[blml] Encrypted signals

[Adam Beneschan]

Eric wrote:
 
> At 11:35 AM 7/26/06, Adam wrote:
> 
> >But I also wanted to ask: You seem to be making an assertion that the
> >ACBL bans whatever systems it feels like and just sticks a
> >"destructive" label on it to try to justify their actions.  You're not
> >merely asserting that they have the potential to do this, you're
> >asserting that they actually do.
> >
> >So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this?
> 
> I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that shows a 
> balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP.  After that we could 
> talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and "psychic 
> controls".  And if we include examples of regulations made in the last 
> couple of decades that have since been dropped (or are just being 
> ignored), we could have a real field day.

That isn't what I asked for.  You've provided examples of cases where
the ACBL has banned things you think they shouldn't have.  But what
I'm looking for is: is there anything they have banned, and publicly
given "destructive" as the reason for banning them, when it is not
reasonable to think that this is a legitimate reason?

Your accusation, in your previous post, was that "ACBL uses
'destructive system' ... as an undefined, essentially meaningless
designation that in reality boils down to nothing more than a
subjective decision by some decision-maker(s) that can be applied to
whatever they choose without any need for any kind of objective
justification".

To justify this accusation, you not only have to give an example where
the ACBL has banned something you think should be allowed, or that
they have banned something you think isn't "destructive" in some
sense.  You have to give an example they've banned something that they
cannot reasonably think is "destructive" in any way, but where they've
called it that anyway just to justify banning something that they've
apparently banned for some totally unrelated reason.  That's what
you're accusing them of.

So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this?

                                -- Adam