Legality of artificial openings and responses

[qwery_hi]

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC

Right, you believe they are doing a bad job, therefore they are stupid lazy incompetent idiots. And you are completely qualified to judge that. Makes sense.

 

Nice try jdonn - I never called them idiots - you are calling them idiots

 

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?

Another good point. These people you don't know are obviously corrupt as well, they don't do it for the good of bridge like you would. And again this was an easy judgment to make purely because you feel they have done a bad job. I'm starting to get it now.

 

Another nice try - I never called them corrupt or suggested any such thing. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged to realize what I mean by self interest.

 

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.

I don't think having total strangers consider me lazy corrupt incompetent and whatever else is a great power. You may disagree. I also doubt they want your sympathy, in fact I speculate they would be quite happy if you simply ignored them.

 

 

LOL

 

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.

Neither am I. I am not forming judgments at all about people I don't know very well based on essentially no evidence of any kind, because it would obviously be foolish to do so and wouldn't make me come across very well either.

 

Oh wait, I forgot my lessons...

 

Pithy attempt at sarcastic humor . Par for the course .

[akhare]

I already did this, quite a while ago. I can dig up the old thread if people care. Most of the people posting on that thread actually liked my alternative, and found it to be clear and free of ambiguity.

I really like Adam's version -- direct link for those who don't want to dig through the thread:

 

Adam's version

 

Anyway, this is all stuff of dreams. As Richard and many others on the thread will attest, all this is much ado about nothing. A year from now, all this will have fallen on deaf (ACBL) ears and the GCC will continue to be status quo ante.

 

And then we will have another excuse to kick start this again (and go for each other's jugular while we are at it) :)...

[jdonn]

I really like Adam's version -- direct link for those who don't want to dig through the thread:

 

Adam's version

Thanks for the link. I give Adam credit for at least trying. However it seems quite far from clear to me that this is any improvement at all over the GCC. I found all the following errors or questionable aspects (all just IMO of course). Keep in mind this is what 1 person found in 15 minutes. Imagine what tens of thousands of people would find over the course of time.

 

- I do not like the definition of 'minor deviation', particularly as it pertains to distribution. One high card point is fair enough, but being off by a card in suit length is quite a major deviation in a lot of cases, even given the caveat about suit strength. I would not say someone who opens 1♠ with KQTx xx Axx Axxx is playing five card majors. Further, I have no idea what "in general" (so not always?), "logical" (we will ever agree what is logical?), "typically" (again, so not always?), or "strong" or "weak" (as they pertain to suits) mean. Axxx is stronger than the average four card suit in high card strength but doesn't look like a strong suit to me. I thought the whole point was to clarify things, but this seems more vague than the current GCC!

 

- I do not like the definition of 'major deviation', particularly as it pertains to high cards. There are a number of hands with a six card minor that I think are completely normal to upgrade by 2 or 3 points to open 2NT. I also, in addition to most of the vague terms already mentioned, don't know what a "pattern of psychics" is. 2 or more? Technically one every 20 years is a pattern.

 

- Why limit opening bids to 8 high card points? Aside from it being arbitrary, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Some will be mad that such a low number is allowed. Others will be mad that any minimum exists.

 

- Why limit 2NT+ openings and overcalls to at most either of two 8 card suits? Because it is popular now? There are people who like to play 3NT is any solid suit, why should they be denied? And the way it's written it seems like I can't open 3NT promising a solid minor if my definition of 'solid' is "At least AKQ seventh or AKJ eighth". I could have it guarantee one of those or the other, but not either in the same bid. And the part about strong (what's that?) 8 card suits doesn't even allow for longer suits, if I have 9 I'm screwed!

 

- It seems wrong to me that you allow any meanings at all for overcalls of a 1♣ that is 3+ or 4432, but not nearly as much freedom over a 1♣ that is 3+.

 

- I have no idea what "possibly" means in 2. under responses. It's not allowed to be guaranteed but you can do it sometimes?

 

- Allowing any response which guarantees 7+ in a particular suit opens any response to mean anything at all as long as they simply won't bid it when short in opener's major. Maybe that's what you wanted, but I doubt it.

 

- What are the "values for game"? 24+? 20+ with a big fit? And you don't even say the bid must be game forcing, just show such values.

 

- I thought this was kind of the funniest. You seem to allow a forcing 1NT response to a major suit if it guarantees a game force, or if it guarantees NOT a game force, but you don't allow it if it could be either. That is an extremely common way to play, to include certain game forcing hands in a 1NT forcing response (particularly minimum game forcing balanced ones.)

 

- The sentence on subsequent calls is the worst part of your entire GCC. It's more vague than any regulation I have ever seen in my life. After two bids, "any agreements which can be explained to an average player in under 30 seconds are allowed." Explained by whom? That guy in the micro machine commercials can talk really fast. And it doesn't even say they have to understand, it just has to be explained to them (which makes who you are explaining to totally irrelevant anyway). And what is an average player, have you seen how BBO players rate themselves? I'm one of the most experienced bridge players out there, and without even trying to be obstinate I can truly say I don't have the slightest idea what an average player is. (It doesn't even say average bridge player! I think I'm an average blackjack player...) And what if I can only explain it to an average player in 30 seconds 1 time out of 100, well that means it can be done so my agreement is legal. You could argue that any bid at all can be explained in 30 seconds, or if all tiny inferences are included that no bid at all can be explained in 30 seconds. I think you are forced to admit this entire sentence / section is completely meaningless and doesn't rule out a single bid.

 

As I said, I give you credit for trying. I think it's better than most could have done, but in general more vague than the current GCC or at least vague in different ways. If anything I hope this at least shows people how hard this is to do well.

[rogerclee]

Nice try jdonn - I never called them idiots - you are calling them idiots

LOL

[awm]

To reply to Josh:

 

-- The current GCC makes no mention of psychs or deviations from agreements. I believe that having any guidelines here is a substantial improvement.

