[jdonn]

xcurt, on Feb 8 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Not allowing me methods to entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has enables pairs to play theoretically unsound methods.

Just a thought (irrespective of the legality of anything).

You can "entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has" with natural overcalls and preempts too.

[JanM]

Mbodell, on Feb 8 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

If I were allowed written defenses (as I understand some are for artificial 2+ club openers), I would want to try out the Stevenson defense.  This shows (I've condensed a little, more details in the link):

Quote

X - normal takeout double with other 3 suits or any 18+ with normal bidding
1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣ = canape style second longest suit (3 or 4 or very bad 5), with an outside 5+ card suit
1NT - balanced 16-19
2♦ - at least 5/5 with ♦ and another
2M - weak natural
2NT - at least 5/5 w/o ♦
3x - natural weak

Over the canape style bids cheapest advance is pass/correct, 2nd cheapest is game try or better force, and higher new suits and NT are natural (suits forcing), over the 2♦ you get 2nt as a force and over 2nt you get 3♦ as a force.

In ACBLand written defenses are allowed only for Mid-Chart and Super-Chart methods (in WBF events, for Brown Sticker bids). I'm fairly confident that a 1♣ opening bid that can have 2 clubs in a balanced hand as well as an unbalanced hand with clubs is GCC legal, thus you wouldn't be allowed written defenses. Ditto for 1♣ strong, artificial & forcing. If the 1♣ opening shows a specific hand (4+ hearts, weak with both Majors, etc) you are allowed written defenses.

Bocchi & DuBoin toyed with canape overcalls for a year or so - they dropped them after finding that they weren't successful. I don't know any example hands, just that they stopped playing them and someone (not sure if it was one of them or not) told me it was because they hadn't worked well. But of course YMMV.

[rbforster]

JanM, on Feb 8 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

In ACBLand written defenses are allowed only for Mid-Chart and Super-Chart methods (in WBF events, for Brown Sticker bids). I'm fairly confident that a 1♣ opening bid that can have 2 clubs in a balanced hand as well as an unbalanced hand with clubs is GCC legal, thus you wouldn't be allowed written defenses. Ditto for 1♣ strong, artificial & forcing. If the 1♣ opening shows a specific hand (4+ hearts, weak with both Majors, etc) you are allowed written defenses.

Just to clarify, if the 1♣ opening showed something that wasn't GCC, then it would likely need a written defense under MidChart. If the 1♣ opening for 4+ hearts (or whatever) is an all purpose GCC opening, no written defense would be needed just as none is allowed over 1♣ 2+ (clubs or balanced).

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

xcurt, on Feb 8 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Not allowing me methods to entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has enables pairs to play theoretically unsound methods.

Just a thought (irrespective of the legality of anything).

You can "entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has" with natural overcalls and preempts too.

To bring this full circle, some years back Chip Martel suggested that 1♣ Polish was theoretically unsound on rec.games.bridge [1], but didn't post the full defense he and Lew Stansby were using. I presume he didn't want to help the Poles for the next WC cycle.

The basic idea of the defense to 1♣ Polish was to take advantage of the fact that responder cannot assume a strong hand on the part of partner.

I think the idea of Brink-Drijver with Holo-Bolo is similar -- take advantage of the fact that responder cannot assume a suit on the part of opener. Then when responder calls, fourth hand can (usually) decode the multi-way overcall from partner, but only if it is advantageous to resolve the ambiguity.

Now if we're going to regulate the defenses to some artificial minor openings but not others, we have placed the regulatory authorities in a position of choosing which methods to advantage by protecting those employing them by restricting the options available to the defensive bidding side.

[1]Link

[mikestar]

JanM, on Feb 8 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that would be GCC legal, but it sounds like a really bad method to me . While there are lots of people who like to open a 15-17 1NT with hands that include 5 card Majors, I don't think that they'd really want to do so if they had the alternative of opening the Major and then showing 15-17 balanced the next round, IOW if they played weak NT and 1♥-1♠-1NT showed a Strong NT with 5 hearts and 1♠...2NT showed a strong NT with 5 spades (of course the second auction is less attractive, so I might understand wanting to put 5 spades, strong NT into 1♦ although I still don't think it would work well.

