[straube]

My partner and I have two points of legality we're discussing. We're trying to develop a system that is legal under the ACBL Midchart

1. Is it possible to assign bids of 1C or 1D as showing an opening hand with
whatever we like? For instance 1C as four spades and 1D as four hearts...or 1C as strong and 1D as four spades? The argument for (as I understand it) is that 1C and 1D can be assigned as a multipurpose bid. The argument against it is that multipurpose bids aren't meant to show specific holdings but are meant to be "stuck" bids when playing a 5-card major system. If one isn't playing a 5-card major system, can it "show" something.

2. Under the Midchart, it says that "all constructive rebids and responses" are legal. I've always wondered why they didn't reverse the word order to "responses and rebids" as responses come first. Did they mean 2nd round responses...those coming after opener's first rebid? We want to play 1S-2D showing hearts, for instance. Our use of 2D is constructive. Is it legal? Do we have to provide an approved defense or one that we come up with on our own that hasn't been approved.

3. How about artificial openings and artificial responses? For instance, if 1D showing four spades is legal, can a 1S response be like 1N forcing? Does it have to show four spades or three or more spades?

[awm]

1. Any sensible reading of the mid-chart will indicate that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean whatever you want, provided it guarantees 10+ points. Of course, your 1M openings are much more restricted, so in general it's hard to play "two under transfers" or whatever. You can occasionally find random rulings from ACBL HQ contradicting this, but then they can contradict themselves at any time no matter what the regulations say...

2. 2♦ showing hearts is okay. The "constructive" issue basically means that you can't have artificial responses which can be less than 4-5 hcp. So if 2♦ is "hearts, at least 5 points" you are okay. If you are responding 2♦ with very weak hands then there might be an issue.

3. Most responses are okay. Again, there may be some issue with responses that could be fewer than 4-5 hcp (this seems to be what ACBL means by "constructive"). So a forcing 1♠ response is okay. A 1♠ response that is "to play" and might not show any spades (b/c opener showed spades) is a bit more dubious but likely also okay.

[straube]

Thanks. I'm still a little hung up on the "approved defense" aspect. For example, at the Midchart events I've been to, I've had opponents prealert their 2D multi convention and then they unleash on me several pages of notes which are an approved defense. I can't help but think I'd have to do the same for 1S-2D (showing hearts), though a simple defense can easily be constructed. I've sent off to the ACBL requesting an approved defense for this, but I have a feeling that they won't bother replying.

[awm]

Mid-chart responses and rebids normally do not require suggested defense. It's just the openings and direct overcalls that might.

[straube]

Thanks again. That makes it much easier.

[shevek]

awm, on Jan 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

1. Any sensible reading of the mid-chart will indicate that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean whatever you want, provided it guarantees 10+ points. Of course, your 1M openings are much more restricted, so in general it's hard to play "two under transfers" or whatever. You can occasionally find random rulings from ACBL HQ contradicting this, but then they can contradict themselves at any time no matter what the regulations say...

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

[paulg]

shevek, on Jan 28 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

1. Any sensible reading of the mid-chart will indicate that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean whatever you want, provided it guarantees 10+ points. Of course, your 1M openings are much more restricted, so in general it's hard to play "two under transfers" or whatever. You can occasionally find random rulings from ACBL HQ contradicting this, but then they can contradict themselves at any time no matter what the regulations say...

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Unsurprising really.

We'll always have this tension, due to the poorly written ACBL charts, between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Rick, and others in the ACBL, clearly focus on the intent of the chart writers despite the chart writers having numerous opportunities to clarify their intent (most recently in 2008). They don't always agree on what the intent was, but intent is a primary consideration when answering questions.

awm often argues cogently on the basis of what the regulations actually say.

Unfortunately this will continue until the ACBL gets closer to writing down what it actually wants to say.

Meanwhile system innovators get caught in the middle. Unlucky. But if you are ever in the UK, bring your system notes!

Paul

[rbforster]

shevek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:01 AM, said:

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Ah, you just didn't ask nicely enough. A more favorable response might have been had from saying:

"We want to use the following opening bids in our strong club system:
1♣ artificial 15+
1♥ 4+♥ 10-14 pts. longer minor ok but not 4=4 majors
1♠ 5+♠ 10-14 pts, "standard"
1N 12-14 balanced, 5M332 ok
2♣ 5+♣ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2♦ 5+♦ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2N 5/5 minors 10-14

Can we use a 1♦ opening as an all-purpose opening for all other hands with 10-14 points? Thanks!"

[glen]

Rob F, on Jan 28 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

shevek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:01 AM, said:

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Ah, you just didn't ask nicely enough. A more favorable response might have been had from saying:

"We want to use the following opening bids in our strong club system:
1♣ artificial 15+
1♥ 4+♥ 10-14 pts. longer minor ok but not 4=4 majors
1♠ 5+♠ 10-14 pts, "standard"
1N 12-14 balanced, 5M332 ok
2♣ 5+♣ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2♦ 5+♦ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2N 5/5 minors 10-14

Can we use a 1♦ opening as an all-purpose opening for all other hands with 10-14 points? Thanks!"

