reading the acbl nabc casebooks...

[olegru]

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

And at least 3 more years unofficially.

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

Just the silent veto to prohibet the use of the legal conventions.

[peachy]

I don't believe this committee has produced minutes for their meetings for quite some time, so these things can't be easily verified.

I have it from good authority (e-mail correspondence with Butch Campbell) that

a) the CC committee does not keep meeting minutes or record of any kind

b ) even if they have occasional minutes, those are not published

c) it is improper to ask individual committee members directly anything about the decision process

c) the committee or its individual members will not give reasons for any of their decisions and no part of the process is published on ACBL website.

 

I found this out months ago when I asked what the reason is why the CC committee has designated Multi a Mid Chart method that is allowed only in events where the round length is at least 6 boards. Which means it is never allowed in any pairs events, even the Blue Ribbon.

 

All of that makes no sense. First, it should be a requirement for all committees to keep meeting records. Second, the reasons for a decision should not be a well-guarded secret kept hidden from members.

[TimG]

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

[hrothgar]

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

The Midchart has been completely neutered. Its a joke these days.

 

However, a couple years back the Midchart explicitly sanctions any bid that promised 4+ cards in a known suit. I can provide all sorts of examples of Midchart legal bids that were banned by refusing to sanction any kind of defense.

[TimG]

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

The Midchart has been completely neutered. Its a joke these days.

 

However, a couple years back the Midchart explicitly sanctions any bid that promised 4+ cards in a known suit. I can provide all sorts of examples of Midchart legal bids that were banned by refusing to sanction any kind of defense.

I agree and can produce some of my own examples (I know you know that).

 

But, as currently constructed, there aren't methods "clearly inside the mid-chart definition" that are not permitted. Perhaps "inside the original spirit of the mid-chart".

[olegru]

By the way, what could be a "practical purpouse" to refuse a look at submission for suggestion deffence for a convention clearly inside the mid chard deffinition.

This makes little sense. What methods that are "clearly inside the mid chart definition" are not permitted as a result of the committee's refusal to approve a defense?

I guess you were talking about years they "been refusing to look at any new submissions for practical purposes" before they officially killed development of new convencions in ACBL land by closing the list of mid chart.

[nige1]

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? ♥ what a guy.

[....] 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.

Thank you rbouskila. Great stuff! Appeals committee reports are hilarious and perform a vital service, showing us how hard it is for directors and committees to apply complex sophisticated and subjective rules even in simple basic cases. I hope that they trigger a rule-simplification process so that, eventually, most ordinary players and directors will be able to understand the rules.

[JanM]

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.

I do not believe that a defense to 2♦ showing a weak hand with both majors has been submitted. Nor do I think that the Conventions committee has refused to review defenses. In fact I know that they have reviewed some recently.

 

You are correct that there are some methods for which it is probably not possible to submit an adequate defense. I do not think this is one of those.

[JanM]

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.

Believe it or not, Ron, there are some people who don't enjoy creating defenses to unusual methods that they encounter very rarely, but do want to know what their bids mean when the methods come up. I happen to enjoy creating defenses, but then I spent my working life as a tax lawyer, and I can understand that other people don't find that an enjoyable "game" to play. Of course it's better to have developed or at least discussed and understand the defense you are using, but having someone else's defense, that has been found to be adequate, is better than having to invent something on the fly when you encounter the method.

[TimG]

I do not believe that a defense to 2♦ showing a weak hand with both majors has been submitted. Nor do I think that the Conventions committee has refused to review defenses. In fact I know that they have reviewed some recently.

In case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts. They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls. Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

 

Tim

 

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>

date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

subject Re: Defense Database submission

mailed-by acbl.org

 

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

 

Regards,

Butch

[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.

Believe it or not, Ron, there are some people who don't enjoy creating defenses to unusual methods that they encounter very rarely, but do want to know what their bids mean when the methods come up. I happen to enjoy creating defenses, but then I spent my working life as a tax lawyer, and I can understand that other people don't find that an enjoyable "game" to play. Of course it's better to have developed or at least discussed and understand the defense you are using, but having someone else's defense, that has been found to be adequate, is better than having to invent something on the fly when you encounter the method.

Thanks Jan, (and others who answered my query). I must admit that while I have read your answer, I do find the reasoning behind it hard to understand. For me, Bridge consists of an intellectual exercise involving numerous components - bidding, play, cooperation with partners etc. This also includes using ones intellect to counter unusual situations. To remove one aspect of the above is to remove an important part of the game and smacks of intellectual laziness. Anyway, that is my opinion.

(By the way, I think that being a tax lawyer could be a very interesting and challenging occupation. Maybe I am strange.)

[olegru]

[in case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts. They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls. Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

 

Tim

 

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>

date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

subject Re: Defense Database submission

mailed-by acbl.org

 

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

 

Regards,

Butch

Nice wording. :)

Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?