Thank you for your answer. I agree that in 2/1 or SAYC such an opening would have disadvantages that would not be offset by the advantages.

The context I would be using the bid is a big club, weak NT system in which the major suit openings may be four cards but are never made on balanced hands. This treatment of 1♦ has two advantages in this context:

1) It makes the 1NT forcing response to a 4 card major opening workable.
2) The major suit opener's 1NT and 2NT rebids can be used artificially, as they are not needed to show balanced hands. For example, 1♥-1♠-1NT shows exactly 4 hearts and one or both minors, while 1♥-1♠-2♣/2♦ show the bid minor and at least 5 hearts, allowing a safe heart preference on a doubleton.

These are far greater advantages than in the the 2/1 or SAYC case at the cost of the same disadvantages.

[straube]

Against 1C, two or more, how about...

1D-both majors or 4M,5m
1M-5
1N-nat
2m-natural overcall

Could I place this with the GCC?

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

Against 1C, two or more, how about...

1D-both majors or 4M,5m
1M-5
1N-nat
2m-natural overcall

Could I place this with the GCC?

Against 1♣ 2 or more, you can play anything you want. That's the result of the fact that any methods are allowed over "conventional" opening bids and a 1♣ opening bid that doesn't promise 3+ clubs is defined as not "natural," therefore "conventional." Whether that would be a good method, I don't know. I think that against most of the "natural or balanced" 1♣ pairs I know, who play transfer responses, so that over your ambiguous 1♦ they have easy Major suit transfers available, I don't think it would be at all disruptive and I wonder if you might miss being able to bid 1♦ with just diamonds and a hand that was either too good for 2♦ (if that's weak) or had only 5 diamonds. Even though 1♦ doesn't take up any bidding space, it can often be useful to bid it to get your side into the auction, and sometimes to get your partner to lead a diamond (I deliberately put that second, because after a 2+ club, if the opponents play transfers, you're likely to be on lead. But sometimes we play in a suit that responder named first.

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Let's say I sat down at the table and pre-alert my 1D bid as showing four spades. The opponents object and ask if I have a pre-approved defense. I say that my 1D is an all-purpose bid and that I've got an email from the ACBL that says I can use it to show four spades. I say that all-purpose bids don't require pre-approved defenses but I can suggest a defense or they can make one of their own. I say I only pre-alerted my bid as a courtesy to them because most pairs aren't used to such a bid. The TD is called and he rules that my 1D is illegal. I comply with the ruling and finish the session. Then what? I've already had my email from the ACBL in hand saying I can use it; no mention was made of needing a pre-approved defense or needing to pre-alert the bid. How do I appeal and how do I avoid this situation again? Again, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'd just like to know if/where I'm wrong and why and what I would do next.

I think that your appropriate first recourse would be to write ACBL and tell them that you had not been allowed to play your methods, despite the fact that someone at ACBL had emailed you saying you could. Of course, if you played in a club, ACBL doesn't control what is and is not allowed, but if it was in a Sectional or higher, I think they do. I suspect that if you did this, you'd eventually be told that Butch didn't understand your question and a 1♦ bid that promises 4 spades is actually not "all-purpose."

[akhare]

JanM, on Feb 9 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

I think that your appropriate first recourse would be to write ACBL and tell them that you had not been allowed to play your methods, despite the fact that someone at ACBL had emailed you saying you could. Of course, if you played in a club, ACBL doesn't control what is and is not allowed, but if it was in a Sectional or higher, I think they do. I suspect that if you did this, you'd eventually be told that Butch didn't understand your question and a 1♦ bid that promises 4 spades is actually not "all-purpose."

Jan,

Can you please specify what doesn't make the 1♦ an "all purpose" bid in this system?

1C-16+
1D-all-purpose, with hands that fit nowhere else. these happen to have exactly 4♠
1H-4+ ♥, unbalanced, but not 4♥, 4♠
1S-5+ ♠
1N-balanced
2C-six clubs or (31)-4-5
2D-six diamonds or (31)-5-4

It's really frustrating to have rulings along the lines of "You can play XYZ only if you rub your stomach and do something else that's impossible at the same time" and never any explanation as to *why*.

Of course, depending on whom you ask and the phase of the moon, you might get a slightly morphed version, or in some cases, a complete volte face.

