1-2-3 stop Illegal?
Frood
and the following has occured;
1S P 2S P
3S* P P P
3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
DISALLOWED
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
opponents’ methods.
Later in they give an example;
Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
passing I should have been calling the director.
I have 2 Questions;
Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
Paul
John Blubaugh
"Frood" <Fro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Enjoy your bridge and learn to deal with difficult opponents,
John Blubaugh
Tim Goodwin
>I have had a couple of hands recently at Club game's in the last year
>and the following has occured;
>
>1S P 2S P
>3S* P P P
>
>3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
>I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
>DISALLOWED
>1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
>opponents’ methods.
>
>Later in they give an example;
>
>Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
>the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
>nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
>The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
>passing I should have been calling the director.
The bid presuambly says that opener has a weak hand with extra length
in the suit, the extra length being the additional information
conveyed.
But, there is a case to be made that all preemptive bidding is
destructive.
>I have 2 Questions;
>
>Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
Yes. Another way to play it is that it either asks for good trumps or
shows the weak hand with extra length. With the extra length it is
unlikely that responder has the strong trumps needed to accept the
game try, so you can basically have it both ways.
>Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
Depends upon who you ask. You have not according to ACBL.
Tim
Raija
"Frood" <Fro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I am not a law expert, but interpreting the Laws as you suggest, would mean
that all preemptive bids are illegal (as their primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents'methods) and that certainly cannot be the intention of the
laws. So, 1-2-3 stop is perfectly legal IMO.
Frood
about the persons hand such as 1s - 3S (premptive weak and shows
weakness) whereas in this situation NOTHING new is being said about
openers hand (As was described to me by the people playing it).
So if thats the case then it fits the example below.
I agree that if 1s-2s-3s and the 3s bid shows extra length or something
else else then there is no problem, the problem is when it describes
NOTHING else about the hand.
Am I way off here or what?
John Blubaugh
> People keep saying Pre-emptive bids. Pre-emptive bids describe something
> about the persons hand such as 1s - 3S (premptive weak and shows
> weakness) whereas in this situation NOTHING new is being said about
> openers hand (As was described to me by the people playing it).
>
> So if thats the case then it fits the example below.
>
> I agree that if 1s-2s-3s and the 3s bid shows extra length or something
> else else then there is no problem, the problem is when it describes
> NOTHING else about the hand.
>
> Am I way off here or what?
>
> Raija wrote:
> > "Frood" <Fro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
You have the information that the opening bidder holds a hand that is not
interested in game opposite partner's simple raise. The bid is merely to
make it harder for you to enter the bidding at the four-level. So, you do
have some information to work with.
Enjoy your bridge,
John Blubaugh
Martin Ambuhl
[...]
> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
> The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
> passing I should have been calling the director.
>
> I have 2 Questions;
>
> Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
> Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
Q1: Preemptive reraises have been commonly played for at least 30 years.
Q2: No.
>
Frood
(e.g., a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
up bidding space).
Now you sit down and the bidding procedes as explained;
1S p 2S p
3S*
You ask about the 3S bid alert,
Does it show extra length "NO"
Does it ask to bid on with honors "NO"
Do you know anything more about his hand "NO"
Is there any time you are supposed to bid on "NO"
Does the 3 spade bid above sound ANYTHING like what it says in the
example above?
If this is not a bidding sequence that shows that PLEASE tell me one
that does.
Paul
Gordon Rainsford
> One more try;
>
> (e.g., a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
> up bidding space).
It tells you something about the bidder's hand, as well as using up
space.
>
> Now you sit down and the bidding procedes as explained;
>
> 1S p 2S p
> 3S*
>
> You ask about the 3S bid alert,
> Does it show extra length "NO"
For most people it shows extra distribution - either a sixth spade or a
shortage outside.
> Does it ask to bid on with honors "NO"
It asks you not to bid on - thus it limits the hand significantly.
> Do you know anything more about his hand "NO"
You know that the hand is too weak to invite game, and sufficiently
distributional to want to increase the pre-emptive effect of the
barrage.
> Is there any time you are supposed to bid on "NO"
That's the point.
>
> Does the 3 spade bid above sound ANYTHING like what it says in the
> example above?
>
> If this is not a bidding sequence that shows that PLEASE tell me one
> that does.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
Tim Goodwin
<j.blu...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>The bid is merely to
>make it harder for you to enter the bidding at the four-level.
If the bid is "merely to make it harder for you to enter thebidding"
that seems the definition of destructive.
Tim
Tim Goodwin
>One more try;
>
>(e.g., a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
>up bidding space).
>
>Now you sit down and the bidding procedes as explained;
>
>1S p 2S p
>3S*
>
>You ask about the 3S bid alert,
>Does it show extra length "NO"
>Does it ask to bid on with honors "NO"
>Do you know anything more about his hand "NO"
Yes, opener does not want to play in game opposite any single raise.
Yet, he does want to play 3S instead of 2S. If the opponents tell you
that there is no extra information, they are not disclosing properly.
They should know their tendency regarding when they reraise to 3S. If
they really bid 3S with any hand that does not want to play game, they
should alert 2S and explain that it is forcing to 3S.
Tim
Tim West-Meads
Fro...@hotmail.com (Frood) wrote:
The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
they would wish to. I cannot understand the bridge logic which would make
this bid invitational (one has 4 other invites available) let alone
forcing.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
John Blubaugh
"Tim Goodwin" <ne...@oakhill.com> wrote in message
news:3ff9ec64.280417138@nntp...
Not at all. You are using the fact that you hold the boss suit and you
"dare" the opponents to balance at the four-level. This treatment is out of
favor now because it could violate the Law of Total Tricks. I believe that
even when it was played frequently, the 3S bidder usually had extra trump
length or a second suit with shortness in the other two suits.
As you pointed out, this type of treatment is like a pre-empt. They are very
effective at getting the opponents to make errors.
Enjoy your bridge and pre-empt as often as possible,
John Blubaugh
John Blubaugh
"Tim West-Meads" <t...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2004010...@emilyandtim.compulink.co.uk...
Well, many people play that 3S asks for help in the spade suit to make a
game. It means if your simple raise included the KQxx of spades, you might
have the golden hand that will allow 4S to make. I think this treatment is
much more common than 1-2-3 Stop. You could use 2NT to ask in spades but
most play that as just needing partner to be on the top of his range to make
a game in either notrump or spades.
Mmbridge
news:c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
The problem with your interpretation is that the prohibition "primary
purpose of destroying the opponents' methods" means designed to destroy the
methods of the *specific* opponents you are playing. 1-2-3 Stop (and
preempts in general) are designed to destroy the methods of *all* opponents,
not just those of *specific* opponents.
Mmbridge
Otis Bricker
news:A_mKb.69461$hf1.65235@lakeread06:
> The problem with your interpretation is that the prohibition "primary
> purpose of destroying the opponents' methods" means designed to
> destroy the methods of the *specific* opponents you are playing. 1-2-3
> Stop (and preempts in general) are designed to destroy the methods of
> *all* opponents, not just those of *specific* opponents.
>
I think you have this one wrong. Many opening 2-bids showing undisclosed 2-
suiters have been 'banned' by the ACBL as being destructive. ANd these
clearly aim at all opponents.
Otis
David Stevenson
>The problem with your interpretation is that the prohibition "primary
>purpose of destroying the opponents' methods" means designed to destroy the
>methods of the *specific* opponents you are playing. 1-2-3 Stop (and
>preempts in general) are designed to destroy the methods of *all* opponents,
>not just those of *specific* opponents.
Good try, but I do not think so. If you play 1S over 1C to show 12-14
cards the ACBL will say that is purely destructive and thus disallowed.
If you play it over every type of opponents' 1C then it is designed to
destroy the methods of *all* opponents.
---------------------
Frood wrote
>I have had a couple of hands recently at Club game's in the last year
>and the following has occured;
>
>1S P 2S P
>3S* P P P
>
>3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
>I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
>DISALLOWED
>1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
>opponents’ methods.
>
>Later in they give an example;
>
>Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
>the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
>nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
>The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
>passing I should have been calling the director.
>
>I have 2 Questions;
>
>Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
>Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
First of all this 1-2-3 Stop convention is played by a majority of
good players, and probably half the medium players, so it is very common
indeed.
Second your interpretation is certainly possible from the actual
wording of the reg, and BLML would have a fine time arguing as to
whether it applied to this sequence. But it does not matter because the
ACBL do not intend it to apply to this sequence [nor this type of
sequence].
Bids whose primary intention is to remove bidding space are not
automatically disallowed by this reg. The main calls that are covered
by this reg are ones on the first round that can be made on any hand at
all.
Incidentally, it would help the flow of argument if you did not top
post.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
Jerry6421
>> 1S P 2S P
>> 3S* P P
>The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
>they would wish to. I cannot understand the bridge logic which would make
>this bid invitational (one has 4 other invites available) let alone
>forcing.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
I am guessing Tim is an an Acolite rather than a scientist.The latter want as
many invites as possible. As others have pointed out need help in trump is a
pretty useful one plus you are save in prempting with suits headed by AKQ or
AKJ
Tim Goodwin
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) wrote:
>The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
>they would wish to.
Natural is not enough to get around regulation. I can't, for
instance, agree to open 1S with five spades and 5 HCP. This is
clearly regulation of a natural bid.
Nor can I open a natural 1NT with 8-10 HCP and be allowed to use
conventional responses. This is a round about way of regulating a
natural bid that is also used in other areas.
Tim
Frances Hinden
> and the following has occured;
>
> 1S P 2S P
> 3S* P P P
>
> 3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
> I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
> DISALLOWED
> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
>
> Later in they give an example;
>
> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
> The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
> passing I should have been calling the director.
>
> I have 2 Questions;
>
> Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
> Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
>
> Paul
I think you are possibly right in a purely literal interpretation of
the regulations. However, as many people have said this regulation is
not aimed at pre-emptive re-raises. How do we know that? Because
lots of people play this sort of raise without penalty, and there's a
circular argument for you if ever there was one!
