[TimG]

DrTodd13, on Feb 6 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

If you want to restrict GCC to "natural" bidding then, IMO, you can only allow 4 card majors. 5 card majors and 3 card minors may be extremely common and second nature for you but it takes a bit of brainwashing to truly believe that bidding a 3 card suit when you have a 4 card suit is "natural." Defining "natural" differently depending on the level of the opening and whether it is a minor or a major is nothing but designed to allow existing systems.

I said "allows primarily natural methods". I do recognize the trouble with 3-card minor suit openings, but would not have a problem with wording that permitted these "unnatural" openings while at the same time prohibiting a 2H opening that could be based upon a 3-card suit.

[blackshoe]

There is, in addition to the GCC, MC, and SC, a "Limited Chart" which could be used to satisfy the desire for a "more restrictive GCC". It needs some work too, of course.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, does a committee "coordinator" do?

[jdonn]

JanM, on Feb 6 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

Chip was, at the time, on the C&C Committee and also on the Subcommittee charged with approving conventions. Therefore he did in fact know that these bids had not been approved. I suspect, but don't know, that the Conditions of Contest said only that Mid-Chart methods were allowed. The C&C committee is "coordinated" by someone from ACBL management - that has usually been a person who had directing experience, but I don't know whether it always has been. As I said, I don't recall who the person was at that time.

What it sounds like happened is this mysterious director person took it upon himself to decide the defenses were approved, and then he posted them on the website. That doesn't sound like a very good job of 'coordinating the committee' to me.

Of course that is quite shameful, but one other thing strikes me as very bad. Chip obviously knew off his head what defenses the committee had and hadn't approved. And yet in 2 years not one person on the entire committee saw that the defense database included unapproved defenses??? What in the world were they doing all that time? I still can't believe that in all that time, not one person on the committee thought to actually look at the list of approved defenses, and would have noticed there were some imposters and fixed the problem.

Be that as it may, all the information you have conveyed suggests the director did make the right ruling. The website simply didn't have accurate information about what had been approved, but if it hadn't been approved then it hadn't been approved, simple as that. And of course the poor Australian players got absolutely screwed, but they couldn't be allowed to play their system anyway.

I agree with you that the strength of the ACBL is in the literal operations of its tournaments. Booking the hotels and convention space, making sure directors are assigned to the right places and are there on time, getting chairs, tables, bidding boxes, caddies, etc etc etc. I also agree that the website improved over time (it still could use some work, but it used to be completely horrible, now I'd say it's a little below average.) But the mismanagement in other areas is still quite severe. I mean, the committee currently is not accepting submissions, doesn't record minutes despite a clear ACBL rule that it must record minutes, and has no one even assigned to correct those problems? Seriously...

[akhare]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

Be that as it may, all the information you have conveyed suggests the director did make the right ruling. The website simply didn't have accurate information about what had been approved, but if it hadn't been approved then it hadn't been approved, simple as that. And of course the poor Australian players got absolutely screwed, but they couldn't be allowed to play their system anyway.

Along those lines, it would be interesting to know where the system of record for approved conventions actually resides. Obviously, it's not the website, but it *must* be written down somewhere...

[awm]

JanM said:

Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts).

I sent email to a bunch of Los Angeles' area's better players. None of these folks are BBO forum posters (or have even read these forums as far as I know). One can argue about the relative skills of these players (certainly District 23 is not the strongest in the country in any case) but all of these are players who have "been around" for quite some time, served on committees, scored up many thousand of masterpoints. I think if Jan is right and "everyone" really does know what this means, then we should see some consensus. Here are my replies so far:

Leo Bell said:

In my opinion, the chart is clear in that ALL meanings of 1C or 1D promising 10+ HCP are allowed.... If you want to play that a 1C opener is a "transfer" to hearts and 1D is a transfer to spades, that is perfectly ok.

Jeff Goldsmith said:

I think the key word in that ruling is "all-purpose."  For example, if a 1D opening promised spades, I don't think that is "all-purpose." If it covers systemic holes, then it's a catch-all.  So balanced or some set of minor suit hands sounds OK, even if it's never length in diamonds.

Alex Kolesnik said:

I think the term "all-purpose" really means any purpose you choose to assign to it.  Probably "multi-purpose" would be more precise, since virtually everyone that opens 1C or 1D in any method has a list of specific hand types that it might show.  So if you chose to assign the meaning to 1C that it shows 10+ points and exactly 2 clubs, or exactly 4 spades, or anything else you like, that would be legal.

