[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2007, 04:58 AM, said:

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.)

The game is (essentially) unplayable if the rules set rewards players who practice incomplete disclosure. As I've argued before, regulations need to be based on the set the of hands shown by a given bid, not player's creativity in hiding their actual agreements.

Ken, you might get off playing stupid games like this one, however, most people out grow this sort of behavior in 10th or 11th grade. If I were ever running a tournament and I found out that you were pulling this kind of ***** I'd have you thrown out for cheating and I'd make damn sure that this happened in a very public manner.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

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

I think you missed the counter-example. If you make something that's legal, very different from Standard, and successful, the ACBL will find a way to ban it. Both Moscito and strong Namyats 2s should be legal. They're not.

If I went through all the crap they went through making Precision a living hell until the pros all started playing it...

[Trinidad]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

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.

This is a false description of what is going on. ACBL does not decide on the rules of bridge. In bridge there are two kinds of "rules". There are the rules of bridge (as described in the bridge laws) and we have the regulations that the individual SO's (such as the ACBL) come up with. The rules of bridge do not ban any systems and I cannot believe that they ever will. (To make things absolutely clear: The ACBL doesn't decide on the rules. It can only decide on the regulations.)

So, the "mathematician" comes up with an improved system that he wants to use. After that, ACBL "lawyers" ban it and come up with a regulation for that ban. One half of the mathematicians try to fight the new regulation. They will loose this battle loose since fighting over regulations is something lawyers are much better at. The other have of the mathematicians adapt their system to fall within the new regulations. The lawyers come up with a new regulation to ban the adaptation.

Either way, the mathematicians loose. This is not because of the rules of the game. It is because of the regulations in the ACBL, set up by ACBL "lawyers".

So your comparison about the speed of light is not correct. The speed of light is universal (just like the bridge laws). What is happening is that mathematicians from around the world come up with a new type of glasses to use the properties of light. This gives them an advantage over the lawyers. The lawyers in the ACBL will ban these glasses in all ACBL events. Then ACBL will put all its weight in the WBF to get them banned in WBF events.

Now, mathematicians from e.g. Australia or Sweden can use their glasses over there where they beat the lawyers, but they cannot use them in the Bermuda Bowl. Who do you think the Swedish captain will send to the Bermuda Bowl? The mathematician who cannot use his glasses in the event or the lawyer who is allowed to use all his skills? What do you think the mathematicians in Sweden will do when they want to compete in the Bermuda Bowl? They will not put their time in the development of new glasses, despite the fact that the laws of physics specifically give them that possibility.

In short, US lawyers manage to overpower all mathematicians in the world before a single card has been played by banning systems that according to the bridge laws are perfectly legal.

Rik

[mike777]

"The ACBL doesn't decide on the rules. It can only decide on the regulations.)"



You are kidding I hope.

If you expect the membership and the leaders we elect to understand what the heck you are talking about....

1) If the leaders do have zero input into the rules.....what the hell?
2) If you expect most of us to speak of rules and regulations as seperate you do not understand leadership.

[Quantumcat]

In a couple of years when I get to be a decent player, remind me to never, ever, play any tournaments in the US! Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

[Fluffy]

Peter, or Richard, please, I am so curious, who is this xxxxxxxxxxxxx guy you are talking about?

[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on Jun 7 2007, 06:56 AM, said:

Now, mathematicians from e.g. Australia or Sweden can use their glasses over there where they beat the lawyers, but they cannot use them in the Bermuda Bowl.

Yes they can. Last I heard the ACBL did not write the system regulations for the Bermuda Bowl.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jun 7 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

Peter, or Richard, please, I am so curious, who is this [EDIT] guy you are talking about?

Foo [EDIT] is a fairly serious bridge player from the Boston area. I knew him back before I gave up on organized bridge in ACBL land. I used to play against him at the MIT club and local tournaments. I briefly made the mistake of partnering him for a few weeks back at MIT. (I thought that if he actually got some experience playing a non-standard system he might get a clue)

Foo is (perhaps) best noted for getting involved in a large number of very heated arguments in various electronic bridge forums. He used to be an active participant in the MIT Bridge discussion list until abruptly exiting [SNIP]

I should note (up front) that I was on the other side in quite a number of these little discussions.