Although I don't play in the ACBL, the EBU has a similar prohibition
against 'random' bids. This is against the practice, for example, of
overcalling 1S over a Precision club to show any 13 cards, 0-7 spades,
just to take up bidding space.
Similarly the auction 2H P 3H.. the raise is 'pre-emptive' i.e. opener
is not allowed to bid on, the 3H bid's only purpose is to raise the
level of the auction to hurt oppo's sequences. Common sense says that
it usually has some sort of heart fit, but there's no reason (other
than some large penalties) why it should do.
Most people in England play this sequence as implying extra spade
length or extra distribution - not because they have a particular
conventional agreement, but because (particularly at pairs) they don't
want to be a level higher than the level of the fit.
Tim West-Meads
wrote:
> >The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
> >they would wish to.
>
> Natural is not enough to get around regulation. I can't, for
> instance, agree to open 1S with five spades and 5 HCP. This is
> clearly regulation of a natural bid.
The law also allows the regulation of natural opening bids at the 1 level
that are not within a king of average strength. The 3S bid does not
(according to my calculations) come into this category. In fact you may
open 1S on KQT9x,T987x,T9x,- since this hand is clearly within a king of
average strength (9.3 on the KR evaluator).
> Nor can I open a natural 1NT with 8-10 HCP and be allowed to use
> conventional responses. This is a round about way of regulating a
> natural bid that is also used in other areas.
It is a shoddy mechanism whereby SOs attempt to make natural bids hard to
play. Note that a regulation forbidding the use of conventions after
a "123 stop" sequence would not prove terribly inconvenient.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Tim West-Meads
jerr...@aol.com (Jerry6421) wrote:
> >
> >> 1S P 2S P
> >> 3S* P P
>
> >The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
> >they would wish to. I cannot understand the bridge logic which would
> make >this bid invitational (one has 4 other invites available) let
> alone >forcing.
>
> I am guessing Tim is an an Acolite rather than a scientist.The latter
> want as many invites as possible.
I can be scientific when I really try. A fifth invite seems a much less
efficient/frequent use for the bid than a "raise the barrage"
non-invitational bid. Using an artificial bid to raise the barrage gives
opponents way too much space.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Kent Feiler
>In article <c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>Fro...@hotmail.com (Frood) wrote:
>
>> DISALLOWED
>> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
>> opponents’ methods.
>>
>> Later in they give an example;
>>
>> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
>> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
>> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
Hmm, I think you're right. 1-2-3 stop does have the primary purpose
of "destroying opponents methods." The convention is perfectly
reasonable, the problem is that the ACBL regulation is severely
flawed. It was designed to deal with situations such as overcalling a
strong club with 1S showing a multitude of hands perhaps including a
4333 Yarbourough. (We used to call it WOTSY which stood for We're Out
To Screw You), but it really applies to pre-empting and psyching as
well. You could say that it applies to any situation where you bid
something you don't expect to make.
The idea of eliminating defensive bidding is silly. It's like the NFL
banning the defensive blitz because it makes it too hard for the poor
offense to run its plays!
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
V.Y. Milman
It seems to me (as to various posters in the thread) that preemptive reraise
does tell you something about the hand; even if it does not promise
an extra trump, it limits the strength of the opener's hand. Thus you
cannot use the ACBL example quoted above.
As to the claim that this convention "destroys opponents' methods": but of
course it does no such a thing. Whatever methods you play over 1S-2S,
play them over 1-2-3. You have to agree primarily on the meaning of the
double by the hand that could not double 1S; most likely it should show the
same hand that would reopen in protective position over 1-2 sequence,
just to keep it simple. 1-2-3 makes decisions more difficult, but so does
every competitive sequence. This convention does not "destroy the methods",
though.
Cheers
--
Victor Milman
Tim Goodwin
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) wrote:
>In article <3ffa1a7e.292218658@nntp>, ne...@oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin)
>wrote:
>
>> >The 3S bid is natural. The ACBL is not allowed to regulate it even if
>> >they would wish to.
>>
>> Natural is not enough to get around regulation. I can't, for
>> instance, agree to open 1S with five spades and 5 HCP. This is
>> clearly regulation of a natural bid.
>
>The law also allows the regulation of natural opening bids at the 1 level
>that are not within a king of average strength. The 3S bid does not
>(according to my calculations) come into this category. In fact you may
>open 1S on KQT9x,T987x,T9x,- since this hand is clearly within a king of
>average strength (9.3 on the KR evaluator).
My point was, in part, that the mere fact that a bid is natural does
not make it immune to regulation.
The ACBL regulation regarding opening one bids reads: "Opening one
bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP." A
while back (2 or 3 years), I tried to make a case on BLML that this
regulation was contrary to the Laws because it used HCP as the
evaluation tool of choice, when, as you show, there are other ways to
evaluate a hand. I believed that those who drafted the Laws were
careful to avoid the use of HCP for this very reason. But, the
consensus seemed to be that a SO was well within its rights to make
HCP evaluation the standard.
>> Nor can I open a natural 1NT with 8-10 HCP and be allowed to use
>> conventional responses. This is a round about way of regulating a
>> natural bid that is also used in other areas.
>
>It is a shoddy mechanism whereby SOs attempt to make natural bids hard to
>play.
Indeed.
>Note that a regulation forbidding the use of conventions after
>a "123 stop" sequence would not prove terribly inconvenient.
No, it would not. But, it would be distasteful, nonetheless.
Tim
Ben Dickens
Yes, it is very common (although somewhat less common today than in
the past).
> Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
No. 3S convey's very specific information. The information is I think
we can make 3S or at least not go down too much, and I think the
opponents may be able to compete effectively if I pass 2S. Unlike an
two earlier posters, I disagree with two comments. The first is that
2S must be alerted as "forcing to 3S". This is not the case, because
there are hands where opener will be concerned about going down too
many. Also one poster said that 3S violates LOTT... heck, 3S as 1-2-3
stop is primarily based upon LOTT. That is, with assured 9 spade fit,
3S bid is almost automatic with weakish hands.
So STOP does convey infomation. The information is "I want to play
exactly 3S". Maybe I don't think I can make it, maybe I think I can,
but either way, I think 3S is better for us than allowing them to
compete at the two level/three level.
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>Unlike an
>two earlier posters, I disagree with two comments. The first is that
>2S must be alerted as "forcing to 3S".
That comment was made in the context of opener always bidding 3S, not
in the context of the 1-2-3 stop as generally played.
Tim
Adam Beneschan
> and the following has occured;
>
> 1S P 2S P
> 3S* P P P
>
> 3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
> I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
> DISALLOWED
> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
The simple answer: 3S is a natural bid, not a convention, so the
regulation does not apply.
The Laws allow sponsoring organizations to regulate conventions and
"the partnership's initial actions at the one level" that are "a king
or more below average strength", but they may not regulate other
calls. (Not that they don't try.)
-- Adam
Gordon Rainsford
Does anyone play it that way? Would they not be able to pass a 2NT
rebid?
Nick Wedd
<jimf...@cox.net> writes
>The problem with your interpretation is that the prohibition "primary
>purpose of destroying the opponents' methods" means designed to destroy the
>methods of the *specific* opponents you are playing. 1-2-3 Stop (and
>preempts in general) are designed to destroy the methods of *all* opponents,
>not just those of *specific* opponents.
Suppose that after some sequence, my RHO bids 4NT, Blackwood of some
kind. I have a bunch of clubs, and I bid 5C. Now, against good
opponents, this is daft, I am not depriving them of bidding space, I am
giving them some extra. But I suspect my opponents are not good, and
that they have no agreement (or better, two agreements) on Blackwood
over interference.
Am I trying to destroy the methods of these specific opponents? I fear
that I am, and I must not make this bid, at least in ACBL-land. Right?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
John Blubaugh
"Adam Beneschan" <ad...@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:b4682ab7.04010...@posting.google.com...
I wonder how many of the average members of the ACBL pay any attention to
what it says or does in regard to these regulations? I expect that most
players just ignore them and go on their merry way.
John Blubaugh
Eric Kehr
"Kent Feiler" <zz...@zzzz.com> wrote in message
news:80blvvsuvndjobi3p...@4ax.com...
>
> >In article <c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >Fro...@hotmail.com (Frood) wrote:
> >
> >> DISALLOWED
> >> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
the
> >> opponents' methods.
> >>
> >> Later in they give an example;
> >>
> >> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> >> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> >> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Hmm, I think you're right. 1-2-3 stop does have the primary purpose
> of "destroying opponents methods." The convention is perfectly
> reasonable, the problem is that the ACBL regulation is severely
> flawed. It was designed to deal with situations such as overcalling a
> strong club with 1S showing a multitude of hands perhaps including a
> 4333 Yarbourough. (We used to call it WOTSY which stood for We're Out
> To Screw You), but it really applies to pre-empting and psyching as
> well. You could say that it applies to any situation where you bid
> something you don't expect to make.
I don't think this is right. If eg the par contract on a hand is 4SX-2, then
pre-empting to 4S even if you know it won't make would not fall under this
definition. Even if it does "destroy the opponents' methods", it does not
appear to be its "primary purpose".
Maybe one could say a convention/agreement has the primary purpose of
destroying opponents' methods if it has a sufficiently high probability
(50%? 75%?) of leading to a contract above the par contract for the hand.
> The idea of eliminating defensive bidding is silly. It's like the NFL
> banning the defensive blitz because it makes it too hard for the poor
> offense to run its plays!
Eric Kehr
Eric Kehr
"Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EdpS6zaLSv+$EA...@maproom.demon.co.uk...
Eric Kehr
Olle Morell
news:d30df517.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Although I don't play in the ACBL, the EBU has a similar prohibition
> against 'random' bids. This is against the practice, for example, of
> overcalling 1S over a Precision club to show any 13 cards, 0-7 spades,
> just to take up bidding space.
One major argument for this regulation is that in reality the "could be any
hand" thing tends to be not true, and it becomes a non-full disclosure
problem. Better forbid it.
