Legality of artificial openings and responses

[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.

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.

You would do well to read my posts before commenting on them and putting words in my mouth.

 

I don't recall any statement from me that backs up your statement here. I have skimmed through the thread and cannot find such a statement.

 

The sentiment behind this question best describes the position that I have been arguing:

 

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

 

There is nothing in this question that remotely refers to judgement.

 

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.

 

Fred, sarcastically I believe, argued

 

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?

 

This strongly suggests to me that his opinion is that it is improper to defy a referee's decision. And since my arguments have been prefaced with

 

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then ...

 

it seems that this is the case even when the director is acting completely outside his power.

 

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)?

 

It is impossible to answer that question in isolation. What are the regulations? If the regulations say 1♦ showing 4+ spades is legal then I would play it anyway. If the regulations say 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal then I wouldn't be attempting to play it in the first instance so I can't imagine why the director would be telling me that. Between these two extremes there obviously has to be a boundary somewhere on one side of which the director is right and on the other side the director is ruling completely outside of his power.

 

We could of course 'all play a game where it is ok for the director to defy the laws and regulations of the game'. I for one don't think that would be much fun.

[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.

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 agree.

 

My argument has been that the director also is obliged to follow the rules.

[blackshoe]

The question is, what do you do when you believe the director is not complying with Law 81B2?

 

The answer is not "ignore him", or "defy him", or "argue with him". It's "accept his ruling gracefully, and get on with the game, stating your intention to appeal (to the TO or higher authority if necessary)".

 

One should also keep the second sentence of Law 81B1 in mind:

He [the director] has powers to remedy any omissions of the tournament organizer.

This means that if the TO provides an ambiguous regulation, it is within the powers of the TD (not the players) to decide how to interpret it.

 

Also, note that

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the director

is an offense subject to penalty (Law 90B8).

[jdonn]

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 agree.

 

My argument has been that the director also is obliged to follow the rules.

No it hasn't, look at your quote above. Your argument has been that IF you believe the director is not following the rules, THEN you don't have to do what he says ("see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders".) At least admit what you are saying.

[Cascade]

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

 

"If the director oversteps his authority ..."

 

There is no statement of opinion in here. This is an entirely objective statement. I have never suggested that my opinion has weight in the matter. The basis is simply that the director does not have free reign to make up his own rules. He is bound by the laws and announced regulations. Once outside those he is not acting as a director.

 

" then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders. "

 

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

[jdonn]

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted what I was referring to, for anyone who reads it to judge if I am wrong or misrepresenting you. I admit that I often make the judgment error of assuming that you are staying on the topic of the thread and that this may cause me to slightly misinterpret your posts, for which I apologize.

 

"If the director oversteps his authority ..."

 

There is no statement of opinion in here.  This is an entirely objective statement.  I have never suggested that my opinion has weight in the matter.  The basis is simply that the director does not have free reign to make up his own rules.  He is bound by the laws and announced regulations.  Once outside those he is not acting as a director.

 

" then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders. "

Ok as referred to above, I won't assume anything, I'll ask instead.

 

Would it be fair to say that this discussion is entirely theoretical to you, because even if you believe the director is not following the rules then your opinion is irrelevant? Or would you ignore his instructions if you are absolutely sure? 99% sure? What is your stance?

 

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

 

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

Of course I wouldn't play anything he says I can't play, I would choose between playing something else and not playing that day. I might say some things I shouldn't, and I might engage some kind of complaint about the director, but since I'm not a cheater I follow the (bridge related!) instructions of the director. I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

 

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.

So, what would you do?

[Cascade]

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted what I was referring to, for anyone who reads it to judge if I am wrong or misrepresenting you. I admit that I often make the judgment error of assuming that you are staying on the topic of the thread and that this may cause me to slightly misinterpret your posts, for which I apologize.

You quoted and then distorted by adding words that I have never said nor thought. This significantly distorts my argument.

 

In my experience it is a tactic that you use at times when you don't like or agree with the argument made by others.

 

 

Would it be fair to say that this discussion is entirely theoretical to you, because even if you believe the director is not following the rules then your opinion is irrelevant? Or would you ignore his instructions if you are absolutely sure? 99% sure? What is your stance?

 

No to your first question. It is not entirely theoretical.

 

I would ignore an instruction that was 100% wrong e.g. If the director in a GCC event (or similar) told me that my 5-card major 15-17 1NT methods were illegal I would not listen to that. Similarly if I was playing other methods that had been checked out in advance to comply with the system regulations I would ignore a director who made a contrary spur of the moment decision to disallow them. The director has no such power. The director is bound by the announced regulations. Bound is a very strong word.