For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

[TimG]

[in case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts.  They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls.  Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

 

Tim

 

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>

date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

subject Re: Defense Database submission

mailed-by acbl.org

 

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

 

Regards,

Butch

Nice wording. :)

Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?

For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

[olegru]

It is already there :)

I am wondering if any new once (having any sence to use them) are possible.

[hrothgar]

[in case I misspoke earlier, I was told that the committee was no longer accepting Defense Database requests that involved weak preempts.  They may well still be accepting and reviewing requests that involve other calls.  Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

 

Tim

 

Edit: I have edited my previous posts to include the modifier "weak preempts" when referencing the committee's policy to no longer review new defenses.

from Butch.Campbell@acbl.org

to Tim Goodwin <thg0724@gmail.com>

date Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

subject Re: Defense Database submission

mailed-by acbl.org

 

Hi Tim,

 

Sorry, the C&C committee is not accepting new requests for preemptive openings at this time.

 

Regards,

Butch

Nice wording. :)

Could you give an example of possible new mid chart convention without involving weak pre-empts?

For me it sounds like: We might allow you to drink some alcoholic beverages is they contain no ethanol.

A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

I seem to recall that a defense to said open was (briefly) allowed, but that the sanction was then yanked

[TimG]

It is already there :)

I am wondering if any new once (having any sence to use them) are possible.

You're looking at an old version, or perhaps the Defense Database has not been updated to reflect earlier decisions. The 1♥ transfer opening has been removed from the mid-chart (at the same time as they rejected my request for a similar 1♦ transfer opening).

 

Edit: yep, it's still there on the current copy at ACBL's website.

 

Consider a 1♦ transfer opening as an answer to your question.

[TimG]

A 1♥ opening which shows spades (and is otherwise equivalent to a standard 1♠ opening).

I seem to recall that a defense to said open was (briefly) allowed, but that the sanction was then yanked

Depends upon how you define "briefly". The method was approved at the spring 2005 meetings.

 

I was notified by Steve Beatty (current chair of the committee, I believe) in August 2009 that the committee had decided to remove it from the mid-chart.

 

I just checked and the method is still part of the mid-chart and a defense is still in the defense database. This brings up the question of whether it is a mid-chart legal method until it had been removed from the charts or whether the decision of the committee is in effect even though the charts have not been updated. I suppose if minutes of the meeting were available that would be something....

[blackshoe]

Perhaps someone should test this - if they can find a MidChart event at which to do so.

 

The argument to the director, committee, or National Authority would be "it's legal, the published information on the ACBL website says so".

 

Law 80 gives the TO the responsibility to "announce regulations". I don't think that means "we didn't tell you ahead of time what the regulations were, but now that you're here, we'll tell you that you are violating them". :wacko:

[blackshoe]

Given that the minutes of CandC committtee meetings are not available to the public, and given that new convention charts and defense database listings have not been made available to the public, I would say that the method is still legal, whatever Steve Beatty said.

[nige1]

 I just checked and the method is still part of the mid-chart and a defense is still in the defense database.  This brings up the question of whether it is a mid-chart legal method until it had been removed from the charts or whether the decision of the committee is in effect even though the charts have not been updated.  I suppose if minutes of the meeting were available that would be something....

When I read the original post, the case against the putative offending players seemed clear-cut; but subsequent posts indicate that the C&C committee is in chaos; and the ACBL seems remiss in allowing it :wacko:

[blackshoe]

On Saturday, I wrote to the CandC committee, copy to the ACBL webmaster, asking about these things we've been discussing. Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info

All proposals must include:

a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,

a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid

Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

from the Defense Database page. He didn't say what the committee were doing wrt approvals in general. He said he would check on the question of minutes and agendas on the web. He listed the changes since 2008 in the committee, and said that the conventional approval committee currently consists of two people: Barry Harper and Chip Martel. Unfortunately, he didn't include the webmaster on his reply to me.

 

I have received no reply as yet from anyone on the CandC committee, nor from the webmaster.

[blackshoe]

Deleted, as I reported something missing from the defense database, but in fact it's still there - just not in an obvious place.

 

Minor Suit Namyats? Come on. :wacko:

[olegru]

Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info

All proposals must include:

a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,

a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid

Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

It is a first step.

After you will submit your proposal with all requested details you will receive the reply that submitions with size more than 1 page will not be approved.

Back to step 1.

Been there.

[pooltuna]

Today, I got a reply from Butch Campbell, who is apparently now the manager of the Tournament Department in Memphis. He pointed out this info

All proposals must include:

a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,

a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid

Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

It is a first step.

After you will submit your proposal with all requested details you will receive the reply that submitions with size more than 1 page will not be approved.

Back to step 1.

Been there.

did you try a 4 point font :) :)