Olle
John Blubaugh
"Olle Morell" <mor...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:q4FKb.45224$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net...
opponents deal with interference, you might as well throw in the towel. Any
system allowed to proceed without interference will usually get to the
proper contract. That is why it is so imperative to get in these auctions
and cause trouble. If not, why not just pick up the cards and award the
board to who ever has an opening hand and forget about being competitive or
defensive in the bidding. Pretty boring game in my mind.
Who could enjoy this kind of bridge?
John Blubaugh
Olle Morell
news:xcFKb.238751$8y1.1077532@attbi_s52...
I have no problem with entering the auction with garbage. However, people
that bid 1S and say "it shows any hand" tends not to have "any hand", but
tends to build up a knowledge on what hands that partner (doesn't) enter the
bidding with.
Therefore let them define aggressive defenses, but with some defined
characteristics.
With one of my partners I have a defence against strong clubs that is
basically "natural or psychic"; if the opps are interested we inform that
the typical psyches are one other suit, or the other three suits, but could
sometimes also be a two suiter we hope to be able to show later in some way
(no artificíal bailouts defined except RD=SOS). The nuance here is that the
opposition then knows as much as me and my partner. If we just answered "any
hand", it would basically be true, but the frequency of our bids would not
correspond to any random hand. Thus that would not be full disclosure.
Olle
Thomas Dehn
"Olle Morell" <mor...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I have no problem with entering the auction with garbage. However, people
> that bid 1S and say "it shows any hand" tends not to have "any hand", but
> tends to build up a knowledge on what hands that partner (doesn't) enter the
> bidding with.
I know at least on pair who played that when nonvul and
RHO opened a strong club, 1 spade must always be bid,
regardless of the hand.
Thomas
Kent Feiler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's exactly its primary purpose. If you think 4S is going down
two, then why aren't you bidding 2S? The only reason to bid four is
the hope that opponents won't have enough bidding space to make a good
5-level decision, i.e. destroying their usual methods.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Eric Kehr
it even if it doesn't destroy the opponents' methods. So how can destroying
opponents' methods be the primary purpose of the bid?
Eric
Tim West-Meads
> That's exactly its primary purpose. If you think 4S is going down
> two, then why aren't you bidding 2S? The only reason to bid four is
> the hope that opponents won't have enough bidding space to make a good
> 5-level decision, i.e. destroying their usual methods.
There is, IMO, a difference between a bid designed to consume the
available bidding space and one which is made in the expectation that
opponents will, by its strangeness alone, find themselves unable to
express their hands.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Gordon Rainsford
That's why the regulation seems poorly worded: because if the words are
interpreted in their usual manner, it would prohibit all pre-emptive
bidding of any sort.
Eric Leong
> I have had a couple of hands recently at Club game's in the last year
> and the following has occured;
>
> 1S P 2S P
> 3S* P P P
>
> 3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
> I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
> opponents’ methods.
>
> Later in they give an example;
>
> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
> passing I should have been calling the director.
>
> I have 2 Questions;
>
>
Even if 1-2-3 stop was banned, one could essentially play 1-2-3 stop
by just having the agreement that 3S asks partner to bid 4S if he has
the top three honors in trumps. Since partner will hardly ever have
it, you are essentially playing a practical 1-2-3 stop.
Eric Leong
John (MadDog) Probst
Rainsford <r...@gordonrainsford.co.uk> writes
>Kent Feiler <zz...@zzzz.com> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> Hmm, I think you're right. 1-2-3 stop does have the primary purpose
>> >> of "destroying opponents methods." The convention is perfectly
>> >> reasonable, the problem is that the ACBL regulation is severely
>> >> flawed. It was designed to deal with situations such as overcalling a
>> >> strong club with 1S showing a multitude of hands perhaps including a
>> >> 4333 Yarbourough. (We used to call it WOTSY which stood for We're Out
>> >> To Screw You), but it really applies to pre-empting and psyching as
>> >> well. You could say that it applies to any situation where you bid
>> >> something you don't expect to make.
>> >
>> >I don't think this is right. If eg the par contract on a hand is 4SX-2, then
>> >pre-empting to 4S even if you know it won't make would not fall under this
>> >definition. Even if it does "destroy the opponents' methods", it does not
>> >appear to be its "primary purpose".
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> That's exactly its primary purpose. If you think 4S is going down
>> two, then why aren't you bidding 2S? The only reason to bid four is
>> the hope that opponents won't have enough bidding space to make a good
>> 5-level decision, i.e. destroying their usual methods.
I think there's a difference between *ob*structive and *de*structive
>
>That's why the regulation seems poorly worded: because if the words are
>interpreted in their usual manner, it would prohibit all pre-emptive
>bidding of any sort.
>
--
John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798
451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |jo...@asimere.com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john
John Blubaugh
"Eric Leong" <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:db571a5d.04010...@posting.google.com...
Nice treatment. Do you apply that fractured logic to anything you play now
so that you can violate the rules?
John Blubaugh
John Blubaugh
> I think there's a difference between *ob*structive and *de*structive
> >
Perhaps one person's "obstructive" is another person's "destructive."
Enjoy your bridge but don't cause any problems for the opponents,
John Blubaugh
Tim West-Meads
> Even if 1-2-3 stop was banned, one could essentially play 1-2-3 stop
> by just having the agreement that 3S asks partner to bid 4S if he has
> the top three honors in trumps. Since partner will hardly ever have
> it, you are essentially playing a practical 1-2-3 stop.
Assigning a conventional meaning to bid makes it more likely to be banned
rather than less. Nor would using the call in such a fashion change the
primary purpose (to consume bidding space).
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Eric Leong
> "Eric Leong" <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:db571a5d.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > Frood <Fro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > I have had a couple of hands recently at Club game's in the last year
> > > and the following has occured;
> > >
> > > 1S P 2S P
> > > 3S* P P P
> > >
> > > 3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
> > >
> > > I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
> > >
> > > DISALLOWED
> > > 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
> > >
> > > Later in they give an example;
> > >
> > > Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> > > the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> > > nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
> > >
> > > The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
> > > passing I should have been calling the director.
> > >
> > > I have 2 Questions;
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
> > > Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Even if 1-2-3 stop was banned, one could essentially play 1-2-3 stop
> > by just having the agreement that 3S asks partner to bid 4S if he has
> > the top three honors in trumps. Since partner will hardly ever have
> > it, you are essentially playing a practical 1-2-3 stop.
> >
> > Eric Leong
>
> Nice treatment. Do you apply that fractured logic to anything you play now
> so that you can violate the rules?
>
> John Blubaugh
Could you be more specific?
Your "arguments" are good on labels but short on reasons.
Eric Leong
APBluthman
>From: ewleo...@hotmail.com (Eric Leong)
>Date: 1/8/2004 12:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <db571a5d.0401...@posting.google.com>
This debate about 1-2-3 Stop! seems to be completely wrongheaded. A re-raise,
showing values in the suit named (such as extra length or additional high card
strength), or even expressly denying additional values, whether intended to bid
to make or to go down, is a natural bid, not a convention or an unusual
treatment. One cannot be barred from making a natural bid to an intended final
contract.
The language "a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
up bidding space" just does not apply to 1-2-3 Stop!. because the bidder is
telling something about his hand - typically, that he has no more than the
values needed to pass 2M, and is bidding for down one. He is not bidding
arbitrarily or with caprice ("a bid telling nothing"), but with a legitimate
preemptive purpose.
The language "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the opponents'
methods are not allowed" is not the same thing as an agreement merely designed
to use up bidding space where the opponents have not applied their "methods" to
the auction at hand. Indeed, the "primary purpose" of 1-2-3 Stop! is not to
destroy opponents' methods but to make a mild sacrifice. Are all preemptive
calls to be banned because they interfere with the opponents' methods?
(Yes, there is a counterargument to all of this, namely that 1-2-3 Stop!
"destroys" the opponents' opportunity to balance. But even this is not being
done with arbitrariness or caprice. So it should not be seen as illegal.)
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
Nick Wedd
<apblu...@aol.com> writes
>This debate about 1-2-3 Stop! seems to be completely wrongheaded. A re-raise,
>showing values in the suit named (such as extra length or additional high card
>strength), or even expressly denying additional values, whether intended to bid
>to make or to go down, is a natural bid, not a convention or an unusual
>treatment. One cannot be barred from making a natural bid to an intended final
>contract.
>
>The language "a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
>up bidding space" just does not apply to 1-2-3 Stop!. because the bidder is
>telling something about his hand - typically, that he has no more than the
>values needed to pass 2M, and is bidding for down one. He is not bidding
>arbitrarily or with caprice ("a bid telling nothing"), but with a legitimate
>preemptive purpose.
>
>The language "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the opponents'
>methods are not allowed" is not the same thing as an agreement merely designed
>to use up bidding space where the opponents have not applied their "methods" to
>the auction at hand. Indeed, the "primary purpose" of 1-2-3 Stop! is not to
>destroy opponents' methods but to make a mild sacrifice. Are all preemptive
>calls to be banned because they interfere with the opponents' methods?
>
>(Yes, there is a counterargument to all of this, namely that 1-2-3 Stop!
>"destroys" the opponents' opportunity to balance. But even this is not being
>done with arbitrariness or caprice. So it should not be seen as illegal.)
Ok, so what _does_ "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
example?
Peter Leighton
No, because preempts have this as their primary purpose.
This is why the rule is wrong-headed. It simply gives the
regulators license to ban UNPOPULAR agreements.
Peter
> --
> Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Eric Leong
The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
probably unlikely to have. For instance, if you are playing the
sequence requests bidding four with the three top trumps well you know
partner is unlikely to have three top trumps so he isn't going to
four. Also, if you had one of the top trumps you know partner can't go
to four. Perhaps, if one wanted to disguise this further by weakening
the requirements, one could say 1-2-3 requests partner accepting game
if say he has strong trumps such as 3 out of the top five honors. In
which case, you still know partner is still very unlikely to raise to
four and if you did have a trump holding such as QJ10xxx you know
partner can't have a defined raise to four. So in essence, you are
still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
Eric Leong
Kent Feiler
the auction goes 1H-P-2H-P back to you and you have a 6th heart, you
bid 3H immediately instead of waiting for it to continue P-2S-P
...and then bidding 3H.
