[awm]

It's very annoying that the legality of a method depends on how that method is described to ACBL.

Given that this is the situation, I don't see why it's necessarily more or less valid to decide that "The method is legal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is legal" than to decide "The method is illegal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is illegal." In other words, in the unfortunately common situation where both the "it's allowed" and the "it's banned" emails exist, I wouldn't call choosing to play the method "cheating."

Of course, it seems that neither the authorizing nor the banning emails from ACBL are binding on regional tournament directors, who are free to make their own decisions based on their own interpretation of the regulations.

Anyway with all this as a long "aside", there is no reason to believe that a 1♠ opening showing anything but spades is ACBL-legal. So while you might be able to play 1♦ showing spades, it's not clear how this would help you since you can't play 1♠ showing diamonds.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 18:23, said:

Tell me exactly how it is cheating if you submit your system to the ACBL and they say it is legal? I would argue that's the only definition of legal you should be certain of - not one based on your speculation, or my speculation, or that somebody's friend's aunt asked Memphis about something vaguely related and got some unclear answer that is tangentially related to this. Note that I didn't say not to disclose the details of the 1♦ shapes if asked by your opps.

Members of this forum have specifically asked the ACBL whether an "all purpose" 1♦ opening can be used to show hands that promise 4+ Spades.
The ACBL has official responded that an all purpose 1D opening can't not be used in this manner.

You stated that players should

1. Ignore this specific ruling
2. Submit an alternative explanation of this methods that deliberately conceals salient information in the hopes that you'll be able to get a more favorable judgment

You are a cheat

[hrothgar]

awm, on 2010-December-21, 18:36, said:

Given that this is the situation, I don't see why it's necessarily more or less valid to decide that "The method is legal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is legal" than to decide "The method is illegal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is illegal." In other words, in the unfortunately common situation where both the "it's allowed" and the "it's banned" emails exist, I wouldn't call choosing to play the method "cheating."

rbfoster is describing very different behavior

He is advocating a specific way to deal with a ruling you don't like

1. Ignore the ruling you don't like
2. Find a new/better way to describe your methods
3. Deliberately conceal salient information
4. Hope you get a conflicting opinion

I suspect that most of use would agree that the ACBL regulators are gross incompetent.
However, behavior like this only exacerbates an already bad situation.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to influence the regulatory body to reverse an opinion that you believe if flawed. However, that's very different than ignoring a decision you don't like and shopping around for a new one.

[straube]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-21, 18:38, said:

Members of this forum have specifically asked the ACBL whether an "all purpose" 1♦ opening can be used to show hands that promise 4+ Spades.
The ACBL has official responded that an all purpose 1D opening can't not be used in this manner.

You stated that players should

1. Ignore this specific ruling
2. Submit an alternative explanation of this methods that deliberately conceals salient information in the hopes that you'll be able to get a more favorable judgment

You are a cheat

We had a very long thread about opening 1D to "show" four spades and I remember the conclusion being that one could as long as the other openings were all set up to specifically deny the patterns in question. Even Jan conceded the point (though she thought no one would want to play the convoluted openings that this required). I hope we don't hijack olien's thread on this.

[TimG]

straube, on 2010-December-21, 19:31, said:

We had a very long thread about opening 1D to "show" four spades and I remember the conclusion being that one could as long as the other openings were all set up to specifically deny the patterns in question. Even Jan conceded the point (though she thought no one would want to play the convoluted openings that this required). I hope we don't hijack olien's thread on this.

As Richard (or Adam) said, this is sort of a matter of who you ask, when you ask. I've asked those who should know -- I forget specifically who, but it was in the process of submitting methods to the C&C Committee for approval -- about using an "all-purpose" 1m opening to show a hand with exactly four spades and was told I could not do this. I've probably got the e-mail someplace, but am not going to bother digging for it right now because even if I produce it, someone is going to say the person who told me was wrong.

Is there one person, or body, that everyone here would consider an ultimate authority as far as ruling whether a method is GCC legal?

Edit: I found this brief exchange between myself and Rick Beye (who was at the time Chief Tournament Director):

Quote

Quote

1) The GCC allows an "all-purpose" 1D opening bid. In a GCC event, may I use a 1D opening to show hearts (and 10+ points)? Or, would this not qualify as a "all-purpose" use?

NO, that would not be 'all-purpose'.

[The giant text was Mr. Beye's choice.] Although I once did want to use 1♣ to show exactly four spades, I cannot be sure that I asked specifically about that rather than relying upon the above ruling to determine that it would not be permitted.

[mgoetze]

TimG, on 2010-December-21, 20:14, said:

Is there one person, or body, that everyone here would consider an ultimate authority as far as ruling whether a method is GCC legal?