From my perspective, Foo has a fairly distinctive posting side. He is prone to make very definitive, almost grandiose, claims about bidding and bidding theory. Upon inspective, many of these turn out to be factually challenged. He is extremely opinionated about "constructive versus destructive" bidding and makes a lot of assertions about the the nature of strong systems, kamikaze NTs, and the like. He has been making the same mistakes for the better part of a decade... (When Foo first started posting, I found him incredibly annoying but couldn't quite figure out why. I think my subconscious figured out what was going on almost immediately. I didn't consciously guess that Foo is Foo until he made some comments that the Assumed Fit Preempts that I was using were rejected by the ACBL Conventions Committee based on the range that the opening showed. This was a classic Fooism from years past)

In any case, foo left quite the paper trail back on rec.games.bridge. You can track down any number of threads that he participated in. I recommend starting with one entitled "1NT Restrictions". You see strong echos of his BBF postings about the destructive nature of mini-NTs. [SNIP]

[Some slightly heavyhanded editing in here, Privacy issues, flame-baiting rules, and the like. -- inquiry]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2007-June-08, 08:09

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

Ken, you might get off playing stupid games like this one, however, most people out grow this sort of behavior in 10th or 11th grade. If I were ever running a tournament and I found out that you were pulling this kind of ***** I'd have you thrown out for cheating and I'd make damn sure that this happened in a very public manner.

Wow. Very atypical of most, but right up your alley. Hostile to the point of insanity.

A few responses are probably worthwhile.

First, I cannot remember how long ago I must travel back in time to find a single partner who has not at least once commented that they thought my explanations to the opponents were "too much." I literally drive my partners nuts because I, in their uniform opinion, over-describe the bids, by giving every conceivable nuance. And yet, you read me for a non-disclosing cheater? That's laughable.

Second, finding means of defining the bids that are GCC legal but that efectively enable bids that you want to play has nothing to do with disclosure. If I say that 2♠ shows 11-15 with 5-6 spades and 4-6 of a minor, the director is called and the bid is disallowed. If I state that the bid shows 5-6 spades, will not feature 4+ in the other major because that's handled a different wat, and has 5-6 losers, which almost always means a source of tricks in a minor suit, that's OK by the GCC and it is also OK descriptively.

Third, I have not played any of these conventions for MANY years, now preferring a 2/1 GF style. The point was that lawyers can find parts of the GCC to take advantage of that are not just theory-based but that are also rule-tweaking based.

Fourth, and finally, SO WHAT IF THE LAWYERS BAN SYSTEMS THEY HATE? What does this have to do with ability to play the game? Many lawyers hate the Rules that society establishes. I, personally, hate that drug use is even a crime. I hate some aspects of sentencing law. I hate the way the Rules tilt in the favor of the prosecution, and insanely so, in some respects. Apparently, the mathematician would figure out how criminal justice should best be handled, would view the criminal justice system as unfair, and would quit. The lawyer knows all of this but studies the system for its weaknesses, finds alternatives within the system, and lobbies to change the system where practical.

You like to think that mathematicians would beat lawyers if only the system allowed more of the science you want. If you cannot master the system that the lawyers apparently have controlled, what makes you so sure that these lawyers could not master you in the opened-up regime?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 09:27 PM, said:

Ken, you might get off playing stupid games like this one, however, most people out grow this sort of behavior in 10th or 11th grade.  If I were ever running a tournament and I found out that you were pulling this kind of ***** I'd have you thrown out for cheating and I'd make damn sure that this happened in a very public manner.

Wow. Very atypical of most, but right up your alley. Hostile to the point of insanity.

A few responses are probably worthwhile.

First, I cannot remember how long ago I must travel back in time to find a single partner who has not at least once commented that they thought my explanations to the opponents were "too much." I literally drive my partners nuts because I, in their uniform opinion, over-describe the bids, by giving every conceivable nuance. And yet, you read me for a non-disclosing cheater? That's laughable.

Second, finding means of defining the bids that are GCC legal but that efectively enable bids that you want to play has nothing to do with disclosure. If I say that 2♠ shows 11-15 with 5-6 spades and 4-6 of a minor, the director is called and the bid is disallowed. If I state that the bid shows 5-6 spades, will not feature 4+ in the other major because that's handled a different wat, and has 5-6 losers, which almost always means a source of tricks in a minor suit, that's OK by the GCC and it is also OK descriptively.