But that auction does show a 6th heart to get you up to nine trump.
Bidding it with 5 hearts is just bad bidding. The same idea continues
by responder in auctions like:
1S P 2S P
P X 3S
...showing 4th trump but NOT showing a maximum or any extra values.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Kent Feiler
>showing values in the suit named (such as extra length or additional high card
>up bidding space" just does not apply to 1-2-3 Stop!. because the bidder is
>telling something about his hand - typically, that he has no more than the
>values needed to pass 2M, and is bidding for down one. He is not bidding
>arbitrarily or with caprice ("a bid telling nothing"), but with a legitimate
>preemptive purpose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's go back to the original situation that prompted this language in
the rules, bidding 1S over a strong 1C with ultra-weak balanced hands.
I consider that to be a legitimate pre-emptive purpose, and one that
works a lot better and is a lot more valuable than 1-2-3 stop. When
your RHO opens a strong 1C and you hold xxx xxx xxx xxxx, and let's
throw in that you're NV vrs V to add some fuel to the fire.
(1) You know it's your opponent's hand, so the whole idea of
normal competitive bidding goes out the window. You aren't going to
"win" the contract except at some ruinous cost.
(2) You know that it's very difficult to double one-level bids
for penalties, particularly before either opponent has had a chance to
show their hand.
(3) You know that strong club systems are very good at reaching
the right contract -- if you leave them alone. Granovetter-Rubin
demonstrated that by winning about 99 straight BW Challenge the Champs
matches. Why? No opponents screwing up their auctions.
(4) You know that there has never been a successful "strong spade"
system played anywhere.
So 1S over a strong 1C with that hand is VERY pre-emptive and
completely legitimate. I think the reason it was barred is that it
was too effective, and the purveyors of Precision and Orange club
systems didn't like it. Too bad, I think bridge would be a lot more
colorful if strictly defensive bidding were allowed.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>Ok, so what _does_ "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
>opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
>example?
I believe an example often cited (and one which I believe has been
mentioned in this thread) is an agreement to always bid 1S when the
opponents open a strong 1C.
One which the C&C Committee and the ACBL Board recently decreed is a
weak opening two-bid which does not promise more than 4-4 in two
suits. The specific convention which prompted this (I believe) is a
2D opening which shows 4+ diamonds and 4+ in a major (and a weak
hand).
Tim
David Stevenson
>The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
>1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
>define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
>acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
>probably unlikely to have. For instance, if you are playing the
>sequence requests bidding four with the three top trumps well you know
>partner is unlikely to have three top trumps so he isn't going to
>four. Also, if you had one of the top trumps you know partner can't go
>to four. Perhaps, if one wanted to disguise this further by weakening
>the requirements, one could say 1-2-3 requests partner accepting game
>if say he has strong trumps such as 3 out of the top five honors. In
>which case, you still know partner is still very unlikely to raise to
>four and if you did have a trump holding such as QJ10xxx you know
>partner can't have a defined raise to four. So in essence, you are
>still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
If your aim is really to deliberately get round regs then I think the
authorities will merely retaliate. After all, it is their judgement,
not yours, that matters at the end of the day.
It seems a total waste of time to me. First, we know perfectly well
that the ACBL does not ban 1-2-3 stop, and second, if they did ban it
you would not play it because they would throw you out if necessary.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
David Stevenson
for the third time on this thread, the original example that started
all this was a 1S bid over an opponent's 1C that showed 12-14 cards.
Tim West-Meads
> For instance, if you are playing the
> sequence requests bidding four with the three top trumps well you know
> partner is unlikely to have three top trumps so he isn't going to
> four. Also, if you had one of the top trumps you know partner can't go
> to four.
In this latter case you are clearly *not* playing the 3S as any sort of
asking bid. On a frequency basis the bid should be described along the
lines of "Normally pre-emptive with one or more spade honours but asking
partner to bid 4 with the top 3 honours".
> Perhaps, if one wanted to disguise this further by weakening
> the requirements, one could say 1-2-3 requests partner accepting game
> if say he has strong trumps such as 3 out of the top five honors. In
> which case, you still know partner is still very unlikely to raise to
> four and if you did have a trump holding such as QJ10xxx you know
> partner can't have a defined raise to four. So in essence, you are
> still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
When the system is disclosed the pair must describe *how* the system is
used and the hands typically shown. Mind you even if I had agreed to play
"123 stop" I'd likely go on to 4 with AKxx and a maximum!
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Arthur Hoffman
"Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote in message > Ok, so what _does_
"agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
> opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
> example?
I believe the following is an example of a convention proscribed in the ACBL
as destructive to opponents methods.
In the ACBL General Convention Chart the following appears:
"... 7. Defense to ... b. Natural no trump opening bids and overcalls except
that direct calls, other than double and 2 Clubs, must have at least one
known suit."
In the ACBL the TWERB defense (more commonly known as "Suction") is not
permitted over an opening NT because of this rule. TWERB means you either
have a one suited hand, next higher suit, or a touching two suited hand, two
lower. For example, if 1 NT is overcalled with 2H, you have either a one
suited hand in spades or a two suited hand in the minors. This defense is
prohibited (in the ACBL) because the bid is higher than 2C and there is no
"known suit".
When the ACBL adopted this rule in 1997, it was done so because such
conventions were considered "destructive" to opponents methods. Someone in
the know wrote that the Board thought it was attempting to remove something
that put some players at an unfair disadvantage. I believe this was
explained thusly in the ACBL Bulletin at the time (although I do not now
have a copy of the article).
My long time partner at the time made an excellent well reasoned appeal to
allow TWERB in a letter to the Board of Directors but the letter apparently
was unaccountably left out of the "mail packet" for some Board members to
review before their vote on the issue. It was reported however that there
was extensive discussion on the issue, but not much if any on TWERB, before
the rule was adopted.
Adam Beneschan
> The language "a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to
> use
> up bidding space" just does not apply to 1-2-3 Stop!. because the bidder is
> telling something about his hand - typically, that he has no more than the
> values needed to pass 2M, and is bidding for down one. He is not bidding
> arbitrarily or with caprice ("a bid telling nothing"), but with a legitimate
> preemptive purpose.
I think a good description of the meaning of 3S is: "If we weren't
playing 1-2-3 Stop, I would most likely compete to 3S on my own if the
opponents balanced."
-- Adam
Thomas Dehn
"Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
> Ok, so what _does_ "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
> opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
> example?
2S = any 0-7.
Thomas
Kent Feiler
<ar...@adelphia.INVALID (replace with net)> wrote:
>
>"Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote in message > Ok, so what _does_
>"agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
>> opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
>> example?
>
>I believe the following is an example of a convention proscribed in the ACBL
>as destructive to opponents methods.
>
>In the ACBL General Convention Chart the following appears:
>
>"... 7. Defense to ... b. Natural no trump opening bids and overcalls except
>that direct calls, other than double and 2 Clubs, must have at least one
>known suit."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder when the "...and 2C" part was introduced, since that's the
only way Cappaletti is allowed. Maybe it's just a name thing; ACBL
officials like Cappaletti better than Suction.
BTW, how did Multi-2D overcome the "must have at least one known suit"
barrier.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Ron Johnson
Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ok, so what _does_ "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
>opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
>example?
Sure. A random 1S overcall over a big club.
I know it's not allowed in the ACBL.
--
RNJ
tlgoodwin
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UaOKqcHPBY$$Ew...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> Eric Leong wrote
>
> >The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
> >1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
> >define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
> >acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
> >still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
>
> If your aim is really to deliberately get round regs then I think the
> authorities will merely retaliate. After all, it is their judgement,
> not yours, that matters at the end of the day.
One person's "deliberately get round regs" may be another person's "take
fair advantage of flaws in the regs." Either way, it is entirely appropriate
to do whatever you can, within the rules, to avoid the effects of especially
foolish regulations.
And that last statement, about the judgment of the Regulators mattering
so much more than the judgment of the regulated, is merely . . .
frightening.
>
> It seems a total waste of time to me. First, we know perfectly well
> that the ACBL does not ban 1-2-3 stop, and second, if they did ban it
> you would not play it because they would throw you out if necessary.
>
So the principle is that it really doesn't matter just what the
regulations say, because "we know perfectly well" what the ACBL intends? I
am of the school that believes the regulation in question -- the one that
bars methods intended to destroy the opponents' methods -- is ambiguous.
Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much question that it applies to the
b*llsh*t spade overcall of a strong club. But the application to many other
methods, especially preemptive methods, is a lot less clear. It would be
less than "a total waste of time" for the Regulators to exercise their
superior judgment by cleaning up ambiguous regulations, rather than by
retaliating against those who point out the ambiguities.
T. L. Goodwin
Paul Hightower
> One more try;
>
> (e.g., a bid telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use
> up bidding space).
>
> Now you sit down and the bidding procedes as explained;
>
> 1S p 2S p
> 3S*
>
> You ask about the 3S bid alert,
> Does it show extra length "NO"
> Does it ask to bid on with honors "NO"
> Do you know anything more about his hand "NO"
> Is there any time you are supposed to bid on "NO"
If 3S is bid routinely, I think you should just smile since the opps
have saved you the trouble of pushing them up one level. 3S is an
ideal contract -- for the defenders!
As commonly played, and described 30+ years ago by Bobby Goldman in
Aces Scientific, 1-2-3 stop indicates extra shape, and is made for
exactly the same reasons as 2S-3S: we expect to get a better score
playing 3S than defending against 3C, 3D or 3H, and bidding now rather
than later may block the opponents from reaching 4H, or goad them into
overbidding. But the essential bet is that your side will show a
profit if allowed to play 3S.
David Stevenson
The Multi 2D is not permitted at GCC.
However, the barrier is not absolute, anyway. There are various
specific rules in the GCC, and I do not see their relevance to the
general one we have been discussing in this thread.
John Blubaugh
"tlgoodwin" <good...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:BLmLb.9628$uF6.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I am starting to get worried. I agree with you ;)
John Blubaugh
APBluthman
wrote:
"So the principle is that it really doesn't matter just what the regulations
say, because "we know perfectly well" what the ACBL intends? I am of the school
that believes the regulation in question -- the one that bars methods intended
to destroy the opponents' methods -- is ambiguous."
