[fred]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

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.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Perhaps what you meant to say was:

*******
I am not impressed when someone other me, who always interprets subjective matters in the one and only correct way, wants to interpret the regulations subjectively, especially when I think (and I am always right about such things) that their intention is to protect their own favoured methods.
*******

As for me, I am not impressed when someone thinks their own subjective interpretations are always correct.

Nor am I impressed when someone ascribes nefarious intentions to those who express subjective interpretations they happen to disagree with.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[akhare]

JanM, on Feb 3 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

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.

Out of curiosity, do you by extension express similar equivocation about any opening bid that promises 2+ cards in the suit or a balanced hand? And if not, why not?

For instance, it's perfectly logical to apply to same argument to 1♥/1♠ opening showing 2+ or a balanced hand (however ridiculous that system might be)...

EDIT: Considering that it's unclear whether the convention charts allow such a 1♥/1♠ opening, the question may be moot.

[paulg]

For reference, you can see the Netherlands convention cards for the 2007 Bermuda Bowl in this folder on the Ecatsbridge site.

[straube]

CASCADE said:

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.

I think that the first definitely trumps the latter. The prohibition against conventions whose purpose is primarily to destroy the opponent's bidding methods reads to me more like a general, almost universal principle. We've all been debating recently the intent behind the allowance of all-purpose bids because it wasn't explicitly stated. In this other case, we know what the intent of the ACBL is because they say what they mean. The intent is clear. Whether a specific convention's purpose is primarily designed to thwart enemy methods is subjective...certainly obvious in some instances, but less so in others. But, we still know what the principle is.

Now why would they abandon that principle for a specific instance of defending against a conventional opening? I can't imagine that they did so, because the principle seems quite beneficial to the game. More likely, they were thinking that someone might decide to play transfers over a conventional call or CRASH or something along those lines. Calls like that may impinge on the opponents methods but they also transmit information that both sides may react to at the table.

[straube]

Maybe I can make it more clear. Does anyone want to seriously take the position that the ACBL might have written..."Disallowed are methods whose purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods except in the case that they use a conventional opening/treatment."

[straube]

JanM, on Feb 3 2009, 01:37, said:

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.

Why isn't this clear? Is it only unclear because so many people use 1C or 1D to show 2 or more? If so, that doesn't seem like a very good reason. I thought someone had established that opening a minor could only be natural (not conventional) if it promised at least 3 cards...or was it 4?

[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.

I will try again.

Yes I can imagine another purpose of playing a bid that shows 'any hand'. Well actually I think that 'any hand' is unlikely as it is probably limited by what other bids show. A valid reason could be that the partnership wants to use pass to show some other sort of hand. This necessitates the 'any hand' bid being put somewhere else.

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...). I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit. Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

More importantly I think 'destructive' or rather 'primary purpose is to destroy' needs to be well defined.

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary". Would you have argument against this?

[Cascade]

straube, on Feb 4 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

CASCADE said:

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.

I think that the first definitely trumps the latter.

I don't think this is what you meant.

The first is

"7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls"

which comes under the generic heading "Allowed". It is the 7th item under that heading.

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

This comes later under the heading "Disallowed". It is the first item under that heading.

[Cascade]

straube, on Feb 4 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

Maybe I can make it more clear. Does anyone want to seriously take the position that the ACBL might have written..."Disallowed are methods whose purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods except in the case that they use a conventional opening/treatment."

Why not?

The cost of using a convention is that the opponents have the right to use any methods over it. That seems like a reasonable possible position to me.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...).  I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit.  Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

Actually I agree with you, or at least think it's not clear.

Do you agree that what I said is true if by 'any hand' they mean they never pass, always choosing to bid (I think it was 1♠) instead if none of their other bids fit? That's how I took Jan originally, I guess it was an assumption but it seems quite likely to me. I am not aware of any system that uses a forcing pass after the opponents open...

[straube]

[/QUOTE]

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

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this?

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...).  I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit.  Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

Actually I agree with you, or at least think it's not clear.

Do you agree that what I said is true if by 'any hand' they mean they never pass, always choosing to bid (I think it was 1♠) instead if none of their other bids fit? That's how I took Jan originally, I guess it was an assumption but it seems quite likely to me. I am not aware of any system that uses a forcing pass after the opponents open...

As it happens I have actually played against a pair that over my natural 1♣ PASS with any strong hand - I don't happen to know the details of what they do with all other hands. They play the same defense against a precision 1♣. There are two or three pairs (or more like a handful or so of players who play together in various combinations) in my province (region) playing similar defensive methods.

So if they have a range of normal or semi-normal or more importantly clearly legal bids (or double) with the exception of 1♠ that caters to everything else and they agree to never PASS. Yes I could live with that being called 'destructive'.
Which means I can't think of an alternative credible primary purpose. Although I am not convinced of the necessity of a 'destructive' rule and even more so think that if there is such a rule then the term needs to be clearly defined.

[Cascade]

[quote name='straube' date='Feb 4 2009, 10:01 AM'] [/QUOTE]
[quote name='jdonn' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:55 AM']
I mean if you open 1[cl] natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1[sp] FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1[cl] opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this? [/QUOTE]

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation. [/QUOTE]
What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1[sp] call. Would this not be persuasive that 1[sp] is not in fact 'destructive'?