You have seriously misread the GCC if you think it was designed to allow for authoritative rulings on its content.

[blackshoe]

You have two ways in which you propose to describe this bid. You know that if you describe it one way, you will get an answer you don't want to hear. You also know that if you describe it the other way, two things will be true: you will get the answer you want to hear, and you will have left out an important part of the method (that your "0 or more diamonds, catchall" always includes 4 spades). What I want to know is how you can possibly consider this not cheating?

[shevek]

this is more or less what we play in America ....  ACBL & EBU Scamp.zip (63.42K)
Number of downloads: 24

Attached File(s)

•  AmScamp summary.zip (58.49K)
  Number of downloads: 18

[rbforster]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-21, 20:44, said:

You have two ways in which you propose to describe this bid. You know that if you describe it one way, you will get an answer you don't want to hear. You also know that if you describe it the other way, two things will be true: you will get the answer you want to hear, and you will have left out an important part of the method (that your "0 or more diamonds, catchall" always includes 4 spades). What I want to know is how you can possibly consider this not cheating?

How exactly is it cheating if I ask the regulators a completely well posed question and they decide it's legal? Am I obligated to ask for clarification in a way that maximizes the chance I will be rejected? What about other players who haven't heard about some prior related email rejecting this treatment and ask my question innocently and are told they are allowed to play the methods - is if fair or rational that I should not be allowed to play the same system but they can? Perhaps more to the point - who says that if there are contradictory rulings on legality that one should err on the side of rejection? After all, if a regulator tells you it's ok, how can you reasonably say it's not ok? It's his job to think about negative inferences and whether such methods should be allowed, as I'm sure not everyone who asks about their pet method will give a full list of all possible shapes for each bid. It's called doing his job. As for "leaving out an important part of the method", do recall that negative inferences are not alertable (such as failure to support double) and this has been an established policy for some time now, so I'm not sure why you think I should be calling everyone's attention to it when even my opponents at the table aren't entitled to that protection by the rules.

Just to be clear, I am not proposing any non-disclosure to my table opponents, but merely that I should be able to ask any question I want in any way that I want of the regulators and that I should be able to rely on their answer. To have any other system of clarifying regulations makes no sense at all. Frankly I don't even know why people ask the regulators anything in the first place, since the legality of your methods are all up to the arbitrary ruling you'll get from your local director if someone complains.

[olien]

This is basically the same argument that was had in a prior thread. Its not of any interest to me how people phrase things, and I don't care to try to be convinced one way or the other as I already have my own opinion.

Anyways, for those still interested in the original topic, which of the following options do you think is worse? (or if you prefer, which is better):

1) 1M is usually 5 but occasionally 4, and 1♦ is always 4+
(1♥=5+ unless 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 or 4♥-5♣, 1♠=5+ unless 4♠-5♣)

or

2) 1M is always 5+, and 1D is 0+ (3-suited w/o 5M, both minors, 5+D 4+M, 5C-4M, 6+D)

Thanks

[straube]

ok. I'm hijacking, too.

So far I've read how the question is posed in one of two ways. The third way would be to explain all the openings, explain the inference of the 1D, and then asking for a ruling. If the ruling isn't favorable, then ask which of the other openings is illegal. Of course one has made sure in advance that the other openings are legal.

They can't prevent you from using legal openings. They can't argue that all purpose means every purpose...or you would only need one opening. Therefore, I'd argue that all purpose means that the bid is available for hands that don't fit other openings.

We really did hash this out. Does anyone else remember?

[mtvesuvius]

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

olien, on 2010-December-21, 23:50, said:

This is basically the same argument that was had in a prior thread. Its not of any interest to me how people phrase things, and I don't care to try to be convinced one way or the other as I already have my own opinion.

Anyways, for those still interested in the original topic, which of the following options do you think is worse? (or if you prefer, which is better):

1) 1M is usually 5 but occasionally 4, and 1♦ is always 4+
(1♥=5+ unless 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 or 4♥-5♣, 1♠=5+ unless 4♠-5♣)

or

2) 1M is always 5+, and 1D is 0+ (3-suited w/o 5M, both minors, 5+D 4+M, 5C-4M, 6+D)

Thanks

[the hog]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-December-22, 00:00, said:

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

Since when have you become a moderator? The actual question was a foolish one in that the op supposedly asked about Moscito and then produced nothing like it.

