[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jan 6 2007, 03:56 AM, said:

It's a shame that the ACBL doesn't give their interpretations of this.  In the EBU, there is a couple of pages in the Orange Book explaining their rules.  I certainly won't quote all of it.  The simple definition is:

Orange Book said:

A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits. Note that in the earlier rounds of bidding a natural suit bid usually shows at least four cards.

They then go on to give their interpretations of specific cases (saying e.g. that a 1m opening showing 3 cards is not alertable). The point is that it seems they recognize the definition is murky and then go on to instruct players as to specific cases.

For the life of me, I've never understood why the ACBL never produced anything comporable to the Orange Book or the White Book. I don't claim that these books are perfect, however, the EBL seems to have done a very good job. Moreover, the core approach of producing a simple unambiguous set of documentation is very laudable.

The ACBL's is much larger than the EBL. On the one hand this means that the organization has a lot more resources to draw upon to work on this type of effort. On the other, producing this type of simple case law would benefit many more people.

Somehow, the idea never caught on over here.

(Note: I'm looking over Duplicate Decisions which is actually alot better than I recalled. There's still some scary stuff. The section on psyches is a travesty. All of the following psyches are considered "unsportsmanlike:

Psyches against inexperienced pairs
Psyches against teams that may be in contention
Psyches designed to "create action"

However, it does seem like things may be moving in the right direction)

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Jan 5 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

I just fired off the following email to rulings@acbl.org
Its going to be quite amusing to see what falls out from this.

I just received a response from Richard Beye (the ACBL's chief Tournament Director) on the whole Muiderberg question. (Pretty good turn arround time, considering that I fired off the original email at close of business on Friday)

I'm attaching his response below. (Adam, any chance that you could forward me - alternatively forward Mr Beye - a copy of your original email to Mike Flader?).

(BTW, I'm going to be vacationing for a few days in Southern Illinois starting on Wednesday morning. I probably won't have much access to the Internet)

I'll note with some satisfaction that I called this one almost perfectly:

AWM initially received an email stating that the methods in question were legal.
The contents of this email are quickly being rescinded

>Mr. Wiley,
>
>I do not have a copy of the original email. However, I likely disagree with Mike's
>interpretation below. The agreement you note in your first paragraph below would
>not be legal on the GCC unless it promised two known suits and a minimum of 10
>HCPs. The GCC seems pretty clear on this point.

>It sounds like Mr. Meyerson is attempting to play some variation of Wilkosz, a
>convention pretty much obsolete, prohibited in most parts of the world. If you
>could, please send me a copy of the original email. Too, feel free to share my
>email with Mr. Meyerson.

>As a side note - We have no agreements on the GCC which would require a written
>defense.

>Respectfully,

>Richard F. Beye
>Chief Tournament Director
>American Contract Bridge League
>2990 Airways Boulevard
>Memphis, TN 38116
>901-332-5586, ext. 1331

[cherdano]

How did Wilkosz get mixed into this confusion??

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jan 8 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

How did Wilkosz get mixed into this confusion??

The Wilkosz detour is a bit strange...

My assumption is that Beye knows that Wilkosz is a conventional preemptive opening that shows a two suited hand patter that contains a major and assumed that this is what we're discussing.

Here's a copy of my reply:

>Dear Mr Beye.
>
>Thanks very much for your quick response... I should be able to
>procure a copy of Adam's original email within 24 hours or so.
>
>One quick clarification:
>
>"Wilkosz" is a preemptive 2D opening that show a two suited hand with
>at least 5-5 shape. At least one of the two suits is a major. As you
>note, relatively few pairs are using this convention.
>
>"Muilderberg" is a preemptive 2M opening that shows 5+ cards in the bid major
>and at least 4 cards in an unknown minor. This opening is in fairly
>widespread use throughout the world. (I know a number of pairs who
>play this in Midchart level events here in the ACBL)
>
>Thanks again
>

[the hog]

I find it amusing that this guy is giving rulings on conventions he clearly knows nothing about. Obsolete?? Reall??!

[pbleighton]

"I find it amusing that this guy is giving rulings on conventions he clearly knows nothing about. Obsolete?? Reall??! "

Remember, Ron, nothing that happens outside of the ACBL exists.

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Sure, everything is obsolete if you legislate it out of existence. There are probably at least 50 types of two-suited preempts and to think that there are only one or two types shows appalling ignorance. This is your brain ( )...this is your brain on ACBL ( ).

[awm]

Here's the original text of my message to Rulings@acbl.org, which Mike Flader responded to (in bold):

Does the general chart permit a 2M opening which shows a weak hand
(say 5-10 hcp) with five cards in the bid major and a 4-card or
longer minor?

On the one hand:

(1) This is a natural bid, and natural bids seem to be allowed.

