[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-June-19, 09:36, said:

You have to apply bridge common sense when interpreting things like the GCC.

I think at one point in this thread someone suggested that "at most 2 doubletons, and generally no singletons" allows for the possibility of opening an 8-2-2-1 hand with 1NT. It has 2 doubletons and 1 singleton, and could be among the occasional exceptions to the "generally no singleton" criterion. But anyone with an ounce of sense understands that when they said "at most 2 doubletons" they actually meant "at most 2 suits of 2 cards or less". It also doesn't say anything about voids at all, but it doesn't need to -- everyone knows that a hand with a void is unbalanced.

I believe that the purpose of that bit of the GCC is not to be the precise, legal definition of what is "balanced". Bridge players already have a general notion of this, but it's kind of fuzzy, and different players may use it somewhat differently: we have square hands, semi-balanced hands, etc. So the point of that clause is simply to say that the GCC uses a relatively broad definition of balanced for allowing NT openings. But no one with any bridge experience needs the GCC to tell them whether 8221 is balanced or not -- it's clearly not. Interpreting that description in a way that makes it balanced is just ludicrous.

This question is easily resolved by changing the definition of "balanced" in the GCC, and also changing the requirements for the 1NT opening "generally". Like this: "A balanced hand has 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3, or 5-3-3-2 distribution. A semi-balanced hand has 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 distribution. All other hands are unbalanced. A natural 1NT opening is generally balanced or semi-balanced, but may occasionally contain one singleton (which implies 4-4-4-1, 5-4-3-1 or 6-3-3-1 distribution). A natural 1NT opening may not contain a void." You could change "one singleton" in that last sentence to "a singleton A or K" if you want to make it more restrictive.

Before somebody points it out, I'm aware that this is not precisely what the GCC currently says, nor is it how some interpret it.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2014-June-19, 07:48, said:

The question is what, if anything, "generally" means. We seem to have two competing interpretations: "except for deviations" and "more than some fixed proportion, say 99%, of the time". But we should recognise that both of those are interpretations.

No, that is a misunderstanding. The writers cannot possibly have meant to write "except for deviations" for the simple fact that they did not have the authority to regulate deviations (Law 40). Therefore, the whole GCC deals with agreements. That means that they are regulating that a balanced hand by agreement generally does not contain a singleton. And hence this can only mean that it is allowed to agree to open 1NT on a hand with a singleton, as long as the hand is "balanced".

That means something different to everybody. To me it means that ♠AKxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣Axxx is not balanced, whereas ♠KJTx ♥K ♦KJTx ♣KQTx could well be seen as balanced.

Rik

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-19, 15:03, said:

No, that is a misunderstanding. The writers cannot possibly have meant to write "except for deviations" for the simple fact that they did not have the authority to regulate deviations (Law 40).

I often see signs "no dogs, except guide dogs" in establishments which I very much doubt are legally entitled to ban guide dogs. Even if the writers know they cannot regulate deviations, it would still be worth telling players (who may not know, and may otherwise misinterpret the GCC as banning opening 1NT with a singleton under any circumstances).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-19, 14:02, said:

This question is easily resolved by changing the definition of "balanced" in the GCC, and also changing the requirements for the 1NT opening "generally". Like this: "A balanced hand has 4-4-3-2, 4-3-3-3, or 5-3-3-2 distribution. A semi-balanced hand has 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 distribution. All other hands are unbalanced. A natural 1NT opening is generally balanced or semi-balanced, but may occasionally contain one singleton (which implies 4-4-4-1, 5-4-3-1 or 6-3-3-1 distribution). A natural 1NT opening may not contain a void." You could change "one singleton" in that last sentence to "a singleton A or K" if you want to make it more restrictive.

One of the features of the GCC is that it's very short, it fits on one page. Clubs often have it posted on their well, and players can read it quickly and understand the rules.

So you've turned a simple, one-line rule into a detailed, 4-line "treatise". Continuing like this, you end up with a document like the White Book. Very complete and useful for directors/ACs, but not easily accessible by players.

[blackshoe]

"On their well"? Don't know that one.

The description or definition of "natural NT" in the GCC is two lines.

If it takes more precision to avoid ambiguity in the rules, then so be it.

I've never seen a club post the GCC or any other thing about what regulations are in force at that club. I have had a club director tell me, when I suggested that he do so, "I've been directing this game for twenty-five years, I've never done that before, and I'm not going to start doing it now." OTOH, he's pretty stubborn. I'd guess that once he's made up his mind about something, right or wrong, the only way to get him to change it would involve physical torture - and I'm not so sure even that would work.

[akwoo]

My interpretation of "generally" is "except for deviations".

I suspect the vagueness of the GCC is due to a desire to stick to "plain language" so as to not bother most bridge players with learning about legal technicalities. Unfortunately, as with any other drive for "plain legal language," it's doomed by an inherent contradiction. Plain language is full of ambiguities and simply not precise enough to be used as law in many cases. It's not like lawyers are purposefully trying to confuse everyone else; rather in most cases the law can't be clear without putting in all the technicalities.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-20, 17:57, said:

"On their well"? Don't know that one.

Sorry, "wall"

Quote

I've never seen a club post the GCC or any other thing about what regulations are in force at that club.

At least one of our local clubs posts the GCC on their wall or bulletin board. I'm pretty sure Bridge Spot in Woburn, MA does, and maybe also the Westwood DBC.

[blackshoe]

The clubs around here don't have a wall or bulletin board. I tried to give 'em one (I'm the webmaster for the Rochester Area Bridge Association) but none of 'em were interested. Oh, and another player has put up pictures from each of the clubs on his site, but again, no club puts up their regulations.

[barmar]

No wall? Do they play outside?

I guess you're saying that they don't have a location they can call their own, they're renting a location like a church, community center, etc. We have a number of clubs like that, too. But the ones with their own location post game results, interesting newspaper articles, and things like the GCC and Alert Chart on the wall.

[blackshoe]

"The Wall" refers to a feature on Facebook. Or a Pink Floyd song.

[chrism]

That sounds like bridge players ... "We don't want no education. We don't want no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the clubroom - Director! Leave those bids alone ..."

[Trinidad]

chrism, on 2014-June-23, 04:31, said:

That sounds like bridge players ... "We don't want no education. We don't want no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the clubroom - Director! Leave those bids alone ..."

"All in all, it's just another incredibly vague and hard to understand regulation on the wall." somehow doesn't fit the rythm.

Rik

[CSGibson]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-22, 19:56, said:

"The Wall" refers to a feature on Facebook. Or a Pink Floyd song.

You are being very argumentative here to imply that the wall does not refer to the side of a physical structure in such an authoritative tone. I'm under 40, social media savvy to some degree and familiar with a facebook "wall", and I completely understood what Barry was talking about. Were you honestly confused, or being deliberately obtuse?

[blackshoe]

Chris,

It appears you did not give due consideration to what you wanted to say before you posted. Would you care to try again?