Legality of artificial openings and responses

[jdonn]

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right".

Do you actually read posts before you reply to them? It's a useful habit. Please show me where I said the director is always right. Or even where I said it matters if the director is right or not.

 

Let me help you out. I have in fact implied the exact opposite. What I said is you have to do what the director says regardless of whether or not he is right.

 

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says.

 

Law 81 c 2

(of course if you need a law to tell you this...)

DIRECTOR'S DUTIES AND POWERS

to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

[blackshoe]

I won't presume to speak for josh, but I did not read what he said as "the TD is always right" so much as "don't argue with the TD".

 

It is obviously not the case that the director is always right. We are, after all, human. :P It is nonetheless incumbent on players at the table to act as if the director is right, given always their right to appeal. As I pointed out a minute ago, players are supposed to accept the director's ruling with good grace, even if they disagree, and even if they intend to appeal. It is important not to waste time arguing with the TD - after all, you have other boards to play. So, if you think the director is wrong, simply say "I would like to appeal", and get on with the game.

[rbforster]

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right".

Do you actually read posts before you reply to them? It's a useful habit. Please show me where I said the director is always right. Or even where I said it matters if the director is right or not.

 

Let me help you out. I have in fact implied the exact opposite. What I said is you have to do what the director says regardless of whether or not he is right.

I read what you said, but we're disagreeing over the semantics over what it means to be "illegal". I was referring to illegal in the sense that

 

1) the laws actually forbid something, while you seem to have meant it as

2) you can't play it here because the TD just said not to (regardless of the merit of his ruling)

 

This is what I read:

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal!

...

I take the view that if one authority says "illegal", and you go to another authority and ask them in a much more vague sounding way because you hope they will say "legal", you have terrible sportsmanship. And that is a kind way to put it. 

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD. Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense. In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense. You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating. I disagree.

[Cascade]

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

You have a different definition of cheating than I have.

 

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then it is that action that comes much closer to what I would consider cheating than the player that defies the unconscionable ruling by the director.

[hrothgar]

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD. Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense. In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense. You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating. I disagree.

Lets be perfectly clear about what I described as cheating

 

shevek went as asked for official Guidance from Memphis.

He talked to Rick Baye directly.

He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go

Rich directly stated that the method can not legally be played

 

You recommended resubmitting the the same opening but changing the verbiage to disguise the fact that you are playing a method that is identical to where you got an adverse ruling.

 

We aren't dealing with a confused local director

 

We are dealing with a case where you directly recommended piss poor disclosure to the regulatory authority to try to get a ruling changed.

 

I share folks disgust with the ACBL.

 

I don't believe that Memphis is capable of finding its ass with both hands, let alone issue coherent rulings.

 

I think that the lot of them should be ***** canned because they are grossy incompetant.

 

However, none of this justifies the behaviour that you are recommending...

[jdonn]

As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD.  Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense.  In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense.  You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating.  I disagree.

If your point is director's sometimes make terrible rulings, I agree. It has certainly happened to me. However it's not your place to judge at the time you get ruled against. Players often argue very strongly against completely correct rulings too. This is why there are directors. Officials in any sport or game make awful rulings, and bridge is probably worse than any in that regard.

 

So what?

 

I have no problem with going to another tournament next week and asking that director if your convention is legal. Or a different event at the same tournament, or whatever. But you admitted you think it's fine to to obscure the wording (instead of saying what the bid shows, say what every other bid shows then call the bid in question 'all purpose, showing everything else') in order to circumvent the decision of the first director. THAT is cheating.

 

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then it is that action that comes much closer to what I would consider cheating than the player that defies the unconscionable ruling by the director.

Do you think it's just barely possible a director can be right and a player wrong, no matter how strongly the player feels? That is why it's only the job of one of them to make this type of decision.

 

Anyway I'm not particularly interested in a discussion of what director's may do that may constitute cheating. It has nothing to do with the responsibilities of a player.

[fred]

Let's all play a game where is OK for the players to defy the referee's decisions whenever they disagree with them.

 

That sounds like a fun game.

 

Hello?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jmc]

When one body makes rules that are ambiguous and another body interprets them, these kinds of problems will occur. It reminds me of Ken's signature. If lawyers, judges, and appellate judges can't interpret the law, how can ordinary folk?

 

The ACBL should just admit that they don't want the situation clarified. They want the majority of the players to feel secure and happy to pay the table fees. Opening 1D to show 4S might scare someone into giving up on sectionals.

