[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

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.

Pots and kettles come to mind.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Feb 3 2009, 09:17 AM, 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.

Hi Jan

The case that I was referring to was the one involving one of the Dutch Pairs playing in one of the big WBF events a couple years back.

As I recall, they were playing a canape overstructure over short club openings.

The Dutch claimed that they were playing a conventional defense to the opponents conventional opening.

There was a counter claim that

1. A 1♣ opening that shows either clubs or a balanced hand is natural
2. The Dutch were using a Brown Sticker Convention without appropriate disclosure.

I think that they might have also run afoul of a restriction on the total number of BSCs that they were allowed to use.

I was rather shocked when John Wignall ruled that the 1♣ opening was, indeed, natural...

Seem to recall that you were involved in that case in some way

[qwery_hi]

Given the set-universe of legal bids according to the GCC, I can pick any opening
in {1c, 1d} and define my other openings such that these become "all-purpose" in the sense that they cover hand types not covered by other bids.

GCC is neither perfect nor imperfect. It is a set of rules. The issue is when TD's choose to selectively apply the rules.

[qwery_hi]

david_c, on Feb 2 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

"Used for many different purposes."

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

[david_c]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

david_c, on Feb 2 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

"Used for many different purposes."

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

Is it a single purpose? Or, does the fact that it can be bid on any shape of hand mean that it is really used for many purposes? All a matter of interpretation. Neither is necessarily wrong just looking at the words. But it is probably safe to assume that the GCC is not supposed to ban Precision, so I know which interpretation I'd use.

[qwery_hi]

david_c, on Feb 3 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

david_c, on Feb 2 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

"Used for many different purposes."

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

Is it a single purpose? Or, does the fact that it can be bid on any shape of hand mean that it is really used for many purposes? All a matter of interpretation. Neither is necessarily wrong just looking at the words. But it is probably safe to assume that the GCC is not supposed to ban Precision, so I know which interpretation I'd use.

And that is exactly my point. Either the GCC intends to allow only precision + std systems, or it does not. If the former, it is easy for the GCC to do so. IMO The committee which writes the GCC would like to pretend that there are fewer restrictions on legal systems than there are in practice. Shame on them for allowing this sorry state of affairs to continue.

Is it true that 1D showing 4+S encompasses lesser number of hands than 1C showing 16+?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

Pots and kettles come to mind.

Nice to see that when you don't have any actual argument or response with any validity to the point that was made, you respond in the predictable way.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

Pots and kettles come to mind.

Nice to see that when you don't have any actual argument or response with any validity to the point that was made, you respond in the predictable way.

I have plenty to say.

One side of this argument has as one of its main points that the regulations are badly written. This conveniently allows them to dismiss for example the full meaning of "all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural)" or at least interpret it to say what they want it to mean rather than what the words chosen by the regulators actually mean.

On the one hand they argue that it is proper to play by the rules but when they don't like what is actually written they find this way to distort the rules.

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

I asked the question "why..." because I did not know her motivation. Perhaps she can resolve the conflict between any defense being allowed to conventional bids and the possibility that some defense is considered destructive. Perhaps she considers her convention 1♣ is natural. Perhaps perhaps perhaps ...

[Cascade]

qwery_hi, on Feb 4 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Given the set-universe of legal bids according to the GCC, I can pick any opening
in {1c, 1d} and define my other openings such that these become "all-purpose" in the sense that they cover hand types not covered by other bids.

GCC is neither perfect nor imperfect. It is a set of rules. The issue is when TD's choose to selectively apply the rules.

I am not sure what you mean but for clarity I would have thought that there was nothing stopping you choosing both 1♣ and 1♦ for these all-purpose bids.

Both are licenced and there is no restriction saying that one can have only one all-purpose bid.

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

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.

As long as you can play the same artificial methods over a conventional 2+ 1♣ opening that you can over a conventional Precision strong club, I think the ruling is fine. People will disagree over the "purely destructive" clause you cite, but if you want to play psychosuction against my strong club, I think I should be able to return the favor over your 2+♣.

There has been some indication that maybe the more common and "natural" 2+ clubs or balanced opening should get more protection from artificial defenses than a strong club does (as seen in the incident Richard relates). But this isn't in the rules, and shouldn't be implemented ad hoc based on directors making up rules rather than following them. If the ACBL decides to protect those 2+ minor openings and decide to declare them natural, that's fine - defenses will be restricted over them (but there are likely to be other implications they won't like as much, such as allowing "natural" 2/1 bids on 2+ suits, or opening 2+ canape minor preempts, etc).

[Cascade]

david_c, on Feb 3 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 2 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

"Used for many different purposes."

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

A natural 4+ suit 1♣ is used for the single purpose of showing clubs.

The regulations state that the "all-purpose" can be "artificial or natural". There is no other qualification on "artificial or natural". So if in your words the 'single purpose' of showing clubs is ok then the 'single purpose' of showing spades is ok.

In fact a bid that shows 4+ spades could include multiple hand types:

• Balanced with four or five spades
  
• Canape with four (or less often five spades)
  
• Two (or three) suited with five spades
  
• One suited with long spades

When does this become not 'single purpose'?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

I have plenty to say.

Even lovlier. You found it more prudent to toss out an insult than to contribute any of the 'plenty' you have to say.

Quote

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Quote

I asked the question "why..." because I did not know her motivation.

I don't think it takes much imagination to see that I did not find your question:

Quote

Why is this the wrong ruling?

