[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

I got a bit annoyed when I kept running into roadblocks getting defense approved to MOSCITO opening. I got VERY annoyed when Meckstroth was stupid enough to CC me on an email stating that the CC couldn't sanction a defense to an opening because this would open the door for people to start playing MOSCITO.

Which is why I referred to it as being banned. There is no rule against it, and yet you're not allowed to play it.

[whereagles]

I'd like to enter this discussion, but I'm too scared it would drain the last remnants of my spare time

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

These days, MOSCITO is (essentially) defined by

1. Light and limited constructive openings anchored by a 15+ HCP strong club
2. Majors first bidding with 4 card majors
3. Transfer opening bids
4. Light 2/1's (~7 - 11 HCP)
5. Extensive use of relays with strong hands

Take away the transfer openings and the relays and the resulting system isn't recognizable as MOSCITO

Huh. The one I remember seeing, IIRC, did not have the 1 level transfer openings but did have the relays. Looked reasonable to me, but since I did not play test it, my opinion is necessarily superficial.

[foo]

2x post

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 6 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

In theory, ... 1C and 1D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, and 2C and 2D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, subject to being *strong*. Alas, this is not how the ACBL does its business. I was playing 2C and 2D as strong transfer openings (showing 15 hcp and 5+H and 5S respectively). A TD banned it. I wrote to rulings@acbl, and wa told it was legal, as it clearly was, by Mike Flader. The TD appealed the ruling, and Rick Beye overturned the ruling, and said that since it was a transfer opening, the obvious language of the GCC which allowed the bid didn't apply, that it was obviously the intent of the framers that the Mid Chart clause applied.

The depth of dishonesty is appalling. This is a separate issue from the restrictiveness of the regulations.

=definitely= a separate issue; and =definitely= infuriatingly unjust if you are relaying events correctly.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that perhaps the regs needed more clarity to them or that they were misleading as written compared to intent. But at that point the onus is on the ACBL to rewrite things to fix it. If the regs clearly state you can play a certain method at a certain level, then you should be allowed to do so. Period.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

I got extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently Destructive (in the Bridge legal sense- Foo as editor) and banned them all together.

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

I've often wondered what the outcome would've been if you had presented your assumed fit preempts with a range of say 7-12 HCP. The same range as Schenken's original range for Weak Two's...

Such a 2bid would've been far harder to dismiss as being Destructive IMHO.

[pbleighton]

Quote

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

I've often wondered what the outcome would've been if you had presented your assumed fit preempts with a range of say 7-12 HCP. The same range as Schenken's original range for Weak Two's...

Such a 2bid would've been far harder to dismiss as being Destructive IMHO.

The ACBL changed the rules so that 2 suited openers have to have a minimum of 10 hcp, so that 9-12 would be illegal.

Peter

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 7 2007, 01:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

I got extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently Destructive (in the Bridge legal sense- Foo as editor) and banned them all together. 

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them?

For Christ's sake...

Are you xxxx? (If so, I should have recognized the posting style earlier)

Regardless, the reason that the assumed fit preempts was rejected had nothing to do with the range of the opening bid. The defense that I submitted to the Conventions Committee used a penalty oriented double in direct seat. I made a the decision to use a penalty double based on a couple criteria

1. Assumed Fit methods like the Ekrens 2♦ opening are quite common in several parts of Europe. The players who have the most experience competing against these methods recommend using a direct seat penalty double.

2. I ran some simulations. The penalty double looked to be a big winner. Josh She (who I respect a lot) did the same and independently came up with similar results.

Chip Martel bounced the defense because it didn't use a direct seat double as a takeout double. I said that I could develop a new defense based on a takeout double, however, I recommended a penalty double for the following reasons...

Martel looked the structure over. Agreed that a penalty double was (probably) the right way to go, and then banned the method as destructive stating that Americans aren't experienced with penalty doubles and should be expected to play defenses that utilize them.

[the hog]

Quote Foo:
NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands.
Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems.

Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC.

"(and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.) "

Foo, you have as much idea of what you are talking about as the man in the moon. Your comments are incorrect, illogical and foolish. The comment that encrypted signals is "cheating" is hilarious in the extreme. Further you appear to deride destructive methods. Pray tell, what is wrong with playing destructive methods when bridge is a game of play AND bidding. Further, please get your facts right before making blanket incorrect statements about systems you clearly know nothing about.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why passing with a good hand over a 1C opening is the "killer defence" If the bidding proceeds 1C (P) 1D (P) 1S (x)
why am I killed? This is nonsense; a lot of work has gone into looking at effective/optimal defences in Os and pretty much the expert opinion is that 1C (X) should show a good hand with a willingness to compete.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Chip Martel bounced the defense because it didn't use a direct seat double as a takeout double.  I said that I could develop a new defense based on a takeout double, however, I recommended a penalty double for the following reasons...