Mike Savage said:

No high-ranking director has ever spelled this out to me - so I am unencumbered by specific knowledge. However, I am still sure what is meant and what is right. It says "all-purpose" so I would take that to mean "all purpose", right? Any shape, any distribution.

Hmm three out of the four agree with my interpretation that any call is allowed. Only one (Goldsmith) agrees with Jan's interpretation. Certainly this doesn't make one interpretation "right" and it's a small sample size anyway (I'm expecting some more replies later, including from some regional level directors) but it does seem enough to contradict her point that everyone knows she is right aside from a small number of crazies who post to BBO forums.

[jdonn]

I find the interpretation any meaining is allowed to be absurd! If that was the intention it would say "any meaning at all" or "any strength and distribution". The fact that any other term is used is clear evidence that it does NOT mean any meaning is allowed.

[DrTodd13]

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd. That should teach 'em!

Look, language is not precise. There are multiple ways to say the same thing. Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever." "Ever" doesn't add anything. Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

What is really going on is some people believe that the text of the rule is all that matters and others believe that the intent is what matters. The former would argue that we can't possibly divine intent and the latter would say that the rules would be too voluminous otherwise. For those in the former camp, several online dictionaries defined "all-purpose" as "useful for many purposes" OR "not limited in use or function." For our purposes, this definition is completely worthless. Pick the first part and we have no idea which of the many purposes are acceptable and which aren't. Pick the second part and there would be no restrictions. The word "all-purpose" is just a terrible word to use in a regulation. I bet if you asked those same people what they thought the intent of the C&C committee in using the word "all-purpose" that you would get different answers. I don't think they intended to allow those bids to be used for any possible meaning but the regulation itself gives me no idea what is allowed or not.

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

If that was the intention it would say "any meaning at all" or "any strength and distribution". The fact that any other term is used is clear evidence that it does NOT mean any meaning is allowed.

Perhaps that's what they did say, and you just have an odd interpretation of "all purpose". I agree with Adam and his experts that the "obvious" interpretation of this rule is that 10+ points and anything you want is what's allowed. Of course that's just my opinion, but it's based on what the rules says since I have no idea about the authors' intent (and I don't have any nefarious plans for playing 1♦ to bias me).

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

I find the interpretation any meaining is allowed to be absurd!

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Feb 6 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd.  That should teach 'em!

Yes obviously that's why I posted here. To teach a bunch of people in California a thing or two.

Quote

Look, language is not precise.  There are multiple ways to say the same thing.  Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever."  "Ever" doesn't add anything.  Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Dr Todd is very bad at analogies. That should teach 'em!

Aside from the fact that "all purpose" is a different term rather than an extraneous word added onto something like "any meaning", "ever" on Mythbusters changes the TONE of the sentence, implying more serious consequences for failing to follow the advice than if "ever" hadn't been there. So your analogy wasn't only irrelevant, it was also incorrent.

Rob F, on Feb 6 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

And you are still posting why?

[awm]

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

It seems to me that folks are putting a lot of "I'll know it when I see it" thinking into this, basing their decisions about what is allowed on what they think "should" be allowed and not on what the regulations actually say.

To give an extreme example, consider these two systems, the first which everyone seems to think is okay and the second which some people seem likely to take issue with:

(1) Matchpoint Precision

1♣ = 15+ any shape
1♦ = 10-14 points with one or more four-card majors, maybe longer minor, maybe balanced
1M = 10-14 points with 5+ in the bid major
1NT = 12-14 balanced without a four-card major
2m = 10-14 with 5+ in the bid minor, no 4-card major
higher = natural preempts

(2) Multi One Diamond

1♣ = 15+ any shape
1♦ = 10-14 points with one or more five-card or longer majors
1M = 10-14 points with exactly four in the bid major, maybe longer minor, maybe balanced
1NT = 12-14 balanced without a four-card major
2m = 10-14 with 5+ in the bid minor, no 4-card major
higher = natural preempts

I cannot really see any reason that the first system's 1♦ opening is "all-purpose" and the second is not. Each system the 1♦ opening promises length (four or more cards) in one of the two majors. Each system the 1♦ opening handles all hands with 10+ points that don't fit any other opening. While some of us may not "like" the second system as much as we "like" the first I really cannot see anything in the regulations that supports a difference in legality.

[joshs]

I was asked how my transfer opening methods got "approved and posted on the web site when the committee never approved them".