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Feb 3 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

Nor am I impressed when someone ascribes nefarious intentions to those who express subjective interpretations they happen to disagree with.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

[jdonn]

[quote name='straube' date='Feb 3 2009, 04:01 PM'] [/QUOTE]
[quote name='jdonn' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:55 AM']
I mean if you open 1[cl] natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1[sp] FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1[cl] opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this? [/quote]

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation. [/quote]
I never said that, you are quoting the wrong person.

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

If you have been reading this thread you will know that "all-purpose opening bid" means different things to different people. Hence it is a term that is open to interpretation. Hence subjectivity comes into play.

Probably if you managed to resolve this you would start to get questions about the use of the word "points".

Quote

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is  that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1♠ call.  Would this not be persuasive that 1[
Sp] is not in fact 'destructive'?

I'm editing my original post because I see what you're getting at. That's interesting. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I doubt that this would be the outcome of your hand data and I think the burden would be on you to produce it as it runs counter to what I (if I were ruling) would expect.

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

So if they have a range of normal or semi-normal or more importantly clearly legal bids (or double) with the exception of 1♠ that caters to everything else and they agree to never PASS. Yes I could live with that being called 'destructive'.
Which means I can't think of an alternative credible primary purpose. 

Seems like this is what we were talking about and it was this method (more or less) that Jan had objected to.

[Cascade]

straube, on Feb 4 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 3 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1♠ call.  Would this not be persuasive that 1[
Sp] is not in fact 'destructive'?

I'm editing my original post because I see what you're getting at. That's interesting. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I doubt that this would be the outcome of your hand data and I think the burden would be on you to produce it as it runs counter to what I (if I were ruling) would expect.

My admittedly unsubstantiated discussions with other players playing FERTs from 15-20 years ago when I was experimenting with these systems suggested that this was exactly what their data looked like. It came along with comments like 'we don't play a FERT because we want to play a FERT we play a FERT because we want to play a forcing pass and that means we need to put the FERT hands somewhere'.

[jtfanclub]

fred, on Feb 3 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid. It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not include hands with fewer than 10 hcp by agreement unless it also includes 3+ cards in the suit bid.

An opening of 1 of a minor may not include hands with fewer than 7 hcp by agreement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opening or overcall of 1 of a major must promise at least 4 cards in the suit bid, and may not promise a minimum length* in an unbid suit.
An opening of 1 of a major may not include hands with fewer than 7 hcp by agreement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opening of 1NT shall include no more than 5 possible HCP totals, which must be a continuous range (such as 11-15). None of these total by agreement may be less than 10 HCP unless no conventions are used in the responses. An opening of 1NT must mostly contain balanced hands- hands with a singleton may be opened rarely if there is no inquiry response to ask for the singleton, and hands with a void may not be opened 1NT by agreement. Openings of 1NT may not promise a minimum length* for an unbid suit.

All overcalls of 1NT which promise at least 8 HCP are legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opening or overcall of two of a suit shall contain at least 5 of the suit.
All openings and overcalls of 2NT or higher are legal provided they promise one of
-A balanced hand or one or more named suits, or
-Are an inquiry for specific high cards or the number of high cards, such as the number of aces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCEPTIONS: The following are legal regardless of the above.
Over a 1 club or 1 diamond opening which does not promise 3 of the bid suit, all overcalls are legal except those specifically prohibited as 'destructive'.

1NT promising 16+ HCP that does not promise 3+ cards in a specific suit.

2 clubs and 2 diamonds promising a strong (18+ hcp or 7+ tricks) hand, that does not promise minimum length* in an unbid suit.

2 bids of any suit promising at least 10 hcp and one of the following-
-Both majors (4+/4+)
-Both minors (5+/4+)
-The suit bid plus at least one other suit.
-A singleton or void, in a known or unknown suit.

An overcall of 2 of a suit over an opening of 1 of the same suit is legal provided it either promises length in the suit bid or length in at least two suits outside of the one buid (5+/4+). The suits do not need to be known.

*If a bid denies having a doubleton in a suit, while including some hands that have 3 or more cards in the suit, it shall be considered to have a minimum length in the suit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure I missed some lawyerese somewhere, but is this actually longer than the openings and overcalls section for GCC as written? Are there any popular methods included in GCC but excluded by my system, or vice versa? I can do responses too- they're pretty easy since they're so wide open.

I'm sure the Committee can figure this stuff out on their own. Do they really want me sending them stuff like this?

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Feb 3 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

If you have been reading this thread you will see that "all-purpose opening bid" means different things to different people. Hence it is a term that is open to interpretation. Hence subjectivity comes into play.

Probably if you managed to resolve this you would start to get questions about the use of the word "points".

Quote

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is  that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

"Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player. " -

I have no idea what you mean by "complete, draws the line in the intended place".

Here's a GCC without ambiguity - allow only precision, sayc, 2/1, sayc, 2/1 with short club. Each of these systems have well defined opening bids and responses, heck take the superset of all opening bids + responses currently allowed in the GCC, and say that these only only these bids are allowed. That's pretty unambiguous. I suspect an overwhelming majority of club players will have no problem with this + you have preciseness in its definition.

Of course, I may be accused of stifling innovation, and I would acknowledge that I was. Which BTW is better than the intellectual dishonesty of pretending to not stifle innovation by using vague wording in a document.

"How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?"

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?