reading the acbl nabc casebooks...

[rbouskila]

so I always get a kick out of the ACBL appeals committee rulings.

anyways, i just had to share this one. how awesome is bobby wolff's commentary at the end?

 

[....]

For this unseemly combination of errors and illegality this committee decided to penalize the field by giving these two pairs a combined average and an extra 3 IMP bonus for N/S. To make matters worse it was made by ostensibly a better than average committee. For our group to ever be party to such a thing is off the charts impossible, but, at least to me, it seems that this committee wanted to make love to at least the N/S pair and also be kind to the pair who were (possibly) wantonly playing this illegal convention.

Until our group has enough leadership to call this aberration to everyone's attention and boil in oil a future guilty committee we have no chance to succeed.

 

♥

 

what a guy.

 

-raph

[kenberg]

From the ruling:

"The committee spent several minutes poring over the ACBL Convention Charts to determine the legality of the convention used by E/W. It was determined that the convention is legal for events governed by the SuperChart but not under the Mid-Chart."

 

And from the commentary:

 

"Far better is for the players who know all the details of their methods to figure it out themselves. If a player still isn't sure, he can write the ACBL and get an official ruling. If he doesn't know in time for the current event, that's too bad. He can plan ahead next time."

 

So the very experienced players on the committee had to pore over the documents to determine the legality, and the players are supposed to figure it out for themselves? Evidently asking a director is insufficient unless you get his name. Maybe a signed statement. It may not be enough. More than once I have had a director directly contradict another director. Of course this, we are told in the commentary, doesn't count, since I cannot name the directors.

 

I think the bridge brass need to hold a meeting and see if they can get their story straight.

[TimG]

I don't understand why it took several minutes to determine that this convention is not permitted in mid-chart events. There are 20 items specifically permitted by the mid-chart and it is a simple matter to determine that this method is not described by any of those 20. Quite often there is no need to go past the first few words of an item. For instance "3. All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted" no need to read any further, the method under consideration is not a rebid or response, next.

 

A reading of the mid-chart also reveals "3. Except for those methods authorized by sections #1 – 5 below, have a copy of the approved suggested defense available for each opponent." The pair in question had a hand written defense. If the pair thought their method qualified under one of #1-#5, they should have said which. If they thought it qualified under one of #6-#20 they should have had the officially approved defense available. The pair in question clearly had not taken these minimal steps and as such it seems to me that they deserve very little sympathy. Even if a director had told them the method was mid-chart legal, this does not get them off the approved defense hook.

[paulg]

If the committee comprises players who normally play GCC-compatible systems, then they may be less familiar with the charts than many of this forum. It is reasonable for them to take time to understand it.

 

On the other hand, experienced players who believe that they are playing a Mid Chart convention do have a responsibility to read the chart and meet their obligations. Which in this case would lead them to realise that the convention is not Mid Chart, and even it is was, that there is no approved defence.

 

The Super Chart reference is confused. Although it is true that you could probably play in a Super Chart event, you would need to present a copy of the methods and receive approval the day before the event.

 

It is hard to see how a national TD would get this wrong, unless they confused it with a 2♥ opener showing this hand (which is Mid Chart approved). But then they would expect to see the Defense Database defence. So I also have no sympathy for the offenders.

[kenberg]

Tim, you make good points and I probably even agree. But how then do you explain the commentary from other top players that seems to be all over the map? Myself, I don't much play exotica but I rarely object to methods of the opponents. I like the written suggested defense approach, it suits me for games that I like to play in. I am fine with restricting conventions in games that are aimed at casual players. So I think I am in tune, at least sort of, with acbl intentions.

 

Recently I started using an accountant to do my taxes. My financial life isn't complicated but I filed my first tax return in around 1955 and I am tired of trying to cope with a bunch of obscure rules. Largely I have taken the same view of acbl rules. The very top guys don't seem to have a consistent understanding of what is meant. For me, just tell me when I screwed up, I'll accept it. I think they could do better than that.

[Keeper1]

One reason why the Director consulted may have given the wrong guidance is that

the ACBL Defense database does list a mid-chart "Defense to Weak Flannery"

 

But when you follow the link - to actually get the defense, which you should be providing to your opponents - it turns out that this relates to a weak Flannery 2 Hearts, not 2 Diamonds.

 

It does raise issues about why weak Flannery 2H is mid-chart legal, but not weak Flannery 2D. Is this because nobody proposed the latter, or was an application rejected and if so why? And given the de facto freeze on defense approvals, has an anomaly been inadvertently locked in?

 

Still, as others say, this case hardly reflects well on the transparency and clarity of the regulation process, including how the convention charts are (still) presented on the website

[awm]

Honestly I think there should be a penalty for using illegal methods. This is despite the fact that I don't particularly agree with ACBL's regulations in this area.