Third, I have not played any of these conventions for MANY years, now preferring a 2/1 GF style. The point was that lawyers can find parts of the GCC to take advantage of that are not just theory-based but that are also rule-tweaking based.

The war gaming / role playing community has a word for the type of behavior that you are describing: "Rules Lawyering". Its not considered an admirable trait.

People aren't perfect, nor are the regulatory structures that they create. Any sufficiently complex set of regulations is going to contain a variety of flaws (contradictions, exceptions, logical inconsistencies, etc.) You have clearly pointed out a well known problem with the rules set used by the ACBL.

If I use one set of verbiage to describe a set of hands, my agreement is legal at the GCC level. If I use a different set of verbiage to describe the exact same set of hands, my agreement is not legal at the GCC level.

At this point in time, one should ask "What is the appropriate behavior to deal with this problem"

Option 1: Work to solve the problem and eliminate the inconsistency
Option 2: Exploit the loop hole
Option 3: Withdraw in digust

I consider option 1 the best course of action. Work with the regulators to improve the rules set.

I consider option 2 extremely unethical. You violate the spirit of the law and severely degrade the playing environment.

Option 3 is actually the course of action that I ended up choosing. Over time, I became more and more disgusted with the regulatory environment in North American bridge. In part, this reflected these types of long standing inconsistencies in the rules set. However, the straw that broke the camel's back was when the regulatory authorities started "gaming the system". I am well capable of responding in kind. I know ALL sorts of ways to tie the system regulations into knots. However, at the end of the day, I made a decision that I didn't want to be the type of person who engaged in that type of behavior so I stopped playing tournament bridge. However, I am still some what touchy on the whole subject.

Accordingly, when I see some idiot bragging about what a great rules lawyer he is, I tend to respond with disgust. As I said originally, 10th graders think that this type of behavior is exciting and admirable. At a certain point in time, most people outgrow this. When you find adults who haven't, it just becomes sad.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Jun 7 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

Accordingly, when I see some idiot bragging about what a great rules lawyer he is, I tend to respond with disgust.  As I said originally, 10th graders think that this type of behavior is exciting and admirable.  At a certain point in time, most people outgrow this.  When you find adults who haven't, it just becomes sad.

Richard,

While I can somewhat understand your feelings of disgust and how you think that playing this way is unethical/childish/disgusting, the bottom line is, thats what lawyers are skilled at.

In their profession, they attempt to work within a given set of rules/laws and manipulate them to their best advantage. If they can find a loophole in the laws (as written) that gets their client off, they use it, no matter how despicable it may be or appear to be.

Why should a lawyer playing bridge be any different when defining a system? After all, you, yourself, called it rules "lawyering". Of course it is, but this is what a lawyer is supposed to be skilled at.

They are still within the outlined definitions of the rules/laws, and they are still perfectly legal. They have simply found a loophole or technicality within the laws that allows them to design what they wish to play legally. I really don't think there is anything particularly sad about this. It is what they have been trained/taught to do (amongst other things, of course). Finding a weakness and then exploiting it to their best advantage.

Do I like it? No. Is it slimy, childish, disgusting, etc.? Somewhat. But this is one of the reasons lawyers have the reputations they do.

I also think that a lawyer will make for a better bridge player than a mathematician since the lawyer will tend to be more ruthless whenever possible.

[jtfanclub]

Quantumcat, on Jun 7 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

In a couple of years when I get to be a decent player, remind me to never, ever, play any tournaments in the US! Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

It's not.

For General Convention Chart: you have to play SA, 2/1, Precision, or certain Canape systems. Starting with Opener's second bid, most things are legal, and starting with Responder's second bid, everything is legal, as long as you're using one of the basic four systems I listed (ie., not Relay).

For Midchart, now you can start using Wilkosz and Multi 2 diamonds, so with very few changes you can play just about anything popular in Europe (Moscito being a notable exception). Midchart is only for Regional and National unlimited events, but in fact a large number of clubs use it as well (clubs get to set their own rules).

So in terms of PLAYING in the U.S., it's not a problem. It's easy, fun, and you won't even notice these rules we've been discussing.

