Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Yes Oleg and Kieran - in ACBL you are “allowed” to psych
> once per session I believe, or it becomes a matter of
> implicit agreement

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. In actuality, there is no such law on the books and multiple conflicting policies.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what you are able to get away with, which largely boils down to your ability to exert your will over the Tournament Director.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the very least, it should have been possible to ask whether anyone in the novice section would like to “play up” in exchange for a free entry…
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “Purely Destructive Bid”: An opening bid or overcall that
> does not promise a specific suit and may be made with a
> hand that does not meet the “Rule of 13”.
>
> So yeah, it will be completely clear what is and what
> is not allowed. Hopefully.

I'd like to repeat my earlier question:

If this definition is going to be used to determine what is and is not allowed, does this mean that (otherwise legal) opening bids that do not meet definition will be permitted and - more importantly - that the C&C will sanction defenses to these bids?

If not, then I hardly see the point of defining this term. (The issue with the C&C was never their willingness to bar conventions but rather, placing limits there to…)
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't even play multi. I'd just trying to figure out what's what.

With this said and done, I know plenty of folks who like to use 2M to show a constructive weak two and shove the “bad” 2M preempts into the multi.

Should I expect that the conventions committee with approve defenses to all midchart legal opening bids that don't fall under the definition of “destructive”?
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not asking that multi b permitted at the GCC level, rather I am asking whether it falls under the description of an inherently destructive bid and is being banned altogether.

In many cases, a multi 2D does not meet the Rule of 13.

If this is true, and all destructive bids are banned, is multi being restricted even more than it is today?
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I right in assuming that “Rule of 13” means that the length of your two longest suits + your number of HCP must be >= to 13?

If so, does this mean that a multi 2D opening that could be made on very weak hands in inherently destructive and banned?
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a rule, second seat preempts look nothing like third seat preempts and neither of these look anything like fourth seat preempts.

Until the ACBL convention card allows appropriate disclosure, its not very useful to explain what's on the card.

Personally, I wouldn't want to vote or rule without more information about methods…
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And is that DIC still allowed to direct?
If so, why?
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Oh come on. It isn't like nobody has ever heard of a 1♦
> opening showing 2+ diamonds. Putting our 1♦ opening
> in the same category as this unexpected meaning for
> 2♣ is not realistic.

Nebulous 1D openings can be opened on anything from

a single suiter with diamonds
a 3=3=2=5 that is unsuitable for 1NT
a 4=4=2=3 that falls outside the NT range

And plenty of other pairs with loosen things up a bit and include three suiters with short Diamonds into the mix.

This may be a bid that is (in theory) familiar, but contains a hell of a lot more hand types than the 2C overcall that you're calling out. (And, by definition, this opening is going to occur a lot more than then opponents convention defense there to). BTW I know for a fact that this opening pisses off the hoi polloi because I have to listen to them bitch at me when I make the very same opening.

Going back to the 2C overcall, I've had to deal with any number of conventional defenses to my strong club openings over the years. Including a whole bunch of stuff that looks remarkably similar to this 2C overcall. (I am guessing that you have as well) Anything goes seems to be perfectly fine here. I'd argue that the only difference between this and the overcall of 1D is that you were caught by surprise.

Boo hoo hoo.
Next time, hopefully you won't be.
Dec. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Life would have been much easier if I had opened 1NT like god intended
Dec. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Fred opened 1♦ (Precision, could be a doubleton), and
> my RHO bid 2♣. This was alerted and explained as an
> overcall in either diamonds or hearts.

I have zero sympathy for a complaint that opposing pairs are using conventional defenses over a nebulous Diamond opening. I am quite sure that your own 1D opening is presenting every bit as much confusion to the non-Precision pairs that you are playing against. In my mind, the only difference is that “you” are the one playing the 1D opening and “they” are the ones overcalling.

I will also note that you've had decades to deal with pairs who are using similar types of defenses to your strong club opening. Maybe you were very very lucky and none of your opponents ever figured out that they could do the same over 1D. Now you know. Its probably time to shore up your meta agreements OR if this is too much bother, you always have the option NOT to play an artificial 1D opening.

However, you shouldn't be playing Precision without being willing to pay the piper…
Dec. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> But when I showed up to play at
> the regional event described at
> the beginning, I didn't realize
> that I was going to play poker.
> I thought it was going to be
> duplicate bridge, a game of
> (mostly) skill.

