Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SO you are stating that relay systems are legal in Gold Chart events?
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You haven't defined “average strength” or less that average strength. I suspect that this is going to come back to bite you.

One could make an argument that Precision 1D opening that show 0+ or 1+ Diamonds are banned if they could be opened on a 9 count…
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, MOSCITO type systems that use transfer openings are now completely banned at the Midchart level.

At least you $%)#%^@#)^ are being honest about things for a change.
Dec. 24, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why an exception is being specifically made for 1C openings that show 4=4=3=2 shape.

If you want to ban conventional overcalls over short club openings, then ban conventional overcalls over short club openings. But don't persist with this ridiculous charade that opening 1C on a 4=4=3=2 is natural and opening 1C on a 4=3=4=2 is not natural.
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitions includes the following line item.

“11. “Relay System”: tbd, is not relevant to level 3 & 4 charts.”

The Gold Chard allows anything that is not banned.
Relay systems are not banned.

However, the Gold chart also defines itself as “Level 3”

1. There seems to be a contradiction here.
2. I really hope that relay methods aren't being banned at the Midchart level
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I do not believe the laws of bridge allow you to restrict
> the natural NT opening as you have done.

Those laws were changed. The Endicott fudge is no longer necessary
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am far from an expert in this area, however, based on what I have read

1. No one disputes that there are biological differences between the “races”. No one disputes that there are biological differences between the sexes.

2. For all intents and purposes this is irrelevant because that variance within each category swamps the variance between categories.

Unless you are dealing with really ridiculous extremes -say world class long distance runners or professional athletes - focusing on biological differences simply isn't a useful way to frame the discussion. 99.999% of the population isn't sitting on that tail of the distribution.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first saw the URL come through I was all “$&(@#^!!! spammer!!!” but then I took a closer look and ever clicked through the link.

This looks like a really good design. My one worry is that this requires a specific type of table to clamp onto…
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Building in some kind of hard point such that cameras would be positioned in an optimal location is probably worthwhile consideration.

You might want to something similar for cables / wires.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my perspective one critical question is whether you want a “disposable” design.

How much does it currently cost to store and transport screens? (Include the some $$$ to account for whatever annoyance is involved in doing do).

Balanced against this, how much would it cost to produce a new set of screens “on demand” so to speak.

You might very well find that it is better to try to create some kind of template and then build a new set of screens to order where ever you might be running to tournament rather than bothering to ship stuff around.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> It appears I was in error. Yes, the midchart is more restrictive
> than I thought and the defense requirements are awful.

> A draft of the new “Gold Chart” will be arriving shortly for
> public feedback. It is proposed to take the place of the
> midchart and be the standard chart for open regional
> and higher ranked events. Stay tuned.

I don't disagree. With this said and done, I have little faith that the Gold Chart will be any kind of improvement.

The fundamental problem is the process that is used for convention approval and the individuals who are responsible for running the asylum.

The first step really needs to be fixing these issues and THEN improve upon the charts themselves.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh yes, there's also the email from Jeff Meckstroth that explicitly states that the suggested defense for a 1H opening that shows a limited opening bid with 5+ Spades should not be approved because this will open the door for MOSCITO openings which should not be permitted.

Perhaps this explains why the defense is only allowed to be used in Midchart events that are using 12+ board rounds. <I am trying to recall the last time that I actually saw one of those>
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I'm sure that I know people whose methods were
> blocked because no defense was approved.

Mine certainly were

More specifically, the C&C Committee refused to sanction defenses to

1. A MOSCITO style 1D opening
2. A MOSCITO style 1H opening
3. A MOSCITO style 1S opening
4. A variety of Ekrens style assumed fit opening bids

All of these bids were legal before the introduction of the Defensive Databases. All of these bids were permitted by the Midchart based on

“4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit.”

Please note: There was an interesting case in which one part of the C&C accidentally sanctioned defenses to some MOSCITO type openings and placed these on a website.

A pair of Aussie Juniors same over to play in Nationals, had printed versions of the ACBL sanctioned defenses, and had the misfortune to play against Chip Martel who summarily overruled the Conditions of Contest and banned the methods.

I understand that the ACBL fucked up when they published these suggested defenses, but no one should be permitted to change Conditions of Contest Mid Round.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> You can play things on the midchart that don't have
> approved defenses. If they make an approved defense,
> then you must bring one.

This is an interesting revisionist philosophy that ignores the fact that the Midchart used to allow a wide variety of methods that are now longer legal without an approved defense.

Up until the 2014 revision of the convention charts, the Midchart included language that allowed

“4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit.”

This clause was essential to the Midchart because it was the only language that significantly expanded the set of methods that players can use.

In all seriousness, look at items #2 through #5 of the current Midchart. Who give a fuck about any of this?

> For example, playing Namyats as an overcall is midchart.
> There is no approved defense. You don't need to bring one.

Please show me language in the Midchart that sanctions the use of NAMYATS as an overcall.

I see language that allows this as an overcall of 1NT, but not as a generic overcall.
Dec. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> There are methods with approved defenses, but
> it has never been the case that a method needs
> an approved defense in order to play it.

That would seem to be contradicted by the following line in the Midchart

“The following items are approved for all Mid-Chart events of the specified round length (#), but pairs playing them must bring two copies of the approved written defense, offering a copy to each opponent.”
Dec. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you expect your Age group stratification to be appropriate for the population that you are studying?
Dec. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I'm part of a committee that is making recommendations
> to the C&C committee

Tweaking definitions is all fine and dandy. With this said and done, if you are going to require recommended defenses, then the onus must be on the C&C Committee to approve suggested defenses.

In addition, the ACBL's Midchart used to license a wide number of different bids. For example any bid that showed 4 or more cards in a known suit was legal at the Midchart level.

Currently the Midchart really doesn't license much of anything. Rather, you have a long list of very specific bids that the C&C has chosen to permit. No wonder that the game is ossifying.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why, but somehow I had the feeling tat you were on the C&C Committee…
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should I interpret this to mean that the committee will actually approve defenses to any of these openings rather than conducting Snipe Hunts.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are three simple examples

A 2D opening that shows 4+ Diamonds and (4+ cards in either Hearts or Spades) and approximately 5-11 HCPs. Could be 4432, can not be 4441 or 5440

A 2H opening that shows 4+ Heart and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs) and approximately 5 - 11 HCPs

A 1D opening that shows 4+ Hearts (could have a longer minor) and ~ 8-14 HCPs

All of these openings show a known suit (so the rule of 13 would not seem to enter into the picture)
Dec. 21, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top