[straube]

akhare, on Feb 9 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

Jan,

Can you please specify what doesn't make the 1♦  an "all purpose" bid in this system?

1C-16+
1D-all-purpose, with hands that fit nowhere else. these happen to have exactly 4♠
1H-4+ ♥, unbalanced, but not 4♥, 4♠
1S-5+ ♠
1N-balanced
2C-six clubs or (31)-4-5
2D-six diamonds or (31)-5-4

I think she's stipulated...

JanM said:

Yes, what hands you open with this "all-purpose" bid will depend on the rest of your system, but that's sort of the point I think. You aren't allowed to design a system around 1♣ and 1♦ bids that show (for instance) 4+ cards in the corresponding Major, but if the way you have defined other bids means that your opening 1♦ bid will always have exactly 4 spades, that is probably okay.

So Jan seems ok with using 1D as 4 spades when 1D is set up as a stuck or catchall bid. But I want to see if she will take it a step further...

JanM 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.

with...

JanM said:

straube @ Feb 8 2009, on 02:48 AM), said:

I appreciate your sharing what you know in this informal setting, but how (in the absolute and formal sense) am I to know that this is true? Or that there weren't competing considerations?  Why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL saw fit to provide a little latitude in the GCC so as to encourage experimentation or even to placate system designers like me?  Or alternately, why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL wanted a chart that could be taken literally...even at the cost of unlooked for or unwanted results?  It seems like some of the drafters might even have said, "Hey.  You know, someone could do something pretty crazy with these all-purpose bids...like maybe play a Little Majors system...except that we've restricted the responses, so probably no one will try."  

You can't, and in fact, neither can I. I try to say things like "I think" and "maybe" often, but I see that I didn't in the particular answer you quoted, for which I apologize. I may be able to speculate with a little more background knowledge than you, but all I am doing is speculating. And I'm sure that different drafters had different ideas in mind. Some of the ambiguities in the GCC no doubt arise from an attempt to leave things flexible (for example, I'm sure that's why we have the "all-purpose" clause instead of something more specific).
All that I am trying to suggest is that a major purpose of the GCC was to make legal in low-level games things that players in those games would be comfortable with. Sure, some of those things (like Precision 1♦) are hard to defend against, but they are things that those players are used to dealing with. I think the context in which the GCC was drafted is relevant to understanding it.

Jan seems to be saying that perhaps more than a very few people would interpret all-purpose to mean any purpose and that it's possible that the intent of the GCC (its creators) was to allow for the bids to be any purpose (though I doubt the feels this is the case). I therefore doubt that she would state categorically that (for example)

1C-four hearts
1D-four spades

is not an allowable use of all-purpose. I think she would say that the question calls for interpretation and she would interpret the GCC so as to prohibit this use. Do I have that right?

[straube]

JanM, on Feb 9 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

Against 1C, two or more, how about...

1D-both majors or 4M,5m
1M-5
1N-nat
2m-natural overcall

Could I place this with the GCC?

Against 1♣ 2 or more, you can play anything you want. That's the result of the fact that any methods are allowed over "conventional" opening bids and a 1♣ opening bid that doesn't promise 3+ clubs is defined as not "natural," therefore "conventional." Whether that would be a good method, I don't know. I think that against most of the "natural or balanced" 1♣ pairs I know, who play transfer responses, so that over your ambiguous 1♦ they have easy Major suit transfers available, I don't think it would be at all disruptive and I wonder if you might miss being able to bid 1♦ with just diamonds and a hand that was either too good for 2♦ (if that's weak) or had only 5 diamonds. Even though 1♦ doesn't take up any bidding space, it can often be useful to bid it to get your side into the auction, and sometimes to get your partner to lead a diamond (I deliberately put that second, because after a 2+ club, if the opponents play transfers, you're likely to be on lead. But sometimes we play in a suit that responder named first.

Thanks for your comments. I was supposing the GCC where (I don't think) the opponents can use transfers over 1C, but it seems like they certainly could over a conventional defense.

I often get run over after overcalling 1D and I thought it might have merit to only save space when our side had a possible major suit fit. However, another reason for keeping the natural 1D is when I have both minors. I wonder if my 1D would come up more or less often than a natural overcall.