Well, I still don't know. I would love to have dates when the committee met, and some minutes of those meetings. But the whole process has been under a shroud of secrecy. (Woo hoo, I got to say "Shroud of Secrecy"!!)

Here is one hypothetical story:
The acbl passed a rule that required this committee to form and decided on defenses before the Toronto nationals (otherwise lots of commonly played midchart stuff would not be allowed. Keep in mind my other 2 submissions were kaplan inversion which was common at that time, and x-fers over 1C, which was not common yet, but there were a few of us playing those methods). To the frustration of the co-ordinating director, they never met, so finally he approved the defenses. Somehow, by 2 years later (philadelphia nationals), they still had not met.

As to the "all-purpose 1D opening". No one has any idea what is actually allowed. In practice, in GCC events you see all sorts of rubbish being played, and its a complete waste of time arguing that someone can't play those methods. When I submitted my defense to my x-fer 1D opening, I actually did not think by the letter of the law I needed a defense there, but as for the spirit of the law, people should not have to prepare for every sort of highly unusual mnethod in pairs movements, hence I thought I should provide a defense.

One method, popular in Texas and New Mexico, has 1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major (this fills a hole for those players who open a canape 1M, for instance). Anyway, I have my methods over all this rubbish, as any self respecting bridge player who is interested in bidding would...

[straube]

Early in this thread, I pointed out the interesting language of the GCC.

GCC said:

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

I wondered if this meant that only one of them could be used. The other might have to be natural or more likely, artificial and strong. After all, the ACBL could just have easily written...

GCC said:

ONE CLUB AND ONE DIAMOND may be used as all-purpose opening bids (artifical or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

Just now I found where this very concern was being discussed.
http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/012158.html

I'll include the text at the end of this post.

People can interpret OR as...
1. one but not both
2. and/or

So we have another ambiguous GCC statement.

Apparently, two different TDs gave two different opinions on whether it should be the one meaning or the other. Richard Beye, the Chief TD, had the opinion that the rule means "either" or "both". If so, then it seems even more likely that one can assign more meaning to "all-purpose" than some have thought.

I think many of us (at least myself) have thought of "all-purpose" as a catchall bid which is somewhat necessary if playing a strong club and even more necessary if playing a strong club with a 5-card major system.

If we can have 2 all purpose bids and neither of them is designated strong, then it wouldn't make sense to have 2 catchall bids...at least not 2 catchall bids showing the same set of hand-types.

I had argued for 1D as four spades predicated on other legal openings denying four spades. My argument was that 1D didn't "show" spades so much as "infer" spades.

I can't say "1C is my stuck bid for hands that don't qualify for 1D, 1H, 1S, etc. bids" while simultaneously saying "1D is my stuck bid for hands that don't qualify for 1C, 1H, 1S, etc. bids" I have to give meaning to one before the other can become a stuck bid.

If I have 2 "all-purpose" bids, it seems reasonable that I ought to be able to organize them such that both have meaning. If my openings (yes, no strong bid)are now...

1C-four hearts
1D-four spades
1H-five hearts
1S-five spades
1N-balanced, no major
2C-clubs
2D-diamonds

it would be disingenuous to say that my 1D "infers" spades. No, it unapologetically "shows" spades.

Perhaps the ACBL had envisioned something instead like...
1C-promises a 4-card major
1D-denies a 4-card major

Perhaps they didn't. Anyway, I feel more comfortable assigning meaning to 1C and 1D, and I have the email from the ACBL (which I posted earlier) as confirmation.

Here's the text from the link I found...





The quoted ACBL General Conditions of Contest regulation is ambiguous.

> Grattan is interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical
operator
> Exclusive Or - with an implicit "not both" in the GCC.

> Others have been interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the
logical operator
> Inclusive Or - with an implicit "and/or" in the GCC.

I noticed the same thing and asked 'rulings@acbl.org' about it. Notice
the effect, though, if you think the rule means "but not both." If that
were so, whether a particular 1C agreement is legal would depend not
only on which hands are shown by the 1C bid but also on which hands
might bid 1D on an entirely different deal. Such a rule would be hard
to enforce, to say the least. In fact, Richard Beye, the ACBL's Chief
Tournament Director, confirms that the rule means "either or both."
However, this confirmation came only after a different TD had given me
the opposite answer! So Richard Hill's basic point, that the rule needs
to be written unambiguously, is confirmed.

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 6 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd.  That should teach 'em!