Slight mod:

2♣ 5 to 7♣ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2♦ 5 to 7♦ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM

1♦ now does not promise any particular suit

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jan 28 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

shevek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:01 AM, said:

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Ah, you just didn't ask nicely enough. A more favorable response might have been had from saying:

"We want to use the following opening bids in our strong club system:
1♣ artificial 15+
1♥ 4+♥ 10-14 pts. longer minor ok but not 4=4 majors
1♠ 5+♠ 10-14 pts, "standard"
1N 12-14 balanced, 5M332 ok
2♣ 5+♣ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2♦ 5+♦ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM
2N 5/5 minors 10-14

Can we use a 1♦ opening as an all-purpose opening for all other hands with 10-14 points? Thanks!"

As I've said many times before, I consider crap like this cheating:

Shevek was specifically told that the opening in question is illegal and that he is not allowed to play it.

You are now advocating doing an end run around this by playing games with disclosure.

You are deliberately obstuficating the the description of the 1D opening hoping that the regulators won't recognize that this promises 4+ Spades.

Moreover, you are doing it deliberately.

Everyone knows that the ACBL licensing system is screwed up beyond belief. I have a lot of sympathy for folks that fall into one of the many cracks in the system. However, this is a case where

1. You have been specifically told that a 1♦ opening that promises 4+ Spades is illegal

2. You recommend lying about the definition of your opening to the regulators in order to play this opening

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

As I've said many times before, I consider crap like this cheating

You're entitled to your opinion.

Quote

You are deliberately obstuficating the the description of the 1D opening hoping that the regulators won't recognize that this promises 4+ Spades.

Well since there's no definition of "all purpose" given, why is it cheating to present your methods in a way that emphasizes the "all-purpose" nature?

Quote

1.  You have been specifically told that a 1♦ opening that promises 4+ Spades is illegal

No, my proposal shows 4♠, not 4+♠, so the original response (which isn't necessarily authoritative anyway) isn't applicable. In particular, it might include balanced hands below 12 hcp that your partnership agrees to open.

Quote

2.  You recommend lying about the definition of your opening to the regulators in order to play this opening

Not at all. My statement was completely accurate. Sure I could have described it in a way more likely to get rejected, but I don't see where in the laws that's required.

As a general alternative to these sorts of (IMO) unreasonable interpretations of the "all purpose opening", you can always throw in an odd relatively rare hand type to avoid the likely (if unjustified) objections. For example, for the 1♦ in question, add a shape without spades, such as 1=4=4=4, so 1♦ is 4♠/5X+ unbal or any 4441 (and hence only promises 1+ spades).

[PrecisionL]

I have been playing Precision and TDs allow us to play:

1♦ promises one or both 4-card majors without a 5 cd M. May have a longer minor. This works really well and I would be greatly disappointed if we could not play this in GCC anymore.

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Jan 28 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

As I've said many times before, I consider crap like this cheating

You're entitled to your opinion.

I share that opinion. If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules and fair play, then you really live in a different reality than the rest of the planet.

[awm]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

I share that opinion. If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules and fair play, then you really live in a different reality than the rest of the planet.

This is trickier than you make it out to be.

Suppose that I don't like playing against Rob's system and think his methods should be illegal. I could then write to ACBL headquarters, describing his methods in a way which makes them appear to be illegal. Likely I would get a ruling from ACBL HQ which would ban Rob's methods.

Isn't what I just did at least as bad as what Rob did by describing his methods in a way which makes them appear to be legal?

But of course, anyone who writes to ACBL HQ asking them if certain methods are allowed probably has an ulterior motive (i.e. they either want confirmation that certain methods are allowed, or that they are not allowed). And as long as the answer ACBL gives depends on the language used we will have this problem.

I have an email from Flader saying that Muiderburg is legal on the general chart. Does this mean I can play it? I also have an email from Beye saying that Muiderburg is not legal on the general chart. Does this mean my opponents can't play it?

Something's gotta give here.

[Rossoneri]

At the end of the day, isn't this a problem of ACBL being inconsistent?

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules...

If it is an illegal bid, I would agree it would be unsportsmanlike to try to trick someone into sanctioning it. The problem here is that it is unclear what exactly is allowed (or not) under the GCC's "all purpose 1m opening" clause. I am of the opinion that it means you can play it as anything you want. Mr. Baye is of the opinion that anything that smells like a transfer is illegal.

PrecisionL, on Jan 28 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

1♦ promises one or both 4-card majors without a 5 cd M.  May have a longer minor.

... I would be greatly disappointed if we could not play [1♦ Precision] in GCC anymore.