 

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

 

Of course I have. I am not talking about something that I could be wrong about.

 

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

Of course I wouldn't play anything he says I can't play, I would choose between playing something else and not playing that day. I might say some things I shouldn't, and I might engage some kind of complaint about the director, but since I'm not a cheater I follow the (bridge related!) instructions of the director.

 

Calling someone a cheat when they refuse to follow an instruction that the director is not empowered to make is taking things a little far IMHO.

 

It maybe two late the director may not make this ruling until several rounds into the event. Then your choices are:

 

• 
   
  
• to comply with the ruling and play some other methods
   
  
• to continue playing your methods which you know are legal
   
  
• to walk out of the event
   
  
• or in some other way go over the directors head to get an alternative ruling e.g. seek out another director
   
  

 

I am pretty sure if as a director I said 5-card majors were illegal (in a GCC or similar event) that very few would fall into the first group who complied with my ruling.

 

I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

 

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.

So, what would you do?

 

I would not comply with the director when the ruling was obviously nonsense.

[jdonn]

You quoted and then distorted by adding words that I have never said nor thought. This significantly distorts my argument.

 

In my experience it is a tactic that you use at times when you don't like or agree with the argument made by others.

I quoted so anyone can make their own judgment. If you would like a discussion of posting tactics I would be most happy to analyze you as well. How do you think you would do?

 

You criticizing someone's posting style is one of the more hilarious things I have seen in my time on the forums. No one is a bigger troll.

 

I would ignore an instruction that was 100% wrong e.g. If the director in a GCC event (or similar) told me that my 5-card major 15-17 1NT methods were illegal I would not listen to that.

Are you the one who decided the director is wrong? I thought this was a completely objective argument where your opinion doesn't matter? Is it any wonder I'm confused?

 

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

Of course I have. I am not talking about something that I could be wrong about.

Again my fault. I was under the impression that you know what 100% means. To be more clear, I guess I'm not understanding how someone can know he is not wrong about something even if he is aware that he could be 100% sure of something and still be wrong. Maybe you can enlighten.

 

Calling someone a cheat when they refuse to follow an instruction that the director is not empowered to make is taking things a little far IMHO.

Who decides what instructions the director is empowered to make! At the end of the day, if you don't follow the instruction of a director, it is because you decided he was not empowered to rule in that way or make that decision. Which means YOU have made a decision that YOU are not empowered to make. Which means you are cheating.

 

I'm not even going out on a limb. You have been pointed to several rules that you have chosen to ignore: That it is the director's dutie to administer and interpret the laws and advise the players of their rights and responsibilities, and that failure to comply with instructions from a director is subject to procedural penalty.

 

I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

 

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.

So, what would you do?

I would not comply with the director when the ruling was obviously nonsense.

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

[blackshoe]

Positing ridiculous scenarios ("director says 5-card majors are illegal under the GCC") is not helpful. Neither is calling people cheats, even by implication.

 

In the ACBL, wilfully walking out of an event you have started is a violation of the general (and probably the specific) conditions of contest. It may well result in a disciplinary hearing.

 

Under the laws of bridge, willful defiance or disregard of a director's instructions is subject to penalty, and rightly so. Note that the laws don't distinguish between legal and allegedly illegal instructions.

 

Bottom line: Wayne, if you actually do these things you claim you'd do when you disagree with the director, you should IMO be expelled from the organization in which you do them. Permanently.

[fred]

Wayne,

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the GCC is really the deeply-flawed document that some people (including you I think) claim it to be.

 

There are a number of reasons this state of affairs could exist, but for the purposes of this discussion, the reasons don't matter.

 

The sort of flaws I am referring to are things like:

 

1) Ambiguous wording (for example apparently "range" means different things to different people)

 

2) Incomplete (does not clearly categorize all possible methods as either legal or illegal)

 

3) Less than ideal technical support (no fast and accurate mechanism exists whereby players and TDs can get answers that are acceptable to everyone)

 

Given GCC-flaws 1 and 2 and that some players like to experiment (for whatever reasons), it is a fact of life that TDs will sometimes have to use their judgement in order to decide as to the legality of a given method under the GCC. Given GCC-flaw 3, it will often be impractical/impossible for the TD to seek guidance from a unversally-respected higher authority, especially in real time. The bottom line is that the TD is forced to make a judgment call. Even if the higher authority happens to be available, that only shifts the judgment call to someone else.

