Database by a significant amount of time....

 

I still recall when the ACBL introduced the Defensive Database. Moreover, I also recall the ACBL's announcement that the purpose of the Defensive Database was to broaden the scope of methods that would be permitted under the Midchart. (That's part of the reason that I find it so offensive that Defensive Database has been used to neuter the Midchart)

 

As I recall, the ACBL Defense Database was rolled out in 2001.

 

Does anyone know when the Midchart was introduced? (My 1994 copy of the Encycopedia of Bridge doesn't mention the Midchart under the list of Convention Charts)

[csdenmark]

Jan do you know of any other organization which nurses its members in a way similar to what is happening in bridge? I don't.

 

I think it is for organizations to help its members to improve their skills so they can catch up with the best ones. Football(soccer) is a very good example of that. Earlier succesful players are hired for training and coaching. Right now it is the way for Russia to who have hired several succesful trainers from the Netherlands and the famous dane Michael Laudrup. As I remember one of the dutch trainers has been hired for USA too some years ago(Gus Hiddink).

 

You really think it is the way for bridge organizations to help their members by trying to screen them from competition instead of educate them in what they do not know today? Eduacation don't need always or only to be basic education. Tactic and strategy are important too.

 

If I am a member of an organization I expect them to help me to be better in what I am doing and what I am interested of. I don't expect them to work for helping me equalizing in low level. I expect them to help me with their resources to be champion myself - I will be ready and I will be motivated.

 

I have a clear impression that most in bridge are not ready and not motivated - but then it is for the organization not to vaste resources for them - but to re-direct for those ready and motivated.

[csdenmark]

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF.

Just to be sure I have understood you correct Jan.

 

I am not responsible to be ready. Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings? Correct?

[JanM]

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF.

Just to be sure I have understood you correct Jan.

 

I am not responsible to be ready. Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings? Correct?

I'm afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say. If you are competing in a World Championship where BS and HUM are allowed, you are responsible for preparing to defend against them. The players employing the methods are responsible for describing them fully so that their opponents can prepare a defense. I really don't understand what you mean by "Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings?"

[JanM]

As I recall, the ACBL Midchart pre-dated any kind of Defensive Database by a significant amount of time....

 

I still recall when the ACBL introduced the Defensive Database.  Moreover, I also recall the ACBL's announcement that the purpose of the Defensive Database was to broaden the scope of methods that would be permitted under the Midchart.  (That's part of the reason that I find it so offensive that Defensive Database has been used to neuter the Midchart)

 

As I recall, the ACBL Defense Database was rolled out in 2001.

 

Does anyone know when the Midchart was introduced?  (My 1994 copy of the Encycopedia of Bridge doesn't mention the Midchart under the list of Convention Charts)

You're probably right and perhaps it was the order of things that caused the confusion. The "Yellow Book" of defenses was originally the way that defenses were disseminated. Those defenses were created by the C&C committee in response to requests by people to employ certain methods. I am reasonably confident that only methods for which there was a defense were allowed. I am far less confident about the order in which the change to defenses have to be presented with a proposed method and the method will be allowed only after the Defense Approval Committee has approved the defense and the change to having defenses online happened. But both of those did happen to get us where we are today. Along the way, the Midchart was somewhat revised but was pretty unclear. Now the Midchart has been revised to list the methods for which there are defenses instead of types of methods that would be allowed if a defense was approved. What will happen as new methods & defenses are approved I don't know - hopefully the Midchart whill be changed to include the new methods, but there is some indication that people will have to look at the Defense Database to figure out what's allowed - that would be unfortunate, I think.

[JanM]

I am not sure what the practice is on the ground but what Jan is saying is simply not what is stated in the super chart:

 

"Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart.  Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing."  ACBL Superchart

 

If as Jan states it is intended that this is for the opponents of the method then is seems unduly onerous that I am not allowed to play a defense unless I write it down.  I am certain however that it is intended for the proponent of the non-General Convention Chart methods.

 

The superchart also disallows "destructive" methods as far as I can tell without defining what "destructive" means; and relevant to this thread it disallows "forcing pass".  There are several other prohibitions.

It does say that, but as a practical matter, in ACBL tournaments, there isn't much time before playing a team to do anything about their Superchart methods. Various approaches have been taken to telling future opponents that a team uses Superchart methods. Maybe the proponents submit a description and defense but more often the opponents figure out what to do and do it. Whether they choose to write down their defense is up to them. If thy choose to write it down, they can refer to that written defense during the bidding. Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them. Forcing pass is barred because to play a forcing pass, you have to play some fert and ferts just cannot be defined adequately and therefore aren't allowed. The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

 

For USBF events, the proponents are required to file a description of unusual methods, as well as a defense. Their opponents may choose to use the defense that has been filed or their own. They have a substantial time before the event to review the opponents' methods and decide what to do about them. If someone thinks that an opponent's disclosure or defense is not adequate, he or she can complain and the USBF conventions committee reviews what was filed. By the way, the USBF International Team Trials Committee considered allowing more methods than those included in the Superchart and decided not to do so because a majority of the players preferred not to have to deal with those methods.

[hrothgar]

As I recall, the ACBL Midchart pre-dated any kind of Defensive Database by a significant amount of time....