See this is the problem. No one is ever going to ban the Precision 1♦ because too many people like it and already play it. However, it's not at all clear that Mr. Baye has a consistent interpretation of the "all purpose" clause that both allows Precision (which everyone agrees is ok) but which disallows the various bids he says are illegal, and probably many other things besides.

So it's impossible to tell if Mr. Baye is enforcing the law, or just making bias rulings against new systems that are inconsistent with what is already allowed. When the rules are unclear, you're going to have these problems - people can have reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't legal to play, which makes it hard on everyone to know what is/isn't allowed. I mean you could probably get the ACBL people to approve an all purpose 1♦ that shows 1 4cM, or 1 5cM or any 3-suited hand, or a whole bunch of random stuff that's already part of existing legal systems, so why exactly is 4+ spades specifically a problem and these others aren't?

Rossoneri, on Jan 28 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

At the end of the day, isn't this a problem of ACBL being inconsistent?

Basically yes, but they won't admit to what standard they're using so it's hard to see that that's what's going on. Notice how all the rulings that come back from the ACBL regarding legality are of the form "it's (il)legal", not "this is why it is (il)legal". I have a strong feeling that this is because the why is based on what they personally want to allow, in contrast to what the written rules allow.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jan 28 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

As I've said many times before, I consider crap like this cheating

You're entitled to your opinion.

I share that opinion. If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules and fair play, then you really live in a different reality than the rest of the planet.

Alternatively you could just be a regulator.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jan 28 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

I share that opinion. If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules and fair play, then you really live in a different reality than the rest of the planet.

This is trickier than you make it out to be.

Suppose that I don't like playing against Rob's system and think his methods should be illegal. I could then write to ACBL headquarters, describing his methods in a way which makes them appear to be illegal. Likely I would get a ruling from ACBL HQ which would ban Rob's methods.

Isn't what I just did at least as bad as what Rob did by describing his methods in a way which makes them appear to be legal?

Sorry Adam I don't know what the heck you are talking about. The bid should always be described in the most descriptive manner possible. How would I describe a bid to make it seem illegal?

As for the differing answer given to you by two high-ranking directors, I'm sorry that this happened to you although it seems to have given you decades worth of ammo for your posts. I recommend writing an email that you send to both of them at the same time explaining what happened, and asking if there is a consensus. Or maybe you have tried that before, I don't know, if you have what did they say? If you haven't, I say give it a try.

Rob F, on Jan 28 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

If you believe trying to get an illegal bid allowed by playing games with words is within the spirit of the rules...

If it is an illegal bid, I would agree it would be unsportsmanlike to try to trick someone into sanctioning it. The problem here is that it is unclear what exactly is allowed (or not) under the GCC's "all purpose 1m opening" clause. I am of the opinion that it means you can play it as anything you want. Mr. Baye is of the opinion that anything that smells like a transfer is illegal.

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal! You are making up your own rules as you see fit. The attitude you are displaying here is despicable, this is simply more fooling around with words to get the result you want.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Pardon me. You believe it's legal. A director (frankly a very high-ranking director) has told you it is illegal. At that point, your belief isn't worth a mouse turd any more, the bid is illegal! You are making up your own rules as you see fit. The attitude you are displaying here is despicable, this is simply more fooling around with words to get the result you want.

Directors, even very high-ranking directors, sometimes make rulings that are wrong. They twist words in or make up regulations that are not contained in the promulgated regulations.

Some players think that this sort of behaviour by a director is despicable. They are making up rules as they see fit. Rules that are contrary to the written regulations. Directors simply do not have this power. The laws state clearly that they are bound by the announced regulations.

If the regulation does not mean what the regulators want it to mean then the only proper way to deal with the situation is for the regulators to amend the regulation. It is not proper for the director to rule contrary to what is written.

[awm]

I have tried many times to resolve the ambiguity, sent email indicating both of their responses, etc. When I get a reply it is to deny that there is a problem. Rick Beye is also happy to contradict himself in a single email, saying things like "natural bids are always allowed... this bid is natural... it is not allowed."

If you want to make a bid illegal, you make it sound like it shows additional suits. For example:

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades and a five-card or longer side suit = illegal.

1♠ opening showing exactly four spades, unbalanced, not 4441 = legal.

At least, so I suspect. I haven't run this particular test case by ACBL but this is the gist of the rulings I get from Rick Beye (as best I can figure out, keep in mind he is not very consistent). Is one disclosure better than the other? Maybe, but I don't think it's too extreme.

In any case, I don't understand why Josh seems to take the view that if two authorities are queried and one says "legal" and the other "illegal" then it makes the bid illegal. Obviously it'd be nice if all authorities agreed, but if they don't, why is it unethical to take the majority vote, or even the decision you like the best? And supposing that you have talked to several authorities and some of them gave you each answer... is this enough to complain if the opponents are using the methods? Or just enough to avoid playing them yourself?