Yes obviously that's why I posted here. To teach a bunch of people in California a thing or two.

Quote

Look, language is not precise.  There are multiple ways to say the same thing.  Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever."  "Ever" doesn't add anything.  Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Dr Todd is very bad at analogies. That should teach 'em!

Aside from the fact that "all purpose" is a different term rather than an extraneous word added onto something like "any meaning", "ever" on Mythbusters changes the TONE of the sentence, implying more serious consequences for failing to follow the advice than if "ever" hadn't been there. So your analogy wasn't only irrelevant, it was also incorrent.

Rob F, on Feb 6 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

And you are still posting why?

What you were saying is that "all purpose" doesn't mean "all purpose" unless they also add on "Yes...I'm really serious...any and every possible purpose...you can use it for anything...any shape...8+ disjoint ranges if you want." If all-purpose means any purpose then you don't need a single word extra. My argument was that just like the "ever," you don't need extra words...all purpose means all purpose and if you add a whole bunch of extra words that also mean also purpose you haven't changed the meaning one iota.

Forget that we have information outside the GCC for a moment. What makes more sense? That all-purpose means any purpose (and therefore needs no clarification) or that all-purpose means some limited number of purposes out of the thousands of purposes that it could potentially have but then they didn't bother to tell us which of those possibilities were among the few that were allowed? Taking into account our extraneous knowledge, we do indeed know that they have done the ridiculous. They've used a word that effectively means..."you can use 1♣ or 1♦ for a variety of things" but then have spectacularly failed to in any way clarify what is or isn't allowed.

On a side note, I would suggest that you read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. It has some tips on how to have discussions with people without sounding like a pompous ass.

[jdonn]

joshs, on Feb 6 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

Here is one hypothetical story:
The acbl passed a rule that required this committee to form and decided on defenses before the Toronto nationals (otherwise lots of commonly played midchart stuff would not be allowed. Keep in mind my other 2 submissions were kaplan inversion which was common at that time, and x-fers over 1C, which was not common yet, but there were a few of us playing those methods). To the frustration of the co-ordinating director, they never met, so finally he approved the defenses. Somehow, by 2 years later (philadelphia nationals), they still had not met.

That seems entirely plausible. If so then there really wasn't a committee at all, just a list of names who were assigned to a committee that didn't really exist. And of course even if the director did that, he ought to have at least informed the other committee members by email. The way you tell your end of the story, it does sound like nothing much was happening but you just sort of prodded him enough times that he finally made a decision.

I wonder if there's any way any more to find out who this person was...

DrTodd13, on Feb 6 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

What you were saying is that "all purpose" doesn't mean "all purpose" unless they also add on "Yes...I'm really serious...any and every possible purpose...you can use it for anything...any shape...8+ disjoint ranges if you want."

I don't think that's at all what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant to say. I think you are taking my criticism of your analogy completely out of context and using it to credit me with an argument I never made.

Quote

If all-purpose means any purpose then you don't need a single word extra.

This is like that dumb argument about the word "range" that occurred not too long ago. Lots of things have different meanings depending upon the context. That does not change the obvious. In this case it is plainly evident that if they wanted anything to be legal they would have said "anything is legal" or "10+ any shape" or "no shape restrictions" or "all meanings allowed" or any of dozens of very clear phrases. So evident that this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. Just because a definition of 'all purpose' that reads 'any purpose' can be found doesn't change that it obviously wouldn't apply with that meaning here. I mean how literal can people be?

I want to mention that I have never said that I know everything that is allowed or exactly where the line is drawn, as Adam seems to believe I think. I am only saying "all purpose" clearly doesn't mean you can play absolutely anything you want to. It must restrict you somehow.

Quote

My argument was that just like the "ever," you don't need extra words...all purpose means all purpose and if you add a whole bunch of extra words that also mean also purpose you haven't changed the meaning one iota.

I still believe "ever" does change the tone and implication in your example. But in any case you are arguing against a straw man here. When did I ever say that if they wanted to allow anything they would have said "all purpose" and then qualified it ten times?

Quote

Forget that we have information outside the GCC for a moment.  What makes more sense?  That all-purpose means any purpose (and therefore needs no clarification) or that all-purpose means some limited number of purposes out of the thousands of purposes that it could potentially have but then they didn't bother to tell us which of those possibilities were among the few that were allowed?  Taking into account our extraneous knowledge, we do indeed know that they have done the ridiculous.  They've used a word that effectively means..."you can use 1♣ or 1♦ for a variety of things" but then have spectacularly failed to in any way clarify what is or isn't allowed.