 

Notice that the particular team involved in the appeal (the non-offending side) included Chip Martel, who is a member of the committee which decides these things. Even the pair at the table didn't realize this was an illegal method. Apparently the committee had to do some research to determine this was an illegal method.

 

My point is that this convention was on the card throughout both days of the national swiss. It probably came up against other teams who didn't realize it was illegal and didn't call the director or ask for a committee. Some of these other teams may have been "damaged." Since the vast majority of players do not know or understand these convention regulations, the percentage of times that the director is involved is likely small. So the pair using the illegal methods gets full advantage from them (and from a possibly inferior hand-written defense) until/unless they happen to come up against someone like Mr. Martel who is on the relevant committee and willing to call the director and/or set up an appeal! This is why I think a true penalty needs to be assessed, not just "try to figure out how there was damage on the specific boards reported" which is the policy the committee followed. Assigning the offending side average based on "director error" when no one could name the director or point to any correspondence also seems dubious and unfair to the field.

[blackshoe]

The pair in question had a hand written defense.

That it was hand written does not mean it did not correspond to one of the defenses in the database.

[blackshoe]

Why do we care whether a ruling is "unfair to the field"?

 

I shall have to remember, when I have occasion to ask a director something, to make sure he puts his answer in writing, and signs it. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

[awm]

My impression was that directors (and committees) were not normally supposed to assign more than 100% of the matchpoints (or more than a total of 0 IMPs between the two teams) on a particular board.

 

Obviously you could keep both sides happy by giving them both a top (or in many cases both average-plus) but this seems to unfairly penalize the rest of the field that wasn't involved in the ruling.

 

There are a small number of exceptions (i.e. director error) of course.

[blackshoe]

In a footnote to Law 12C2{c}, the ACBL version of the lawbook says

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2© above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

 

Note that this makes this law different in North America to what it is in the rest of the world. I don't see anything in the laws that allows the ACBL to do this, but... well, the 500 pound canary sits wherever he damn well pleases. :rolleyes:

 

The ACBL, or its directors, may extrapolate this to other situations where there is a score adjustment, but I see nothing in even the ACBL version of the law, and know of no regulation (which doesn't mean there isn't one) that supports it.

 

Again we have concern about 'the rest of the field". Why?

[TimG]

The pair in question had a hand written defense.

That it was hand written does not mean it did not correspond to one of the defenses in the database.

From where did they copy this hand written defense?

 

So, this pair apparently went to the defense database and could not find any defense to the method that a director told them they could use, so they made up their own and tried to pass it off as an approved suggested defense?

 

No, I don't actually mean to suggest this is what the pair did. But the presence of a hand written defense that is not a copy of one in the defense database is evidence that this pair did not make a real attempt to follow the rules. One does not have to be a mid-chart scholar to understand:

 

Except for those methods authorized by sections #1 – 5 below,

have a copy of the approved suggested defense available for each

opponent. Approved defenses are available in the ACBL defense

database at www.acbl.org.

 

The midchart is just a single page and not really difficult to understand.

[TimG]

The Super Chart reference is confused. Although it is true that you could probably play in a Super Chart event, you would need to present a copy of the methods and receive approval the day before the event.

From the SuperChart:

This chart applies to all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint

limit played at an NABC in which contestants play segments (no

change of opponents) of 12 or more boards. This chart (or any part)

may be used at a sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament

at sponsor’s option in any event with 12-board or longer segments

provided this has been included in tournament advertising.

 

Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted

on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested

defenses to, such methods must be made in writing. A defense to a

method which requires the above pre-Alert may be referred to during

the auction by opponents of the convention user.

 

For NABC+ events in which this chart is permitted, pairs playing

SuperChart methods must furnish the above descriptions of their

methods to the Director-in-Charge of the event the day prior to the

session in which they choose to play them.

 

The chart says only that they must be submitted the day prior, not that they must be approved.

[JanM]

I have personally told one of the East-West players that this method is not Midchart legal (and why) at least 10 times. I have consistently encouraged him to submit a recommended defense, but he (and the partners with whom he plays it) have not done so, preferring to continue to play the method even though they know that it is not Midchart legal. I know that Chip has also discussed this with them many times; perhaps that influenced his decision to encourage his teammates to appeal; I don't know.

 

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦. It is the responsibility of the people who play "unusual" methods to know whether they are legal and if they want to make a method legal they need to submit an adequate defense.

[kenberg]

OK, I guess the fact that you cannot find an approved defense to the methods employed could be called a clue that the methods themselves are not approved.

 

Given this line of thought, why did the committee hearing last longer than 30 seconds?