 

-- I personally question the attitude of opening 2NT often with 17-18 high card point hands with a six-card minor and then disclosing "20-21." This strikes me as an attempt to gain an advantage over unsuspecting opponents. I would disclose this as something like "a very good 18 to a bad 21" or perhaps "usually 20-21, but could be as few as 17 if holding a six or seven card minor." Otherwise if partner has seen you make these openings on several occasions I believe that there is a real disclosure issue.

 

-- Many of your other complaints, such as limiting one-level openings to 8-plus points, or limiting the notrump openings to one of at most two suits, or allowing any defense to 1♣ showing two-plus, are holdovers from the current chart. I would be quite happy to modify these to something simpler and clearer, but my goal was to minimize the changes from current policy.

 

-- "Possibly" just means that you don't have to guarantee singleton or void. The rule is that for this particular classification, the 1NT response cannot include any hands which have singletons or voids in suits where opener could have fewer than four cards. Singletons or voids in suits opener has promised are okay. Perhaps this could've been worded better.

 

-- The intent of "promising seven or more cards in a known suit" is to allow bids which are raises. However, this should include four-card raises of "three-plus" minor suit openings and three-card major suit raises in a four-card major system. So it pretty much means what it should mean. You can play fit-showing jumps or mini-splinters or drury and so forth.

 

-- Note that the current general chart also uses the terms "game forcing" without explaining what this really means. It's hard to get around this really, because people should be allowed to evaluate their hand in a rational way. Straight-jacketing them with high-card points especially after the first call of the auction is a little ridiculous.

 

-- The issue of forcing notrump responses is very tricky. The current regulation is extremely nonsensical (cannot "guarantee invitational or better values"). Note that the current GCC allows a 1NT response which is forcing, and a 1NT response which is game-forcing, but does not allow "invitational-plus." Again, I would be happy discarding this and just allowing any 1NT response to an opening call. This specification was an attempt to remain as close as possible to the nonsensical rule on the current chart. Edited: to be more specific, I think the issue here is that they do not want a forcing notrump call to be followed later by a game-forcing relay, as this essentially bypasses the rule against relay systems by arguing that the first call is a (perfectly legal) forcing notrump and the relay sequence did not start until responder's second bid. This was the situation I was trying to address here, in forbidding the 1NT response including both very strong and very weak hands.

 

-- The "30 second" regulation is exactly the rule from the Cavendish. Really the point is just that bids must be disclosed. If I can't explain what my bid means to a normal person in a reasonable length of time, then it really shouldn't be allowed. Obviously there is some gray area about who is a "normal person" (some basic bridge knowledge should be assumed) or how fast am I allowed to talk, but the idea is that it shouldn't normally come down to a timer. Again, the current charts have nothing of this sort. I'm allowed to play that after 1♠-1NT, my 2♣ rebid shows one of four-thousand three-hundred and ninety-two types of hands which bear no particular resemblance to each other, then offer to enumerate them (over the course of the next two hours) if my opponents ask for explanation. I think this is unacceptable.

[jdonn]

I agree with you that many points could be "corrected" if you wanted, or may just need a little editing. My main point was so many terms are still vague. I think your efforts to clarify in many cases are like sticking your finger in the hole in your boat which causes six more holes to spring up.

 

A few specifics:

 

I personally question the attitude of opening 2NT often with 17-18 high card point hands with a six-card minor and then disclosing "20-21." This strikes me as an attempt to gain an advantage over unsuspecting opponents.

You are entitled to your opinion, I completely disagree in this case. I do that to accurately describe the potential and nature of my hand, not to fool anyone (what makes you think the opponents are unsuspecting anyway?) It just falls under style, the same as when people open weak two bids with 5, 6, 7 card suits, with 2 counts and with 12 counts. Despite your seemingly lifelong mission, I do not think it's a capital offense to open outside your notrump range when you consider it your most accurate choice.

 

Opening these hands in a minor suit would often necessitate an even bigger "lie" on your rebid anyway.

 

The intent of "promising seven or more cards in a known suit" is to allow bids which are raises.

There are a number of players, some of whom are very good, that will gladly raise a 1♦ opening on three card (particularly in competition) even if 4432 is possible. Are you saying this would be illegal? Likewise for raising a 3+ or 4432 1♣ on four.

 

Straight-jacketing them with high-card points especially after the first call of the auction is a little ridiculous.

Unless they are opening with a notrump bid, in which case straight-jacket away!!!

 

The "30 second" regulation is exactly the rule from the Cavendish. Really the point is just that bids must be disclosed.

...the idea is that it shouldn't normally come down to a timer.

- Obviously in the Cavendish it doesn't matter how vague the regulation is. Anyone in that event can probably explain any bid they make to anyone else in that event in 5 seconds flat. I don't understand the correlation between a regulation used in the Cavendish and one that should be on the GCC.

- Why would you use your convention chart for the purpose of pointing out that bids must be disclosed? That's what laws (and ethics) do quite effectively.

- The idea is that it shouldn't come down to a timer, and your solution is to say the bid must be explainable in 30 seconds?

[hrothgar]

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.

I was able to touch base with Josh Sher...

 

Here's his writeup regrading the events in question:

 

In 2001, the ACBL established a convention comittee to oversee the approvals of defenses. The rule that was established was that somone needed to give a full explanation of a mid-chart legal convention and followups in addition to a defense. the committee would review the materials presented and determine if the defense was appropriate. If they found it appropriate, it would be posted on the acbl web site, and the regulation was that people could only use defenses found on the acbl website.

 

In february 2001, I submitted a number of conventions and defense to the committee (actually, I had no idea who was on the committee, a director, I think it was Gary Blais, but maybe I am misremembering, was the person through which I corresponded.)

 

I submitted the following list, encompassing what I played in a number of different partnerships:

From One Partnership:

 

1. 1D opening bid showing hearts (and possibly canape)

2. 1H opening bid showing spades (and possibly canape for a minor)

3. 1S opening bid showing both minors

From another Partnership:

 

X-fers over our natural 1C open, so...

