[JanM]

[quote name='Cascade' date='Feb 2 2009, 03:40 AM']
Jan, which are clearly GCC legal and which not?  And the more important question - how do you tell?[/quote]

You've included a lot of bids, some clearly legal, some clearly not, and some where it is difficult to decide. I've already said that I'm not trying to defend the GCC, except to suggest that it is harder than you think to write language that does not need to be interpreted, so I'm not going to apologize for the unclear things, but you have created an ENORMOUS straw man by suggesting that all or even a substantial subset of the things you list are ambiguous.

First and foremost, the ACBL is only allowed to regulate "conventional" (or "artificial" if you prefer) bids. Natural bids are allowed by the laws. Hence the first section of the GCC which defines "natural." Any bid that qualifies under that section is allowed because it isn't a "convention" thus isn't governed by the convention charts. Now, for your specific laundry list:
[quote]1. Acol or Goren etc
1♣/1♦ Natural 4+[/quote]
Allowed because these bids are not conventional. Of course you knew that.

[quote]2. Standard
1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds
1♦ Natural 3+ only three with precisely 4=4=3=2 distribution

3. Preferred Minor on suit quality
1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds
1♦ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand can be 3=3 in the minors[/quote]
Allowed because the definitions section says that a 1 of a minor bid that shows 3 cards is natural, thus these bids are not conventional and not subject to regulation by the Convention Charts. I suspect you knew that.

[quote]4. Short Club
1♣ Natural or Balanced 2+
1♦ Natural[/quote]
Allowed because the 1[cl] bid is an "all=purpose bid" specifically allowed. All-purpose may not be crystal clear, but it clearly covers this.

[quote]5. Precision
1♣ 16+ (or 13+ or whatever) unlimited distribution
1♦ Natural (can be canape with clubs)[/quote]
Allowed because the 1[cl] comes under the "all-purpose" section (it really shouldn't of course, there should be a separate section specifically allowing a strong, artificial 1[cl] or 1[di] but the drafters of the GCC didn't do that, probably because they thought that everyone would understand that the strong, artificial bids were included) and the 1[di] is not conventional.

[quote]6. Precision with short diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced 2+

7. Precision with 1+ diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1

8. Precision with 0+ diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1 or 4=4=0=5 with bad clubs[/quote]
Allowed because both 1m bids come under the "all-purpose" section. Ditto to my comment above

[quote]9. Symmetric Diamond (without the relays of course)
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Two or three suit unbalanced no five-card major (in other words length in either minor)

10. Matchpoint Precision
1♣ 16+
1♦ Promises an undisclosed 4-card major[/quote]
The first of your examples that aren't easy. I suspect these 1[di]s fall within the intended meaning of the "all-purpose" clause, but I'm not sure. If I wanted to play this in a GCC event, I would ask.

[quote]5-10 could be repeated (perhaps with some changes) for strong diamond systems.[/quote]
As could my answers - the GCC does not distinguish between 1[cl] and 1[di]

[quote]11. Omnibus Club
1♣ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1
1♦ 5+[/quote]
Allowed because 1[cl] is "all-purpose" and 1[di] is natural. I admit that putting the 4441 with a stiff club into 1[cl] makes this feel different from other "all-purpose" club bids, but I can't see a relevant distinction between this and the Precision diamond that includes 4414.

[quote]12. MidMac
1♣ Guarantees one or both 4-card major(s)
1♦ Denies a 4-card major

13. Diamond Major
1♣ Denies a 4-card major
1♦ Promises one or both 4-card major(s)[/quote]
I suspect these would be disallowed because the 1m openings would not fall within the "all-purpose" clause, but again if I wanted to play them, I'd ask.

[quote]14. Transfer Openings
1♣ 4+ hearts
1♦ 4+ spades

15. Tied Major
1♣ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 hearts
1♦ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 spades[/quote]
Disallowed. These 1m bids are clearly conventional and not all-purpose.

[quote]16. Canape
1♣ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major
1♦ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major[/quote]
Allowed - these are not conventional.