 

I am sort of serious with this question. For quite a while I used to read the appeals columns in the spirit of wanting to do right by the game. Somewhere along the way I decided that this was neither a pleasant nor enlightening use of my time. If the argument is as simple as the above, I would like to see the acbl say so. I usually finish a column that explains a ruling with the same feeling I have after slogging through heavy overgrowth on a trail.

[xcurt]

I have personally told one of the East-West players that this method is not Midchart legal (and why) at least 10 times. I have consistently encouraged him to submit a recommended defense, but he (and the partners with whom he plays it) have not done so, preferring to continue to play the method even though they know that it is not Midchart legal. I know that Chip has also discussed this with them many times; perhaps that influenced his decision to encourage his teammates to appeal; I don't know.

If this is the case, then either the writeup is woefully inaccurate, or E/W lied (by omission) to the committee. If the latter, then I wouldn't be averse to, say, a 90-day ban.

 

West plays this particular convention in other partnerships, and has asked directors in the

past whether it is permitted and had been told it was. While he did not ask before this

event, he had asked as recently as the previous Fall NABC which was since the last

update of the Mid-Chart convention list. East plays this convention with other partners

and was told by his partner in Houston that a director had said it was legal in a pair event.

Neither East nor West could name the director he had spoken to. Several members of the

committee have had personal experiences with this situation, including one member who

received an unclear answer from a tournament director about a 2♦ opening showing a

weak hand with both majors during this event. West was adamant that he had not

intended to use an illegal convention and would not have used the convention had a

director told him that it was illegal in Mid-Chart events.

 

I'm also not thrilled with the constitution of the committee -- two players to (at least once, I don't know any more) were partners, and two more who are frequent teammates. Although, since this is mostly about bridge law and not so much about the table action, it probably wasn't relevant to the (IMO bad) decision.

 

Lastly, isn't the IMP penalty for illegal convention woefully inadequate (omitting any consideration of the table results). I always thought that illegal conventions at matchpoints mean AVE+/0 for NOS/OS, whereas other infractions that result in an artificial adjusted score are typically scored at AVE+/AVE- for NOS/OS. In fact, the person who told me that is one of the commentators to this very appeal.

[TimG]

I have personally told one of the East-West players that this method is not Midchart legal (and why) at least 10 times. I have consistently encouraged him to submit a recommended defense, but he (and the partners with whom he plays it) have not done so, preferring to continue to play the method even though they know that it is not Midchart legal.

A big problem is the answer depends upon who they ask. When they ask a director and the director says it is OK to play the method, why should they care what JanM has to say about it? (Because JanM is right, and they know they're wrong, does not factor into it for some people.)

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦. It is the responsibility of the people who play "unusual" methods to know whether they are legal and if they want to make a method legal they need to submit an adequate defense.

I am sure that a defense to a 2♦ opening which is weak with majors has been submitted. I guess it falls into the category of a defense which the committee deemed inadequate. As we both know, there are no objective criteria set out for determining whether or not a defense is adequate.

 

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that the C&C Committee is not currently accepting new submissions for weak preempts, so submitting a defense at this point will not accomplish anything.

 

Tim

[hrothgar]

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦. It is the responsibility of the people who play "unusual" methods to know whether they are legal and if they want to make a method legal they need to submit an adequate defense.

This would be the same Conventions Committee that has been refusing to consider any new submissions for how many months now?

 

The same Conventions Committee that has consistently refused to approve any defenses to a Ekrens type 2♦ bid?

 

For what its worth, I think that the behavior of the offending pair is indefensible. I think that the Conventions Charts are pretty clear in this instance.

 

With this said and done, your claim about why the 2♥ bid is legal, but the 2♦ isn't is ridiculous.

 

[in all seriousness, anyone recall just when the Conventions Committee recused themselves from actually doing their job. I'm pretty sure that its been at least a year now. Morbidly curious whether we've hit two...]

[blackshoe]

Don't recall. Probably couldn't find the evidence on the ACBL website even if I bothered to look.

[JanM]

It was my impression that at least most of the players who were told they could play this method were told so before the Midchart was revised to make it completely clear what is and is not allowed - allowed methods are now listed in the Midchart. 2♦ showing a weak hand with both Majors isn't on the list, so how can anyone argue that it is allowed?

 

My "claim" of why this 2♦ bid isn't allowed may seem ridiculous to you, but it is the fact - no defense has been submitted and approved. As far as I know, none has been submitted.

[the hog]

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

[hrothgar]

My "claim" of why this 2♦ bid isn't allowed may seem ridiculous to you, but it is the fact - no defense has been submitted and approved. As far as I know, none has been submitted.

Perhaps you should review what you originally wrote:

 

The reason it isn't Midchart legal whereas 2♥ showing the same type of hand is legal is because someone submitted a defense to 2♥ but no one has bothered to do so for 2♦.