I'll try, although it's hard to ignore facts I already know. What makes more sense to me? That they wouldn't use a term with (at least) two meanings to mean something when multiple other terms that far more clearly have the same meaning are available. Note that under your second option, there is no (short) term that is clear. Probably they didn't imagine it would end up mattering.

Quote

On a side note, I would suggest that you read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.  It has some tips on how to have discussions with people without sounding like a pompous ass.

This one almost made me fall out of my chair. I could easily just refer you to the first paragraph of your first reply to me and then ask you to read your tip to me again while trying not to laugh too hard at yourself, but instead I'll ask a question.

I have not been rude to Josh. I have not been rude to Jan. I have not been rude to Fred. I have not been rude to Richard. I have not been rude to straube. I have not been rude to akhare. And for that matter, I have not been rude to the DrTodd who posted in the water cooler at least twice recently (bears no relation to the DrTodd to whom I am now speaking.)

What do all those people have in common that differs from the people to whom I have been rude?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

This is like that dumb argument about the word "range" that occurred not too long ago. Lots of things have different meanings depending upon the context. That does not change the obvious. In this case it is plainly evident that if they wanted anything to be legal they would have said "anything is legal" or "10+ any shape" or "no shape restrictions" or "all meanings allowed" or any of dozens of very clear phrases. So evident that this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. Just because a definition of 'all purpose' that reads 'any purpose' can be found doesn't change that it obviously wouldn't apply with that meaning here. I mean how literal can people be?

I agree your argument about "range" was dumb.

It could also be argued that it is plainly obvious if they wanted to put some restriction on these 1♣ and 1♦ openings then they would have stated precisely what those restrictions were. After all they did manage to put in one restriction (10+). The plain inference from lack of other restrictions and the included terms "artificial or natural" is that there are no other restrictions.

To not put in restrictions and then claim that there are some is simply a perverse game.

[JanM]

awm, on Feb 6 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

JanM said:

Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts).

I sent email to a bunch of Los Angeles' area's better players. None of these folks are BBO forum posters (or have even read these forums as far as I know). ...

Hmm three out of the four agree with my interpretation that any call is allowed. Only one (Goldsmith) agrees with Jan's interpretation. Certainly this doesn't make one interpretation "right" and it's a small sample size anyway (I'm expecting some more replies later, including from some regional level directors) but it does seem enough to contradict her point that everyone knows she is right aside from a small number of crazies who post to BBO forums.

Maybe you're right and my feeling that only a very few people would actually believe that "all-purpose" means "any purpose" or "all purposes" is wrong. I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids. Obviously, 1♣ showing any hand with 16+ HCPs is artificial, so they put that word in.
By the way, I neither said "crazies" nor intended that. I don't think BBOF posters are crazies, but sometimes they can get involved in questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when most people would just use the pin to attach two things together.

[straube]

Jan, would you mind replying to my last post? I am curious what sorts of meanings could be distributed between 1C and 1D if a partnership uses both as all-purpose openings. They ought not mean the same thing. My next question might be why are they allowed to be divided between certain holdings and not possibly others? I think that most of us are used to thinking about what "all-purpose" means in the context of a strong club system. If instead we use two "all-purpose" bids, our understanding of "all-purpose" is likely to change from a catchall sort of meaning to something more definitive. Do you agree?

[awm]

JanM, on Feb 7 2009, 01:15 AM, said:

I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids.

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids. Well I hate to tell you this, but your opinions on these matters are not what "everyone" knows. A very large number of people (quite possibly a majority of knowledgeable people) disagree with you. We have the right to our opinion too. And we resent implications that we are a tiny minority of BBO forum posters, or are cheaters, or are somehow misreading plain english -- especially from someone who seems quite capable of ignoring the clearly written definition of natural when it comes to her own one club openings.

[jdonn]

awm, on Feb 7 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids.

Um Adam? Hello??

JanM, on Feb 7 2009, 01:15 AM, said:

Maybe you're right and my feeling that only a very few people would actually believe that "all-purpose" means "any purpose" or "all purposes" is wrong.

Jan seems to have graciously admitted the exact opposite of what you now seem outraged at her about. I don't know where your last post came from...

Frankly if you are outraged then you should direct it at me if anyone, she has conceded far more ground on this issue than I have. I guess I'm forced to admit a lot of people see it different, but I still can't believe it since it seems so obvious to me.