 

4. 1C-P-1D showing hearts

5. 1C-P-1H showing spades

6. 1C-P-1S showing diamonds but maybe just balanced and out of range for 1N

 

And Kaplan Inversion

 

7. 1H-P-1S as a forcing NT

8. 1H-P-1N showing 5+S, forcing

 

2 months later, I still had not heard anything,so I emailed the director who was co-ordinating the committee, since my attendence at Toronto nationals depended on the legality of the methods I played with my partners. He emailed me back and told me that all the defenses were appproved. So in April or May of 2001, all of the above defenses appeared on the ACBL website.

 

In July/August of 2001, Dan Neill and I played methods 1-3 in the mini-spingold in Toronto with our printed defenses from the ACBL website, without any issues (well our team did bad, but thats another matter).

 

Maybe there is more than one incident involving Jan, but the one I know about one that occured in march 2003, at the Philadelphia Nationals. My friends Mark Abraham and Mike Wilconson from Australia (and staying with me at my Mom's place) played x-fer openings in the open pairs, with the ACBL defenses, printed off the website, in toe. The defense, at that point, had been in the acbl defense database on the acbl website for roughly 21 months. Somewhere in the middle of the session they came upon Jan, who queried the directors about the legality of the methods. Despite the defenses appeared on the acbl's official defense database, and thus conforming to the conditions of contest, they were instructed, in the middle of the session to stop playing them, and henceforth starting randomly giving some selected opponents scattered tops, since they no longer had a coherent set of system agreements. I almost quit the acbl on the spot. If what happened to them happened to me, I would have sued the acbl, since taking off work to go to these nationals is costly (as is taking the time to prepare).

 

Anyway, they were ordered to stop playing the methods and the conventions committee all of a sudden declared that they had never approved these methods (well I was emailed to say they did..) and were obviously completely negligent in their duties, since they never even reviewed the then only 10 conventions that appeared on the web's defense database. I understand that this is a volunteer job, but this was ridiculous....

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I think that it would focus discussion if a couple different issues were treated separately and distinctly:

 

Issue 1: Should certain opening be treated differently that others when licensing overcalls?

 

Issue 2: What set of defenses should be permitted over this set of opening?

 

As I understand matters, the ACBL wants a system like the following

 

On Issue 1:

 

Players who are using Precision type methods are assumed to be more experienced that most. They also typically have well constructed counter methods when the opponents interfer in their auctions.

 

In contrast, many of the folks who play more standard methods would have no clue what to do over a 2♥ overcall that shows a weak jump overcall in either Hearts or Spades.

 

On Issue 2:

 

As far as I can tell, the ACBL's attitude regarding methods is anything goes. I have never seen anyone blocked from playing whatever they damn well please over my strong club opening. Personally, I'd expect to get laughed out of the room if I ever dared to complain about "destructive" methods or the quality of the disclosure.

 

Here's where things get complicated:

 

The ACBL has decided to use the word "conventional" to describe the set of openings over which "anything goes".

 

This creates lots of problems because

 

1. The word Conventional (Or at least non natural) has an established meaning

2. This meaning doesn't properly describe that set of 1♣ openings that don't deserve any protection.

 

There are all sorts of folks who fit into the pretty much clueless category who, none-the-less, use a conventional minor suit openings. (Some kind of short club, convenient minor, what have you)

 

The ACBL wants to protect these people...

 

Where the problem comes is that the ACBL is trying to achieve this end by contorting the definition of "Conventional" rather than writing a rules set that reflects their actual goals.

 

Many people (myself included) don't have an issue with regulations that allow much more lattitude competing over my Precision Club than over a my grandma's short club.

 

However, I have very big issues when the regulatory body can't produce any kind of documentation that accurately describe the rules and, instead, ask us to accept a vague approximation accompanied by a lot of behind the scenes hand waving.

 

Fred/Jan: I know that these folks are your friends and you don't like to see them bashed on. However, this same set of problems has been going on for decades. At some point in time, you have to ask yourself if the right people are in the right positions.

 

Jeff, Chip, and the rest of committee are all very fine bridge players. I'm sure that they love the game. However, the skill set required to produce a good regulations doesn't necessarily correlate with talents for pushing cardboard or loving the game of bridge.

 

Its fine if folks want to honor these folks for their service. At the same time, the committee needs to be judged on what they've accomplished and they don't measure up very well...

[jdonn]

Despite the defenses appeared on the acbl's official defense database, and thus conforming to the conditions of contest, they were instructed, in the middle of the session to stop playing them, and henceforth starting randomly giving some selected opponents scattered tops, since they no longer had a coherent set of system agreements.

I think that is quite an overbid. They certainly had cause to be upset, but there are any number of pairs that manage to avoid giving opponents scattered tops despite lacking a coherent set of system agreements. In fact, aren't these things won by pickup partnerships a disproportionately high percentage of the time?

 

A lawsuit would have been interesting. Getting a judge or jury to understand the concept of systems and bidding in bridge would have been quite a challenge.

[akhare]

I was able to touch base with Josh Sher...

 

Here's his writeup regrading the events in question:

 

Despite the defenses appeared on the acbl's official defense database, and thus conforming to the conditions of contest, they were instructed, in the middle of the session to stop playing them, and henceforth starting randomly giving some selected opponents scattered tops, since they no longer had a coherent set of system agreements. I almost quit the acbl on the spot. If what happened to them happened to me, I would have sued the acbl, since taking off work to go to these nationals is costly (as is taking the time to prepare).

 

Anyway, they were ordered to stop playing the methods and the conventions committee all of a sudden declared that they had never approved these methods (well I was emailed to say they did..) and were obviously completely negligent in their duties, since they never even reviewed the then only 10 conventions that appeared on the web's defense database. I understand that this is a volunteer job, but this was ridiculous....

 

Wow -- and here's the Midchart from May 2001 for the record. It seems that the item in bold would have clearly allowed the methods they were playing back then.

 

ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * *

 

All of the ACBL General Convention Chart.

Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

Except for relay systems that show less than game-forcing values and conventional calls that are prohibited by #9 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart (However, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP.) , all other constructive rebids and responses are permitted. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit. (See items #6 and #8 in DISALLOWED below.)

Opening 2 showing a weak two-bid in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s).

A 2 or 2NT opening bid showing an unspecified minor or both minors.

Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid.