 

Your original quotation states that the the reason there is no defense to this 2♦ opening is that no one has bothered to submit a defense.

 

This is horseshit.

 

1. The Conventions Committee has stated that they are refusing to look at any new submissions. No ifs, ands, or buts. Just how long has the CC been "Studying" the submissions process? Two years? Three?

 

2. Ekrens 2♦ is an extremely common preempt outside the US. I'd be shocked if no one has submitted a suggested defense. I know that I've submitted defenses to very similar openings. The CC has refused each and every one. (Wouldn't it be nice if this process took place in an open and transparent manner?)

 

I'd well aware that you threw in a caveat about submitting an adequate defense, just as you're aware that the Conventions Committee has deemed that there is no such thing as an adequate defense to all sorts of methods.

[paulg]

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

I think that there are a number of reasons.

 

Firstly players playing Mid Chart methods, such as the Ekrens 2♥ opener, are very rare. My guess is that the vast majority of those playing this method are foreigners and only seen at the Nationals, so there is little incentive to put significant time into devising a defence.

 

Whatever people may think of the Conventions Committee, the approved defences are adequate for the rarer Mid Chart conventions. They may not be optimal, but they are sufficient given the likelihood of it coming up in any match.

 

Although the top partnerships would normally have a defence, there are many pro-pro and client-pro combinations in the NABC+ events (especially something like the Open Swiss) who will not have a defence ready.

 

I play the Ekrens 2♥ version. Earlier this year at Washington Becker-Strul used the ACBL defence in the Spingold and Rosenberg-Feldman used it in the Open Swiss. I'd class all of these as 'self-respecting players' :).

 

Unsurprisingly none of their European team mates (world-class partnerships) blinked when we pre-alerted it.

[kenberg]

Jan, as an outsider I am curious. Why would any self respecting player want to use a posted and submitted defence that they themselves have not worked out? Just curious.

I agree with cardsharp but let me also take a crack at this from the view of an advanced but definitely not expert player. The acbl provides two suggested defenses to the multi 2D, and this is the main usage I have had of this approach to regulating systems.

 

I encounter the milti. Not every day, but often enough that I want to be prepared. I am happy to take the prepared defense, and then discuss with partner the "What happens next" sort of questions. So far, this has proved fully satisfactory. It leaves me with time to discuss other items, of which there are many, in our own uncontested bidding that may not be defined as well as they might be.

 

I see this approach as a very satisfactory compromise. I remember some years ago a pair brought in a system where a 1M opening was alerted as showing 8-12 hcps and 4+ hearts. OK, but as far as I could find out, the system was written down nowhere. How to prepare against such a system? Sample question: Does pass deny having four hearts and 8-12 hcps or are just some hands of that sort opened? They seemed to ofen have a long minor to run to. Having this system written out for all to see, with suggested defense(s) from thoughtful players, would make it much more acceptable

 

Bridge, with its varied approaches, is challenging. People who don't like such challenges should take up crazy eights. But it is a game of disclosed methods, and victory is suppose to go to those with the best methods and the best judgment, not to those with the most obscure and hidden devices.

 

Now I expect myself to be prepared for the multi and many other such methods. I don't expect it of those who just play bridge in order to have an evening out at the club once in a while. So some sort of sorting seems right to me.

 

 

Now a comment more closely ties to the original post. It seems to me that the following three sentences cannot peacefully coexist:

1. Method X requires an acbl approved written defense.

2. There is no acbl approved written defense for method X.

3. You are allowed to play method X.

 

 

It would be good for rules to be optimal. It's more important, to me at least, that rules be clear. If I understand the posts of TimG and JanM correctly, the midchart rules now do provide clarity. If so, I am glad to hear it. It is not reasonable to have the rules be such that there can be extended debate among high level players as to whether this 2D opening is or is not allowed. If someone thinks it is crazy for 2H to be allowed and 2D not, applying to the same sort of hand, well, yeah, it seems a bit nuts. Just as I don't think much of, in the general chart, allowing 2C over 1NT to show a single suit but not allowing 2D over 1NT to show a single major. These rules do not seem optimal, but if they are clear then I will play by them and expect others to do so also.

[TimG]

1.  The Conventions Committee has stated that they are refusing to look at any new submissions.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Just how long has the CC been "Studying" the submissions process?  Two years?  Three?

I think it has been less than a year that they have officially been refusing to look at any new weak preempt submissions, but they may have been refusing for practical purposes a bit longer than that.

 

I know that my last submission was made in April 2008 and acted upon until the Spring 2009 meetings. I believe those Spring 2009 meetings are also when the committee officially decided not to review new weak preemptive methods. I don't believe this committee has produced minutes for their meetings for quite some time, so these things can't be easily verified.