(2) It's pretty clear that an agreement to play "five card weak two
bids" is legal, and this only differs by negative inferences (no 5332
hands, no side 4-card major). In fact those negative inferences are
pretty common ones for people playing weak twos in general.

On the other hand:

(1) There's a specific rule allowing "two-level openings showing 10+
points and 5-4 in two known suits" which would seem to imply that a
two-level opening with a two-suiter that doesn't guarantee 10+ points
might not be allowed.

(2) There's a rule that "methods not specifically allowed are
disallowed..." although unfortunately that would also seem to
disallow a natural, non-forcing 1H opening (5+ cards) since it's not
specified anywhere that such a bid is allowed, and this is obviously
not the intent of the GCC.

Thanks,
Adam

Rick Beye is a very nice fellow (in fact I partnered him at a regional in San Diego a few years back). However, he seems to be among the most likely at ACBL to have fuzzy interpretations on the rules, and in fact he was the one who sent me an email about very light openings in third seat a while back, where he contradicted himself in a single email. His reference to Wilkosz is an indication that he may not have thought this through very thoroughly, and/or may not know what he's talking about. On the other hand, I've received several emails from Mike Flader in the past which seemed extremely reasonable and well-thought-out, but which apparently do not reflect official ACBL policy; for example he agreed with me that opening a strong 2♣ on a solid 9-card major and no other cards was a psych, when there is apparently a directive from ACBL HQ (strangely this directive is available only to regional-level directors and not to the bridge-playing population at large) indicating that exactly the same hand is a legal 2♣ opening. Getting to the bottom of this whole issue is likely to be extremely difficult, to say the least.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 9 2007, 01:38 AM, said:

Getting to the bottom of this whole issue is likely to be extremely difficult, to say the least.

I know that Mike Flader is a TD and writes the "Ruling the Game" column, but I have no idea about his position in the official heirarchy

Any idea if either of the individuals is able to issue an authoritative opinion?

[LH2650]

DrTodd13, on Jan 5 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

As far as I can tell, a 2♥ bid showing 5/5 majors would be natural and non-conventional.  It expresses willingness to play in ♥.  The rule doesn't say you can't be willing to play somewhere else as well.

If I used this convention, I would be willing to play in either ♠ or ♥. You may not like the wording in the Laws, but the intended meaning is clear. Likewise, a bid of 2M, showing (a willingness to play in) a known 5 card major or an unknown 4 card minor, conveys something other than just a desire to play in the major, so it is a convention. And it is a convention not allowed by the GCC.

If you just sit back and try to understand the simple point that the Laws Commission was trying to make, rather than lawyering it to death, the answer is clear.

Mike Flader is an Associate National Tournament Director. There are a few National Tournament Directors above him.

[pclayton]

When I asked about Namyats overcalls a few years back by sending an email to the league, I received the reply from Beye, not Flader.

[awm]

I've received replies in the past from Flader, Beye, and Gary Blaiss. I'm not sure any one of them is more "official" than the others, its seems more a matter of who gets to the mail first.

I spent some time today talking to John Jones about this (he's a local expert in Southern California who has served on a lot of committees). He indicated that there was no real central authority on this, and that I should just ask our local regional-level director and/or people who frequently serve on committees what they think and go with that (at least in SoCal). This is pretty frustrating but probably the reality of things.

[hrothgar]

World of Warcraft is offline of maintence, so I'm emerging from my week long "slumber". I took the liberty of firing off another email to Memphis. Hopefully, we can get something a bit more definitive back from them.

----------------

Dear Mr. Beye

I was hoping that we could revist our discussion from last month regarding conventional openings and the GCC. My local club is still running into a fair amount of difficulty interpreting the just what the General Convention Chart is trying to do. As I mentioned earlier, we are discussing the following specific example: A player in our district wants to use a Muiderberg 2S opening in GCC events. A Muiderberg 2S opening is defined as follows:

Shape: 5+ Spades and 4+ cards in either minor
Strength: Approximately 6 – 10 HCP

The player in question maintains that the Muiderberg 2S opening is a natural bid and that the ACBL's GCC permits all natural bids. I maintain that a Muiderberg 2S opening is a conventional bid and that the ACBL's GCC bans all conventional bids that are not explicitly sanctioned.

The crux of the debate boils down to the following quote from the GCC: “Allowed: Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed”. Unfortunately, the GCC never defined the word “methods”. Adam claims the following: The GCC never explicitly sanctions the use of a “standard” 1S opening like the one used playing SAYC or 2/1 Game Force. None-the-less, players are allowed to use this bid in tournaments. Therefore, natural bids can not be considered to be “methods”. I claim that “methods” is synonymous with “conventional”. A standard American 1S opening is not conventional, therefore this bid is not a “method”.