[PrecisionL]

See my previous posting in this thread - Although 1♣ promising 2 or more is a conventional bid, you may NOT use conventional defenses to it according to an e-mail I received in 2006 from Mike Flader. He said that the conventional bid has to be strong also (15+ hcp) before one can use conventional defenses to it.

By the way, a takeout double is conventional (not usually strong) and conventional replies are allowed by responder to the opening bidder [or by responder to the takeout X - edited 2/9/09].

So as we all know, the GCC is not consistent or the interpretation by ACBL Directors is not consistent.

[straube]

PrecisionL said:

See my previous posting in this thread - Although 1♣ promising 2 or more is a conventional bid, you may NOT use  conventional defenses to it according to an e-mail I received in 2006 from Mike Flader.  He said that the conventional bid has to be strong also (15+ hcp) before one can use conventional defenses to it.

Did he say why not? For instance, what's the point of defining it as a conventional bid unless one can use conventional defenses against it?

PrecisionL said:

By the way, a takeout double is conventional (not usually strong) and conventional replies are allowed by responder to the opening bidder.

This doesn't seem right (unless you mean that conventional replies are allowed after a takeout double). The way you're stating, the opening side gets to have conventional replies just because it's opened a conventional opening, but the oppositon is allowed no conventional defenses except for double. Under the GCC conventional replies aren't allowed unless the bid is strong (15+). However, conventional defenses are allowed to conventional bids whether strong or not. I would guess that after a conventional opening and a conventional defense that all subsequent bidding can be conventional.

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 9 2009, 03:18 AM, said:

Jan seems to be saying that perhaps more than a very few people would interpret all-purpose to mean any purpose and that it's possible that the intent of the GCC (its creators) was to allow for the bids to be any purpose (though I doubt the feels this is the case). I therefore doubt that she would state categorically that (for example)

1C-four hearts
1D-four spades

is not an allowable use of all-purpose. I think she would say that the question calls for interpretation and she would interpret the GCC so as to prohibit this use. Do I have that right?

Actually, what I am trying to say is that I believe that the drafters of the GCC intended "all-purpose" to mean "catchall," not "any purpose" and that the people now charged with interpreting the GCC (the ACBL TDs I think, with the CTD as the final authority, unless the C&C Committee might be able to over-rule him) would interpret the GCC as prohibiting the use of 1♣ to show 4 hearts and 1♦ to show 4 spades.

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 9 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

PrecisionL said:

See my previous posting in this thread - Although 1♣ promising 2 or more is a conventional bid, you may NOT use  conventional defenses to it according to an e-mail I received in 2006 from Mike Flader.  He said that the conventional bid has to be strong also (15+ hcp) before one can use conventional defenses to it.

Did he say why not? For instance, what's the point of defining it as a conventional bid unless one can use conventional defenses against it?

I wonder if there was confusion over whether the question was asking about conventional responses (which are allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong) and conventional defenses (which are allowed if the 1♣ bid is conventional)?

[qwery_hi]

JanM, on Feb 9 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

straube, on Feb 9 2009, 03:18 AM, said:

Jan seems to be saying that perhaps more than a very few people would interpret all-purpose to mean any purpose and that it's possible that the intent of the GCC (its creators) was to allow for the bids to be any purpose (though I doubt the feels this is the case).  I therefore doubt that she would state categorically that (for example)

1C-four hearts
1D-four spades

is not an allowable use of all-purpose.  I think she would say that the question calls for interpretation and she would interpret the GCC so as to prohibit this use.  Do I have that right?

Actually, what I am trying to say is that I believe that the drafters of the GCC intended "all-purpose" to mean "catchall," not "any purpose" and that the people now charged with interpreting the GCC (the ACBL TDs I think, with the CTD as the final authority, unless the C&C Committee might be able to over-rule him) would interpret the GCC as prohibiting the use of 1♣ to show 4 hearts and 1♦ to show 4 spades.

This makes sense; although as few of us have pointed out (me using unfortunate set theoritic concepts (set-universe LOL) ) it is possible to define other opening bids so that
1D turns out to be a catch-all always having 4+ spades.

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

Thanks for your explanation, blackshoe.  I guess I'm still confused as to the relationship of the LC and the ACLB CTD.  It sounded like you would be recommending to try to have the appeal heard by the LC but you also said that if Rick Beye ruled against me, that would be the end of it.  What if I got different rulings from the LC and the CTD?  Is that even possible?