Martel looked the structure over.  Agreed that a penalty double was (probably) the right way to go, and then banned the method as destructive stating that Americans aren't experienced with penalty doubles and should be expected to play defenses that utilize them.

...and if Chip Martel did those things as you say them and for the reasons you say he did, he was IMNSHO 100% in the wrong.

It's one thing to say that a method distorts the spirit of the game to the point where it's no longer the same game. As it's been explained to me, that's the basis for the objection to Destructive and Dominant methods.
Agree or not, it's a reasonable rationale.

OTOH, It's quite another thing to ban a method strictly because the opponents aren't used to using something as simple as penalty doubles...
That smacks strongly of personal prejudice of some kind.

Your story reminds me of the stupidity within the ACBL regarding the Multi-2D that existed for many years. Such things weren't right then and they aren't ever going to be IMHO.

[foo]

Hog,

NZ Symmetirc Relay has one hand opening a 2way 1C to show a weak or strong hand and Responder bidding 1D as a similar 2way bid.

Then there's an entire relay system based on the strong hand asking and the weak hand answering.

The NZSR pair knows who is strong and who is weak.
The opponents do not.

This got a lot of attention as being hard to defend against until in some major event an opponent quietly passed holding a 22 count.
The results was that both Opener and Responder thought the other was the strong hand and the auction went to very high levels... and then got very profitably whacked.

I'll see if I can find the board.

[hrothgar]

Foo. I repeat my earlier question.

Are you xxxxxxxx?

[gerry]

No one I know of in New Zealand has played a two way 1c in many, many years.

[the hog]

"NZ Symmetirc Relay has one hand opening a 2way 1C to show a weak or strong hand and Responder bidding 1D as a similar 2way bid."

No it does NOT!! Where are you getting this from? Btw I have the original notes, have played it and have played against Roy Kerr, Marston et al.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Jun 7 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

"NZ Symmetirc Relay has one hand opening a 2way 1C to show a weak or strong hand and Responder bidding 1D as a similar 2way bid."

No it does NOT!! Where are you getting this from? Btw I have the original notes, have played it and have played against Roy Kerr, Marston et al.

I recommend checking out the greatest "hits" of xxxxxxxx on rec.games.bridge

Foo's posting style and ridiculous claims closely mirror xxxxxxxx. (I should have noticed the similarities earlier). A quick perusal of the rec.games.bridge archives will quickly show that zzzzzz is fond of making ridiculous claims. He left rec.games.bridge after getting called out a few too many times...

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jun 6 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

"NZ Symmetirc Relay has one hand opening a 2way 1C to show a weak or strong hand and Responder bidding 1D as a similar 2way bid."

No it does NOT!! Where are you getting this from? Btw I have the original notes, have played it and have played against Roy Kerr, Marston et al.

If I have the system name wrong, I apologize. As I said, I'll try and find the board in question. (Tougher if I've forgotten what the name of the system was being played.)

[foo]

gerry, on Jun 6 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

No one I know of in New Zealand has played a two way 1c in many, many years.

Yes, this was some time ago. ~20 years if memory serves.

As I've noted elsewhere, I may have not gotten the name of the system correct and may have mistakenly called it NZSR.

If so, I apologize.

[pbleighton]

Here is a xxxxxxxxxxx rgb quote from June 2003, regarding light opening bids:

Quote

Your judgement should not violate the consensus of your peers or the
logic of Bridge by such an amount as to make your opponents have to play a
special card just because you're ATT.  That's =destructive= (you've
destroyed their ability to play their card.  The must play a card for you.
Effectively, your card).  AQT98x,JT98x,x,x  may be a 6 loser hand,
but you certainly don't have 1/2 the tricks needed for Game in 1st or 2nd.
By any standard I know you are "more than a K less than a normal
opening" and thus are violating the underlying expert consensus that drives the
rules.

3rd or 4th, life is different because CHO is a passed hand.  The ACBL
even allows the use of Drury here to control the potential carnage.  Why?
4th chair is not likely to be misled into passing.  Whereas both opps
could be easily misled by a garbage 1st or 2nd opening.  Add a Drury
type inquiry, and all the pieces for a controlled psyche system designed to
steal from the opponents would be in place.  Which is why Barry Crane was
told "No" about using Drury in 1st and 2nd.

Without the range inquiry, justice will in the long run be meted out
if you insist on opening garbage.  Even shapely garbage.  Your bidding
accuracy will stink.  Unfortunately, you will also destroy the enjoyment of
other paying customers while justice is being handed to you by the cards.
That could cost Bridge players, and that can't be allowed.

Maybe we should let these super weak openers be used but promise
the non offending side that any contracts that are declared and fail
by a pair that opens routinely on hands like AQT98x,JT98x,x,x when they do
open with such a hand will automaticly be adjusted to down the same
amount XX?  Now the opponents can just sit back and enjoy the "fun".

Note =destructive=

very similar to

=definitely= a separate issue; and =definitely= infuriatingly unjust if you are relaying events correctly

earlier in this thread.