To further confuse matters, we each now have an email from Rulings@ACBL.org that provide contradictory advice. Mike Flader claims that Muiderberg is legal at the GCC level. You say thats its not legal. Unfortunately, we have no way to understand which of these two rulings has precedence.

I would very much appreciate an official and definitive statement on this matter.

Sincerely,

Richard Willey

[pbleighton]

Richard:

I'm stunned.

Where did you learn to be so polite?



Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Obviously he's been keeping it for the people he respects....

[hrothgar]

Here's the "official" word from Memphis.

I'll say this for the ACBL: They have a very good response time for these types of questions.
-----------------

Richard,

A club may elect to allow experimental methods.
A club may elect to be more restrictive than the GCC.
Muiderberg is not a GCC convention.
The use of this convention at your club is solely at the discretion of the club manager.

I have pasted the pertinent club regulation below:

ALLOWABLE RESTRICTION OF CONVENTIONS
Club managers may regulate conventions in games conducted at their clubs. A complete list of conventions that may be used for club play is shown on the ACBL General Convention Chart/Midchart/SuperChart. See Appendix A.

A club manager can bar or allow specific conventions and can bar certain conventions in newcomer games but allow them in open games. The types of events for which this applies are club masterpoint games, club championships, club charity events, ACBL-wide events, unit championships, unit charity events, district charity events, and the first level of play in the North American Pairs event. The Alert procedure and the skip bid announcement are procedures used in tournaments and are optional (and strongly encouraged) in club games.

Does this help?

Rick

Richard F. Beye
Chief Tournament Director
American Contract Bridge League
2990 Airways Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38116
901-332-5586, ext. 1331

[rbforster]

Richard F. Beye, on Jan 23 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

Muiderberg is not a GCC convention...  Does this help?

I guess a prompt direct answer is about all we could hope for. Explaining why would have been too much to ask.

[hrothgar]

Here are the latest exchanges

I sent the following message to Rick Beye

Thanks very much for the quick reply

I have one last question: When the GCC states "Allowed: Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed", what does the word "methods" mean?

---------

Beye responded as follows:

Richard,

Finding no name or email address in our database I shall assume you are an inexperienced player. Methods mean what you play, nothing more mysterious.

Rick

------------

Here is my latest comment

Hi Rick

The reason that I was asking about the definition of the word methods is fairly simple:

If methods means "what I play" then the GCC doesn't permit any one of of a number of different bids. There is nothing in the GCC that explicts permits me to play a natural 1S opening showing 5+ spades and opening values. There is nothing in the GCC that permits me to open 1NT showing 15-17 HCP and a balanced hand. However, as we are both aware, both these bids are clearly permitted at the GCC level. I must conclude that "methods" means something very different than "what I
play".

I'm very sorry to keep bothering you with this question, however, the regulations (as written) are far from clear. The fact that very experienced directors like you and Mike Flader can issue complete contradictory rulings to a fairly simple question certainly suggests that the Conventions Charts need clarification. An inexperienced player like yours truly certainly has little hope of understanding whats going on.

Once agin, I'd like to clarify a basic point:

Are natural openings like a Standard American 1N opening considered "methods"? If so, what part of the GCC allows sanctions the use of a natural 1NT opening?

Are convention openings like a Flannery 2D opening considered "methods"?

[hrothgar]

And two more

Rick Beye

Richard,

Please see 'Definitions' at the top of the GCC. Too, see #5 under 'Opening Bids' which allows Flannery. I say again, your 'methods' are the things you play. Your methods are legal if they are included on the GCC.

-------------------

Moi

While the Convention Chart provides a definition for a "natural" bid,
it never explictly states that players are permitted to play any
natural bid at the GCC level. Indeed, the Muiderberg example
demonstrates, there are plenty of "natural" opening bids that aren't
allowed.

If

1. The GCC allows a natural SAYC type 1S opening bid (we both agree
that it does)

AND

2. The GCC does not allow a natural Muiderberg type 2S openign bid
(we both agree that it doesn't)

than the word "methods" must mean something other than "what we play".

I would argue that if the word "convention" were substituted for the
word "methods" in the GCC, the document would be more logically
consistant and MUCH easier to understand.

[blackshoe]

What's missing in these exchanges is a reference to the law under which conventions are regulated. It is Law 40D. That law gives to Sponsoring Organizations the authority to regulate conventions, and to Zonal Organizations (the ACBL is, for all practical purposes, both) the authority to regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Note the parenthetical expression. There is no authority, other than this provision, for anyone to regulate non-conventional (i.e., natural) calls. Not in Law 40D, and not in any other Law.

I agree that "conventions" rather than "methods" would be better wording.