The Law's the Law?

[Bbradley62]

All I know is your explanation, which seemed to me like the equivalent of calling them crybabies.

I don't see that there's any other way to read it.

[Bbradley62]

It is completely unfair to Meckwell to expect them to be "good sports" or to waive any possible penalties when the opponents have committed an infraction.

Agree.

 

But what they have allegedly done here is not merely failing do be good sports. It is completely outrageous behavior and it would be unacceptable no matter who they were.

"nacceptable" to whom? Apparently not to the on-site director who was responsible for enforcing the rules of the event and who (presumably) knew all of the facts of the case.

[Dirk Kuijt]

And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read ...

 

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so.

 

I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say.

[JanM]

And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read ...

 

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so.

 

I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say.

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't. The Superchart is pretty simple.

[jdonn]

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Uhhh....

 

ALLOWED

1. All of the ACBL General Convention Chart.

...

[hrothgar]

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

 

For what its worth, we have clear proof showing the senior regulators issuing completely inconsistent - and in some cases completely incoherent - rulings.

 

Are the charts really that unambiguous?

Alternatively, is the senior staff mentally challenged?

 

Perhaps there is some other explanation?

Maybe Memphis just likes dicking with people...

[JanM]

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

[cherdanno]

The GCC is difficult to read. The Midchart used to be, but has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't.

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not.

Lol.

 

Maybe you can explain why Michael Schumacher made a comeback in a second-rate car?

[hrothgar]

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

You made a specific claim: The Midchart "has has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't."

 

I don't think that claim is remotely true. As evidence, I noted that two of the most senior members of the ACBL had completely inconsistent interpretations regarding a fairly trivial example.

 

From the sounds of things, you're modifying your claim. You seem to be saying that there is there is a clear understanding what is/is not legal at the Midchart/Superchart level. However, even this claim falls flat:

 

You brought forth the following example:

 

On the first day of the Vanderbilt, one of my opponents was playing Polish 2♥ (a 2♥ opening bid is weak with 5+ hearts and 5+ in any other suit). I happen to have the "inside information" that this method is not Midchart legal and that Superchart methods require advance submission of a recommended defense.

 

We have rulings from Memphis that state the following:

 

Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically mentioned is allowed.

 

A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed.

 

This isn't a random opinion from some random Tournament Director.

 

This was an official ruling from an Associate National Tournament director, serving in his capacity as "Rulings@ACBL.org".

 

For what its worth, I think that Flader got this completely wrong.

I agree with your interpretation that this bid is only legal at the Superchart level.

 

Where I disagree is your assertion that any of this can be considered "clear"...

[Dirk Kuijt]

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

 

1. I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list. It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be. When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits. (That is a problem.)

 

2. When I eventually did find "Charts, Rules and Regulations" the rules for Mid-chart, or any other list weren't apparent to me. I did eventually click on something which was called convention charts, having tried alert charts and changes to the laws of duplicate bridge first; this is apparently the right answer. (Yes, I know, I'm stupid. I should have figured that out first. Remember, they all look easy when you know the answer.).

 

3. I get to a page marked, "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART". However, that wasn't what I was looking for. Hmm. Oh, yes, I see. I have to scroll down.

 

4. Finally, I'm at least looking at the regulations (I think). I'm trying to find out if a method of mine is legal. (Don't ask if this is a good idea, that is a totally separate question.) Opener bids 1 ♦, showing at least 4 diamonds and a traditional opening hand. Responder's 1♥ shows 6-15 without 5 spades, or 5 ♥ and 12 HCP, or without 5 ♣ and 12 HCP or 5 ♦ and 12 HCP. That is, a catch all with some values, but not spades, and not a really strong hand. Hmm. This is not a relay system that promises game forcing values (which is allowed). On the other hand, it is not a relay system that doesn't promise game forcing values (which is not allowed) IMHO, since there are many bids that are not relays. Double Hmm. This doesn't seem to be fish nor fowl. It is not a destructive method; that seems clear. It is not a forcing pass method. There are no psychics nor psychic controls. So, the things which are clearly forbidden don't apply. But, is this a "relay system" or not? I can't tell.

 

JanM entered into this discussion and was, I'm sure, genuinely trying to be helpful. I'm not trying to get after her (really, I'm not). I know that she didn't write the rules nor create the ACBL website.

 

But the regulations aren't clear to me, and I don't know what to do about it. (Of course, there is always the answer "Back away from the drawing board. Don't do things that are questionable according to our rules and you won't get into trouble. Be a good little boy and don't make waves; original thinking by peons is out of place here; we know what is best for you, and that is to play as your father did. Concentrate on improving your card play, and forget about original thinking in bidding. Some of your betters might devise better methods. We'll decide about that, and, if so, maybe we'll let you play them, sometime." For some reason, I find that approach patronizing and offensive.)

 

It isn't all that easy to find the regulations and it definitely isn't easy to interpret them (to be sure, it is hard to write regulations covering this, which is why I think they shouldn't try).

[CSGibson]

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

 

1.  I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list.  It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be.  When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits.  (That is a problem.)