[quote]17.
1♣ Natural or Balanced
1♦ Natural or Balanced
with Balaned open 1♣/♦ at random

18.
1♣ Natural or Balanced 12-14
1♦ Natural or Balanced 18-19
other ranges would be possible[/quote]
The first is clearly legal - these aren't conventional bids. The second isn't so clear, but I think these aren't conventional either. This is routinely allowed in Midchart events and isn't specifically listed under "allowed" on the Midchart, so that confirms my belief.

[quote]19. Polish Club variations
1♣ Natural or Balanced or Artificial Strong
1♦ Natural
There are variations on this where 1♦ is less natural.[/quote]
I think this is allowed because the 1[cl] bid is within "all-purpose" and the 1[di] is not conventional, but I can see that others might disagree and thing the 1[cl] is conventional. I know that this is routinely allowed in Midchart events and is not included in the list of specifically allowed bids on the Midchart, which confirms my belief that it is GCC legal.

[awm]

Reading Jan's response is fascinating. Consider the following statements:

JanM said:

First and foremost, the ACBL is only allowed to regulate "conventional" (or "artificial" if you prefer) bids. Natural bids are allowed by the laws. Hence the first section of the GCC which defines "natural." Any bid that qualifies under that section is allowed because it isn't a "convention" thus isn't governed by the convention charts.

Yet Muiderburg 2♠ (which shows 5+♠ and a minor) is natural according to ACBL's definition, which states:

General Chart said:

An opening suit bid is considered natural... in a major if it shows four or more cards in that suit.

Yet ACBL regulates Muiderburg and it's apparently mid-chart.

JanM said:

(referring to 1♣ natural or balanced)
The first is clearly legal - these aren't conventional bids.

So a 1♣ opening which is natural or balanced and could be as few as two clubs is "not conventional" even though the ACBL definition clearly states that a natural opening in a minor must show three or more cards in that suit. And a 2♠ opening which promises five-plus spades and a four card side suit is conventional, even though the ACBL definition clearly states that an opening in a major is natural if it shows four or more cards in that suit.

Can you see why I don't believe the determinations about what is legal have much to do with the charts? It seems to me like Jan's rulings are basically that systems she "likes" or which are commonly played are legal, and systems that seem "weird" or which she hasn't heard of are illegal.

[straube]

My answer from the ACBL...

Hi David,

As long as the 1 D opening promises a minimum of 10 HCP you may use it to show a hand that contains a 4 card spade suit. Conventional responses would be limited since it is not a strong artificial opening.

You may reverse the 1C and 1D openings. Do not note your general approach as Precision.

Regards,
Butch

dastraube@aol.com


dastraube@aol.com
02/01/2009 08:14 PM


To
Butch.Campbell@acbl.org


cc



Subject
1D



Hello, we've been having an interesting discussion/argument on a bridgebase forum over the meaning of "all purpose" bids.
If I organize my system such that...
1C-strong
1D-artificial
1H-4 hearts, denies 4 spades
1S-5 spades
1N-denies 4 spades
2C-clubs, denies 4 spades
2D-diamonds, denies 4 spades

then 1D necessarily shows four spades.
Jan Martel says that this use is illegal. Is it illegal and why or why not?
I would argue that 1D "showing" four spades is still a multipurpose bid as the hand is largely undefined and I would also point out that all of the other openings (I think) are legal and barring 1D as "showing" four spades means that the ACBL would be barring my use of legal openings.

Similarly, could I play a Precision system in which 1D promised a strong hand and 1C promised 2 or more diamonds? I.e., I've merely switched the meanings of bids that many Precision pairs commonly use.

Thanks,
David Straube

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Feb 2 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

First and foremost, the ACBL is only allowed to regulate "conventional" (or "artificial" if you prefer) bids. Natural bids are allowed by the laws. Hence the first section of the GCC which defines "natural." Any bid that qualifies under that section is allowed because it isn't a "convention" thus isn't governed by the convention charts.