 

GCC-flaws 1 and 2 guarantee that someone has to make a decision as well as making it likely that, in some cases at least, not everyone's judgment will agree.

 

If players who disagree with the judgment of the TD (or the higher authority) feel free to override such decisions, then the result would be chaos.

 

Your example of a TD disallowing 5-card majors and 15-17 notrumps is not meaningful because (I am assuming at least) there is no ambiguity or incompleteness in the GCC in this area. Even if some person thought they found a flaw in the wording of the GCC as it pertained to such a system, this would represent nothing more than an amusing curiousity with a resolution that would be obvious to everyone.

 

The hypothetical situation you are clinging to is impossible. It could never happen.

 

If you continue to cling to the impossible and ask "but what if it did happen?", then I believe Josh's response is completely correct:

 

By playing in an event you have an obligation to accept the TD's judgment pertaining to systems regulations. If you do not agree with the TD's judgment you have the option of not playing. You then have the further option of lodging a complaint about the TD with the sponsoring authority that the TD must answer to.

 

Yes, of course life would be better for everyone if the GCC was flawless and that judgment and interpretation never came into play, but I personally believe this is not a realistic goal - there will always be a small % of players who delight in looking for holes or pulling a Clinton by questioning the meaning of words like "is". Even if it is possible to fill every hole and define every word, the resulting document would not be comprehensible to anyone other than the lawyers. A complete cure, if it could even exist, might well be worse than the disease.

 

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment. If instead players feel free to take the law into their own hands whenever their judgment disagrees with the TD's, there will be much more serious problems than those that exist now (IMO). Even if you think that your judgment is always correct (and that would be pretty arrogant), do you really want to play (or TD) a game in which those players with lesser judgment behave as you would like to behave?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

Positing ridiculous scenarios ("director says 5-card majors are illegal under the GCC") is not helpful. Neither is calling people cheats, even by implication.

 

In the ACBL, wilfully walking out of an event you have started is a violation of the general (and probably the specific) conditions of contest. It may well result in a disciplinary hearing.

 

Under the laws of bridge, willful defiance or disregard of a director's instructions is subject to penalty, and rightly so. Note that the laws don't distinguish between legal and allegedly illegal instructions.

 

Bottom line: Wayne, if you actually do these things you claim you'd do when you disagree with the director, you should IMO be expelled from the organization in which you do them. Permanently.

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

 

I don't understand where the boundary is that you are forming.

 

jdonn not me said he would walk out or rather he would choose not to play that day when the real most likely possibility is that you would only become aware of that possibility part way through a session so the implication is that you would need to walk out if you were going to choose not to play.

 

Which things are you specifically saying would require expulsion? Disobeying illegal instructions?

[Cascade]

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

[matmat]

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

i don't think i agree with this.

[Cascade]

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment.

Fred

 

The problem is that I do not believe that this is a workable solution.

 

How would you like it if you turned up one week and your methods were allowed and then the next week under the same conditions the TD decided your methods were not allowed?

 

To me this is completely unreasonable. And that unreasonableness is independent of the particular methods that you play. Hence my example regarding 5-card majors and 15-17 1NT.

 

At the very least it should be clear in advance what methods I and my opponents are allowed to play and any restrictions that may occur e.g. loss of seating rights or the opponents are allowed a written defense or we are not entitled to play conventions etc.

 

It is a serious flaw if these matters are up to the whim of a particular TD.

 

I enjoy playing bridge. I especially enjoy playing in a regular partnership in which we have spent considerable time preparing our methods in advance. At times I have needed to take some care to make sure that our methods complied with the system regulations. Having taken that care to make sure that our methods comply I think that it is completely unacceptable that you and others seem to think that is acceptable for a TD to decide on a whim part way through an event that our methods are illegal and thus force us to abandon our methods and continue playing.

 

To me the most important reason for having system regulations is so that I can know in advance what I am allowed to play and what my opponents are allowed to play. If the regulations do not achieve that then far from being "...the only workable solution..." they are completely unworkable.

[JanM]

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

You may think that rules that define 1♦ as showing 4+ spades are ridiculous, but those are in fact the rules that pertain in the ACBL. For a director to rule that 5 card Majors are illegal would be ridiculous and impossible - it just wouldn't happen. For a director to rule that 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not only not ridiculous, it is the correct ruling.