Funny, I did a search for mid chart and it was my first hit.

 

Here is the link.

 

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

 

Also the link for my search

 

http://googlemini.acbl.org/search?site=ACB...dtd&q=mid+chart

[JanM]

Who knows. And why am I tasked with answering that sort of question? I don't work for ACBL, I have never served on the ACBL BoD. FWIW, I said I think the GCC (which is what you're asking about) is difficult to understand. Obviously Josh is right that to the extent the Midchart incorporates the GCC, it is tainted by the problems of the GCC. Since I only play in Midchart events and usually don't care unless something is clearly not allowed, I guess I don't worry about this as much as some of you.

You made a specific claim: The Midchart "has has been rewritten so that it is now clear what is covered and what isn't."

 

I don't think that claim is remotely true. As evidence, I noted that two of the most senior members of the ACBL had completely inconsistent interpretations regarding a fairly trivial example.

But your example is about the GCC - and if you would READ what I said, you would see that I did not claim the GCC was clear or easy to understand. What I claimed, and continue to claim, is that the methods allowed by the Midchart are now set forth clearly.

 

I assume that you aren't seriously arguing that a 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with hearts and any other suit is either GCC or Midchart legal, so I'm not rising to that bait.

[JanM]

Having just looked at the ACBL website:

 

1.  I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list.  It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be.  When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits.  (That is a problem.)

 

2.  When I eventually did find "Charts, Rules and Regulations" the rules for Mid-chart, or any other list weren't apparent to me.  I did eventually click on something which was called convention charts, having tried alert charts and changes to the laws of duplicate bridge first; this is apparently the right answer.  (Yes, I know, I'm stupid.  I should have figured that out first.  Remember, they all look easy when you know the answer.).

I also had a hard time finding the convention charts when I first looked for them - I don't know who organized the ACBL website, but I do know that it isn't easy to organize a website so that people are able to find what they're looking for. The USBF is enough smaller than the ACBL that the website organizer (me) is also the one who has to answer questions when people can't find things, and this has taught me that what appears obvious to me isn't obvious to others. "Do you have any information about next year's Trials?" is a very common question. I thought a menu item named "Future Trials" would be sufficiently obvious that people wouldn't have to ask that question, but it isn't. Presumably, whoever set up the ACBL website thought "Charts, Rules & Regulations" was clear, but it isn't.

3. I get to a page marked, "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART".  However, that wasn't what I was looking for.  Hmm.  Oh, yes, I see.  I have to scroll down.

 

4.  Finally, I'm at least looking at the regulations (I think).  I'm trying to find out if a method of mine is legal.  (Don't ask if this is a good idea, that is a totally separate question.)  Opener bids 1 ♦, showing at least 4 diamonds and a traditional opening hand.  Responder's 1♥ shows 6-15 without 5 spades, or 5 ♥ and 12 HCP, or without 5 ♣ and 12 HCP or 5 ♦ and 12 HCP.  That is, a catch all with some values, but not spades, and not a really strong hand.  Hmm.  This is not a relay system that promises game forcing values (which is allowed).  On the other hand, it is not a relay system that doesn't promise game forcing values (which is not allowed) IMHO, since there are many bids that are not relays.  Double Hmm.  This doesn't seem to be fish nor fowl.  It is not a destructive method; that seems clear.  It is not a forcing pass method.  There are no psychics nor psychic controls.  So, the things which are clearly forbidden don't apply.  But, is this a "relay system" or not?  I can't tell.

I would have thought that "All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:" was pretty clear. And also that one bid doesn't make a "system" so the restriction on "relay systems" wouldn't apply to this bid. Admittedly, people disagree about whether something is a "relay system" or not, but that's usually in the context of extensive relays, not one bid that has several meanings.

 

JanM entered into this discussion and was, I'm sure, genuinely trying to be helpful.  I'm not trying to get after her (really, I'm not).  I know that she didn't write the rules nor create the ACBL website. 

 

But the regulations aren't clear to me, and I don't know what to do about it.  (Of course, there is always the answer "Back away from the drawing board.  Don't do things that are questionable according to our rules and you won't get into trouble.  Be a good little boy and don't make waves; original thinking by peons is out of place here; we know what is best for you, and that is to play as your father did.  Concentrate on improving your card play, and forget about original thinking in bidding.  Some of your betters might devise better methods.  We'll decide about that, and, if so, maybe we'll let you play them, sometime."  For some reason, I find that approach patronizing and offensive.)

 

It isn't all that easy to find the regulations and it definitely isn't easy to interpret them (to be sure, it is hard to write regulations covering this, which is why I think they shouldn't try).

But unless they are going to allow unlimited methods, which even the most vehement here don't really propose, there need to be some regulations. And yes, it's hard to write regulations. I tried to improve on the ACBL regulations for the USBF Conditions of Contest and discovered just how hard.

[helene_t]

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

[mohitz]

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

lol.. perhaps the ACBL convention regulation issues are more important than global warming issues!

[MFA]

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

Yes, I agree.