Notrump overcall as a two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution.

Defense to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.

Any opening bid at the three level or higher showing an undisclosed solid suit.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

DISALLOWED

 

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods.

Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

Forcing pass systems.

Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game forcing.

Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

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.

Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened).

ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * *

[Finch]

I don't want to add oil to existing flames, but just out of interest, how is the ACBL conventions & whatever committee (s)elected?

 

In the EBU, each member of the the L&E is elected for a term of 3(I think) years at a time. In practice, this is a bit of a joke as there are rarely more people standing for the job than there are vacancies, but people have certainly been voted off in the past. So if you were sufficiently vocal about how badly the committee was run over here, I'd tell you to stop moaning and join it if you want it run better. (That's effectively how I came to join it, when that point was made to me.)

[awm]

One interesting thing to note about this thread... there seems to be widespread consensus here that the general chart is very poorly written.

 

There is a lot of discussion about what the current set of regulations is, what it should be, what a player should do ethically in the face of such fuzzy regulations, and who to blame for the current state of affairs. Seems we will have to "agree to disagree" on those issues.

 

But I don't see anyone seriously arguing that the current General Chart is crystal clear, or that the lack of clarity it presently displays is somehow a good thing. Yet this is precisely the sort of argument I get from ACBL headquarters (Rick Beye in particular) when I ask about these issues!

 

It seems like if a number of us, at roughly the same time, send email indicating that we don't feel the convention charts are very clear as currently written and point out some of the biggest issues of ambiguity, we might stand some chance to get noticed? Or perhaps the folks like Jan Martel who have a "back channel" to friends/family on the committee could mention these issues to them?

 

The main issues I've seen in this thread:

 

1. Are all natural bids allowed? If so, why isn't this stated explicitly? If not, then what distinguishes the allowed natural bids (bailey 2♥ shows 8-11 hcp 5+♥ and 2-3♠) from the not-allowed natural bids (mini-flannery 2♥ shows 8-11 hcp 5+♥ and a 4♠)? Do we need to update the definition of "natural" to say something about legal inferences regarding side suits?

 

2. What is an "all-purpose" opening bid? Does this imply that any meaning is permitted? Does it have something to do with the rest of the system? Perhaps the intent is that these calls cannot promise length in a particular suit other than the one named? Is it really the case that "multi-way" bids (1♦ promising one or both four card majors) are allowed whereas bids showing a specific other suit (1♦ promising four spades) are not allowed?

 

3. Which "conventional" opening bids permit the opposition to use any defense? This certainly seems to include a strong club, but does it include a "could be short" club or diamond? I'm not really sure how this is confusing in the current definitions, but it seems that a lot of people want to change it.

[fred]

I don't want to add oil to existing flames, but just out of interest, how is the ACBL conventions & whatever committee (s)elected?

 

In the EBU, each member of the the L&E is elected for a term of 3(I think) years at a time. In practice, this is a bit of a joke as there are rarely more people standing for the job than there are vacancies, but people have certainly been voted off in the past.  So if you were sufficiently vocal about how badly the committee was run over here, I'd tell you to stop moaning and join it if you want it run better.  (That's effectively how I came to join it, when that point was made to me.)

If I recall correctly:

 

- Members of the ACBL C&C Committee are appointed for terms that last in the neighbourhood of 2-3 years.

 

- At least half of the C&C typically consists of famous players. I believe that such the appointments of these people are typically suggested by the C&C Committee itself, approved by the ACBL Board of Directors, and actually made by the ACBL President.

 

- Before any of this happens, typically the appointee will have already been approached to make sure he/she is willing to serve. So when the actual appointment is made, it tends to get accepted.

 

- The C&C Committee also tends to include TDs, club managers, and representatives of ACBL BOD and management (though I am not sure if the BOD and management reps are there in any official capacity). I am not sure how it is decided who gets appointed to these positions, but I don't think the C&C Committee itself tends to be involved.

 

- There are sometimes leading players who are not actual C&C Committee members that attend C&C meetings and sometimes offer their opinions. These people are not allowed to vote on matters that require a vote from the Committee to be approved.

 

- I suspect people, especially highly-accomplished players, would be welcome to volunteer to serve and that some of these people would eventually receive appointments. In practice I doubt this happens very often.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Despite the defenses appeared on the acbl's official defense database, and thus conforming to the conditions of contest, they were instructed, in the middle of the session to stop playing them, and henceforth starting randomly giving some selected opponents scattered tops, since they no longer had a coherent set of system agreements.

I think that is quite an overbid. They certainly had cause to be upset, but there are any number of pairs that manage to avoid giving opponents scattered tops despite lacking a coherent set of system agreements. In fact, aren't these things won by pickup partnerships a disproportionately high percentage of the time?

 

A lawsuit would have been interesting. Getting a judge or jury to understand the concept of systems and bidding in bridge would have been quite a challenge.

Depends on what the purpose of a lawsuit is...

 

Lawsuits, in and of themselves, are punitive.

They cost time and money to defend.

They effect the cost of insurance policies, retainers, all sorts of things.

 

Personally, I think that this would have been an interesting case. (I wish that the Aussies had sued)...

 

I don't have a copy of the Conditions of Contest for the event in question, however, I do have handy access to the CoC for the 2008-2009 NAP.

 

Once we move past the Table of Contents, the very first item in the CoC reads as follows:

 

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...nsofContest.pdf

 

American Contract Bridge League

 

2008-2009 NORTH AMERICAN PAIRS

 

CONDITIONS OF CONTEST

 

THESE CONDITIONS OF CONTEST MAY NOT BE CHANGED AT ANY LEVEL OF

PLAY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS EVENT. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT

CONSTITUTE CAUSE FOR EXCEPTION TO THESE CONDITIONS OF CONTEST.

 

Interesting clause, that... It cuts more than one way.

 

Here's how I'd structure my argument

 

The ACBL clearly indicated that the methods that the Aussies were playing were legal.

 

The methods were sanctioned by the ACBL Midchart

 

A suggested defense was registered with the ACBL and published in the listed of defenses.

 

The Australians spent a large amount of time, money, and effort to travel to the US to compete in Nationals under the expectation that their methods were permitted.