Wasn't this one of the main changes in the most recent versions of the Laws?
I thought that a Sponsoring Authority (now) has the power to regulate natural bids...

[Gerben42]

Quote

You've included a lot of bids, some clearly legal, some clearly not, and some where it is difficult to decide. I've already said that I'm not trying to defend the GCC, except to suggest that it is harder than you think to write language that does not need to be interpreted, so I'm not going to apologize for the unclear things, but you have created an ENORMOUS straw man by suggesting that all or even a substantial subset of the things you list are ambiguous.

Perhaps it is harder than most think, but it is easier than you MIGHT think. If you look at the EBU Orange Book, it is quite clear what is allowed where and what is not. And in some earlier post I showed an "alternative" GCC that was almost identical to the actual one but not ambiguous. It took my exactly 5 minutes. Give me one more hour and I will give you one that covers even the last tiny bits.

Unfortunately, many SOs set a bad example, led by the WBF, and do not bother to make the rules clear for interpretation. Their regulation says that a natural system gets a green sticker, but doesn't say what a natural system is.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Feb 2 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

You've included a lot of bids, some clearly legal, some clearly not, and some where it is difficult to decide. I've already said that I'm not trying to defend the GCC, except to suggest that it is harder than you think to write language that does not need to be interpreted, so I'm not going to apologize for the unclear things, but you have created an ENORMOUS straw man by suggesting that all or even a substantial subset of the things you list are ambiguous.

Jan:

Any interest in trying an experiment...

We can have 5 our so members of the forum submit a set of questions to different ACBL "luminaries" regarding the the legality of different treatments at different levels of competition.

We can then count the number of conflicting opinions...

Adam's post contrasting Muiderberg and short club openings does a great job showing just how confusing this all is. I think that the following line is particularly apropos:

Quote

So a 1♣ opening which is natural or balanced and could be as few as two clubs is "not conventional" even though the ACBL definition clearly states that a natural opening in a minor must show three or more cards in that suit. And a 2♠ opening which promises five-plus spades and a four card side suit is conventional, even though the ACBL definition clearly states that an opening in a major is natural if it shows four or more cards in that suit.

The response from Butch Campbell which directly contradicts what you've just told us, is, of course, even more telling...

[straube]

Reading through Bruce's note I wonder about conventional responses being limited. I assume he means that many artificial responses would be disallowed.
I wouldn't want to play a system where 1D meant four spades and a 1S response also meant four spades. With a fit, we should agree at the 2-level or higher.

I suppose in the Midchart, I could use 1D-1S as an artificial GF...but that wouldn't be my first choice for that bid's use.

Could I use 1D-2H as (for example) an invitational hand with spades?

I assume not, and if not, I don't see a future for 1D as 4 spades.

[straube]

I think that Jan amended her original statement (that 1D couldn't show four spades) when she realized that we were talking about playing a funny sort of system where the other bids denied spades. The last I read, she thought 1D as four spades was allowable under these circumstances...which were those I put to Bruce Campbell.

Anyway, I appreciate her input on the subject.

[fred]

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Can you see why I don't believe the determinations about what is legal have much to do with the charts? It seems to me like Jan's rulings are basically that systems she "likes" or which are commonly played are legal, and systems that seem "weird" or which she hasn't heard of are illegal.

To the best of my knowledge Jan is neither a TD nor is she an ACBL staff member, let alone *the* ACBL staff member who is responsible for resolving GCC-ambiguity.

Your reference to her interpretations as "rulings" is wrong.

Let's try a reality check here...

We have one of New Zealand's international representatives posting 19 questions about what is or is not allowed in ACBL club games. I think it is far from unlikely that he does not care about the answers he receives and he is only trying to prove a point that everyone already knows (that the GCC was not given to Moses on Mount Sinai).

We have an ACBL member with no official standing in this area who happens to have more knowledge and experience that most of us (certainly including me) wasting her time doing her best to answer these questions. That was very nice of her - if the questions had been directed at me, my response would have been something like: "stop bugging me and ask the ACBL if you really care".