In terms of PLAYING YOUR OWN SYSTEM in the U.S., it's a nightmare. Outside of slight variants of the big boys, it's impossible. For example, somebody explain to me why, if partner opens a natural 1 diamond bid third hand, it's legal to play 2 clubs as artificial game forcing but not as Drury. For another, when partner opens 1 heart, you can use 1NT as an artificial non-game forcing inquiry denying spades, but not 1 spade or two clubs.

As a mathematics kind of guy, I deeply resent their weird and twisted rules. And yes, it does get frustrating to play a system where you know something else would work better but you don't get to use it...especially when you know that the rules lawyers get THEIR "improvements" approved and you can't get yours done.

But in terms of sitting down and playing? I don't have any difficulty doing that.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Jun 7 2007, 06:28 PM, said:

For Midchart, now you can start using Wilkosz and Multi 2 diamonds, so with very few changes you can play just about anything popular in Europe (Moscito being a notable exception). Midchart is only for Regional and National unlimited events, but in fact a large number of clubs use it as well (clubs get to set their own rules).

Comment 1: The number of Midchart events is minuscule. Case in point: The Flight A Grand National Teams is a GCC event. While the MidChart / Supercharts exist in theory, in practice they are hardly ever available.

Comment 2: I can point to a wide number of different methods that are legal in Europe that can't be played in Midchart level events.

Comment 3: Wilkosz is most certainly NOT legal at the Midchart level

[mikeh]

It is unfortunate that people give in to silly stereotypes.. whether it be about lawyers being slimy, accountants being boring, or members of certain ethnicities being muggers, etc.

Some lawyers may be 'rules lawyers', but the rules lawyers I have encountered in bridge have NOT been lawyers at all.

Some lawyers undoubtedly fit the stereotype... but so do carpenters, accountants, advertising executives, bridge pros, teachers... you name the occupation and the odds are I have dealt with an untrustworthy member of it.. as a trial lawyer for 30 years, my experience is that the great majority of people are basically honest, but a minority of humans are not....

The vast majority of lawyers with whom I deal are scrupulously honest. Any lawyer with a reputation for cutting ethical corners will have a difficult time in the courts and in dealing with other lawyers...it takes years to earn a good reputation and mere seconds to lose it.

Television and other media (full of legal illiterates who do not understand the system on which they are commentating) have created a mythical but widely accepted image of lawyers. I find it disapppointing that so many members of what should be a reasonably intelligent, thoughtful group (the members of this forum) buy into that image. Is it really your personal experience, if and when you hired a lawyer, that you were being slimed? If so, get another lawyer!

Remember.. the typical reporter knows no more about the legal system than the average liberal-arts major.. and perhaps less. Plus, the point of the media is to sell advertising.. or to advance the political agenda of the owner of the media outlet.. it is not to educate or inform the public. This is true of news programs as much as it is of entertainment.

As for my own experience, while I have dealt with a few lawyers I found ethically-challenged, as a group, lawyers are the most honest and trustworthy people I deal with.

One qualifying note: I practice in Canada, but I would include the few US lawyers I know in that same category. I also had the pleasure of dealing with some lawyers in Amsterdam and found them to be truly good people.

I have been appalled at some of the posts made by Ken... I agree that he appears to be a 'rules lawyer'... and he is also a real life lawyer.. but that is (I trust) a coincidence.

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 7 2007, 05:42 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jun 7 2007, 06:56 AM, said:

Now, mathematicians from e.g. Australia or Sweden can use their glasses over there where they beat the lawyers, but they cannot use them in the Bermuda Bowl.

Yes they can. Last I heard the ACBL did not write the system regulations for the Bermuda Bowl.

No, ACBL doesn't. The WBF "lawyers" do, under the strong influence of the ACBL "lawyers". (I posted because Ken didn't seem to realize the difference between Laws and regulations which is a common misunderstanding in the USA. I didn't realize this difference when I lived there either. )

Nevertheless, as far as I know, HUM systems are still banned from the round robin of the Bermuda Bowl. The same goes for encrypted signals.

So if a Swedish mathematicians glasses are labeled HUM, he cannot use them at the round robin of the BB. And as I explained to Ken, HUM systems are not banned by Law. (My bridge club allows them and that is perfectly legal.) They are banned by regulations. And I am of the opinion that these regulations shouldn't be there in the highest level bridge event in the world.