The Laws Commission hears appeals only when it is claimed that a ruling violated the Laws of Bridge. Thus if a director told you that you could not play a 1♠ bid that promised 4 spades & an opening hand, you could appeal to the Laws Commission, because under the Laws the Sponsoring Organization isn't allowed to ban natural bids (the new provision about regulating natural bids applies only to a small subset of natural bids). The GCC is not a part of the Laws. It is the ACBL's regulation of conventional bids. Even if the GCC specifically allowed a 1♦ bid that showed 4 spades and a director ruled that you could not use that method, you could not appeal to the Laws Commission, because no violation of the Laws would have occurred.

The Laws Commission receives about 1 appeal per year and rules substantively on far fewer.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Feb 10 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

Thanks for your explanation, blackshoe.  I guess I'm still confused as to the relationship of the LC and the ACLB CTD.  It sounded like you would be recommending to try to have the appeal heard by the LC but you also said that if Rick Beye ruled against me, that would be the end of it.  What if I got different rulings from the LC and the CTD?  Is that even possible?

The Laws Commission hears appeals only when it is claimed that a ruling violated the Laws of Bridge. Thus if a director told you that you could not play a 1♠ bid that promised 4 spades & an opening hand, you could appeal to the Laws Commission, because under the Laws the Sponsoring Organization isn't allowed to ban natural bids (the new provision about regulating natural bids applies only to a small subset of natural bids). The GCC is not a part of the Laws. It is the ACBL's regulation of conventional bids. Even if the GCC specifically allowed a 1♦ bid that showed 4 spades and a director ruled that you could not use that method, you could not appeal to the Laws Commission, because no violation of the Laws would have occurred.

The Laws Commission receives about 1 appeal per year and rules substantively on far fewer.

Yes a violation of law has occurred.

LAW 81B2 said:

The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

If the regulation says 1♦ showing four spades is allowed then the director has no option but to apply that regulation. Even when the regulation states that "all-purpose" bids are allowed then the director must allow "all-purpose" bids. When a bid and defense appear on the defensive database the director must allow those methods.

The director does not have discretion to turn a blind eye to "announced" regulations.

If the director does ignore the regulations then there is a clear violation of the laws of bridge.

[straube]

JanM said:

The Laws Commission hears appeals only when it is claimed that a ruling violated the Laws of Bridge. Thus if a director told you that you could not play a 1♠ bid that promised 4 spades & an opening hand, you could appeal to the Laws Commission, because under the Laws the Sponsoring Organization isn't allowed to ban natural bids (the new provision about regulating natural bids applies only to a small subset of natural bids). The GCC is not a part of the Laws. It is the ACBL's regulation of conventional bids. Even if the GCC specifically allowed a 1♦ bid that showed 4 spades and a director ruled that you could not use that method, you could not appeal to the Laws Commission, because no violation of the Laws would have occurred.

The Laws Commission receives about 1 appeal per year and rules substantively on far fewer.

Thanks for the explanation. So the LC can overrule a TD or the CTD if it is a matter of law, but this seldom happens. I'm still curious if/when the C&C can overrule a TD or the CTD and if they (the C&C) are the final authority when it comes to the regulations they write, and also if this is such a good idea. It seems a hierarchy of TDs leading up to the CTD would provide something akin to "judicial review".

[blackshoe]

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

What if I got different rulings from the LC and the CTD? Is that even possible?

Anything is possible - but if it's a matter of interpretation of Law, the ACBLLC is superior to the ACBL CTD.

Quote

I don't think I like this idea.  As akhare was alluding to, it introduces questions of transparency and conflict of interest.  It lets a rule-making body be sloppy and vague about its rules because it knows it can always interpret them the way it wants later.  It, in effect, makes the written rules subservient to the rule-making body itself.  As I stated in a previous post, it's part of why it makes sense to have a separate judiciary body...like the idea of being "a nation of laws and not men"

All of the committees of the ACBL are, as I understand the Constitution and Bylaws, subordinate to the BoD. So I would think there is a mechanism in place to cover these possibilities. How well that mechanism works is, of course, another question.