 

It's entirely possible that that the individual who added said defense to the ACBL's Defensive Database wasn't authorized to do so. However, as I recall, the requirement sanctioning methods required that defenses get published in the Defensive Database, NOT that the defense get approved by the Conventions Committee.

 

Moreover, while Chip Martel might be eminently qualified to comment on whether or not the Conventions Committee had approved said defense, this once again has no bearing on whether or not the Defense was published at the time of said event. The fact that the ACBL's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing doesn't effect the Aussies good faith belief that their methods were legal.

 

Also, its not like these suggested defenses were added to the Defensive Database hours or even days before the event. Said defenses were sitting on the ACBL's web for several monthes prior to the event in question. If Josh's timeline is correct, we're actually talking about a period measured in years.

 

Simply put:

 

The Director in question probably didn't have the authority to modify the Conditions of Contest midevent.

 

The information that Chip provided to the Director might have been technically accurate - the Conventions Committee probably never approved any defense, however, this information was also extraneous since sanction depended on defenses being published in the Defensive Database, not defenses being approved by the Conventions Committee...

 

Last, but not least, even if folks don't buy my distinction between publishing a defense and approving a defense, one might argue that the ACBL's decision to publish a defense that hadn't been reviewed/approved and not correct this mistake over a period of years implicitly sanctioned said defense...

 

I am not a lawyer

 

The closest I have come to studying law was a class at Wesleyan on the Roman legal system back in 1988

 

Even so, I bet that I could have some real fun with this line of argument. I suspect that a real lawyer could do me one or two better...

 

Someone who was really on the ball could probably work in the dread words "Conspiracy to restrain trade"...

[Finch]

But I don't see anyone seriously arguing that the current General Chart is crystal clear, or that the lack of clarity it presently displays is somehow a good thing. Yet this is precisely the sort of argument I get from ACBL headquarters (Rick Beye in particular) when I ask about these issues!

This is a very tricky point.

 

Take the rules on 'strong' openings. As I understand it, the ACBL doesn't define explicitly what's legit for a strong 2C bid (to quote blackshoe from another thread:

 

What is true for the Midchart does not necessarily apply to the General Chart. That said, my understanding is that the ACBl plans to "clarify" the meaning of strong on the GCC, and that it will probably say minimum 15 HCP. OTOH, this hand

 

♠  AKQJxxxx 

♥  Jxx 

♦ -   

♣  Jx 

 

was ruled a permitted 2♣ opener at a sectional last year, and Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, agreed via private correspondence with the ruling.

 

This leads to arguments about whether a particular 2C opening is a 'psyche' or not (and hence disallowed or not), and what is meant by 'strong' , and complaints that it's up to the discretion of individual TDs and you don't get consistent rulings etc etc.

 

Well, the EBU decided that they wanted to regulate explicitly what is meant by a 'strong' opening. What we are trying to avoid is players opening a hand such as the above (typically a 'good pre-empt') with their strong bid, describing it as 'strong' or 'game forcing' and the opponents getting upset & confused when it transpires to be their hand. Or people effectively using the 2C/2D openings to show either a major suit pre-empt or a strong hand (which is not normally allowed at restricted/novice events).

 

So we started with (if I remember correctly) 16+ HCP or 'rule of 25' (points+HCP >=25). This led to complaints, and now it is given as:

 

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

 

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, or

 

B) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or

 

c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs

 

That allows the 4S opener above to be opened 2C if you really want, subject to proper disclosure.

 

But now we have ongoing correspondence about what are "clear cut" tricks. More time than anyone would really want has been spent discussing this hand:

 

AK

AQJ98xx

xx

Jx

 

which isn't rule of 25 and isn't 16+ HCP. We decided it didn't have eight "clear cut" tricks and hence it wasn't allowed as a strong opening.

 

This has led to even more virulent emails.

 

You have the same problem round opening bids. If you say (for example) that you need at least 10 HCP to open 1NT (as we do in so-called 'Level 3' events), then is a hand such as A109 109x 10x AJ109x allowed to open 1NT by partnership agreement? If you say 'no', then you are accused of having zero bridge judgement and enforcing stupid valuation methods on people and not understanding how to play the game etc etc. If you say 'yes' then you are accused of bias, favouritism, inconsistent rulings, players not knowing what will be allowed at any given time, you are allowing the TD's bridge judgement to overrule the players, and if they could play they wouldn't be directing, and what if I think that aces are poor for NT play and that in fact QJx Jx Qx QJ1098x is a better hand than your example, if you are allowed to upgrade that 9-count why aren't I allowed to open this one etc etc

 

 

Is being in this position better or worse than having a more fuzzy definition and allowing TDs to use their judgement? I know some people have very strong views on that point, but they don't all have the same view. It is a perfectly valid position to say that deliberate lack of clarity is a good thing.

 

Personally I'm in favour of having strict rules and sticking to them, and telling people to go exercise their bridge judgement elsewhere. But that's not obviously the 'right' approach.

[david_c]

Is being in this position better or worse than having a more fuzzy definition and allowing TDs to use their judgement? I know some people have very strong views on that point, but they don't all have the same view. It is a perfectly valid position to say that deliberate lack of clarity is a good thing.

I'm not sure that's what Adam meant. Maybe you have to have regulations which require judgement sometimes - but they can still be "clear" regulations in the sense that it's obvious where the judgement is required. In the case of the ACBL rule about 1m openings, we can't even tell whether they were trying to write a precise regulation or not.

[david_c]

So we started with (if I remember correctly) 16+ HCP or 'rule of 25' (points+HCP >=25).  This led to complaints, and now it is given as:

 

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

 

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, or

 

b ) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or

 

c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs

There's a funny story that goes with this one -

 

Looking at this regulation, you can see it would be much clearer if the first option was moved to the end. (The other two options are more fundamental, and in any case, there's a general rule that if you have a list in which one item has multiple clauses, then it reads best when the long item comes last.)

 

So why didn't they do it like that? Well, originally they did. It said:

 

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

 

a) any hand meeting the Rule of 25, or

 

b ) any hand of at least 16 HCPs, or

 

c) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks.

which is much better.