Rik

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jun 7 2007, 10:40 AM, said:

Comment 3:  Wilkosz is most certainly NOT legal at the Midchart level

I thought I knew somebody who played it in midchart events. I guess not.

Actually, now that I think about it, I played against somebody in a Regional Unlimited KO match last year using Polish Club with Wilkosz. I guess nobody called them on it.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 7 2007, 10:43 AM, said:

I have been appalled at some of the posts made by Ken... I agree that he appears to be a 'rules lawyer'... and he is also a real life lawyer.. but that is (I trust) a coincidence.

I just cannot understand this hostility.

Let's try this once again. After all, my integrity is being challenged for something that seems nonsensical.

First, I'll preface this by noting that I play a completely recognizable 2/1 GF system most of the time, basically SAYC the rest. So, I do no actual "Rules Lawyering" in any actual practice.

However, years ago, I played a canape style. Canape is allowed, under the GCC. However, some bids from some recognized canape structures are not. So, what did I actually do to deal with this? Resign from the ACBL? No. Petition for change? Yes, with no effect. "Rules Lawyer" things? Maybe -- let's play it out.

With one canape structure that I used in Washington, D.C., taught to me by a friend and partner from Croatia who did not know about the GCC problems, 2M showed 5+M/4+minor (minor unknown), 11-15 with exactly six losers. With five losers, you would open the minor and then jump in the major. With seven losers, you treated it as a one-suited major hand. The whole structure of the system required this bid.

So, I approached the old (pre-Flader) national TD who wrote articles in the Bulletin (Brian something I think) about the problem. We pulled out the GCC. We also pulled out some weird source I'd never heard of -- written decisions of a sort from prior inquiries and prior rulings. No one I knew had known that this resource existed. Anyway, we decided that there was no specific "loophole" to cover this problem.

I then discussed this more with the TD. We both realized that limiting the range of LTC to exactly six losers, with only 5-6 cards in the major allowed, sort of forced the hand tro be unbalanced, if the HCP range was right. Because 2♦ showed major two-suiter with six losers, we could inference out that type of unbalanced hands. So, simply defining HCP's and Losing Trick Count and major-suit length accomplished limitation of the call to only hands where a minor of 4-card length happened to be present. This convinced the TD that the call would be GCC legal if defined under those allowable criteria. The ACBL confirmed this, and the call was allowed.

So, what is the problem here? I wanted to play a recognized system (apparently called "Rosso e Merro," similar to Leghorn/Livorno). That system was not entirely allowed. So, I need to tweak some aspects of the system. Other aspects were actually "allowed" if the definition of the bid was changed. So, I consulted the TD's and the ACBL and was told that the changes made the system OK. (Some aspects could not be fixed.) Am I "Rules Lawyering" and slimy because I actually researched the Rules, found ways to change aspects of the system to fit the Rules, and then sought approval from the Powers-that-be for those changes? If so, why is that a bad thing? Is it somehow good form to guess what the Rules really mean, never ask, never try to adapt your idea to fit the Rules, and just play Standard American because the Rules errantly seem to restrict my idea?

Consider the LIA 1♦ opening. Good bridge theory suggests to some that a Kamikazee 1NT (8-10) might be a great preemptive move. But, it is impossible to use effectively when no systems are allowed. So, you want to do something similar anyway. 1♦ can be 8-10 if you have at least three diamonds, and systems are allowed. This is not as effective as 1NT, but it works OK. So, you take an idea (LIA), look at the Rules, find a method that is allowed, think through whether it would be a satisfactory substitute, theoretically, develop a response structure, and start using that technique. Again, where is the problem? Am I not supposed to play 1♦ as possibly a balanced 8-10 with three diamonds because a Kamikazee 1NT with 8-10 is disallowed and this new idea is trying to accomplish the same goals?

