[TimG]

WJ05 uses a 2H opening to show a hand that is weaker than an opening bid (6-11) with 5+ hearts and a 5+ side suit (could be spades). I do not find this method on the ACBL mid-chart -- the closest is a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the major and a 4+ card minor suit.

Has anyone attempted to get a defense to the WJ05 2H opening approved?

The 2S opening used by WJ05 shows 6-11, 5+ spades and 5+ in a minor. There is an approved defense for a 2S opening which shows 5-9, 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor. Does anyone have experience with using approved defenses for very similar, yet not quite identical, methods. In other words: would I need to get a new defense approved for the WJ05 method which has slightly different HCP and suit length requirements?

Two notes:

1) Yes, I have e-mailed the ACBL, but I thought if someone here had experience, I might get a quicker response here.

2) I realize that these 2M openings are neither unique to WJ05 nor invented by the WJ05 author.

Tim

[TimG]

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

The 2S opening used by WJ05 shows 6-11, 5+ spades and 5+ in a minor. There is an approved defense for a 2S opening which shows 5-9, 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor. Does anyone have experience with using approved defenses for very similar, yet not quite identical, methods. In other words: would I need to get a new defense approved for the WJ05 method which has slightly different HCP and suit length requirements?

Two notes:

1) Yes, I have e-mailed the ACBL, but I thought if someone here had experience, I might get a quicker response here.

Quick response from ACBL: the same defense may be used.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

The 2S opening used by WJ05 shows 6-11, 5+ spades and 5+ in a minor.  There is an approved defense for a 2S opening which shows 5-9, 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor.  Does anyone have experience with using approved defenses for very similar, yet not quite identical, methods.  In other words: would I need to get a new defense approved for the WJ05 method which has slightly different HCP and suit length requirements?

Two notes:

1) Yes, I have e-mailed the ACBL, but I thought if someone here had experience, I might get a quicker response here.

Quick response from ACBL: the same defense may be used.

Don't suppose that it would be possible for the ACBL to update the actual Defensive Database to reflect said decision...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

The 2S opening used by WJ05 shows 6-11, 5+ spades and 5+ in a minor.  There is an approved defense for a 2S opening which shows 5-9, 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor.  Does anyone have experience with using approved defenses for very similar, yet not quite identical, methods.  In other words: would I need to get a new defense approved for the WJ05 method which has slightly different HCP and suit length requirements?

Two notes:

1) Yes, I have e-mailed the ACBL, but I thought if someone here had experience, I might get a quicker response here.

Quick response from ACBL: the same defense may be used.

Don't suppose that it would be possible for the ACBL to update the actual Defensive Database to reflect said decision...

I think I'll print a copy of the e-mail from Butch Campbell and carry it with me along with the copies of the approved defense...

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 11 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

The 2S opening used by WJ05 shows 6-11, 5+ spades and 5+ in a minor.  There is an approved defense for a 2S opening which shows 5-9, 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor.  Does anyone have experience with using approved defenses for very similar, yet not quite identical, methods.  In other words: would I need to get a new defense approved for the WJ05 method which has slightly different HCP and suit length requirements?

Two notes:

1) Yes, I have e-mailed the ACBL, but I thought if someone here had experience, I might get a quicker response here.

Quick response from ACBL: the same defense may be used.

Don't suppose that it would be possible for the ACBL to update the actual Defensive Database to reflect said decision...

I think I'll print a copy of the e-mail from Butch Campbell and carry it with me along with the copies of the approved defense...

Allow me to clarify: I am far less interested in whether or not you (on an individual basis) are able to play said methods than I am in the process by which these types of decisions are made publically available to the membership at large.

Don't get me wrong: I'm very happy that you've been able to get the ACBL to rule that the same suggested defense can by applied to a the Polish scissors as to Muiderberg Two's.

However, I'm all about process. If the ACBL has produced an actually decision then the Defensive Database should be updated accordingly. This is the only way that

1. Players other that you, me, and the few benighted souls who frequent these forums will ever know what's what

2. Most players will have anything "official" that they can show to Tournament Directors. (I might be a suspicious bastard by nature, but if I saw a random printout that someone claimed was written by Butch Campbell, I'd be less than impressed)

I admit that there is some risk to this plan. Personally, I'd be very surprised whether Butch's pronouncement will stand the test of time. Moreover, drawing attention to this decision is the fastest way to get said decision overturned.

None-the-less, I think that this is the right thing to do...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 12 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

Allow me to clarify:  I am far less interested in whether or not you (on an individual basis) are able to play said methods than I am in the process by which these types of decisions are made publically available to the membership at large.

I understand. That I had to ask in the first place is a shame. There should be a policy for such situations and it should be publicly available.

Quote

Don't get me wrong: I'm very happy that you've been able to get the ACBL to rule that the same suggested defense can by applied to a the Polish scissors as to Muiderberg Two's.

Only the Polish 2S opening (showing spades plus a minor). I don't see any way to play the Polish 2H opening (showing hearts and another, possibly spades) based upon existing approved defenses. Please let me know if you think I have missed something.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 12 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

Allow me to clarify:  I am far less interested in whether or not you (on an individual basis) are able to play said methods than I am in the process by which these types of decisions are made publically available to the membership at large.

I understand. That I had to ask in the first place is a shame. There should be a policy for such situations and it should be publicly available.

Quote

Don't get me wrong: I'm very happy that you've been able to get the ACBL to rule that the same suggested defense can by applied to a the Polish scissors as to Muiderberg Two's.

Only the Polish 2S opening (showing spades plus a minor). I don't see any way to play the Polish 2H opening (showing hearts and another, possibly spades) based upon existing approved defenses. Please let me know if you think I have missed something.

Oh... (That was the one that I was surprised about)

Guess that it was wishful thinking on my part.

[helene_t]

It strikes me as silly to demand an automated extension of approved defenses such as for example from 5M+4m to 5M+5m. While some kind of formal rule for such an extension could be written which would cover this specific request, more generally it requires judgment on behalf of the regulators (or local TD) so I don't think it would be worthwhile to try to make some formal rules governing it.

Personally I wouldn't enjoy spending too much time on these issues and would just play vanilla methods if I were to play in an ACBL event. But to each their own.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Jun 12 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Personally I wouldn't enjoy spending too much time on these issues and would just play vanilla methods if I were to play in an ACBL event. But to each their own.

If it were a one time deal, I would probably take the same approach.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 11 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

Don't suppose that it would be possible for the ACBL to update the actual Defensive Database to reflect said decision...

Actually, they have. The method in the defense database is now described as:

Quote

Description: 2♥/♠ shows __(3HCP)-__(14HCP)(Maximum range of 7 HCP), 5 or more cards in the bid major and 4(or5) or more in an undisclosed minor. Qxxxx-xx-xx-Kxxx would be opened 2S as would KJxxx-xx-x-KJxxx. There are no other requirements for the bid other than the min-max HCP and 5 or more cards in the major opened and a 4+ (or 5+) card side suit in a minor. It is permissible to have 5 cards in the major opened and 6 cards in the minor.

Well done by ACBL.

[NickRW]

Wow - after all the grumps about the ACBL on these forums. I'm almost speechless.