Meanwhile said ACBL member has been completely up front and made it clear that she does not believe that the GCC is a brilliantly-written document and that not all questions have obvious answers according to the GCC - some interpretation is required. She tried her best to interpret. No big shock that you (or anyone else) do not agree with all 19 of her answers.

So how about showing Jan a little appreciation for her effort instead of making your usual suggestion that she is just another black helicopter pilot whose mission is to oppress, persecute, and stifle creative genius into submission?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JLOL]

It's like we have the same thread over and over again...

If you want to have a guaranteed 10+ page thread just start one that has something to do with convention regulation or charts lol. Then the same things can be said over and over again.

[straube]

fred, on Feb 2 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Can you see why I don't believe the determinations about what is legal have much to do with the charts? It seems to me like Jan's rulings are basically that systems she "likes" or which are commonly played are legal, and systems that seem "weird" or which she hasn't heard of are illegal.

To the best of my knowledge Jan is neither a TD nor is she an ACBL staff member, let alone *the* ACBL staff member who is responsible for resolving GCC-ambiguity.

Your reference to her interpretations as "rulings" is wrong.

Let's try a reality check here...

We have one of New Zealand's international representatives posting 19 questions about what is or is not allowed in ACBL club games. I think it is far from unlikely that he does not care about the answers he receives and he is only trying to prove a point that everyone already knows (that the GCC was not given to Moses on Mount Sinai).

We have an ACBL member with no official standing in this area who happens to have more knowledge and experience that most of us (certainly including me) wasting her time doing her best to answer these questions. That was very nice of her - if the questions had been directed at me, my response would have been something like: "stop bugging me and ask the ACBL if you really care".

Meanwhile said ACBL member has been completely up front and made it clear that she does not believe that the GCC is a brilliantly-written document and that not all questions have obvious answers according to the GCC - some interpretation is required. She tried her best to interpret. No big shock that you (or anyone else) do not agree with all 19 of her answers.

So how about showing Jan a little appreciation for her effort instead of making your usual suggestion that she is just another black helicopter pilot whose mission is to oppress, persecute, and stifle creative genius into submission?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Well said. Thanks for your help Jan.

[akhare]

straube, on Feb 2 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Reading through Bruce's note I wonder about conventional responses being limited. I assume he means that many artificial responses would be disallowed.
I wouldn't want to play a system where 1D meant four spades and a 1S response also meant four spades. With a fit, we should agree at the 2-level or higher.

I suppose in the Midchart, I could use 1D-1S as an artificial GF...but that wouldn't be my first choice for that bid's use.

Could I use 1D-2H as (for example) an invitational hand with spades?

I assume not, and if not, I don't see a future for 1D as 4 spades.

The thing you got to wonder though, is why 1♦ showing 4♠ is any more conventional than 1♣/1♦ showing 2+.

If that's the case, it should be an equal level playing field for all, i.e., ban all conventional treatments over 1♣/1♦ showing 2+, including "inverted minors".

[hrothgar]

fred, on Feb 2 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

We have an ACBL member with no official standing in this area who happens to have more knowledge and experience that most of us (certainly including me) wasting her time doing her best to answer these questions. That was very nice of her - if the questions had been directed at me, my response would have been something like: "stop bugging me and ask the ACBL if you really care".

Fred,

To be fair:

Many of the folks who are actively posting these questions have raised these same issues though appropriate channels... The responses have ranged from

Ignoring the correspondence completely to
Completely extraneous / contradictory missives to
Frak off and go away (Well, maybe not quite that direct, but the intent was pretty clear)

The "ACBL member" with no official standing

1. Has a direct back channel to members of the committee
2. Is an internationalist herself
3. Is rather directly involved in many of these issue through her work with the USBF

Moreover, for better or worse, Jan has taken a stand on these types of issues. She is not a neutral observer. She is an advocate and does seem to push specific interpretations. (If you'd like, we can review some of the discussions around one of the Dutch pairs defenses to short club openings a year or two back)...