 

Your comments on this thread remind me of a time many years ago when I was playing in an NABC pair event with Chip. A pair came to our table and explained that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades. I asked Chip what we did against that and he said that we called the director because it was illegal. We called the director; the opponents said that the method was legal because the Midchart said you could play any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Chip said that he knew it was illegal because the Midchart also requires an approved defense. The director looked confused, went off to consult with someone else and eventually returned to say that (surprise) Chip was right and the opponents could not use their methods in this event. We played the two boards against them. They went off to the next table, where we heard them explaining to their new opponents that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades! Of course, by this time we were late, so although we did call the Director, we didn't pay attention to what went on at the next table, so I don't know whether they were penalized or just told not to do that any more.

 

As I've been reading the various threads here about the C&C committee (or the Convention Approval Subcommittee) not approving these particular bids, I can't help but wonder whether the attitude of this pair might make Chip, subconsciously at least, less positively inclined towards the method. And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

[fred]

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment.

Fred

 

The problem is that I do not believe that this is a workable solution.

 

How would you like it if you turned up one week and your methods were allowed and then the next week under the same conditions the TD decided your methods were not allowed?

 

I can't say I would be thrilled, but I would deal with it. I strongly suspect it wouldn't ruin my day.

 

I would be considerably less thrilled if I had to constantly call the TD because my opponents thought it was appropriate to intentionally violate the TD's interpretation of the rules. That might well ruin my day.

 

It is a serious flaw if these matters are up to the whim of a particular TD. 

 

Well I have a little more respect for most TDs than to refer to their judgment as "whims", but let's call it that if it makes you happy.

 

Yes, this is a flaw, but the source is something that I was assuming as a given: that the GCC itself is flawed. This necessitates *someone's* whims being used to resolve ambiguity.

 

Can't you see that it is better to have the whims of a single person (who is in theory unbiased and in theory skilled in such matters) being the only whims that count as opposed to the whims of all the players (who are biased and who, by and large, have no skills and training in this area)?

 

To me the most important reason for having system regulations is so that I can know in advance what I am allowed to play and what my opponents are allowed to play.  If the regulations do not achieve that then far from being "...the only workable solution..." they are completely unworkable.

 

Well if you accept my given that the GCC is flawed (something you seem to believe in a lot more strongly than I do), then please suggest a more workable solution.

 

"Fix the GCC" is not a meaningful answer. The TD can't fix the GCC and the players can't fix the GCC. The goal is to find the best possible solution for the players and the TD given that they all inhabit a world that contains a flawed GCC.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read [Cascade's] posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

And that's at least part of the problem - favoritism shouldn't be a part of the rules of the game. Methods should be legal or not independent of who's proposing them. "Allowing" someone's methods IMO should be a matter of law, not a favor to the player.

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think this is true. I've heard of plenty of convention issues go like this:

 

Opps - we don't like these weird methods, aren't they illegal?

TD - hmm, seems weird, yessir. I say they're illegal

Junior SystemsFreak - but Meckwell play these! (or insert locally respected pro player)

TD - oh, well I guess they're ok then.

[the hog]

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read [Cascade's] posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

And that's at least part of the problem - favoritism shouldn't be a part of the rules of the game. Methods should be legal or not independent of who's proposing them. "Allowing" someone's methods IMO should be a matter of law, not a favor to the player.

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think this is true. I've heard of plenty of convention issues go like this:

 

Opps - we don't like these weird methods, aren't they illegal?

TD - hmm, seems weird, yessir. I say they're illegal

Junior SystemsFreak - but Meckwell play these! (or insert locally respected pro player)

TD - oh, well I guess they're ok then.

Rob has hit the nail on the head here. It appears that some methods are allowed simply BECAUSE they are played by particular people.

 

I also think Wayne has a totally legitimate point. Directors have made mistakes, they are not infallibale and some directors are better at interpreting the written word than others. To totally dismiss Wayne's hypothetical example with the throwaway line "It couldn't happen", is not answering his argument.

[straube]

I think it's pretty clear one has to defer to the TD. It's the rules and common sense besides. It doesn't mean that the TD's ruling is correct.

 

Fred, is use of 1D as four spades prohibited or not by the ACBL? Who has final authority to say so? From this thread, it seems like one authority says yes and another says no.

 

It seems that having it show four spades qualifies under the plain meaning of 1D being legal as an all purpose bid (meaning, I think more than one purpose) because, after all, there are lots of different hands with four spades. For example, it could be balanced or unbalanced.

 

The all purpose openings of 1C or 1D are also commonly regarded as a bid for hands with opening strength that don't qualify for any other bid....and that's what some of us are trying to argue.