To watch the Americans struggle in the endless swamp because they insist on overly patronizing system regulations is somewhat amusing.

But not that amusing...

[qwery_hi]

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

Yes, I agree.

To watch the Americans struggle in the endless swamp because they insist on overly patronizing system regulations is somewhat amusing.

But not that amusing...

Whats even more amusing is that the people decide what the rules are also play in the events where the rules are applied. I suggest we also have them sit in on their own appeals committees as there will surely be no real or perceived conflits of interest in those cases too.

[Vampyr]

What happens when the provided defence contains options and the oppoents accept the legible defence without choosing between the options?

 

W: 2♦

N: What's that?

E: Multi: weak two in M ...

N: Oh yes, you provided a defence didn't you.

(N read defence, finds the call that best describes his hand.)

N: Partner, we will use option 2.

N: 2♠ (or whatever)

 

:rolleyes:

 

As this is an ACBL scenario, should it be "defense"?

What you describe would contravene at least one law, wouldn't it?

 

As I understand it, you are expected to choose which defence you are using before the auction starts, or, if you don't, hope that you each select the same defence.

 

I can vaguely remember a ruling involving someone who received the UI that his parter was loooking at a particular page of the book (in the days when there was a book), so therefore he knew which of the two defences they were playing.

Actually, I think that Robin's description of the procedure is correct. At least that is how it was when the Midchart and written defenses first came out; but this is many years ago and I don't know if things have changed.

[gnasher]

Whats even more amusing is that the people decide what the rules are also play in the events where the rules are applied.

Isn't that both normal and sensible? The committee that makes the EBU's rules is made up of a mixture of top players, ordinary players and officials, and they seem to do a reasonable job. I'd far rather have active tournament players making these decisions than people who haven't played any serious bridge for a decade.

[kenberg]

Perhaps the ACBL could help.

 

If my memory is correct, here is what used to happen in the unit game of the Washington Bridge League. No doubt at other places also. The Multi was allowed, even in two table pair games. Practitioners brought the ACBL booklet, pre-alerted that they played Mult, gave you the book. I never played Multi myself, but partner and I discussed it. After the pre-alert, we announced that we played Defense number 1. (I know Defense number 2 is regarded as superior, but number 1 seemed adequate.) I had no problems, as far as I know neither did anyone else. I have moved too far away to play much at this unit game, and maybe they are no longer allowed to allow the Multi. I dunno. A pity if so.

 

Now to the current situation. As I get it, the Multi pair was not trying to ignore the rules, they ran out of printed copies of the defense. Maybe the ACBL could help with that. Even more worrisome, it has been suggested that the directors (at the Vanderbilt!) might not know the rules and might need to take the players word for what the rules require, or they might be intimidated into taking the word of highly ranked players. If there is any truth at all to this, it needs to be corrected. If the rules are too complicated for professional directors to cope with, that should tell us something about the rules. My own policy has long been that as a player I follow the rules as best as I understand them and will accept correction if I screw up. It is also part of my general plan for happiness to never under any circumstances be a director.

 

I doubt Meckwell are sitting on pins and needles worrying about whether I do or do not approve of their actions. I don't much approve, at least as I understand the situation, but so what. I am far more critical of the pair Jan mentioned that, in response to a request for a written defense, said "Take-out doubles".

 

 

At the local club, the fundamental rule is probably that a player should not be such a jerk that he drives away the other players. At the Vanderbilt, we have a right to expect more. The rules should be clear, the directors should know what the rules are, and if players are making a good faith effort to provide the required written defense the ACBL should make it easy for them to do so. I also would prefer that players not act like jackasses, but we don't always get everything that we want.

[gnasher]

If the rules are too complicated for professional directors to cope with, that should tell us something about the rules.

Or about the directors.

[Fluffy]

wowow so many views on this topic, gets you to show that there are mcuh more people lurking in the forums than posting.

[nige1]

There is absolutely nothing ungentlemanly in playing a game by the rules of the game. 

The Law Book says legal behaviour is ethical. Some aspects of gamesmanship, although legally acceptable may be socially unacceptable. Hence, arguably, the acceptability of Meckwell's alleged behaviour is a matter for ACBL players.

[gnasher]

There is absolutely nothing ungentlemanly in playing a game by the rules of the game. 

The Law Book says legal behaviour is ethical. Some aspects of gamesmanship, although legally acceptable may be socially unacceptable. Hence, arguably, the acceptability of Meckstroth's alleged behaviour is a matter for ACBL players.

Indeed. What sort of world would we live in if everyone thought that their obligations to other people were limited to what is required by law?

[nige1]

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. In any case, the IPBA editorial about alleged unsporting behavioir raises important questions that we must face for the the future of Bridge. (For example see the Young players thread).

• The laws of Bridge state that it is ethical to take legal advantage.
  
• But is this kind of behaviour sporting?
  
• If not is it socially acceptable?
  
• Does the answer depend on local mores and national temperament?
  

This topic is emotive enough without descent to ad hominem attacks on those who don't share your view (as stupid, insane, disingenuous, idiots, morons, liars, cheats, and so on, ad nauseam)