And, of course, the attitude towards light openers.

Peter

[kenrexford]

My point is either being missed or ignored. In case of the former, I'll try again.

From the standpoint of mathematicians versus lawyers (the original post idea), I do not care if the ACBL bans Stayman because some old lady burned Machstroth using Stayman. The rules, rational or irrational, political or neutral, justified by old money interests or not, are the rules. A mathematician and a lawyer are both capable of innovation within the constructs of the rules.

Mind you, I was for years frustrated by the Rules banning many things I also wanted to try. But, so what? I then learned options within the Rules, and I update myself on Rules changes. I have found incredible ability to innovate, albeit perhaps restrained by some of the less understandable of the Rules, but sometimes also protected by the Rules.

I am "protected" by the Rules because I know that I can risk certain actions, like passing, because certain parameters will block opposition action unless those parameters are met. Thus, I can cater my pass to their possible future actions. I can tailor my definition of a 1NT opening by the limitations on defenses.

Were limitations not present, I might decide that it would be better to ditch two-level and three-level preempts for, say, two-suited openings and intermediates. I might need to protect against contingencies that do not now exist.

All that being said, I believe that the lawyer is especially good at making use of the GCC language effectively. A few examples follow:

1. The GCC bans two-suited major openings at the two-level unless 10+ and unless the second suit is known. Many give up there when thinking about using 2M for 5+M/4+minor. As a lawyer, I "got around" that problem through a GCC-based innovation, one that might not be technically as sound but one that worked well enough. 2M showed 5+ in the major and 11-15. However, 5332's were opened 1NT if 13-16, or 1M if 11-12. So, the inference was that 2M showed an unbalanced hand. We then added a LTC of 5-6 losers and required that the major length be only 5-card or 6-card. When we, finally, defined 1M-2OM well, the 2M inferentially could not be opened without a side minor. That was not part of the definition of the bid; it was required logically to meet the acceptable definitions. Then, a 2NT response asked for a four-card minor "if Opener happened to have one." Problem solved. (Plus, using my tricky lawyer talk, I convinced the TD's and the ACBL that this was acceptable.)

2. The GCC requires 3+ in a suit for an opening to be "natural." As part of the world-famous Kitcerex System, we decided to use a Kamikazee 1♦ opening. This showed 8+ with at least three diamonds. There were many possible hand types. However, it was completely legal because (1) 3+ is deemed natural, (2) you only need 10+ if the bid is not natural, (3) 8+ is OK for "natural," and, perhaps key, (4) canape is allowed. Not many play 1♦ this was, but it later ended up in the exact same form in a completely different system. In both systems, the auction could go 1♦(8-22 HCP, 3+ diamonds, many shapes)-P-1M(3-16 HCP, 4+ in major, many different shapes possible)-P-P-P, with the opening side in a non-forcing auction at the one-level despite a combined range of 11-24 possible HCP's. This worked havoc on the opponents, but GCC legal. Lawyer

3. R.U.N.T./Son-of-RUNT. A 1NT overcall may show a three-suited hand. "Three-suited" means 3+ in three suits. There are no HCP restrictions. Similar definitions and limitations for doubles. You can imagine the highly complicated mess you can create and that was created here. 1NT as 0-10 or 17-19 takeout, with at least three cards in each suit. Wild advancer options, like 2NT as a middlish preempt (preemptive opposite 0-10 but useful opposite 17-19) but 3-bids as total bust preemptive, wild escapes after doubles, S&G cuebids, and the like. The more complexity to the Advancer actions, the more obvious this is a constructive bid (LOL).

4. Interference over a strong club can be just about anything. The lawyer can better explain how and why what most would seem to be utter foolishness and purely destructive tactics is actually a well-justified solution for a bidding compaction problem generated by the nuances of the Precision auction. Whereas you might view 1♣-2♥(heart one-suiter or three-suited with short hearts)-X-2♠(3+ hearts, and a preference for spades as favored amoung the three other suits, with ability to play at at least the two-level in spades or the three-level in hearts) as a destructive approach, this solves the problem of space limitations, by compounding multiple but divergent meanings within single bids (toss around well-known terms like the "useful space principle" and make sure to SAY the word "constructive" as much as possible).

Mathematicians will devise the most effective defense to a strong club, using statistics and such. Then, they will check to see if it is allowed. Lawyers will look to see what is allowed, devise the most diabolical idea allowed within the Rules, tweak it so that it looks like it is actually a tad outside the Rules, then devise a master argument to explain why it actually is allowed.

This, of course, is only the bidding aspect of things, and only as to system. Much more develops in bidding tactics (bluffs, gambles, misdirection) and in play.

[the hog]

Richard, I looked at rgb. This may well be xxxxxxxx. I well remember you and he having some blarneys. Foo, are you xxxxxxxx? I notice you are not answering this question.

Ken, I can't make out whether you are serious or joking in the above post. I suspect you are half serious.