 

I still recall when the ACBL introduced the Defensive Database.  Moreover, I also recall the ACBL's announcement that the purpose of the Defensive Database was to broaden the scope of methods that would be permitted under the Midchart.  (That's part of the reason that I find it so offensive that Defensive Database has been used to neuter the Midchart)

 

As I recall, the ACBL Defense Database was rolled out in 2001.

 

Does anyone know when the Midchart was introduced?  (My 1994 copy of the Encycopedia of Bridge doesn't mention the Midchart under the list of Convention Charts)

You're probably right and perhaps it was the order of things that caused the confusion. The "Yellow Book" of defenses was originally the way that defenses were disseminated. Those defenses were created by the C&C committee in response to requests by people to employ certain methods. I am reasonably confident that only methods for which there was a defense were allowed. I am far less confident about the order in which the change to defenses have to be presented with a proposed method and the method will be allowed only after the Defense Approval Committee has approved the defense and the change to having defenses online happened.

I have a pretty good recollection regarding the regulations that were written and distributed:

 

The Yellow Book was described as a set of defenses to a set of methods that were sanctioned under the Midchart.

 

IF

 

(players chose to employ methods that were sanctioned under the Midchart

AND a method to these methods was included in in the Yellow Book)

 

THEN players needed to provide a copy of this defense to the opponents.

 

I can point to ANY number of examples of Midchart legal methods that did not require any kind of suggested defense. The Kaplan Interchange and Game Forcing Relays are the most obvious examples. (I can provide a lot more)

 

I can't speak regarding the intentions of the committee. However, the rules set that they published / distributed don't seem to match what you are describing...

[csdenmark]

To me that means that no one had bothered to read the submission, even though it was clearly identified as Brown Sticker and the team was a definite contender in the event.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF.

Just to be sure I have understood you correct Jan.

 

I am not responsible to be ready. Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings? Correct?

I'm afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say. If you are competing in a World Championship where BS and HUM are allowed, you are responsible for preparing to defend against them. The players employing the methods are responsible for describing them fully so that their opponents can prepare a defense. I really don't understand what you mean by "Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings?"

Thank you Jan.

 

I think I now understand that I am not responsible myself for what I am doing. I sit right back and look for what comes from opponents and if the commissioner approves opponents may be granted to right to play what they think is good bridge. I have no obligation to be constructive myself.

 

The commissioner always has the right to reject, no matter the reason, even lack of knowledge.

[csdenmark]

The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings.

 

Pass-systems are very simple to defend against but they are annoying because you are prevented from playing your own offensive system.

 

Against 0-7 opening - Lambda is a very effective defense. Lambda can also be used over 1♣ opening - else the same defense as used versus weak balanced(Polish Club) is good. Especially against Regres some strategy can be needed. It is not always wise to interfere in 1st round.

 

For the rest no specific defense is needed. Natural methods will do very well.

[Cascade]

Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.

I have no idea what is being referred to.

 

If my style is to open 2♠ on Jxxxx and out is that a destructive method that is barred?

 

It seems like if the term is not defined it is licence for the director to disallow anything that he or she does not like or worse anything that my esteemed opponents might choose to complain about.

 

This failure to define what is meant necessarily creates a process that is not open and transparent.

 

Forcing pass is barred because to play a forcing pass, you have to play some fert and ferts just cannot be defined adequately and therefore aren't allowed.

 

I am sure that is not the reason.

 

Almost any FERT I have seen can and are well defined even if only in terms of what is not held.

 

And what is the problem with that anyway if it is not well defined then this will be bad for the opening side and as far as I am familiar every pair that plays a FERT appreciates that the FERT is a net loss for their side. They hope to make up those losses on the other system bids.

 

To me this sort of reasoning is basically an irrational paranoia.

 

The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

 

100s or 1000s of average players in Australia have no problems defending against two suited openings with no anchor suit like 2♥ 5/5 two suits of the same colour. If it is possible for them why is not possible for North Americans to develop a defense?

 

Again I don't believe that what you wrote is the true reason that this method is disallowed.

 

Personally I have never spent a large amount of time developing a defense for such a method but in my encounters with methods of this type at the table I cannot recall any disasters because we were under prepared.

[jdonn]

Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.

I have no idea what is being referred to.

 

If my style is to open 2♠ on Jxxxx and out is that a destructive method that is barred?

 

It seems like if the term is not defined it is licence for the director to disallow anything that he or she does not like or worse anything that my esteemed opponents might choose to complain about.

 

This failure to define what is meant necessarily creates a process that is not open and transparent.

My definition of a destructive method would be a method with no constructive element at all. For example, of course simple things like preempts and weak notrumps have destructive elements to them in that they hamper the opponents' auction, and that might even be their main benefit. But they also have a constructive element. When I open 2♠ I am not only hoping, but reasonably expecting that I can make enough tricks with spades as trumps to either make my contract, or go down less than what the opponents can make. Of course you may have the same hope when you open with a fert of 1♠ for example, but your hand gives you no reason to expect it. There is simply no constructive element to a fert at all (and no, telling partner I have less than some minimum number of high cards is not constructive, merely informative) so I would consider it a destructive method.

 

Where the line is to be drawn (such as opening 2♠ with Jxxxx) I won't even pretend I could either know or figure out. I am happy enough to let a line be arbitrarily drawn, perhaps by the C&C committee.