Forcing Pass Systems

[fred]

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

 

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

 

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

My point is that the vast majority of ACBL's members do not know that a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and 4+♠ with 10-14 points is allowed, nor do they know whether a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and 4+♠ with 8-12 points is allowed, nor do they know that a 2♥ opening showing 4+♥ and 4+♠ with 10-14 points is disallowed.

 

They are equally likely (or unlikely) to complain and/or call director when any of these three bids is opened.

 

This being the case, I think it is somewhat inaccurate to argue that "the current regulations are good because the vast majority of players are not complaining." The vast majority of players don't even know what the regulations are.

[helene_t]

Might be different in acbl land, but over here such a survey would be joke. People would be just as unqualified of taking a position as when the European constitution was voted on.

[qwery_hi]

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

 

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

 

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I for one don't really care about what the regulations are since :

 

1. I love the game too much and will play it irrespective of what the regulations are.

2. I consider it expensive, complicated and "not worth the cost/effort" to try to convince the current regulators that things can be improved.

 

This does not mean that I am content with the current regulations.

 

Until current players excuse themselves from regulatory committees, there is going to be a perception of conflict of interest between what is best for them and what is best for the bridge playing population. If the regulators feel right to pretend there is no conflict of interest, I will feel right to question their motives.

 

As an aside, I think the argument that most players are content is not a good one for justifying the current regulations.

 

Since we don't know if :

 

1. Majority of players will be more happy if precision is banned,

2. Majority of players will be more happy if kamikaze NT is banned,

3. Majority of players will be more happy is ... is banned,

 

I don't think any of us should say that the current system is optimal since most players are content.

 

That would be like saying the glass is half full. or half empty. I could say that most players are not content; in the sense that they would be more happy if precision was banned.

[Elianna]

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

 

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

 

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This is the first time I'm posting in this thread, mainly because I couldn't care less about Forcing Pass/multi/etc.

 

What I care about is that I believe that the existing rules are unclear, and are thus inconsistently enforced. I would not advocate changing what is/isn't allowed, but I DO think that the convention charts need to be clearer, and directors who are charged with enforcing those charts be given better guidelines about them. For example, if they had a set of systems/conventions that were both close to being legal (yet were illegal), and close to being illegal (yet are legal), then it might be easier for the director to decide on the legality of a random system/convention.

 

What I abhor is certain results of the current system: (all have happened, I just am not bandying names)

 

1) A pair plays a certain system that we believe is illegal, but they have been told by a random director is legal. We have to raise a big stink, get a director to call in to national HQ, and he finds out it is illegal, and they have to change their system. A few tournaments later, they are playing the same (old) system, because the director at the new tournament thinks that it is legal.

 

2) A pair is playing what is clearly a non-gameforcing relay system (not allowed). We call the director. We point out that this is a non-gameforcing relay system according to the definition. The director agrees. The opponents then tell the director that they're not relays (ie, they don't CALL them relays). The director rules the system legal.

 

And no, the same directors were not involved in 1) or 2), but one can see how a situation like in 2) could lead to 1).

 

My point (and I admit it took a while) is that I don't care what's legal or illegal, but that the charts need to be made MUCH clearer, and directors need to be better educated.

 

(P.S. Even though I'm friends with MatMat, I don't have the same anti-director hatred. I don't blame them for this situation, I blame the rules that led them to this situation.)

[fred]

The vast majority of players don't even know what the regulations are.

That is because they don't care what the fine print of the regulations says. Why should they?

 

The vast majority don't need to care about regulations to tell them what they can play because it is all but certain that, whatever they want to play, it will be legal.

 

The only reason the majority cares about the regulations is because the regulations draw a line for their opponents - the fine print is their problem.

 

Lacking of complaining is meaningful. If the line was moved so that the majority didn't like it anymore, there would be a lot of complaining.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Suppose there was a ridiculously unfair law, but it was only enforced against 1% of the population. Most likely, 99% or so would not complain. Does this mean the law is good?

 

As things stand now, if the regulations were to change slightly, most people would not even notice. Most folks don't know the regulations well enough to realize that the people playing 1NT responses invitational or better, or playing four card weak twos, or opening 1♣ "could be short" on balanced 9-counts, are actually violating the regulations. So I doubt they would complain if the regulations made these things legal. Similarly, they wouldn't complain if a 2NT opening showing a weak hand with both minors were made illegal, or if an 8-10 opening 1NT range were made illegal, or playing suction against the opponents' strong club were made illegal. There is a lot of flexibility in these regulations before most people complain.

 

It's also the case that the regulations are enforced very erratically. If we were to enforce the regulations banning Bailey Twos (hard to see how these could be allowed if Muiderberg is not) or the regulations banning mini-roman 2♦ on less than ten points, or the regulations banning one level openings on less than eight points in third seat... chances are that a somewhat larger number of people would complain. But the regulations are vague and enforced only at director's discretion (i.e. against newer methods or younger players) and this reduces the number of complaints.