Agreed. But natural calls, intending to play a contract in a suit bid and
supported in the partnership, are not among them.
Let us try to understand some of the features of the automatic 1S call over the
opponents' Precisionesque 1C opening (the major impetus for this rule):
1. It neither promises not denies a holding in the bid suit, and so is not a
natursl call nor a "standard" treatment.
2. It neither promises or denies general high card values, so whether it is
strong or weak is not known.
3. Its' variability makes its meaning completely unknown to any of the other
three players (including the advancer, the bidder's partner).
4. As a consequence of 3, it is impossible either for advancer to know whether
or how to advance, or for the opener's side to know how to cope.
5. In its complete randomness, it looks like a psyche. Yet, it cannot be
regulated under the present rules governing psyches: there is no gross
deviation from any agreed meaning of the call because the call has no agreed
meaning in the partnership that uses it.
Yet, if any sort of bid warrants banning, it is a bid totally without meaning
(hence, without any possible disclosure of meaning or opportunity to devise
methods against it) and made solely because it is the player's turn to bid. The
only thing a bridge legislator can do with it is to ban its use, along with all
other purely random, grossly destructive calls.
Are we all clear on this?
Now compare this 1S overcall with the 1-2-3 Stop! sequence. The 1-2-3 Stop!
sequence is narrowly defined - promising trump length and a relatively narrow
range of strength, which may vary based on vulnerability. Its principal purpose
is not to disrupt the opponents' auction (they have not bid as yet), but merely
to prevent opener's LHO from balancing before opener makes a re-raise he
probably intends to (be forced to) make anyway.
Moreover, the ACBL has never taken any position either banning or restricting
the use of 1-2-3 Stop! (so far as I am aware, and no one here has pointed to
any direct statement of ACBL policy).
So, one must reach the conclusion that here in the ACBL, 1-2-3 Stop! is
allowable.
"Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much question that it applies to the
b*llsh*t spade overcall of a strong club."
"But the application to many other
methods, especially preemptive methods, is a lot less clear."
This is not entirely accurate. The ACBL has, at different times in its history,
specified strength ranges and minimum suit length for allowable preempts.
Today, these restrictions are almost completely gone (at least so far as the
bidding of 99% of the members is unencumbered by the last vestiges of
regulation - a minimum of five cards to a weak two bid.) The ACBL has never in
its history gone so far as to ban any form of natural preempt (though
conventional preempts, like all other conventions, are subject to regulation as
conventions).
"It would be less than "a total waste of time" for the Regulators to exercise
their
superior judgment by cleaning up ambiguous regulations, rather than by
retaliating against those who point out the ambiguities."
The language of the current "anti-spoiler" regulation may certainly be
improved. A statement of intention, and citing examples of allowable and
prohibited calls from actual practice, would go far towards cleaning up any
ambiguities, and ameliorate disputes such as the one in which we are
presently.engaged.
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
APBluthman
>Date: 1/8/2004 7:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <6bb14ced.04010...@posting.google.com>
Paul:
Let us ask some different questions:
You are NV at MP:
1. Does 3S deny what you have already shown by your 1S opening? NO.
2. Does 3S express a fear that LHO would balance? YES.
3. Is it possible (leave aside "promises") for opener to hold extra spade
length? YES.
4. Does opener hold extra high card or defensive strength? NO
5. Is he bidding to make? Not usually at this vulnerability; but always when
vulnerable (opener does not want to be doubled for -200).
Now let us consider your last two questions:
"Do you know anything more about his hand." YES. Both partner and the opponents
know more about the opener's hand, specifically that he is willing to concede
down one NV and is bidding to make Vul.
"Is there any time you are supposed to bid on?" Agreed, NO. Responder will not
bid on.
Clearly, 1-2-3 Stop!, whatever its merits overall, is a narrow-range tactical
bid. It is not random, and does not disrupt opponents' methods (or even their
auction).
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
Adam Beneschan
> "Nick Wedd" <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote in message > Ok, so what _does_
> "agreements with a primary purpose of destroying the
> > opponents' methods" mean? Can someone give a simple uncontentious
> > example?
>
> I believe the following is an example of a convention proscribed in the ACBL
> as destructive to opponents methods.
>
> In the ACBL General Convention Chart the following appears:
>
> "... 7. Defense to ... b. Natural no trump opening bids and overcalls except
> that direct calls, other than double and 2 Clubs, must have at least one
> known suit."
> In the ACBL the TWERB defense (more commonly known as "Suction") is not
> permitted over an opening NT because of this rule.
However, I'm not sure it qualifies as a convention with the "primary"
purpose of destroying the opponents' methods. That phrase, I believe,
applies mainly to agreements that say next to nothing about one's
hand. Suction definitely says something: it says you have either a
specific one-suiter or a specific two-suiter. Maybe it's hard to
defend against (though I don't recall having a problem the few times
I've run up against it), but I don't think it answers Nick's question.
> TWERB means you either
> have a one suited hand, next higher suit, or a touching two suited hand, two
> lower. For example, if 1 NT is overcalled with 2H, you have either a one
> suited hand in spades or a two suited hand in the minors. This defense is
> prohibited (in the ACBL) because the bid is higher than 2C and there is no
> "known suit".
One other point: as far as I know, it's not prohibited in *all* of the
ACBL. My recollection is that this prohibition was so controversial
that when the ACBL adopted it, they made it clear that individual
districts could allow Suction and other defenses against 1NT openers
if they wished, in their own tournaments. I believe all the
California districts allow it. It's not allowed at NABC events where
the GCC is in use (but it's permitted by the Mid-Chart).
-- Adam
David Stevenson
>>
>> >The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
>> >1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
>> >define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
>> >acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
>> >probably unlikely to have. [Details omitted.] So in essence, you are
>> >still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
>>
>> If your aim is really to deliberately get round regs then I think the
>> authorities will merely retaliate. After all, it is their judgement,
>> not yours, that matters at the end of the day.
>
> One person's "deliberately get round regs" may be another person's "take
>fair advantage of flaws in the regs." Either way, it is entirely appropriate
>to do whatever you can, within the rules, to avoid the effects of especially
>foolish regulations.
Sure. But not to get round essentially sensible regs because oyu can
find a tiny flaw in them if you look carefully.
> And that last statement, about the judgment of the Regulators mattering
>so much more than the judgment of the regulated, is merely . . .
>frightening.
Oh, tush. This idea that the people who run bridge are a bunch of
ogres whose only aim in life is to feather their own nest and have no
thoughts for the game itself is just silly, though exceptionally
prevalent on RGB.
If people follow their own rules you get anarchy: you need authority
for the game to run at all.
>> It seems a total waste of time to me. First, we know perfectly well
>> that the ACBL does not ban 1-2-3 stop, and second, if they did ban it
>> you would not play it because they would throw you out if necessary.
>>
> So the principle is that it really doesn't matter just what the
>regulations say, because "we know perfectly well" what the ACBL intends? I
>am of the school that believes the regulation in question -- the one that
>bars methods intended to destroy the opponents' methods -- is ambiguous.
>Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much question that it applies to the
>b*llsh*t spade overcall of a strong club. But the application to many other
>methods, especially preemptive methods, is a lot less clear. It would be
>less than "a total waste of time" for the Regulators to exercise their
>superior judgment by cleaning up ambiguous regulations, rather than by
>retaliating against those who point out the ambiguities.
So easy to say, isn't it? Quite impossible to do, of course. There
will always be glitches in regs, whatever you do, especially if people
are deliberately looking for flaws.
Jürgen R.
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>tlgoodwin wrote
>>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> Eric Leong wrote
>>>
>>> >The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
>>> >1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
>>> >define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
>>> >acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
>>> >probably unlikely to have. [Details omitted.] So in essence, you are
>>> >still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
>>>
>>> If your aim is really to deliberately get round regs then I think the
>>> authorities will merely retaliate. After all, it is their judgement,
>>> not yours, that matters at the end of the day.
>>
>> One person's "deliberately get round regs" may be another person's "take
>>fair advantage of flaws in the regs." Either way, it is entirely appropriate
>>to do whatever you can, within the rules, to avoid the effects of especially
>>foolish regulations.
>
> Sure. But not to get round essentially sensible regs because oyu can
>find a tiny flaw in them if you look carefully.
Sure, but we are discussing a gross flaw.
If regulators think it their duty to restrict bidding then they either
must do this without any ambiguity at all, or they will, on occasion,
replace the player's judgment by the judgment of a random TD. The
latter is an absurd way to play a game, even if the TD is well trained
and a competent bridge player, which is rarely the case in a typical
ACBL club game.
>
>> And that last statement, about the judgment of the Regulators mattering
>>so much more than the judgment of the regulated, is merely . . .
>>frightening.
>
> Oh, tush. This idea that the people who run bridge are a bunch of
>ogres whose only aim in life is to feather their own nest and have no
>thoughts for the game itself is just silly, though exceptionally
>prevalent on RGB.
This is not what Tom was saying.
>
> If people follow their own rules you get anarchy: you need authority
>for the game to run at all.
You are, as you often do, setting up straw men that are easier to face
than the real problem. Of course, the game needs (unambiguous) rules.
Whether proscriptions of specific bids, or of categories of bids,
should be among these rules may well be doubted. But if such rules are
made then the forbidden methods should be unambiguously defined. This
is quite possible if the members of the responsible committees were
chosen for their ability to think and write clearly.
>
>>> It seems a total waste of time to me. First, we know perfectly well
>>> that the ACBL does not ban 1-2-3 stop, and second, if they did ban it
>>> you would not play it because they would throw you out if necessary.
>>>
>> So the principle is that it really doesn't matter just what the
>>regulations say, because "we know perfectly well" what the ACBL intends? I
>>am of the school that believes the regulation in question -- the one that
>>bars methods intended to destroy the opponents' methods -- is ambiguous.