 

The current situation is very frustrating to people interested in systems and pushing the envelope who play in non-national events. It matters hardly at all to systems people who always play in mid-chart or better events. This means it doesn't create a problem for the group most able to get the rules changed.

 

I think it stinks that the ACBL doesn't fix the problem.

 

jmc

[straube]

Could I play a strong 1D and an artificial 1C where...

 

1C-6 diamonds or both minors or balanced, such that it promises 2+ diamonds

1D-artificial strong

1H-5-card major

1S-5-card major

1N-14-16 NT

2C-6 clubs

2D-4414

 

This would be a stupid system, but would it meet the same objection as 1D showing 4 spades? After all, it promise a 2-card holding in a suit not named. And isn't that what the ACBL finds objectionable?

[rbforster]

1C-6 diamonds or both minors or balanced, such that it promises 2+ diamonds

...

This would be a stupid system, but would it meet the same objection as 1D showing 4 spades?  After all, it promise a 2-card holding in a suit not named.  And isn't that what the ACBL finds objectionable?

You're playing 1♣ the same as a precision 1♦ (2+♦) which clearly has been allowed as "all purpose" and not because it promises 2 diamonds (being the suit opened). I don't think anyone here knows exactly why this is allowed and other things (like promising spades) are not, but your 1♣ should be fine in any case.

 

Perhaps a better example might be having 1♦ to promise 4+♣s. I think this might be an interesting test case for the officials since a) it doesn't involve majors, so it probably won't trip the "1 or 2-under openings in the majors should be banned" circuit, and b) it's clearly not an efficient transfer opening, but rather some sort of weird minor catchall. And yet, I can't possibly see how you can consistently rule that 1♦ promising 4+ in one suit (♣) should be treated any differently than in another suit(♠). This might be part of a system like this:

 

1♣ strong 15+

1♦ 4+ ♣ unbal, 10-14. not 4441, equal or longer diamonds ok, but only shorter majors

1M 5+ 10-14 "standard"

1N 12-14 bal "standard"

2♣ 10-14 any 4441

2♦ 5+♦ 10-14

[straube]

Yes, that's a good example of what I was getting at.

 

Or what if someone played...

 

1C-15+

1D-balanced

1M-4+

1N-balanced

2C-minors, unbalanced

2D-diamonds

3C-clubs

 

Again, probably not a good system, but is it legal? In this case, 1D promises

2 cards in each suit.

 

Also, like another poster, I've played that 1D promises one or both 4-card majors.

I'm sure numerous directors have heard it explained an no one's objected.

 

This opening doesn't promise a specific suit, but it allows for some interesting bidding. For instance, we can assign 1D-4H as pass or correct for whenever responder has both majors.

 

Not the sort of bidding that the ACBL intended?

[blackshoe]

He talked to Rick Baye directly.

He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go

This turns out not to be the case. The ACBL agency with the remit to define what agreements as to the meaning of calls and plays are and are not legal is the Competition and Conventions Committee, subject to the approval (or disapproval) of the Board of Directors. The BoD is "as high in the food chain as it's possible to go".

 

OTOH, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said about the ACBL. :)

[Cascade]

Let's all play a game where is OK for the players to defy the referee's decisions whenever they disagree with them.

 

That sounds like a fun game.

 

Hello?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

Is failing to be bound by the laws and announced regulations not enough to cross the line?

[jdonn]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

[rbforster]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

[Finch]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

So I can't play in the finals.

 

It's a game. The referee/TD runs the game. If he says I can't play, then I can't play.

 

An appeal to the national authority will follow in due course, and possibly a court case under the relevant anti-discrimination law (if there is one in the country concerned).

 

But that's not defying the TD's ruling at the time.

[fred]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

That's an easy one for me.

 

As always there is no need to violate the TD's instructions. My ethnicity has an entire squadron of black helicopters at its disposal. I would radio in a couple of units and have them strafe the playing site.

 

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

 

Shevak said something in one of the other threads about system regulation that really struck home for me. I am not going to find the quote, but he said something like this:

 

"Often those in favor of looser systems regulations are their own worst enemies".

 

The reason I remembered this comment is because Shevak is on "your side" (in terms of systems regulations) and, at the time I read it, I found it most refreshing and unusual that someone on your side could admit this.