 

The EBU then advertised this on their website, along with a number of other things. Unfortunately, due to a sloppy attempt at typesetting, it came out with a PAGE BREAK between b ) and c). So, not surprisingly, a number of people looked at this, only saw the first two items, and thought that the regulation hadn't been changed from the previous version. They wrote in to complain to the EBU.

 

Ever responsive to its members' complaints, the EBU changed the order of the items so that you couldn't possibly miss the important change, despite the fact that it wasn't the order of the items that was the problem, it was having a PAGE BREAK in a silly place (which would automatically be corrected when it was put into its eventual format).

 

So that's how you end up with a poorly-written regulation.

[peachy]

- There are sometimes leading players who are not actual C&C Committee members that attend C&C meetings and sometimes offer their opinions. These people are not allowed to vote on matters that require a vote from the Committee to be approved.

Whatever the votes, whoever attends these meetings, and whatever the discussions and decisions might be, there are no meeting minutes (according to Butch Campbell) and also (according to Butch Campbell) it would be improper to approach individual committee members for this sort of information. Which IMO makes the committee a secret society, and which IMO breaks ACBL's own rules that committee meetings be recorded and minutes kept.

 

I found this out when about a month ago I asked to know when and why Multi 2D was changed into "allowed in MidChart or higher events where round length is 6 boards or more" which means that Multi 2D is disallowed in ALL pairs events, including Blue Ribbon. I was interested a) when the change happened and B) the reason for the change. The tone of the response felt like I was slapped in the face.

[Cascade]

I was able to touch base with Josh Sher...

 

Here's his writeup regrading the events in question:

 

Despite the defenses appeared on the acbl's official defense database, and thus conforming to the conditions of contest, they were instructed, in the middle of the session to stop playing them, and henceforth starting randomly giving some selected opponents scattered tops, since they no longer had a coherent set of system agreements. I almost quit the acbl on the spot. If what happened to them happened to me, I would have sued the acbl, since taking off work to go to these nationals is costly (as is taking the time to prepare).

 

Anyway, they were ordered to stop playing the methods and the conventions committee all of a sudden declared that they had never approved these methods (well I was emailed to say they did..) and were obviously completely negligent in their duties, since they never even reviewed the then only 10 conventions that appeared on the web's defense database. I understand that this is a volunteer job, but this was ridiculous....

 

Wow -- and here's the Midchart from May 2001 for the record. It seems that the item in bold would have clearly allowed the methods they were playing back then.

 

ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * *

 

All of the ACBL General Convention Chart.

Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values.

Except for relay systems that show less than game-forcing values and conventional calls that are prohibited by #9 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart (However, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP.) , all other constructive rebids and responses are permitted. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit. (See items #6 and #8 in DISALLOWED below.)

Opening 2 showing a weak two-bid in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s).

A 2 or 2NT opening bid showing an unspecified minor or both minors.

Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid.

Notrump overcall as a two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution.

Defense to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.

Any opening bid at the three level or higher showing an undisclosed solid suit.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

DISALLOWED

 

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods.

Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

Forcing pass systems.

Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game forcing.

Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

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.

Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened).

ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * *

As far as I can tell there is no mention in the 2001 midchart of a defense database.

 

There is a requirement that one have a suggested defense:

 

"Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing."

 

Given that the convention chart clearly allows transfer openings:

 

"Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit."

 

I wonder what the basis of Jan's complaint about this method was?

 

And on what basis the director disallowed the method?

 

To me this does not seem to be a matter of interpretation but one in which the director was bound by the announced regulation which plainly states that this method is allowed.

 

It is the exact situation that was discussed earlier in this thread and exactly parallels a director disallowing 5-card majors since both methods - 5-card majors and transfer openings - were equally allowed by the regulations.

[awm]

Sometimes judgment is required if the regulations are not to be excessively long or restrictive. When I was writing that alternative general chart, there were still places where some judgment was needed, like requiring a "logical" explanation for a deviation from agreements if it was not to be considered a psych, or requiring that certain calls contain "game forcing" values.

 

However, in order for a set of regulations to be fair, I think it is necessary to:

 

1) Indicate where judgment is required and where it is not.

2) Make clear what is supposed to be judged and (roughly) what the criteria are to be. Requiring judgment as to whether a hand is "strong" might be okay because there are generally accepted ideas (if with some variance from person to person) about strong bids. We could put in guidelines like "can make game opposite fairly ordinary hands from partner which include fewer than five high-card points" or "is worth at least a balanced 16-count in terms of playing strength." Obviously these are still judgment calls, but at least there is some basis for a decision. Requiring judgment as to whether a bid is "all-purpose" seems a lot fuzzier, and I don't think there is any consensus as to what that term means.

3) Create some sort of history of cases to help train directors as to the right judgments and maintain consistency.

 

The current system really does not succeed on any of the three counts.

[hrothgar]

As far as I can tell there is no mention in the 2001 midchart of a defense database.

 

There is a requirement that one have a suggested defense:

 

"Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing."

 

Given that the convention chart clearly allows transfer openings:

 

"Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit."

 

I wonder what the basis of Jan's complaint about this method was?

 

And on what basis the director disallowed the method?

I have a fairly good memory for this sort of thing...

 

At the time when this incident happened, the ACBL had a set of requirements that required a suggested defense to Midchart methods be published in the Defensive Database.

 

Said requirement was published and known. However, the requirement in question was NOT a section within the Midchart itself.

 

I don't consider it in any way obvious that the requirements documenting the Defensive Database for Midchart methods should be published within the Midchart.

[hrothgar]

- There are sometimes leading players who are not actual C&C Committee members that attend C&C meetings and sometimes offer their opinions. These people are not allowed to vote on matters that require a vote from the Committee to be approved.

Whatever the votes, whoever attends these meetings, and whatever the discussions and decisions might be, there are no meeting minutes (according to Butch Campbell) and also (according to Butch Campbell) it would be improper to approach individual committee members for this sort of information. Which IMO makes the committee a secret society, and which IMO breaks ACBL's own rules that committee meetings be recorded and minutes kept.