 

In general the argument that "not very many people are complaining" only holds water if the alternatives would cause a lot more people to complain. While it is conceivable that legalizing HUMs at local club games might have this effect (although who would play them? and who would care if no one played them?) any minor redrawing of the convention charts (in either direction) is likely to go mostly unnoticed.

[fred]

Suppose there was a ridiculously unfair law, but it was only enforced against 1% of the population. Most likely, 99% or so would not complain. Does this mean the law is good?

No. I think ridiculously unfair laws are bad.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

any minor redrawing of the convention charts (in either direction) is likely to go mostly unnoticed.

Agree completely (but of course sometimes players disagree in terms of what constitutes "minor redrawing").

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

Hi Jan

 

During the course of this thread, there was some discussion regarding some private email exchanges between members of the Conventions Committee about MOSCITO that accidentially leaked to the outside world.

 

At one point in time, you mentioned that you were going to ask Chip about this.

 

Curious what he had to say...

Sorry - he said he didn't remember it. Not that it didn't happen, but he hadn't any recollection of it.

[JanM]

2) Uncertainty caused by confusion about which defense applies, or how a defense applies.  To use David's example, the Martel-Stansby auction where they "overcalled" 1S and were now unsure whether their agreements over a 1S overcall or a 1S opening bid were in play.

But that wasn't the problem on that hand. They both "knew" that the 1♠ bid was an overcall and therefore their agreements about overcalls applied. The problem was that on the second round of the auction, Lew looked down at a bidding tray that had P-1♠-P-2♠ on it and it was such a normal looking auction that he momentarily forgot that the P was strong and 1♠ therefore an overcall.

[JanM]

What I care about is that I believe that the existing rules are unclear, and are thus inconsistently enforced.  I would not advocate changing what is/isn't allowed, but I DO think that the convention charts need to be clearer, and directors who are charged with enforcing those charts be given better guidelines about them.  For example, if they had a set of systems/conventions that were both close to being legal (yet were illegal), and close to being illegal (yet are legal), then it might be easier for the director to decide on the legality of a random system/convention.

I agree that it's very frustrating when the rules aren't clear and the directors don't understand them. And it doesn't only happen at club games. I was a Vugraph operator on a hand in a Vanderbilt or Spingold match once where a question came up about something having to do with systems and it took something like three director consultations to get an answer - at some point during the rather lengthy delay, the two pairs involved agreed that they'd let me tell them what the rules were :P.

 

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds). Hopefully, that will reduce the inconsistent director rulings, and make it less likely for the examples you gave to happen. Although I confess I don't know what will work to correct the notion that if you don't call something a relay it isn't. I do like your idea of giving directors examples of borderline things - I'll pass it on.

[cherdano]

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds). Hopefully, that will reduce the inconsistent director rulings, and make it less likely for the examples you gave to happen. Although I confess I don't know what will work to correct the notion that if you don't call something a relay it isn't. I do like your idea of giving directors examples of borderline things - I'll pass it on.

At the LMP in Las Vegas, our opponents called the director after learning about our 1NT defense. (IIRC they had seen a director rule a similar defense illegal - of course, that ruling was obviously incorrect, any defense against 1NT is permitted in midchart.) After consultation, the director came back to the table and while he gave the correct ruling, he still managed to misinform us - he claimed (incorrectly) that we wouldn't be allowed to play it any more in the new midchart.

 

I can't blame the midchart itself on this one.

[csdenmark]

I am all for surveys, but it would not surprise me if it was expensive, complicated, or deemed by ACBL "not worth the cost/effort" to do periodic and effective surveys like you suggest.

 

In the absense of surveys, letting wise people take their best guess is about the best we can hope for. If few people complain about the guesses of the wise people, it seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the wise people have guessed well.

 

If the ACBL has reason to believe that almost all of its members think that current system regulations are acceptable (and formal surveys are not the only way they have to know this), then taking the position "not worth the cost/effort" (to do proper surveys) becomes more understandable.

A simple internet test-poll to be displayed via announcement on BBO does not need to involve costs.

 

How about that?

[matmat]

A simple internet test-poll to be displayed via announcement on BBO does not need to involve costs.

 

How about that?

that makes a lot of sense because:

 

the majority of BBO players are ACBL members and care about the ACBL and its regulations

 

the people who play online are a representative sample of the ACBL population in general

 

everyone always reads the login messages from bbo carefully and thinks about them

[TimG]

Have you looked at the newly drafted Midchart? That was designed primarily to clarify what is and is not allowed (although of course no one is paying any attention to that, they're just griping about not allowing multi in events with short rounds).

I have looked at the new mid-chart. The most notable change in my opinion is the removal of the item allowing "any call which promises four or more cards in a known suit". Before this change, I could look to the mid-chart and know that transfer openings should be allowed with the submission of a proper defense (though "proper defense" was nowhere defined -- there are still no guidelines for what a defense must contain in order to be approved).