>>Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much question that it applies to the
>>b*llsh*t spade overcall of a strong club. But the application to many other
>>methods, especially preemptive methods, is a lot less clear. It would be
>>less than "a total waste of time" for the Regulators to exercise their
>>superior judgment by cleaning up ambiguous regulations, rather than by
>>retaliating against those who point out the ambiguities.
>
> So easy to say, isn't it? Quite impossible to do, of course.
Why impossible? Because of feather-bedding?
David Stevenson
>Clearly, 1-2-3 Stop!, whatever its merits overall, is a narrow-range tactical
>bid. It is not random, and does not disrupt opponents' methods (or even their
>auction).
I do not understand the reason for this, which seems totally
irrelevant - but so does half this thread anyway.
But it is certainly untrue - of course it disrupts the opponent's
auction by taking room away.
David Stevenson
>On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:21:13 +0000 (UTC), David Stevenson
><bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>tlgoodwin wrote
>>>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> Eric Leong wrote
>>>>
>>>> >The point I was trying to make that even if say the ACBL tried to bar
>>>> >1-2-3 stop they logically couldn't because all you have to do is
>>>> >define 1-2-3 as an invitational sequence which requests game
>>>> >acceptance from partner if he has certain type cards which he is
>>>> >probably unlikely to have. [Details omitted.] So in essence, you are
>>>> >still playing 1-2-3 stop without having to announce your intentions.
>>>>
>>>> If your aim is really to deliberately get round regs then I think the
>>>> authorities will merely retaliate. After all, it is their judgement,
>>>> not yours, that matters at the end of the day.
>>>
>>> One person's "deliberately get round regs" may be another person's "take
>>>fair advantage of flaws in the regs." Either way, it is entirely appropriate
>>>to do whatever you can, within the rules, to avoid the effects of especially
>>>foolish regulations.
>>
>> Sure. But not to get round essentially sensible regs because oyu can
>>find a tiny flaw in them if you look carefully.
>
>Sure, but we are discussing a gross flaw.
Absolute rubbish. A gross flaw would be one where people are often
going wrong: that is not the case here. sure, people on RGB love making
these sort of arguments when they find tiny flaws, but where the general
intent of a reg is understood, and where there are not lots of problems
caused by any ambiguity, then it is not a gross flaw.
>If regulators think it their duty to restrict bidding then they either
>must do this without any ambiguity at all, or they will, on occasion,
>replace the player's judgment by the judgment of a random TD. The
>latter is an absurd way to play a game, even if the TD is well trained
>and a competent bridge player, which is rarely the case in a typical
>ACBL club game.
So what? This so-called flaw does not cause such problems in fact,
and that is all that matters.
>> If people follow their own rules you get anarchy: you need authority
>>for the game to run at all.
>
>You are, as you often do, setting up straw men that are easier to face
>than the real problem. Of course, the game needs (unambiguous) rules.
>Whether proscriptions of specific bids, or of categories of bids,
>should be among these rules may well be doubted. But if such rules are
>made then the forbidden methods should be unambiguously defined. This
>is quite possible if the members of the responsible committees were
>chosen for their ability to think and write clearly.
You are, as you often do, trying to avoid arguing on the main point by
producing irrelevancies, and attacking people who are doing their best.
>>> So the principle is that it really doesn't matter just what the
>>>regulations say, because "we know perfectly well" what the ACBL intends? I
>>>am of the school that believes the regulation in question -- the one that
>>>bars methods intended to destroy the opponents' methods -- is ambiguous.
>>>Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much question that it applies to the
>>>b*llsh*t spade overcall of a strong club. But the application to many other
>>>methods, especially preemptive methods, is a lot less clear. It would be
>>>less than "a total waste of time" for the Regulators to exercise their
>>>superior judgment by cleaning up ambiguous regulations, rather than by
>>>retaliating against those who point out the ambiguities.
>>
>> So easy to say, isn't it? Quite impossible to do, of course.
>
>Why impossible? Because of feather-bedding?
It is impossible to devise regs without glitches - why do you think
that governments have so many people interpreting their taxes, and so
many lawyers and accountants are interpreting them differently on the
other side.
It is very easy to sit back and criticise something. But it is a fact
that avoiding glitches in regs is only possible by simplifying them to
the degree where they hardly say anything relevant at all.
Kent Feiler
>Agreed. But natural calls, intending to play a contract in a suit bid and
>supported in the partnership, are not among them.
>
>Let us try to understand some of the features of the automatic 1S call over the
>opponents' Precisionesque 1C opening (the major impetus for this rule):
>
>1. It neither promises not denies a holding in the bid suit, and so is not a
>natursl call nor a "standard" treatment.
>
>2. It neither promises or denies general high card values, so whether it is
>strong or weak is not known.
>
>3. Its' variability makes its meaning completely unknown to any of the other
>three players (including the advancer, the bidder's partner).
>
>4. As a consequence of 3, it is impossible either for advancer to know whether
>or how to advance, or for the opener's side to know how to cope.
>
>5. In its complete randomness, it looks like a psyche. Yet, it cannot be
>regulated under the present rules governing psyches: there is no gross
>deviation from any agreed meaning of the call because the call has no agreed
>meaning in the partnership that uses it.
>
>Yet, if any sort of bid warrants banning, it is a bid totally without meaning
>(hence, without any possible disclosure of meaning or opportunity to devise
>methods against it) and made solely because it is the player's turn to bid. The
>only thing a bridge legislator can do with it is to ban its use, along with all
>other purely random, grossly destructive calls.
>
>Are we all clear on this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oops. sorry, not at all clear. When I played this convention we
alerted 1S as being either 0-9 balanced or 5+ cd spades. That bid is
actually better defined than an auction of say, 1C-DBL.
The ACBL's objection had nothing to do with lack of definition, what
they didn't like was:
(1) the fact that there was no attempt at constructive bidding,
(2) the fact that the bottom end of the range went down to zero,
(3) the fact that no suit was identified.
They ignored their own regulations which (somewhere) said that if
response to opponents conventional bid you could play a home-brew
convention of your own.
Don't buy into this silly terminology they're using. THERE'S NOTHING
WRONG WITH DESTRUCTIVE BIDDING! Every sport or game you can mention
tries to disrupt the opponents activities when they have you seriously
outgunned. It's usually called, "Defense" instead of "Destructive."
Paranoid thoughts, the real reasons for the rule:
(1) Grandma and grandpa called the ACBL and said they read the
Precision book yesterday and today two young kids used a weird
convention against their 1C bid, and they were going to quit the ACBL
and stop paying their dues unless they put a stop to that nonsense
immediately.
(2) Influential members of the ACBL board at the time were selling
a lot of strong club books and didn't like seeing their system
massacred in tournament play.
Can't help the paranoia. Are you sure they're not after me?
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
David Stevenson
>The ACBL's objection had nothing to do with lack of definition, what
>they didn't like was:
>
> (1) the fact that there was no attempt at constructive bidding,
> (2) the fact that the bottom end of the range went down to zero,
> (3) the fact that no suit was identified.
>
>They ignored their own regulations which (somewhere) said that if
>response to opponents conventional bid you could play a home-brew
>convention of your own.
They have put in an additional reg which they can do if they like.
That is not the same as ignoring their own regs. The EBU does the same
by having an over-riding reg that supersedes all others that random bids
are not permitted.
>Don't buy into this silly terminology they're using. THERE'S NOTHING
>WRONG WITH DESTRUCTIVE BIDDING! Every sport or game you can mention
>tries to disrupt the opponents activities when they have you seriously
>outgunned. It's usually called, "Defense" instead of "Destructive."
Unfortunately that makes little sense. There are thousands and
thousands of defensive bids that are not destructive. What you mean is
that you do not agree with their rule, not that it does not make sense.
>Paranoid thoughts, the real reasons for the rule:
> (1) Grandma and grandpa called the ACBL and said they read the
>Precision book yesterday and today two young kids used a weird
>convention against their 1C bid, and they were going to quit the ACBL
>and stop paying their dues unless they put a stop to that nonsense
>immediately.
> (2) Influential members of the ACBL board at the time were selling
>a lot of strong club books and didn't like seeing their system
>massacred in tournament play.
>
>Can't help the paranoia. Are you sure they're not after me?
Of course, it could just be that they thought the rule was right.
The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
best for EBU members].
Is this a good reg? I do not know, but I very much doubt that the EBU
L&EC who decided this [long before my time] did so for any reason but
that they thought it was best for the game. Of course, no-one has
applied to get this changed in the last fifteen years, so who knows what
we would do now?
Oh, BTW, in an effort to stop more mindless rambling by certain
people, very little does not mean none, and *everyone* who reads and
remembers RGB knows we do get some pressure in two areas *only*. Even
so, it is not pressure form the top of the EBU, but from a lot lower
down.
Kent Feiler
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Don't buy into this silly terminology they're using. THERE'S NOTHING
>>WRONG WITH DESTRUCTIVE BIDDING! Every sport or game you can mention
>>tries to disrupt the opponents activities when they have you seriously
>>outgunned. It's usually called, "Defense" instead of "Destructive."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Unfortunately that makes little sense. There are thousands and
>thousands of defensive bids that are not destructive. What you mean is
>that you do not agree with their rule, not that it does not make sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Could you name a few of those defensive bids? Let's see, there's
pre-empts, and...what else? Psyches have been hedged in by the rule
makers until they're virtually illegal, and bids that don't initially
identify a suit -- specifically created to make playing against them
difficult -- e.g. Suction, have been virtually barred except for the
occasional pet convention that is allowed to sneak through, e.g.
Cappaletti and Multi-2D.
You're right, I don't agree with their rules, and I think they're
ruinous for the game of bridge. Also, I suspect that the reasons these
rules are made have nothing to do with the game of bridge, they have
to do with entry fees, yearly dues, and who happens to be in control
of the bridge organizations at the time they're made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
>from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
>best for EBU members].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David, there aren't any "foreigners" on RGB, and any comments I might
make are primarily directed at the ACBL. I lived in the UK for two
years, but I'm not at all familiar with EBU rules.