Personally, I'd be ecstatic if the ACBL had a functioning channel to raise these sorts of issues.

In a similar vein, I'd love it if my pet rats to learned to cook and clean ala the recent flick "Ratatouille"...

Sadly, I think that both outcomes are equally likely...

[the hog]

Richard: re Marston-Burgess playing Moscito in the States. This was a fair while back and my memory is getting hazy, (must be the heat in Laos). There was a lot published in Australian Bridge and from what i can remember - apparently M-B tried to get permission to play 1D = H and 1H = S. This was approved and then later approval was withdrawn after one of the better teams complained. I don't know which team; Chip's? Anyway they were pretty pissed off at having been mucked around. Either you approve it or you don't; you don't change regulations part way through an event because someone doesn't like what you play.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Feb 2 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

JanM, on Feb 2 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades are Superchart legal. No recommended defense is required for Superchart events.

This brings to mind something that's always bothered me about the Superchart. That chart's second paragraph says

Quote

Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing. A defense to a method which requires the above pre-Alert may be referred to during the auction by opponents of the convention user.

That says, to me, that any method that's not on the GCC requires both a written description and a written proposed defense, even if it's a Mid-Chart method for which the Mid-Chart does not require a written defense. That's never made any sense to me, but it is what the words say. Yet you say, Jan, that it such defenses aren't required — and the way you've said it implies "even if such defenses are required under the MidChart".

I don't play in Superchart events, so obviously your experience is greater than mine, but now I'm even more confused than I was.

I think your reading of the Superchart is better than mine, and written recommended defenses are supposed to be provided for non-GCC methods. MY sense that they weren't probably came from the fact that I'm so often asked for a defense to use against things . In fact, now that I think about it, when I've been kibitzing or Vugraph operating at Vanderbilt & Spingold matches, people have supplied written defenses - usually to Midchart bids, but probably also to Superchart ones. Of course, very often at that level, people have their own defenses, so don't use the ones that the pair playing the method gives them. Certainly I've never seen anyone request a defense for something for which the Midchart doesn't require one - I suspect that overly broad language remains because no one has raised the question.

In USBF events, which are the only US events with advance System disclosure, we require recommended defenses for most "unusual" methods (we've tried to define what those methods are). A description of the method and a recommended defense has to be submitted at least 4 weeks in advance of the event and is available on the website for all participants to review, so that they can decide whether to use the recommended defense or their own. There's no official review of the defenses unless someone complains.

[JanM]

The_Hog, on Feb 3 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Richard: re Marston-Burgess playing Moscito in the States. This was a fair while back and my memory is getting hazy, (must be the heat in Laos). There was a lot published in Australian Bridge and from what i can remember - apparently M-B tried to get permission to play 1D = H and 1H = S. This was approved and then later approval was withdrawn after one of the better teams complained. I don't know which team; Chip's? Anyway they were pretty pissed off at having been mucked around. Either you approve it or you don't; you don't change regulations part way through an event because someone doesn't like what you play.

Although I don't know the pair against whom we played in the incident Richard and I are discussing, I do know that it wasn't Marston & Burgess. I'm also fairly confident that Moscito has always been allowed in the major team games (Superchart events) and not in any other NABC events.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Feb 2 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

Moreover, for better or worse, Jan has taken a stand on these types of issues.  She is not a neutral observer.  She is an advocate and does seem to push specific interpretations.  (If you'd like, we can review some of the discussions around one of the Dutch pairs defenses to short club openings a year or two back)...

I don't think I've ever contended that I was neutral. I do try to see both sides of issues, and sometimes (shock) I even change my mind, but no, I'm not neutral, and yes, when I have opinions I often argue for them - that's probably a downside of being a lawyer.