[rbforster]

olien, on 2010-December-21, 23:50, said:

which of the following options do you think is worse? (or if you prefer, which is better):

1) 1M is usually 5 but occasionally 4, and 1♦ is always 4+
(1♥=5+ unless 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 or 4♥-5♣, 1♠=5+ unless 4♠-5♣)

or

2) 1M is always 5+, and 1D is 0+ (3-suited w/o 5M, both minors, 5+D 4+M, 5C-4M, 6+D)

Option #1 will have some rare but serious issues when responder over-competes at a high level and opener has only 4 trumps (but you play him for 5 since he usually has 5).
Option #2 will have more common but less serious competitive difficulties (since 1♦ is always ambiguous whenever it comes up), so you may not be able to compete to a minor partial as easily since it's more risky without knowing which minor opener has.

In short events esp MPs, I would play #1 and hope the relatively rare 4M hands doesn't come up or don't matter. I would want to be well placed for competitive auctions starting 1♦ instead of poorly placed (vs Option #2).
In long events esp IMPs, I'd have to worry a little more about which is "better on average," since 1♦ will come up a lot but may not cost many IMPs on average when it does.

I would generally lean to #2 since I think many opponents don't have a good defense to a 0+ 1D and opening this pretty light will give them more troubles since hopefully we'd be better prepared for the negative inferences, uncertainties, etc, than they would be.

[straube]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-December-22, 00:00, said:

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

Address us nicely please. The issue of what 1D can mean has potential bearing on what your best options are for a Moscito type system. Also, at least a few of us have tried to be helpful.

It shouldn't be a surprise that I would pick the nebulous 1D option.

[rduran1216]

straube, on 2010-December-22, 00:47, said:

Address us nicely please. The issue of what 1D can mean has potential bearing on what your best options are for a Moscito type system. Also, at least a few of us have tried to be helpful.

It shouldn't be a surprise that I would pick the nebulous 1D option.

I realize that 90% of people who post on message boards are social losers. Add to that 90% of good bridge players are jackasses. But seriously, the trolling in this place is even worse than Sherdog. Stop bitching, stop playing semantics, and grow the fu*% up.

this is not solely directed at you, random person I have no problem with.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 23:28, said:

What about other players who haven't heard about some prior related email rejecting this treatment and ask my question innocently and are told they are allowed to play the methods - is if fair or rational that I should not be allowed to play the same system but they can?

No one ever accused the ACBL of being fair or rational.

With this said and done, there is a very important distinction between

1. An individual, with no knowledge of the ACBL's prior rulings, who happens to craft a less that perfectly precise description of their methods.
2. An individual who knows that the ACBL has banned the specific method and deliberately invents a new description that conceals critical information about the methods they are playing

I consider case 1 to be rub of the green. Its an unfortunately consequence of the poor "state of the art" here in North America.

The second example is clearly cheating.

[TimG]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 23:28, said:

It's his job to think about negative inferences and whether such methods should be allowed, as I'm sure not everyone who asks about their pet method will give a full list of all possible shapes for each bid. It's called doing his job.

I disagree that it is the regulators' job to dissect methods to determine all inferences, positive and negative. Your arguments about other players not being totally forthcoming mean nothing to me, their doing it does not make it right for others.

To me, what you suggest is akin to using an illegal piece of equipment in a sporting event and thinking: so long as the ref doesn't notice, I've done nothing wrong.

[hrothgar]

olien, on 2010-December-21, 23:50, said:

Anyways, for those still interested in the original topic, which of the following options do you think is worse? (or if you prefer, which is better):

1) 1M is usually 5 but occasionally 4, and 1♦ is always 4+
(1♥=5+ unless 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 or 4♥-5♣, 1♠=5+ unless 4♠-5♣)

or

2) 1M is always 5+, and 1D is 0+ (3-suited w/o 5M, both minors, 5+D 4+M, 5C-4M, 6+D)

Thanks

My (biased) preference would be to go with option number 1:

I really dislike nebulous diamond systems.
When partner open's 1♦, I like to be able to raise in Diamonds.

I also like 4 card major opening styles, so I don't see much downside in a style in which 1M can include a 4 card suit.

I don't claim that this opinion is in any way scientific...

[shevek]

Say we want to play a strong club system in America, in which
1♣ = 15+
1♦ = 4+♠s
1♥ = 4+♥s, denies 4♠s
1♠ = 5+♠s
1NT = 11-14 no major
2♣/♦ = natural, no major

as suggested by some. Of course you can't relay over 1♦/♥/♠ but that's another issue.

Now throw a small number of the shapely hands with 7 diamonds in 1♦. This is bad because you will have to rip partner's raise but playable. Maybe add a specific hand with 3 spades, say 3-1-5+4.
Will this pass as a catch all?

At the table, you will carefully explain it as "10-14, often with 4 spades, denies 4 hearts"