 

With the new chart, I am left wondering about transfer openings. Except for the single approved transfer opening, it is clear that transfer openings are not allowed because there are no approved defenses. But, there is nothing in the "DISALLOWED" section that would preclude transfer openings. So, I am left to think that there is some chance that, if I submit a "complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense", further transfer openings could be allowed.

 

The big problem I have with this is that the C&C Committee can basically do with my submission what they want. They could (I'm not saying they have or they would) disallow my submission on whatever grounds they want, for whatever reason they want. If they think there is a slippery slope between my method and MOSCITO, they could disallow my method to prevent MOSCITO from ever being approved, for instance.

 

The mid-chart ought to be written in such a way as to not allow the Committee to effectively or apparently create their own legislation. If a method is allowed (or not disapproved, if you prefer), then a defense ought to be approved (or a clearly written explanation of the failures of the submitted defense ought to be provided).

 

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played. But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved. The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

 

(Please note that, in my opinion, the real legislators are at fault for approving a mid-chart that contains this gray area and for not demanding clear and complete reports. The committee is dealing with the hand they were dealt, they did not create the gray area, but must deal with it.)

[jdonn]

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

 

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

 

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

[TimG]

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

 

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

 

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

Except that new methods and defenses may be submitted for approval. If no method that isn't already listed would be allowed, why the approval process?

 

There are effectively three categories:

 

Disallowed

Allowed -- unapproved

Allowed -- approved

[hotShot]

It seems logical that anything that is submitted for approval is disallowed until it is approved and listed in the database.

[TimG]

It seems logical that anything that is submitted for approval is disallowed until it is approved and listed in the database.

It may seem logical, but the specifically disallowed methods:

• 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
  the opponents’ methods.
  
• 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses
  thereto.
  
• 3. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if
  used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that
  psych.)
  
• 4. Forcing pass systems.
  
• 5. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game-forcing.
  
• 6. Opening one-bids which by partnership agreement could show
  fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)
  
• 7. Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than
  10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention
  Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these
  methods.
  
• 8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not
  include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened).
  

are things that will not be approved no matter what. If I submit an opening one-bid which by partnership agreement could show 6 HCP, there will be no approval, no questions asked.

 

There are other disallowed methods (anything not specifically allowed or disallowed) which might be approved. Not all disallowed methods are treated equally.

 

Maybe my three categories may be better described as:

 

Disallowed -- absolutely

Disallowed -- possible approval

Allowed

[jdonn]

The mid-chart as currently written may leave little doubt as to what methods may be played.  But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.

Hmm?

 

"Unless specifically allowed, or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed"

 

So by definition there can be no methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed.

Except that new methods and defenses may be submitted for approval. If no method that isn't already listed would be allowed, why the approval process?

 

There are effectively three categories:

 

Disallowed

Allowed -- unapproved

Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

[TimG]

There are effectively three categories:

 

Disallowed

Allowed -- unapproved

Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

Whether you look at it that way, or the way I changed it to:

 

Disallowed -- absolutely

Disallowed -- possible approval

Allowed

 

you have a category where methods may or may not be approved based upon the thinking of the current committee. There should be objective criteria in all cases rather than relying upon the subjective views of the committee.

[jdonn]

There are effectively three categories:

 

Disallowed

Allowed -- unapproved

Allowed -- approved

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Anything that hasn't been approved is disallowed. You can try and get certain disallowed methods to be allowed in the future. But until you do that they are disallowed, and it seems quite clear. There is no fuzzy area at all. The group you are calling "allowed - unapproved" doesn't exist, except in the sense that you are trying to predict the future.

Whether you look at it that way, or the way I changed it to:

 

Disallowed -- absolutely

Disallowed -- possible approval

Allowed

 

you have a category where methods may or may not be approved based upon the thinking of the current committee. There should be objective criteria in all cases rather than relying upon the subjective views of the committee.

I understand your point as long as you realize the category you are referring to is called "Disallowed". All these viewpoints of creating a third category are just imaginary and distractions, no such thing exists. But I understand your complaint that the process to allow disallowed methods should be less subjective. I just don't think it will ever happen, although I think I largely agree with you that it would be better.

[TimG]

I do understand that "allowed" means "approved" for purposes of the chart. It might be useful to call some methods "permitted" or "approved" distinctly from allowed or disallowed.

 

Some methods are specifically allowed, some are permitted (so allowed) and some are specifically disallowed.

 

To cover all other possibilities, avoiding ambiguity in rulings, all other methods are called disallowed, but this is not the same "disallowed" as those methods "specifically disallowed". Not all of these methods that have not been specifically disallowed are destined to forever be disallowed or unapproved.

 

What you want to call this category of methods does not really matter to me as long as we recognize that they are distinct from those methods specifically disallowed.

[jdonn]

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.