 

IMO some of the recent comments in this thread are a good case in Shevak's point.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

Rules are important for any game. It's not surprising that people get unhappy when the rules of the game are changed from what they expected, in the middle of the game and to their detriment. This whole discussion is a direct consequence of the ACBL not stating the rules clearly. The rest of this arguing is largely an academic exercise and a waste of time.

 

In the future I'll try not to take as much offense when I'm accused of cheating and lying.

[hrothgar]

He talked to Rick Baye directly.

He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go

This turns out not to be the case. The ACBL agency with the remit to define what agreements as to the meaning of calls and plays are and are not legal is the Competition and Conventions Committee, subject to the approval (or disapproval) of the Board of Directors. The BoD is "as high in the food chain as it's possible to go".

 

OTOH, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said about the ACBL. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I should have appended the word practically

 

He talked to Rick Beye directly.

He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go in any practical manner.

 

All the more so because Beye is (essentially) the gatekeeper to the Conventions Committee

[qwery_hi]

1. Any sensible reading of the mid-chart will indicate that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean whatever you want, provided it guarantees 10+ points. Of course, your 1M openings are much more restricted, so in general it's hard to play "two under transfers" or whatever. You can occasionally find random rulings from ACBL HQ contradicting this, but then they can contradict themselves at any time no matter what the regulations say...

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Are you sure Rick wasn't kidding you? He could be like "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

I would meet everyone at the door, tell them to put their yarmulkes in their pockets, and say merry Christmas on the way in. Wtp?

 

My new signature is dedicated to recent forum postings.

[Cascade]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

 

Judge for yourself whether there is something that a director might instruct you that you would be unwilling to do.

 

It is like the old joke about a man propositioning a woman:

 

"Will you sleep with me for a $1000000?"

 

"Yes!!!"

 

"How about $10?"

 

"What do you think I am? A prostitute?"

 

"We have already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price"

 

We all have our limits.

[jdonn]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

It's within the authority of a director to determine if people are playing legal or illegal systems. In this thread you have been suggesting defying him because you disagree with his judgment, not because he overstepped his authority.

 

Sorry you win if the question is will I do absolutely anything the director asks. I will not jump off a cliff for a director. Nor do I think a discussion about that has anything to do with anything.

 

If the director at some tournament told you that you can't play a 1♦ opening shows 4+ spades, and you believe it's legal, will you play it anyway (assuming you want to play it to begin with)?

[hrothgar]

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

 

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

I don't disagree with this statement:

 

There is always the option to withdraw from an event.

 

If, however, you are going to play in an event, I think that you (typically) are obliged to follow the rules.

 

I can conceive of some (rare) examples where I consider it perfectly reasonable to deliberately break the rules. I don't have a problem with civil disobedience. I think its entirely justified on occasion.

 

However, I also believe that civil disobedience needs to be a public act. The point behind civil disobedience is that you invite punishment upon yourself to draw attention to an unjust law.

 

This is why I find Robert's recommendations so objectional...

 

He's not describing any kind of civil disobedience.

He's lying about his methods

[rbforster]

This is why I find Robert's recommendations so objectional...

 

He's lying about his methods

You keep saying that, but it's neither true nor is it what I was endorsing. My point has been merely that because of the erratic responses from the ACBL staff regarding conventions and interpreting the charts, presenting your proposal in certain ways is more likely to garner approval than others. If I wanted to lie about my methods, I wouldn't need to ask the ACBL's permission!

 

That said however, I can't see anything at all is to be gained by asking the ACBL's permission to play an apparently legal method. If you ask at the event and the local TD doesn't like it, you can't play it (regardless of what some other official might have told you). If the local TD says it's fine, you can play it (again regardless of what some other official might have told you). So why bother asking the guys in Memphis anything? Because you're under the mistaken impression that a copy of an email from Mr. Baye will force the local TD to change his mind? Good luck with that. As we've discussed, you're forced to deal with the local TD's ruling anyway, so why bother asking anyone else?

 

I would like to play the following system:

 

1♣ strong 15+

1♦ 0+ unbal 10-14

1♥ 4+ unbal (not both majors) 10-14

1♠ 5+ unbal 10-14

1N 12-14 bal

2♣ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14

2♦ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14

 

It sure looks like an all-purpose 1♦ opener, doesn't it? Maybe that's because it is.

 

 

and 1 diamond promises 4 spades, or at least it might depending on your opening styles in the other bids (open 2m in your better minor with 5/5, open 1 diamond with majors 4=5, etc)

 

 

...