[blackshoe]

straube, on Feb 9 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

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".

As there is no mechanism in place for anyone to appeal to the C&C committee, it seems the question whether they can overrule a TD is moot.

In effect, it seems there are several "ultimate authorities":

1. On a matter of judgement, the Tournament Appeals Committee, if there is one.
2. On a matter of interpretation of law, the ACBLLC.
3. On a matter of alleged bias of an appeals committee member, the ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee.
4. On a matter of interpretation of regulation, the DIC of the tournament - even if he made the original ruling.
5. On a matter of a disciplinary penalty, the DIC of the tournament - as above.

Wether this is satisfactory I'll leave to others to debate.

[straube]

Thanks for answering my question, blackshoe. In fact, thanks to everyone for contributing. I think I understand the regulations a lot better now.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Feb 9 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

Wether this is satisfactory I'll leave to others to debate.

And I am sure they (we?) will.


Quick question. You explained this very nicely and succinctly. If one were to try to find this information on their own in the ACBL documentation, how much of a research project do you think that would be?

[awm]

Here's a response from an experienced tournament director:

Gary Zeiger said:

Put me down as agreeing with the notion that "all purpose" means all purpose.  This sentence has been on the GCC for many years.  I am not aware of any controversy among senior TD's as to its meaning, including the caveat that whatever meaning you use cannot force you to use some other method which would not be GCC legal.
If the Conventions and Competition Committee does not want "all purpose" to mean just that, they must revise the wording.

My reading of this (although I agree it is not entirely unambiguous) is that he is agreeing that any assigned meaning for minor suit openings is allowed, provided it guarantees ten or more points and does not entail playing some other opening which would not be general chart legal.

[orlam]

Cascade, on Feb 9 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

LOL

[the hog]

orlam, on Feb 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 9 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

LOL

LOL at Orlam's post.

[qwery_hi]

Make LOL not war

[jdonn]

I'll make sure to contact the laws commission next time my opponent stares and me and the director ignores the law by allowing it to continue unchecked.

[orlam]

qwery_hi, on Feb 10 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

Make LOL not war

LOL

[xcurt]

awm, on Feb 10 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Here's a response from an experienced tournament director:

Gary Zeiger said:

Put me down as agreeing with the notion that "all purpose" means all purpose.  This sentence has been on the GCC for many years.  I am not aware of any controversy among senior TD's as to its meaning, including the caveat that whatever meaning you use cannot force you to use some other method which would not be GCC legal.
If the Conventions and Competition Committee does not want "all purpose" to mean just that, they must revise the wording.

My reading of this (although I agree it is not entirely unambiguous) is that he is agreeing that any assigned meaning for minor suit openings is allowed, provided it guarantees ten or more points and does not entail playing some other opening which would not be general chart legal.

Where do you read TD Ziegler saying "any purpose?"

"All Purpose" on Dictionary.com

It seems pretty clear to me that only some very twisted bridge lawyering can claim 1♦ promising specifically another suit is "all-purpose."

And as I alluded to earlier, the smell test a TD should apply is to look at the followups. If a pair is bidding over their "all purpose" minor suit opening to exploit knowledge about specific other suits, then it isn't all purpose. For example, consider the following contrived example, with no opposition bidding

1♦* - 2NT**

*through some convoluted reasoning, almost always promises 4 spades
**forcing and sets spades as trumps

Finally, I note that the GCC says "1 club OR 1 diamond may be used..." (emphasis mine). I don't think this says you can use both minors artificially. On the other hand Precision pairs have been doing that for years. I think this is another case of unfortunate wording, where the intent should be to allow up to one catchall artificial 1-of-a-minor bid and up to two strong one-of-a-minor bids, but not two catchall bids.

Curt

[akhare]

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

And as I alluded to earlier, the smell test a TD should apply is to look at the followups. If a pair is bidding over their "all purpose" minor suit opening to exploit knowledge about specific other suits, then it isn't all purpose. For example, consider the following contrived example, with no opposition bidding

1♦* - 2NT**

*through some convoluted reasoning, almost always promises 4 spades
**forcing and sets spades as trumps

And what's the limit of the smell tests? What if the system genuinely allows opening of some hands with 3+ ♠?

Should standard system with mini-NT openings that use 1♣/1♦ to show the stronger NT ranges flunk the smell test too because a pre-ponderance of hands are likely to be balanced?

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Finally, I note that the GCC says "1 club OR 1 diamond may be used..." (emphasis mine).  I don't think this says you can use both minors artificially.  On the other hand Precision pairs have been doing that for years.  I think this is another case of unfortunate wording, where the intent should be to allow up to one catchall artificial 1-of-a-minor bid and up to two strong one-of-a-minor bids, but not two catchall bids.

By similar logic, it takes very twisted bridge lawyering to come up with such a restrictive view of the GCC.

Even assumming your interpretation is correct, it seems that Precision is OK because it uses only one catchall bid and one strong bid:

1♣ = 15+, strong (NOT catch all)
1♦ = 10+, (one and only catch all)

[Cascade]

orlam, on Feb 10 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 9 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

LOL

You think it is ok for the director to ignore the regulations?

[xcurt]

akhare, on Feb 10 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

...

By similar logic, it takes very twisted bridge lawyering to come up with such a restrictive view of the GCC.

That isn't bridge lawyering, it's reading the charts. Here is an example of bridge lawyering.