There is an alternative theory:

 

Butch Campbell doesn't know what he is talking about...

[jdonn]

I wonder what the basis of Jan's complaint about this method was?

I don't think it is shocking that she didn't have the entire Midchart memorized. I sure don't. Thus if she isn't sure whether the opponents are playing an illegal method it is perfectly proper to call the director to find out.

 

And on what basis the director disallowed the method?

I can't figure it out. I try not to judge when he isn't even here to explain himself, but it sure seems like a terrible ruling.

 

To me this does not seem to be a matter of interpretation but one in which the director was bound by the announced regulation which plainly states that this method is allowed. 

 

It is the exact situation that was discussed earlier in this thread and exactly parallels a director disallowing 5-card majors since both methods - 5-card majors and transfer openings - were equally allowed by the regulations.

There are two things I want to point out here.

 

One is that though I agree both were 100% allowed, it is much more evident that 5-card majors were allowed because natural bids are allowed. I just thought that warrants mentioning though of course I agree it shouldn't matter regarding the ruling. I only say that since you say it's the "exact situation" but I disagree that something 'everyone' plays is the same situation as something 'no one' plays, even if the ruling should have been the same.

 

The other is I notice this pair, despite having flown clear across the world and surely spent hundreds of hours designing and practicing their system, then being told they aren't allowed to play it even though they should have been allowed, finished the session playing something the director allowed. I'm just noticing, that's all...

[Cascade]

From the defense database circa 2003

 

VIII. Transfer opening bids. 1D opening: 10-14 HCP (first and second seat), 11-16 HCP(third and fourth seat), 4+ H may have a longer side suit, never 4432 or 4333 in first and second seat. Not forcing. Responses: 1H artificial. 10+ HCP(8+ if PH). Only 10-11(8-9) with a fit or with a great suit of his own. 1D-1H-1S artificial shows 10 to bad 12 HCP(11 to a bad 14 after first seat opener). All other bids show max opener. 1D-1H-1S-2C=GF relay 1D-2H is a normal 1H-2H raise. Constructive. May be done on 3 cards. 1D-2S through 3D are all artificial distributional 4+ card raises, usually in the 8-10 HCP range. [6-8 by PH]. 1D-2D is mildly constructive but not forcing. 6-11 HCP [4-9 by PH]. All other bids are natural and 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH] and are not forcing (1NT is typically balanced with 2-3 H, opener is expected to bid a 5 card suit if he has one).

 

Defense: 1D- x = 13-15 balanced, or big hand without 3+ spades. Advancer's later x is takeout, If doubler doubles again he is showing 19+ balanced. If transferer bids a new suit next he deny's 3+S; 1D-1H= takeout of H. 1H then a new suit guarantees 3+ S; Higher bids as if 1H was opened (so 2H = Michaels); 1D-P-1H-x = takeout of hearts; 1NT=minors; 1D-P-1S as if 1H-P-1S' 1D-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc.

 

Alternate Defense: 1D-x shows a 1 level Diamond Overcall; 1D-2D is a Diamond Preempt; 1D-1H= takeout of H; Higher bids, other than 2D, as if 1H was opened (2H = Michaels); 1D-P-1H-x = takeout of hearts; 1NT=minors; 1D-P-1S as if 1H-P-1S; 1D-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc

 

IX. 1H opening: 10-14 HCP, 11-16 HCP(3/4 seat) = 4+ S, 0-3 H may have a longer minor. Never 4432 or 4333 in first and second seat. Not Forcing. Responses: 1S artificial. 10+ HCP(8+ if PH). Only 10-11 (8-9) with a fit or with a great suit of his own; 1H-1S-1NT artificial shows 10-bad 12 HCP(11-bad 14 after first seat opener); All other bids show max opener. 1H-1S-1NT-2C=GF relay 1H-2NT through 3H are all artificial 4+ card distributional raises, usually in the 8-10 HCP range [6-8 by PH]. 1H-2S is a normal 1S-2S raise. Constructive. Can be done on 3 cards. 1H-2H is mildly constructive but not forcing. 6-11 HCP [4-9 by PH. All other bids are natural and 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH] and are not forcing (1NT is typically balanced with 2-3 H, opener is expected to bid a 5 card suit if he has one).

 

Defense: 1H-x = 13-15 balanced, or big hand without 3+ hearts. Advancer's later x is takeout. If doubler doubles again he is showing 19+ balanced. If transferer bids a new suit next he deny's 3+H. 1H-1S= takeout of S. 1S then a new suit guarantees 3+ H. Higher bids as if 1S was opened (so 2S = Michaels). 1H-P-1S- = takeout of spades; 1NT=minors; 1H-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc.

 

Alternate Defense: 1H-x=1 level overcall of hearts; 1H-2H=pre-emptive; 1H-1S= takeout of S; Higher bids other than 2H as if 1S was opened (so 2S = Michaels). 1H-P-1S-x = takeout of spades 1NT=minors 1H-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT, etc. X. 1S opening: 4+C, 4+D 10-14 HCP; 11-16 HCP(3/4 seat). May also have a 4 or 5 card major. With no 4+ card major, this bid guarantees at least 5-4 in the minors. Not forcing. Responses: 1NT Limited hand. 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH]. Asks for a 5 card suit. Bid Clubs if equal length in minors. 2C GF Relay by UPH (to play by PH) 2D INV hand. Stayman like. 10-13 HCP (8-11 BY PH) 2M Constructive not forcing. 8-11 HCP (6-9 by PH) 2NT pre-emptive with both minors 3m to play 3H 5-5 in the majors, INV 3S 6S-5H, INV

 

Defense: X = both majors; 1NT 15-18 balanced; 2C Strong 2H bid; 2D strong 2S bid; 2M Limited Overcall; 2NT 19?21 balanced. Alternate Defense: X= 1 level Spade Overcall; 1NT=15-18 balanced; 2C= takeout of C; 2D=Takeout of D; 2H=natural; 2S=Pre-emptive; 2NT=19-21 balanced.