"Random bids" sounds like the UK version of the ACBL's "Destructive
bids.", are you sure you guys are thinking independently?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Is this a good reg? I do not know, but I very much doubt that the EBU
>L&EC who decided this [long before my time] did so for any reason but
>that they thought it was best for the game. Of course, no-one has
>applied to get this changed in the last fifteen years, so who knows what
>we would do now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a tiny bit of good news. The ACBL in the US has begun to
recognize that there MAY be other bridge organization in the world
that have different ideas than they do, and there MAY be some sense in
them. But there's a long way to go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
APBluthman
>Date: 1/9/2004 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <GuvO3kDLdt$$Ew...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>
But it does not do so randomly - there is a specific auction type to which
1-2-3 Stop! applies (LHO is deprived of his balancing call in an auction in
which opener intends to re-raise in any event). Further, there are easily
describavle hand types on which opener re-raises (I have set out relevant
questions and answers in this thread).
And the bid does not interfere with opponents' "methods", a key phrase in the
reg. A method, as usually understood, involves a convention or treatment, not a
natural call.
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
Nick Wedd
<apblu...@aol.com> writes
>> I do not understand the reason for this, which seems totally
>>irrelevant - but so does half this thread anyway.
>>
>> But it is certainly untrue - of course it disrupts the opponent's
>>auction by taking room away.
>>
>>--
>>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
>But it does not do so randomly - there is a specific auction type to which
>1-2-3 Stop! applies (LHO is deprived of his balancing call in an auction in
>which opener intends to re-raise in any event). Further, there are easily
>describavle hand types on which opener re-raises (I have set out relevant
>questions and answers in this thread).
>
>And the bid does not interfere with opponents' "methods", a key phrase in the
>reg. A method, as usually understood, involves a convention or treatment, not a
>natural call.
I think I am beginning to understand this.
A preemptive opening bid of 3S disrupts the opponents' communication,
but it does so equally to all opponents. Whereas "1-2-3 Stop!", and a
weak 1S over a strong 1C, disrupt some methods more than others. So the
people playing these disrupted methods are upset about it. Am I right?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Raija
"APBluthman" <apblu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040109210317...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Hi,
Whether it disrupts he opponents' methods or not is quite irrelevant. As to
whether it actually does or does not - of course it does (takes away the
level to balance). One might say, following this logic, than any opening
bid disrupts the opponents'methods, because if next hand also has an opening
hand, his methods are disrupted when he has been denied the chance to open
the hand.... Somehere along this thread someone has to see the light and
stop beating a dead horse, 1-2-3 just is not what the Laws talk about.
Raija
The concept of this new concept of method is totally foreign to me, I
undestand "methods" as methods, be they natual, conventional, 2/1, sayc,
acol, aggressive, the attribute will not change that a methods are still
methods.
>
> Alvin P. Bluthman
> apblu...@aol.com
APBluthman
>Date: 1/10/2004 6:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4kkNkI45A+$$EA...@maproom.demon.co.uk>
No. The randomness isue concerns the meaning of the disruptive call. If the
callhas a clearly defined meaning (such as long spades, limited strength), then
it is not random. Rather, the meaning can be identified and disclosed, and the
opponents can be expected to have to find a method to deal with it. However, if
the disruptive call is merely random (e. g. "bid 1S over a Precision 1C
whenever it is your turn"), then it has no identifable meaning, there can be no
disclosure, and it is impractical to expect the opponents to develop
countermeasures.
Such a "random" overcall (which disrupts the opponents' methods) is banned in
the ACBL.
My point, and that of several others in this thread, is merely that 1-2-3 Stop!
is not banned, as the ACBL has never stated that it was banned, and that the
rule cited in other posts does not apply to it, as it is not a "random" call,
and does not disrupt opponents' methods.
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
APBluthman
>Date: 1/10/2004 10:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <10007c5...@corp.supernews.com>
"{Somehere along this thread someone has to see the light and
>stop beating a dead horse, 1-2-3 just is not what the Laws talk about."
Agreed.
However:
"Whether it disrupts he opponents' methods or not is quite irrelevant. "
Disagree.he reg. cited in this thread requires a showing that a call must
disrupt the opponents' methods before it can be banned. Therefore, such a
showing is relevant to the inquiry. Also, the meaning of the phrase is relevant
to the inquiry, so many of us are trying to explain our understanding of how a
call can disrupt "methods", as distinct from simply taking away bidding space
(all bids take away some bidding space - are all bids banned???)
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
Ed Reppert
<zz...@zzzz.com> wrote:
> Paranoid thoughts, the real reasons for the rule:
> (1) Grandma and grandpa called the ACBL and said they read the
> Precision book yesterday and today two young kids used a weird
> convention against their 1C bid, and they were going to quit the ACBL
> and stop paying their dues unless they put a stop to that nonsense
> immediately.
> (2) Influential members of the ACBL board at the time were selling
> a lot of strong club books and didn't like seeing their system
> massacred in tournament play.
A couple of years ago, my then partner and I took up Romex. After a
couple of months, and one or two hands in which the Dynamic NT opening
(4-5 losers, about 18-21 HCP unbalanced, or 6 controls, 19-20 HCP
balanced) proved successful, we were told (in the middle of a session)
by the club TD "that bid is banned in this club". It is GCC legal, but
that didn't matter. I am convinced that a large part of the reason for
this was the vocal complaint of one woman that the Dynamic NT is "too
difficult to defend against". Not for her, Life Master that she is, of
course, but for the other poor fools in the club (many of whom are
better players than she is).
Feh. A pox on 'em.
John Blubaugh
"Ed Reppert" <erep...@rochester.rr.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:110120042326229994%erep...@rochester.rr.invalid.com...
If you were banned from playing Romex, someone was doing you a great favor.
It is a truly dreadful system. I remember when Dr. George hired a group of
pros to tour the country playing Romex at Regionals. They tried playing
Romex and got there heads handed to them. They switched back to regular
methods and won. Then they would sit together and write up Romex auctions to
match their results for the good doctor.
Enjoy your bridge,
John Blubaugh
Jürgen R.
This story is just as unlikely as many of the others you keep telling.
>
>
David Stevenson
>On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:34:36 +0000 (UTC), David Stevenson
><bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Don't buy into this silly terminology they're using. THERE'S NOTHING
>>>WRONG WITH DESTRUCTIVE BIDDING! Every sport or game you can mention
>>>tries to disrupt the opponents activities when they have you seriously
>>>outgunned. It's usually called, "Defense" instead of "Destructive."
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Unfortunately that makes little sense. There are thousands and
>>thousands of defensive bids that are not destructive. What you mean is
>>that you do not agree with their rule, not that it does not make sense.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Could you name a few of those defensive bids? Let's see, there's
>pre-empts, and...what else? Psyches have been hedged in by the rule
>makers until they're virtually illegal, and bids that don't initially
>identify a suit -- specifically created to make playing against them
>difficult -- e.g. Suction, have been virtually barred except for the
>occasional pet convention that is allowed to sneak through, e.g.
>Cappaletti and Multi-2D.
Oh, blood and sand.
Can I name some defensive bids?
Please.
1] Overcalls over 1-level openings
2] Overcalls over strong clubs
3] Jump overcalls over 1-level openings
4] Jump overcalls over strong clubs.
5] Conventional defences to strong clubs.
6] Two-suited defences to 1-lavel openings
7] Michaels-type defences showing a suit plus one of another two.
8] Defences to 1NT
9] Defences to 1NT and a response.
10] Sandwich overcalls
11] Protective overcalls
12] Protective NT overcalls
13] Direct NT overcalls
14] Rebids by opener once partner has passed.
15] Defenses to weak twos
16] Defences to pre-empts.
17] Protective overcall after weak twos
18] Protective overcall after pre-empt
19] Jump overcall over weak twos
20] NT overcall of weak two
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can probably think of another twenty or thirty.
>> The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
>>from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
>>best for EBU members].
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>David, there aren't any "foreigners" on RGB, and any comments I might
>make are primarily directed at the ACBL. I lived in the UK for two
>years, but I'm not at all familiar with EBU rules.
When you are talking specifically about North America, anyone not
North American is foreign. When you talking specifically about England,
anyone not English is foreign. When you are talking specifically about
Thailand, anyone not Siamese is foreign.
It is a label, and saying there are no foreigners is pretty silly.
John Blubaugh
"Jürgen R." <nob...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:400261d...@news.t-online.de...
This story is quite true. Drew Casen was one of the pros involved and I'm
sure the whole group was put together by Eddie Wold. It is well known here.
John Blubaugh
Kent Feiler
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can probably think of another twenty or thirty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You haven't thought of any yet. The bids you list are either
pre-empts (already mentioned) or normal attempts to compete with
opponents and play the hand. The defensive bids we're talking about
occur when your side is clearly outgunned and can't legitimately
compete to play the hand, e.g. after a strong club opening when you
have no points. The defensive bids under discussion are NOT attempts
to play the contract, they're attempts to disrupt opponent's bidding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
>>>from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
>>>best for EBU members].
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>David, there aren't any "foreigners" on RGB, and any comments I might
>>make are primarily directed at the ACBL. I lived in the UK for two
>>years, but I'm not at all familiar with EBU rules.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> When you are talking specifically about North America, anyone not
>North American is foreign. When you talking specifically about England,
>anyone not English is foreign. When you are talking specifically about
>Thailand, anyone not Siamese is foreign.
>
> It is a label, and saying there are no foreigners is pretty silly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're missing the point. This isn't North America, England, or
Thailand, it's RGB, a newsgroup located on the Internet that everyone
in the world can access. We aren't a country, and therefore, THERE
ARE NO FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
John Blubaugh
> > When you are talking specifically about North America, anyone not
> >North American is foreign. When you talking specifically about England,
> >anyone not English is foreign. When you are talking specifically about
> >Thailand, anyone not Siamese is foreign.
> >
> > It is a label, and saying there are no foreigners is pretty silly.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
> You're missing the point. This isn't North America, England, or
> Thailand, it's RGB, a newsgroup located on the Internet that everyone
> in the world can access. We aren't a country, and therefore, THERE
> ARE NO FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Kent Feiler
> www.KentFeiler.com
Ho, well said. Take that Mr. Stephenson ;)
I am certainly enjoying this part of bridge,
John Blubaugh
Frood
Kent Feiler wrote:
Oh I see, we are all FOREEIGNERS! :0
David Stevenson
Watch my lips.