To be in poor taste (especially since I attempted to answer it!) but rather I was referring to your question:

Quote

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?

Quote

Perhaps she can resolve the conflict between any defense being allowed to conventional bids and the possibility that some defense is considered destructive.  Perhaps she considers her convention 1♣ is natural.  Perhaps perhaps perhaps ...

I doubt it in either case. It seems unlikely she would have been ruled against if so.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 06:00 AM, said:

I don't think it takes much imagination to see that I did not find your question:

Quote

Why is this the wrong ruling?

To be in poor taste (especially since I attempted to answer it!) but rather I was referring to your question:

Quote

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?

I think it is in poor taste when one group of players want one side to conform to what they believe is the spirit of the regulations and disregard what is actually written in the regulations.

As such I think it is a legitimate question.

[sireenb]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

It is interesting that you mentioned that....

I play precision with my regular partner. I do not live in the US and know nothing about the ACBL. We wanted to play in an ACBL tournament on BBO so I downloaded the rules and plowed through them first.

After I read and reread them many times, I was still not sure if precision was allowed or not. The rules appeared quite complicated to me. There were some parts that I felt I did not understand very well. English is not my first language so maybe that did not help!

In the end I just asked ACBL on BBO and was told it was OK to play precision so I stopped trying to understand all the rules because every time I looked at them I felt really stupid !

I may try to read them again now ... after following this interesting discussion

[straube]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

On the one hand they argue that it is proper to play by the rules but when they don't like what is actually written they find this way to distort the rules.

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

Seems like a put down to use the word "pet" to describe Jan's method.

I think that the rule prohibiting methods that destroy the opponents methods can be vague, too, but something like a 1S overcall to show any hand against an artificial opening seems easily to fall in this category. Just because it's vague sometimes doesn't mean it isn't obvious at other times.

[jdonn]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

To me it is far from clear whether

under allowed

"7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls"

trumps

under disallowed

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

or vice verca.

My understanding is that in a document the specific normal trumps the less specific.

But to me it is far from clear which of these is more specific. One applies to a defense to any conventional bid and one to any bid that is considered destructive.

Maybe I can be easily convinced one way or the other maybe not.

As I am sure you can tell I am not at all impressed when someone wants to interpret the regulations subjectively so as to protect their own favoured methods.

[akhare]

Rob F, on Feb 3 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

As long as you can play the same artificial methods over a conventional 2+ 1♣ opening that you can over a conventional Precision strong club, I think the ruling is fine. People will disagree over the "purely destructive" clause you cite, but if you want to play psychosuction against my strong club, I think I should be able to return the favor over your 2+♣.

Absolutely -- and if a 13 cards 1♠ overcall is deemed legal over a strong 1♣ opening, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed over 1♣/1♦ = 2+.

Note that I do think that the 13 cards 1♠ overcall should fall under the "purely destructive" methods category and that it should therefore be disallowed, but if it's ruled kosher, everyone should be allowed to unleash it with equal panache against either variety of 1♣...

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

To me it is far from clear whether

under allowed

"7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls"

trumps

under disallowed

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

or vice verca.

I specifically avoiding asking which regulation trumps the other. I was asking whether you agreed with a few specific claims about one of them. I even granted that if you did agree, the regulations would still be in contradiction. Of course I can't force you, but care to answer what I asked? I'm genuinly interested in your opinion if only I can get you to give it...

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Feb 3 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

The case that I was referring to was the one involving one of the Dutch Pairs playing in one of the big WBF events a couple years back.

As I recall, they were playing a canape overstructure over short club openings. 

The Dutch claimed that they were playing a conventional defense to the opponents conventional opening.

There was a counter claim that

1.  A 1♣ opening that shows either clubs or a balanced hand is natural
2.  The Dutch were using a Brown Sticker Convention without appropriate disclosure. 

I think that they might have also run afoul of a restriction on the total number of BSCs that they were allowed to use.

I was rather shocked when John Wignall ruled that the 1♣ opening was, indeed, natural...

Seem to recall that you were involved in that case in some way

Ah, that - sorry I didn't understand your reference. I may be remembering wrong, but I think that:
The structure the Dutch were playing over any 1 club opening wasn't anything as benign as canape overcalls. I don't remember the whole thing, and haven't seen it recently, presumably because it really doesn't work well when the opening bid can be essentially natural, but I know it included jump overcalls that might or might not have length in the suit named and simple overcalls that showed extremely varied hand patterns and values. The bids were clearly brown sticker, and the argument about whether there were too many of them had to do with counting - if you play a method where 1♦ shows either diamonds or hearts or clubs (I'm just making this up) and 1♥ shows either spades or diamonds or hearts and 1♠ shows either spades or clubs or diamonds, all of them with less than 8 HCPs, are you using one BS method or 3? One of the 2 pairs playing the method had described the method as one BS bid (and 2♥ or 3♥ showing length in either hearts or spades as a second BS bid) and therefore claimed that their opponents didn't have seating rights under the rule about 3 or more BS bids. Their teammates had described the same thing as multiple bids. I think that this was a situation where our position (you're playing more than 2 BS bids) was clearly correct.

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear. That was relevant to whether the Dutch methods were allowed in the Round Robin. For Shanghai, the ruling was that such a 1♣ bid was to be treated as natural, so BS methods were not allowed over it in the Round Robin. I believe that ruling has subsequently been changed for WBF events.