 

I suspect that the last defense is for a 1♠ opening the description of which has been somehow omitted but that is how it appeared on the ACBL website at the time.

[joshs]

From the defense database circa 2003

 

VIII. Transfer opening bids. 1D opening: 10-14 HCP (first and second seat), 11-16 HCP(third and fourth seat), 4+ H may have a longer side suit, never 4432 or 4333 in first and second seat. Not forcing. Responses: 1H artificial. 10+ HCP(8+ if PH). Only 10-11(8-9) with a fit or with a great suit of his own. 1D-1H-1S artificial shows 10 to bad 12 HCP(11 to a bad 14 after first seat opener). All other bids show max opener. 1D-1H-1S-2C=GF relay 1D-2H is a normal 1H-2H raise. Constructive. May be done on 3 cards. 1D-2S through 3D are all artificial distributional 4+ card raises, usually in the 8-10 HCP range. [6-8 by PH]. 1D-2D is mildly constructive but not forcing. 6-11 HCP [4-9 by PH]. All other bids are natural and 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH] and are not forcing (1NT is typically balanced with 2-3 H, opener is expected to bid a 5 card suit if he has one).

 

Defense: 1D- x = 13-15 balanced, or big hand without 3+ spades. Advancer's later x is takeout, If doubler doubles again he is showing 19+ balanced. If transferer bids a new suit next he deny's 3+S; 1D-1H= takeout of H. 1H then a new suit guarantees 3+ S; Higher bids as if 1H was opened (so 2H = Michaels); 1D-P-1H-x = takeout of hearts; 1NT=minors; 1D-P-1S as if 1H-P-1S' 1D-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc.

 

Alternate Defense: 1D-x shows a 1 level Diamond Overcall; 1D-2D is a Diamond Preempt; 1D-1H= takeout of H; Higher bids, other than 2D, as if 1H was opened (2H = Michaels); 1D-P-1H-x = takeout of hearts; 1NT=minors; 1D-P-1S as if 1H-P-1S; 1D-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc

 

IX. 1H opening: 10-14 HCP, 11-16 HCP(3/4 seat) = 4+ S, 0-3 H may have a longer minor. Never 4432 or 4333 in first and second seat. Not Forcing. Responses: 1S artificial. 10+ HCP(8+ if PH). Only 10-11 (8-9) with a fit or with a great suit of his own; 1H-1S-1NT artificial shows 10-bad 12 HCP(11-bad 14 after first seat opener); All other bids show max opener. 1H-1S-1NT-2C=GF relay 1H-2NT through 3H are all artificial 4+ card distributional raises, usually in the 8-10 HCP range [6-8 by PH]. 1H-2S is a normal 1S-2S raise. Constructive. Can be done on 3 cards. 1H-2H is mildly constructive but not forcing. 6-11 HCP [4-9 by PH. All other bids are natural and 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH] and are not forcing (1NT is typically balanced with 2-3 H, opener is expected to bid a 5 card suit if he has one).

 

Defense: 1H-x = 13-15 balanced, or big hand without 3+ hearts. Advancer's later x is takeout. If doubler doubles again he is showing 19+ balanced. If transferer bids a new suit next he deny's 3+H. 1H-1S= takeout of S. 1S then a new suit guarantees 3+ H. Higher bids as if 1S was opened (so 2S = Michaels). 1H-P-1S- = takeout of spades; 1NT=minors; 1H-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT; etc.

 

Alternate Defense: 1H-x=1 level overcall of hearts; 1H-2H=pre-emptive; 1H-1S= takeout of S; Higher bids other than 2H as if 1S was opened (so 2S = Michaels). 1H-P-1S-x = takeout of spades 1NT=minors 1H-P-1NT as if 1H-P-1NT, etc. X. 1S opening: 4+C, 4+D 10-14 HCP; 11-16 HCP(3/4 seat). May also have a 4 or 5 card major. With no 4+ card major, this bid guarantees at least 5-4 in the minors. Not forcing. Responses: 1NT Limited hand. 0-11 HCP [0-9 by PH]. Asks for a 5 card suit. Bid Clubs if equal length in minors. 2C GF Relay by UPH (to play by PH) 2D INV hand. Stayman like. 10-13 HCP (8-11 BY PH) 2M Constructive not forcing. 8-11 HCP (6-9 by PH) 2NT pre-emptive with both minors 3m to play 3H 5-5 in the majors, INV 3S 6S-5H, INV

 

Defense: X = both majors; 1NT 15-18 balanced; 2C Strong 2H bid; 2D strong 2S bid; 2M Limited Overcall; 2NT 19?21 balanced. Alternate Defense: X= 1 level Spade Overcall; 1NT=15-18 balanced; 2C= takeout of C; 2D=Takeout of D; 2H=natural; 2S=Pre-emptive; 2NT=19-21 balanced.

 

I suspect that the last defense is for a 1♠ opening the description of which has been somehow omitted but that is how it appeared on the ACBL website at the time.

At some point they changed the layout of the online defense database, and concatonated my suggested defenses, so that the sentence

"Defense to 1S showing both minors..." was omitted, and that defense appeared under the defense to the 1H opening.

 

As to Josh's comment about "scattered tops", what I can tell you is that a number of times during the second half of the session (something like 3 times, but you will have to ask Mike and Mark) they had no idea if certain meta agreements applied after 1M (natural relay). One of their accidents was that they didn't have any agreements as to what bid was the relay, when they are not playing x-fer openings (they needed a system at 1 minutes notice, so they decided something rediculous [i think they decided natural openings, but the same structure, but I don't remember]...). Lets just say, on those hands they had completely rediculous results, which means that any player who played them in the first half of the session, when they knew what they were playing, was screwed....

 

I do find it interesting how Jan's version of the story, neglects to mention the fact my friends had printed defenses from the defense database, and that the defense database was changed immentiatley after to delete those defenses. I guess it was al ong time ago, sho she just didn't remember clearly what happened..

 

Personally, I will never understand how a bid suggesting a strain is not legal, while a bid that may be their sides longest OR shortest suit (Precision 1D or could be short 1C) is legal. I think those are much harder to defend and much more pernicious. But thats another matter...