However, the short club incident is a good example of how I think people should behave. For those of you who don't want to search for the discussion, I play that a 1♣ opening bid is either natural or a balanced hand too good for 1NT (12-14) and not good enough for 2NT. I pre-alert it and announce it when it's opened. A few years ago, I or my partner opened 1♣ and our opponent bid something (I've forgotten what) which showed "any hand." I didn't think that was allowed. I called the Director. The Director first ruled one way then consulted and ruled the other way then changed back again. I don't even remember what the "final" ruling was. Eventually, the matter was discussed extensively and the powers that be ruled that since an opening 1♣ that can have 2 clubs is artificial, any methods are allowed against it. I happen to think that is the wrong ruling, but I haven't responded to it by mis-describing my 1♣ opening, or failing to pre-alert, or any of the other things I could probably do to prevent the very few people who want to play silly methods against it from doing so. In fact, I haven't even raised the "wrong" ruling on this matter every time some thread pops up here where it might be relevant.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Feb 3 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

However, the short club incident is a good example of how I think people should behave. For those of you who don't want to search for the discussion, I play that a 1♣ opening bid is either natural or a balanced hand too good for 1NT (12-14) and not good enough for 2NT. I pre-alert it and announce it when it's opened. A few years ago, I or my partner opened 1♣ and our opponent bid something (I've forgotten what) which showed "any hand." I didn't think that was allowed. I called the Director. The Director first ruled one way then consulted and ruled the other way then changed back again. I don't even remember what the "final" ruling was. Eventually, the matter was discussed extensively and the powers that be ruled that since an opening 1♣ that can have 2 clubs is artificial, any methods are allowed against it. I happen to think that is the wrong ruling, but I haven't responded to it by mis-describing my 1♣ opening, or failing to pre-alert, or any of the other things I could probably do to prevent the very few people who want to play silly methods against it from doing so. In fact, I haven't even raised the "wrong" ruling on this matter every time some thread pops up here where it might be relevant.

Why is this the wrong ruling?

The general convention chart seems to given a blanket licence to:

"7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls..."

Or is this another issue where those that do not like the wording in the regulation think that they know it doesn't apply to their pet methods?

[the hog]

The only other incident I can rember is some NSW juniors who had a run in with Meckstroth because he didn't want life made difficult for his client.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 02:51 AM, said:

JanM, on Feb 3 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

However, the short club incident is a good example of how I think people should behave. For those of you who don't want to search for the discussion, I play that a 1♣ opening bid is either natural or a balanced hand too good for 1NT (12-14) and not good enough for 2NT. I pre-alert it and announce it when it's opened. A few years ago, I or my partner opened 1♣ and our opponent bid something (I've forgotten what) which showed "any hand." I didn't think that was allowed. I called the Director. The Director first ruled one way then consulted and ruled the other way then changed back again. I don't even remember what the "final" ruling was. Eventually, the matter was discussed extensively and the powers that be ruled that since an opening 1♣ that can have 2 clubs is artificial, any methods are allowed against it. I happen to think that is the wrong ruling, but I haven't responded to it by mis-describing my 1♣ opening, or failing to pre-alert, or any of the other things I could probably do to prevent the very few people who want to play silly methods against it from doing so. In fact, I haven't even raised the "wrong" ruling on this matter every time some thread pops up here where it might be relevant.

Why is this the wrong ruling?

The general convention chart seems to given a blanket licence to:

"7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls..."

Or is this another issue where those that do not like the wording in the regulation think that they know it doesn't apply to their pet methods?

DISALLOWED
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods.

I happen to agree with Jan's interpretation (this rule clearly seems to me to disallow any overcall that shows 'any hand'), but I can see how yours is perfectly valid as well and would not be surprised to find disagreement on these admittedly somewhat contradictory points.

Jan seems to clearly agree that it's not clear, as she says she only thinks the ruling is wrong, and later uses "wrong" in quotation marks.

Especially given that (but even otherwise), it's extremely distasteful that your instant reaction is to insult (or at least suggest it by asking the question) someone for having a view you disagree with. How does doing that advance your cause in any way? Aside from the extreme lack of class, you are simply shooting yourself in the foot.