Here's the thing John, despite your 20 years of experience, you don't actually know what “bridge” is…

You have your own weird little ideas but they have nothing to do with the Laws of the game, the regulations used in North America, or the game that I have been familiar with for the past 30 years.

I suggest that you either retreat to the backwater in which you have been playing or learn to accept that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…
Dec. 15, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> In order to do that, they need systems allowed which
> will make the outcome of a board more random and
> luck dependent.

FWIW, I think that there is truth to this claim. I have long argued that the primary goal of convention regulations in the US is to suppress variance and - in doing so - reward the pros.

Here's where it gets amusing: I seem to recall Kit Woolsey writing some interesting stuff on whether or not to play for the drop or a finesse when missing five to the Queen. He claimed that a weaker team should consider playing for the drop and deliberately take a suboptimal line of play because the increase in variance was worth more to them than the decrease in the expected value…

I guess that that should only be legal when it comes to card play…
Dec. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Bo-Yin Yang's analysis of its use in European and world
> championships (before it was prohibited) showed it gained
> more than 2 IMPs on average every time it was used.

There is an important caveat to this: The major wins for Wilkosz were occurring on hands where a Wilkosz 2D was opened at one table and 1M was opened at the other.

The pairs who were not playing Wilkosz were - in theory - playing relatively sound openings but could not bear to pass with an offensively oriented 5-5 hand and a sub-minimum strength. Later on, the wheels came off in their auction.

I personally believe that - as the world at large has gained more experience with opening 10 counts - that the expected gain for the Wilkosz 2D would decrease significantly.
Dec. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fifteen or so years back, I was wanted to be able to play MOSCITO here in the US and worked very hard to get suggested defenses approved to the following opening scheme

1D = 4+ Hearts, might have a longer minor (~ 9 - 14 HCP)
1H = 4+ Spades, might have a longer minor (~ 9 - 14 HCP)
1S = unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds

The ACBL Conventions Committee ruled that this was far too complicated to ever allow at the Midchart level, refused to sanction any defense to this method, and does so to this day.

Of course, a couple years later, when Martel himself wanted to play “transfer Walsh” over his short club opening, that was approved immediately and was considered so innocuous that it wasn't necessary to provide any defense to the opponents.

And, of course, shortly there after, the ACBL pushed through regulations that short clubs are natural as to ban convention defenses to the 1C opening.

The only rhyme or reason to the convention regulations in the US is that methods that the US pros want to play will be legal and methods that they don't want to play against will not. Pretending that there is anything impacting this rather than influence and power is disingenuous.

FWIW, I found the whole blowup between the US team and the Spanish team this year extremely interesting. I don't think that the Spanish had nearly enough evidence to prove that Lall and Bathurst were playing a HUM and they way in which the Spanish team behaved did them no credit.

However, I suspect that someone a bit more competent might have been able to make something stick against any number of Precision pairs…
Dec. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If people wanted to play cards, nothing would seem to stop the club owners from running an unsanctioned game…

I suspect that the real problem is that a sufficient mass of players was playing in the Nationals that the club director decided not to both (and who knows, perhaps the directors wanted to play or were working)
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I did not cheat! I disclosed ACBL & Common Game hand
> record security issues.

Hi Art,

I'd be interested in understanding the time line here.

1. Can you provide a more detailed description of your exploit? (From the sounds of things, you were able to access an ACBL server that contained both hand records and personal information)

2. What information did you provide to the ACBL and how did you submit it?

3. What was the ACBL's response?

4. What were the next step of actions that you took? What type of disclosure did you provide?
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that i would start by cashing the Ace of Hearts, exclude Spades and then exit with a Heart
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its unclear to me that they didn't

Please note: I have about as low an opinion about the ACBL as anyone on this list. In this case, I think that its unclear whether they reached the wrong decision.

1. I think that the primary consideration needs to be what set of policies get put in place moving forward.

2. While I would like to see harsher punishments for what happened in the past, I'm not sure whether I would prioritize “punishment” ahead of “avoid the possibility of costly litigation”'

From what I can tell, the big open question is how do you handle individuals who want to forfeit titles. And, as an interesting extension, if you chose to forfeit a title, does this mean that you are also relinquishing seeding points and master points. (Arguably, the two should not be separable)
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can point the folks at work at this.

The might find the problem interesting enough to play with…
Dec. 7, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top