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

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

You might be familiar with something in computer science called "duck typing." That means that if if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is for all intents and purposes a duck. In this case, 1♦ looks like a transfer opening, walks like a transfer opening, and quacks like a transfer opening. And I think almost all expert+ players in North America would agree that this kind of duck^H transfer opening is definitely a Mid-Chart animal.

Then again, if you're a lawyer, you should just read up your book on contracts from L1 to understand that the C&C committee does not (and in fact cannot, reasonably) enumerate every possible evasion of the intent of their regulations.

[akhare]

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

You might be familiar with something in computer science called "duck typing."  That means that if if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is for all intents and purposes a duck.  In this case, 1♦ looks like a transfer opening, walks like a transfer opening, and quacks like a transfer opening.  And I think almost all expert+ players in North America would agree that this kind of duck^H transfer opening is definitely a Mid-Chart animal.

Actually, I am intimately familiar with duck typing and even considered that very analogy once.

In this case, I would argue that the type of the 1♦ is IUnknown, because while it's true that a typecast of IUnknown -> IDuck will succeed *most* of the type, you may very well get a NULL pointer, meaning that the type is actually IUnknown<Foo>, where Foo = 3+♠.

BTW, what if a typecast of IUnknown always returned IBalanced? Would you object to it the lines that since it always contained balanced types, it couldn't possibly be a catch all opening?

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

Then again, if you're a lawyer, you should just read up your book on contracts from L1 to understand that the C&C committee does not (and in fact cannot, reasonably) enumerate every possible evasion of the intent of their regulations.

Has there ever been any canononical statement about the of the "intent" of the C&C?

[joshs]

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

akhare, on Feb 10 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

xcurt, on Feb 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

...

By similar logic, it takes very twisted bridge lawyering to come up with such a restrictive view of the GCC.

That isn't bridge lawyering, it's reading the charts. Here is an example of bridge lawyering.

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

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

You might be familiar with something in computer science called "duck typing." That means that if if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is for all intents and purposes a duck. In this case, 1♦ looks like a transfer opening, walks like a transfer opening, and quacks like a transfer opening. And I think almost all expert+ players in North America would agree that this kind of duck^H transfer opening is definitely a Mid-Chart animal.

Then again, if you're a lawyer, you should just read up your book on contracts from L1 to understand that the C&C committee does not (and in fact cannot, reasonably) enumerate every possible evasion of the intent of their regulations.

Well, for the record, I
a. Think that 1D was a transfer opening showing spades
and
b. 1D x-fer openings are GCC, as with any other meaning that promises 10+ HCP

This does not mean I think thats the way the regulations should be written, I just think that is in fact what the regulations probably mean and is certainly how every director I have ever seen interpret the rules. When I orginally submitted my defenses to x-fer openings, I included a defense to 1D even though I was certain I did not have to, because this is just one of many examples of how I think the convention rules are convoluted and sometimes just plain stupid, and I think the spirit of full disclosure are fair play are more important than the wording of the rules....

Come on Curt, how can
1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major be GCC (Gary Zeiger has a lot of familiarity with this one, since he directs the albuquerque sectionals and regionals, and you see it from a few pairs, mostly from amarillo)
and
1D showing 4S not be....

[joshs]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

glen, on Feb 6 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

A couple of examples of the masses not "protected" from the well knowns:
...
2) Use of Drury opposite a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening - had been done and continues to be used by well known pairs.

Well known pairs? Such as?

I figure saying Sher and X (where X is a few different people) wouldn't satisfy you. I do know that Hamman-Soloway played old fashioned drury over 1/2 1M openings like I do :
1M-2C=Natural with clubs or Any 3 card Limit Raise
In my case it was GF with clubs or any 3 card limit raise, but I think the natural meaning was lighter for Hamway.

From my point of view, we have an opening bid, and a bid promising 2N level values in response. I really don't think the technical distinction between
a. 2C promises 2 clubs, which is clearly legal
and
b the actual treatment which may on rare occassion be something like 3361
really effects the other side

and I also find it bizzarre that this bid is clearly listed as legal in 3/4 seat as a psychic control (despite psychic controls not being legal), but would not be legal in 1/2 seat when its purely constructive. But the way the GCC is written it sure sounds like it might be midchart. I just think its totally rediculous if that was actually the intent and not just someone not thinking when they put the drury clause in the gcc...

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Feb 27 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

Come on Curt, how can

1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major be GCC (Gary Zeiger has a lot of familiarity with this one, since he directs the albuquerque sectionals and regionals, and you see it from a few pairs, mostly from amarillo)

and

1D showing 4S not be....

I agree that

1♦ ---> unbalanced with a 5 card major = LEGAL

and

1♦ ---> 4+ Spades = ILLEGAL

seems logically inconsistent.

Where we differ is the following:

You seem to be assuming that the

1♦ ---> unbalanced with a 5 card major = LEGAL

ruling is compliant with the current regulatory structure.
My guess is that the ACBL views both bids as illegal (regardless of what Gary Zeiger might think / rule)

[blackshoe]

Just what do we mean when we say "the ACBL" in this context? The BoD? The LC? The C&C committee? Rick Beye? Some other individual? A building in Memphis?

One of the problems with this stuff is that you can ask several different people who might be considered to represent "the ACBL", and get several different answers.