They are "defensive bids".
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>>>> The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
>>>>from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
>>>>best for EBU members].
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>David, there aren't any "foreigners" on RGB, and any comments I might
>>>make are primarily directed at the ACBL. I lived in the UK for two
>>>years, but I'm not at all familiar with EBU rules.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>> When you are talking specifically about North America, anyone not
>>North American is foreign. When you talking specifically about England,
>>anyone not English is foreign. When you are talking specifically about
>>Thailand, anyone not Siamese is foreign.
>>
>> It is a label, and saying there are no foreigners is pretty silly.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You're missing the point. This isn't North America, England, or
>Thailand, it's RGB, a newsgroup located on the Internet that everyone
>in the world can access. We aren't a country, and therefore, THERE
>ARE NO FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
When we are discussing something that applies to a particular country
then either members of that country are posting, or foreigners to that
country are posting.
You do seem to have a major difficulty with simple English.
John Blubaugh
I didn't think it was possible but you get more pompous and stuffy every
day. I must admit that I love it.
Enjoying your posts as always,
John Blubaugh
Kent Feiler
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're definition of defensive bid seems to be, "Anything we do after
the opponents open the bidding." At least, looking at end of your
list, #20 above, that's the only definition under which a 2NT overcall
of 2S could be considered defensive. In terms of your likelihood to
play the contract, most people would consider it quite an attacking
bid.
If you'll look back at the thread -- particularly in relation to the
ACBL regulations -- you may discover that a different definition is in
force. The subject is bidding when your opponents have much stronger
hands than you do and will certainly win the contract and likely bid
reasonably and successfully to do so -- if we let them alone. That's
what defense means in most sports and games. The other team has the
ball, and we have to find a way stop them from scoring. Using that
definition, I'll ask again, the rule-making bodies allow
pre-empts...and what else?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>>>> The EBU does not permit random bids. We have very little pressure
>>>>>from outside sources [apart from foreigners on RGB who *know* what is
>>>>>best for EBU members].
>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>David, there aren't any "foreigners" on RGB, and any comments I might
>>>>make are primarily directed at the ACBL. I lived in the UK for two
>>>>years, but I'm not at all familiar with EBU rules.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>>> When you are talking specifically about North America, anyone not
>>>North American is foreign. When you talking specifically about England,
>>>anyone not English is foreign. When you are talking specifically about
>>>Thailand, anyone not Siamese is foreign.
>>>
>>> It is a label, and saying there are no foreigners is pretty silly.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>You're missing the point. This isn't North America, England, or
>>Thailand, it's RGB, a newsgroup located on the Internet that everyone
>>in the world can access. We aren't a country, and therefore, THERE
>>ARE NO FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
>
> When we are discussing something that applies to a particular country
>then either members of that country are posting, or foreigners to that
>country are posting.
>
> You do seem to have a major difficulty with simple English.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
My first thought was to say that since we were talking about ACBL
regulations, that means you, as a FOREIGNER, shouldn't be contributing
at all.
But that isn't the real idea, this newsgroup is about bridge in
general, not bridge in the UK or the USA. If that's what you want,
start one called "rec.games.bridge-UK" and I won't post to it. In the
meantime, bridge anywhere in the world is fair game and, THERE ARE NO
FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
David Stevenson
>My first thought was to say that since we were talking about ACBL
>regulations, that means you, as a FOREIGNER, shouldn't be contributing
>at all.
Why not? No-one, apart from yourself, has suggested this pretty
stupid idea.
But the fact is that in some places some people are foreigners. That's
all I said - and you said I was wrong.
>But that isn't the real idea, this newsgroup is about bridge in
>general, not bridge in the UK or the USA. If that's what you want,
>start one called "rec.games.bridge-UK" and I won't post to it. In the
>meantime, bridge anywhere in the world is fair game and, THERE ARE NO
>FOREIGNERS ON RGB.
There are foreigners, of course, and they have views, of course, and
only one person has suggested that their views should not be heard. Why
you have this idea I cannot tell.
Gerben Dirksen
> purpose of destroying the opponents' methods. That phrase, I believe,
> applies mainly to agreements that say next to nothing about one's
> hand. Suction definitely says something: it says you have either a
> specific one-suiter or a specific two-suiter. Maybe it's hard to
> defend against (though I don't recall having a problem the few times
> I've run up against it), but I don't think it answers Nick's question.
There are very few, perhaps no, conventions with the primary purpose
of destroying opponents' methods. The only ones that might qualify are
the "Lorenzo Two" bids, which are NATURAL, and fertilizer bids.
Lorenzo Two: 2 of a suit = 4 or more cards in the bid suit, 0 - 7 HCP,
compulsory. Pass will therefore deny 0-7 HCP, and is restricted to
hands with 8-11 HCP.
Fertilizer: 1-bid that shows 0 - x points (x is usualy around 8). Now
everything else is stronger, including pass.
Almost all other conventions have their uses as constructive tools.
This includes Wilkosz, Ekren, Suction, etc. These conventions are
focussed on finding a fit and when partner's hand is suitable, finding
a game or a good save.
This is because a bid transmits information useful to partner.
One could even argue this of the Lorenzo Two and Fertilizer. Their
gain is indirect, i.e. when you don't bid it. If partner passes and
you know he has at least 8 HCP that's useful.
Next thing you know they'll ban passing because it is so destructive
because when you pass you don't tell opponents anything about your
shape!
The ACBL failsafe device saying: It is destructive when we say so
should not be able to stand up in law and has no place in regulations.
Gerben
Adam Beneschan
> > However, I'm not sure it qualifies as a convention with the "primary"
> > purpose of destroying the opponents' methods. That phrase, I believe,
> > applies mainly to agreements that say next to nothing about one's
> > hand. Suction definitely says something: it says you have either a
> > specific one-suiter or a specific two-suiter. Maybe it's hard to
> > defend against (though I don't recall having a problem the few times
> > I've run up against it), but I don't think it answers Nick's question.
>
> There are very few, perhaps no, conventions with the primary purpose
> of destroying opponents' methods. The only ones that might qualify are
> Almost all other conventions have their uses as constructive tools.
> This includes Wilkosz, Ekren, Suction, etc. These conventions are
> focussed on finding a fit and when partner's hand is suitable, finding
> a game or a good save.
> This is because a bid transmits information useful to partner.
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, defenses to
strong club openings that show almost nothing about one's hand, but
are made merely to take up space (e.g. 1S over 1C showing 13 cards)
fall into this category. I agree there are very few conventions whose
"primary purpose" is to destroy the opponents' methods; thus, IMHO,
there are very few conventions (and no non-conventional agreements)
that are banned by the ACBL's regulation.
There are two separate questions that I think have gotten intermingled
on this thread, resulting in confusion. One question is, what
agreements are disallowed by the ACBL regulation that "Conventions
and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents'
methods" are disallowed. I agree that very few conventions are banned
by this particular clause. I also believe, along with other posters,
that the wording of this regulation is too vague.
The other question is, what agreements does the ACBL disallow because
they're considered destructive. This is NOT the same thing! The ACBL
considers things like Wilkosz destructive enough that it doesn't allow
them in any events, and Suction destructive enough that it doesn't
allow them in GCC events (subject to local option). But those are
*not* banned by the "primary purpose" regulation I mentioned in the
previous paragraph; they're banned by different regulations that are
much better worded than the "primary purpose" one.
Anyway, I think the discussion on this thread has gotten pretty
confusing because these two different issues aren't sufficiently
distinguished. Nick was, I think, asking about the first question,
and Arthur's response was more appropriate to the second question,
which prompted my response.
-- Adam
Mmbridge
Blubaugh was fully and successfully involved in the professional bridge life
for many years. What is your basis for feeling you know more than he does
about American professional bridge players and their clients?
Mmbridge
APBluthman
>Date: 1/14/2004 3:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4682ab7.04011...@posting.google.com>
Adam and others:
Can those of us who agree that the "primary purpose" is destructive rule does
not apply to 1-2-3 Stop! also agree that the rule is intended to be narrowly
applied?
Can those who think that 1-2-3 Stop! is banned explain why they think it is (or
should be or not be banned)?
Are those who think the "primary purpose" is destructive rule should be broadly
applied? For those, why do you think so? Anddo you agree with the text of the
rule as presently written? If not what changes would you make?
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
David Stevenson
His posting style?
Kieran Dyke
"Frood" <Fro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9kKb.2735$1g41...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I have had a couple of hands recently at Club game's in the last year
> and the following has occured;
>
> 1S P 2S P
> 3S* P P P
>
> 3 spades was alerted as 1-2-3 Stop... non forcing bid.
>
> I read the ACBL Convention Chart and it indicated in ALL cases that;
>
> DISALLOWED
> 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
> opponents’ methods.
>
> Later in they give an example;
>
> Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of destroying
> the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid telling
> nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up bidding space).
>
> The example seems to fit the bidding sequence above. So instead of just
> passing I should have been calling the director.
>
> I have 2 Questions;
>
> Has anyone heard of this "1-2-3 Stop" Convention and
> Have I interperted the regulations correctly?
>
> Paul
>
I'm curious - the bid is natural, suggesting a contract. Which law even
gives the ACBL the right to regulate this auction?
The way you're reading the rule, raising a weak two or a preempt
(non-invitational) is illegal too.
Tiggrr
Ed Reppert
wrote:
> Blubaugh was fully and successfully involved in the professional bridge life
> for many years. What is your basis for feeling you know more than he does
> about American professional bridge players and their clients?
I have read Dr. Rosenkrantz' books, and several of his articles, about
Romex. I have read Mr. Blubaugh's pronouncements about the system,
among other things.
After considering the evidence available to me (I note that Mr.
Blubaugh offers no *proof* of his allegations) I'm inclined to believe
Dr. Rosenkrantz rather than Mr. Blubaugh.