Re: Quick question for any directors out there please.

On Apr 30, 11:17=A0am, David Stevenson <brid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Kieran Dyke wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"David Stevenson" <brid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:cUgcqqEbOxFIFwhg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Kieran Dyke wrote
>
> >>>"David Stevenson" <brid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:VJwOtePY6eFIFwRs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> =A0wrote
> >>>>>Thanks for the reply,
>
> >>>>>Full Auction: 1S - P - 3S - P - P - P
>
> >>>>>We not vul - opps were
>
> >>>>>Nothing else to it - I agree with you that the director didn't know
> >>>>>what he was doing hence the question.
>
> >>>>>Our agreement is straight forward and simple - 7 losers 4S, 8
losers
> >>>>>3S, 9 losers 2S - seems to work fairly well. (7 loser to open as
well=

> >>>>>which is why I opened it - didn't know there was a limit at level 3
> >>>>>until yesterday!)
>
> >>>>>Director's ruling was - "this hand does not meet the RON
requirement
> >>>>>therefore the opening is illegal - play the hand - if your opps do
> >>>>>worse than avg+ they will be awarded av+ and you av-"
>
> >>>> =A0 Ah. =A0Now we know where we are.
>
> >>>> =A0 First, as explained before, he has the wrong basis, which is
Ro18=
..
>
> >>>> =A0 Second, opening a hand which does not follow the requirements
is
> >>>>not =A0illegal. =A0What is illegal is having an agreement to open
with=

> >>>>less than =A0R018. =A0The TD could judge that from one hand, but
this
> >>>>description =A0sounds =A0as though he has gone wrong.
>
> >>>> =A0 Third, your openings, as described elsewhere, *do* sound
illegal
> >>>>to =A0me. =A0You are not allowed to just open any 7 loser hand.
>
> >>>By which law is this regulation sup****ted?
>
> >> =A0 The same one as last time you asked this question.
>
> >So, are the openings illegal because they're conventional, or because
> >they're a king below average strength?
>
> >Or is the Rule of 18/19 just one big lie?
>
> =A0 =A0As I told you last time, and the time before, we do not ban
opening=
s
> weaker than this: we make them unplayable by banning conventions
> thereafter, which is legal.
>
> =A0 =A0Trying to get me to change my mind by coming up with the same
quest=
ion
> again does not seem to have a lot of point.
>
> =A0 =A0I know - well, ok, the whole world knows - that your belief is
that=

> SOs should not regulate what players are allowed to play, and the
> 'proof' is that this works in Australia, ok, pretty much, there is some
> regulation. =A0We also know that you know better than the EBU what is
> right for England, and better than the ACBL, what is right for North
> America, and so on. =A0No doubt the same applies to Chile.
>
> =A0 =A0We also notice that you realise that you cannot directly limit
natu=
ral
> 1-level openings under the Law which have 7 points or more. =A0True, and
> the 'Endicott fudge' has been explained before. =A0You do not like it?
How=

> did I guess?
>
> =A0 =A0I have some bad news for you. =A0Currently some jurisdictions do
ba=
n
> weak 1-level openings directly and presumably therefore illegally: it
> will become legal with the next Law book.
>
> =A0 =A0H*ll, I don't mind you telling the English they do not understand
> English bridge and the Americans they do not understand American bridge,
> and the Latvians they do not understand Latvian bridge. =A0But why
hammer
> away at this legality problem, when you know from previous discussions
> that it is legal?

It is useful to discuss what is legal but it is even more im****tant,
when not ruling on a case in front of you, to talk about and think
about what _should_ be legal. The end-run around the laws that various
SO's have used, barring conventions because they could not bar the
light opening bids, is wrong-headed. That the laws are about to be
changed to accomadate the SOs is sad.

The opponents are just that, the opponents. If very light opening bids
make it hard for them, that is the more reason to play them.

--
Will in New Haven