Why on earth this would be unethical is beyond me. Or, why this would be juvenile and immature is beyond me. I'll even go so far as to say that I am proud that, apparently unlike others, I was able to develop working systemic approaches that were GCC legal and that delved into strange LIA approaches and advanced canape approaches. That took some work, both at understanding the GCC and in grasping bridge theory. Not many theoreticians can develop a working system where a 1♦ opening shows 8-22 HCP's, with a constructive response structure that does not randomize results but that actually leads to consistently good results. Not many could grasp the problem exceptions to the light opening, the tweaking of 1♣ and its responses to accommodate the strange 1♦, and the necessary additions at the two-level openings to blend all of this together. Not many would use their head and contact the right people at the ACBL, research and find the existence of policy statements and prior rulings and minutes of the GCC forming committes, and otherwise prepare themselves adequately to develop a GCC-compliant, highly innovative systemic structure.

Who is the immature child? The one who reads and understands the Rules of the Game, or the one who takes his ball home and refuses to play anymore?

BTW -- One last point may be worthwhile. Why do I play 2/1 GF now, instead of canape or LIA or relay or Moscito or Livorno or the like? No matter how talented you are at the game, the masses and the powers that be view "those people" as freaks, poor players who use weird and untested theories to gain advantage over others because the others cannot handle on-the-spot guesses under weird circumstances. I disagree, somewhat, with that assessment. But, I got tired of everyone I knew who played weird stuff being terrible bridge players.

I wonder, sometimes, whether the frustration of the weird-system folks is displaced. I also believe that the ACBL is less concerned about development of theory as they are about stopping terrible players from using bizarre approaches to gain a non-theory advantage.

[mikeh]

Ken, when saying that I was appalled, I had in mind the (several) posts in which you recount a story that usually involves you and a partner making completely bizarre bids, and being on the same wavelength and ending up with a great result. While I have never really believed that your stories were accurate, the attitude displayed in the stories, if they actually happened as described, appalled and continues to appall me.

I have no problem with anyone playing any method they like, so long as it is lawful and so long as it is adequately announced. And I commend anyone who, when thinking of playing something unusual, aproaches the directing staff to ensure that they are abiding by the rules.

[pbleighton]

Quote

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.)

Ken, what was your alert on this one?

Peter

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 7 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

Ken, when saying that I was appalled, I had in mind the (several) posts in which you recount a story that usually involves you and a partner making completely bizarre bids, and being on the same wavelength and ending up with a great result. While I have never really believed that your stories were accurate, the attitude displayed in the stories, if they actually happened as described, appalled and continues to appall me.

I'm not sure how that reference also offended you.

To re-state the facts:

1. We had an undiscussed auction (surely others do as well).
2. My partner, who is a professional player, knows very well how my mind thinks about undiscussed auctions.
3. That person made a call that seems bizarre to people who find my general thinking bizarre but that seemed to him to be somethin I would understand.
4. He was right -- I understood his bid without discussion. Hence, we had a good partnership. I don't think that is a problem.
5. I did not alert his call, because...
(a.) it is not alertable,
(b.) you are not supposed to alert calls above 3NT that late in the auction anyway -- as it might help partner more than the opponents, and
(c.) the alert policy is in effect for this very situation -- if I alerted 4♠ as RKCB with their suit as the focus suit, this would tell partner what my bids mean and help us more than them.
6. the bid was VERY strange and thus not likely to be made without an explanation requested when explanation matters.

So, as disclosure would have been given if requested, but none was requested, non-disclosure cannot be the problem.

The problem cannot be the strange agreement, as there is nothing unethical about the agreement.

Is the problem making weird bids in a frivolous manner, that partner cannot possibly field, just as a ruse to enable a true psychic? Not if both partners understood the meaning -- that simply is a good, well-tuned partnership.

Apparently, then, the problem seems to be that I and my partner makes bids that you believe to be "completely bizarre." I cannot imagine that it is unethical to not agree with your way of thinking about bidding problems.

As to the "attitude," I cannot really address that, as I'm not sure what attitude problem you perceive and whether that perception is based upon your extreme irritation with my "bizarre" thinking.

Your main point seemed to be that I often comment on auctions where I and a partner both think in a way that is completely foreign to your way of thinking, that we think the same way, that we act consistently along the same lines of thinking, and that we get great results for that absurdity, which appalls you. I can understand that. Half the idiots I play against stumble-bunny into golden contracts all the time, and drive me nuts. Maybe my partners and I are, to your elite world, stumble-bunnies extraordinaire. I'm not sure that would be unethical or slimy or Rules Lawyering. That might be just lucky results from bad bridge, if your assessment is correct.