 

Also, if it's not allowed, then that means that my system all together is being judged and not just that opening. For instance, it's legal to play that 1N denies a four-card major. It's also legal for me to open 2C with clubs and no major. The ACBL would be saying "Well, all your non-diamond openings are legal, we're allowing your opponents to play them, but we're not letting you play all those openings at the same time." I think that's a funny sort of statement to make.

 

Do you know if I can switch the meanings of a Precision club and Precision diamond such that 1C promises two or more diamonds whereas 1D is strong? Why or why not? Seems like I can't if 1D can't "show" four spades. At least, I can't see a difference except that 1D to show four spades is much more useful.

 

David

[fred]

Fred, is use of 1D as four spades prohibited or not by the ACBL? Who has final authority to say so?  From this thread, it seems like one authority says yes and another says no. 

I don't know. This is not my area of expertise.

 

Maybe the answer depends on which set of regulations (there are at least 3 different sets) is in effect in the ACBL-sanctioned game in question. Jan (and Chip) Martel, who know a lot more about these things than I do, suggested that in the relatively recent past this method would not be legal in ACBL games in which the Mid-chart is in effect. Assuming she is right (very likely IMO), the same would be true for GCC, but perhaps spade-showing 1D is allowed in ACBL games where the Super-chart is in effect (I have no idea either way).

 

I also don't know who has the final authority at the ACBL to make decisions like this. In a perfect world I suppose nobody would have to make these decisions - everything would be fully described and defined in the various convention charts.

 

Given that the world is less than perfect, if I wanted to play the spade-showing 1D convention, this is what I would do:

 

1. I would read the various charts and try to figure it out for myself.

 

2. Probably, for at least some of the charts, I would not be able to figure it out for myself because I would not be sure what was meant by "all purpose".

 

3. I would then contact the ACBL and find out who had the final authority.

 

4. I would then contact that person by e-mail and ask them under what circumstances, if any, spade-showing 1D was legal.

 

5. Assuming the answer was something other than "never", I would then decide if I wanted to devote the time and effort to play spade-showing 1D under the (presumably limited) circumstances that it was deemed legal.

 

6. If I decided "yes", I would print a copy of the e-mail and take it with me to tournaments I played in. If a TD gave me a hard time I would show him a copy of that e-mail.

 

7. If the TD said "I don't care what your e-mail says - you can't play that here" (not likely IMO), I would do as I was told and try to control myself by not getting upset at the TD (probably also not likely :)).

 

8. If that were to happen I would complain to the ACBL about the TD's behavior and hope that the ACBL would take steps to ensure that it did not happen again.

 

9. If the same sort of thing continued to happen, I would either stop playing spade-showing 1D or I would stop playing in ACBL tournaments. In my particular case I would almost certainly stop playing spade-showing 1D, but since I would be most unlikely to want to play that in the first place, the whole point of this hypthetical story is rather moot (for me at least).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Thanks, I think I will contact the ACBL then. Perhaps if Jan is still following the thread she can post what she knows of the reasoning behind why 1D as four spades might be illegal. I'm not sure I want to play it either, but I think it would make for an interesting system.

[akhare]

Rob has hit the nail on the head here. It appears that some methods are allowed simply BECAUSE they are played by particular people.

 

I second that -- until there's transparency about why some non-mainstream methods are deemed kosher and others are not, suspicions about the ulterior motives of the powers that be will remain.

 

 

As I've been reading the various threads here about the C&C committee (or the Convention Approval Subcommittee) not approving these particular bids, I can't help but wonder whether the attitude of this pair might make Chip, subconsciously at least, less positively inclined towards the method. And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now

 

The above statement seems to be emblematic of the problem. One way of interepreting it might that C&C members can rule a particular method illegal based on their personal prejudices regardless of its legal merits.

[akhare]

And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now.

I can't speak for the high and mighty C&C folks, but if they are indeed reading this forum, a better approach might be to simply reply to a posting and logically explain why their ruling makes sense.

 

To me, it makes more sense than bearing silent grudges (as implied by your post)...

[fred]

Thanks, I think I will contact the ACBL then. Perhaps if Jan is still following the thread she can post what she knows of the reasoning behind why 1D as four spades might be illegal. I'm not sure I want to play it either, but I think it would make for an interesting system.

I hope it works out for you, David.

 

If you are told that spade-showing 1D is not legal in some/all circumtances, ACBL and/or Jan might be able to recommend a course of action that will result in the powers-that-be reconsidering the status of this method.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

"And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now."

 

This statement concerns me, too. I hope that the C&C committee members wouldn't make a ruling on the legality of a convention based on what a few might post on a forum such as this. It makes it sound like their decision-making is capricious or retaliatory.