[glen]

I would like comments please on why it would be wrong for me to playing the following system in mid-chart NABC pairs events starting in the fall. I know that you will likely not want to play such a system, but I'm looking for comments on why it would be wrong/bad idea/stupid/silly/unproductive/ineffective etc. for me to play it, given I want something unique to the field.

1♣: either:
a.) 13-15 Bal NV, 11/12-13 Bal V or in 4th seat NV
b.) 10-14 1-4-4-4 exactly
c.) 18+ unbal any
d.) 19+ bal

1♦: (edit: WAS exactly 4♠s, 10-17, unbal for first 7 replies below), catch-all:
a.) 10-17, exactly 4♠s, unbal
b.) 10-14, fewer than 4♠s, unbal, a hand with too much playing value to open just 2m or 2♥

1♥: 15-18, either:
a.) 15/16-18 Bal, not 5♠s
b.) 15-17 unbal without 4♠s

1♠: 5+♠s, 10-17

1NT: 10-12 NV, 13/14-15 V and in 4th seat NV.

2m: 10-14, 5+, fewer than 4♠s, singleton/void if just 5 in the minor

2♥: 10-14, 5+♥s, fewer than 4♠s, singleton/void if just 5♥s

2♠: 5-9, 5+♠s NV, 6+♠s V

2NT: 10-14, 6-5+ in majors

The Balanced ranges less than 19 can have 5♥s in a 5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2 shape (4 of a minor), and can have 5 or 6 card minor with no singleton/void (6m is optional).

After 1♥-1♠(waiting/negative);-
--1NT: 15/16-18 Balanced or near balanced
--2m, 2♥: like openings, but 15-17
--2♠+: 15-17 shapely with 5+♥s

Please feel free to be harsh.

[hrothgar]

Hi Glen

I'm 95% sure that the 1♦ opening is illegal at the Midchart level. You might run into trouble with your 2NT opening as well. (Off the top of my head, I don't recall if you can use 2NT as two known suits or just both minors)

I strongly recommend that you check the new Convention Charts. [I provided a link to them a month or so back].

Here's the gotcha with 1♦.

1♦ isn't legal at the GCC level. The Conventions Committee explictly clarified that an "all purpose" 1♦ opening is separate and distinct from a transfer opening bid. This ruling came about in response to questions about an all purpose 1♦ opening that promised 4+ Hearts rather than 4+ Spades, however, I would expect that the basic principle would stand.

In years past, the 1♦ opening would have been legal at the Midchart level based on the clause that explicitly sanctioned any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Unfortuantely, the powers that be yanked this clause. Instead, they explictly sanctioned a number of different methods at the Midchart level. As far as I can remember, a 1♦ opening promising 4+ Spades was not one of those methods.

In theory, you might be able to get the Conventions Committe to ammend the Midchart and sanction a transfer opening bid along with a suggested defense. [To quote Bruce Campbell] my own experience suggests that "your chances are somewhere between Slim and none, and Slim just left town"

Alternatively, you could adopt a less descriptive definition for your 1♦ and hope that a sufficiently complex combination of weasel words would prevent people from understanding that you are - in fact - playing a transfer opening. [Personally, I consider this cheating]

[matmat]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

I'm 95% sure that the 1♦ opening is illegal at the Midchart level.

I was under the impression that 1c/1d openings could be anything as long as they had more than 8 points (maybe 10 points)...

[glen]

Thanks - I'm using the charts you noted in:

ACBL Convention Cards - starting on page 15 of 60

2NT is legal as GCC #6 "opening bid at the two level or higher indicating two known suits, minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits"

I guess I could convert 1♦ into 10-17, catch-all that shows a hand not covered by other opening bids, and the 2m bids could deny an 8 card or longer suit.

[hrothgar]

matmat, on Jul 2 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

I'm 95% sure that the 1♦ opening is illegal at the Midchart level.

I was under the impression that 1c/1d openings could be anything as long as they had more than 8 points (maybe 10 points)...

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

[hrothgar]

glen, on Jul 2 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I guess I could convert 1♦ into 10-17, catch-all that shows a hand not covered by other opening bids, and the 2m bids could deny an 8 card or longer suit.

Please look at the last line of my posting (I suspect that this edit happened while you were constructing your initial reply)

[matmat]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

egalitarian zoologist.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Please look at the last line of my posting (I suspect that this edit happened while you were constructing your initial reply)

Yes, I didn't see that edit before now.

Under the "All weasels are equal, but some weasels are more equal than others" provision, I like 1♦ as:
a.) 10-17, 4♠s, unbal
b.) 10-14, fewer than 4♠s, unbal, a hand with too much playing value to open just 2m or 2♥

The starting post is now edited to reflect this.

[rbforster]

hrothgar's bad experiences with the Conventions Committee aside, the "all purpose" GCC 1♦ call showing 10+ points seems to fit your original spades hands fine. I don't think I've ever run into anyone who claimed "all purpose" couldn't be whatever you wanted before this, and I still think most people would agree with this broad interpretation.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jul 2 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

hrothgar's bad experiences with the Conventions Committee aside, the "all purpose" GCC 1♦ call showing 10+ points seems to fit your original spades hands fine.  I don't think I've ever run into anyone who claimed "all purpose" couldn't be whatever you wanted before this, and I still think most people would agree with this broad interpretation.

Rob:

There is a very simple way to resolve this...

Write a letter to Memphis.
Ask whether or not the GCC sanctions a 1♦ opening promising 4+ Spades.
I suspect that you will (eventually) receive the same answer that I did... Whatever "all purpose" means, it doesn't include transfer opening bids.

Don't get me wrong. I'd be thrilled to proven wrong. However, I suspect that you are making a very naive mistake in assuming that common sense applies to anything that comes out of Memphis, nor that skills in reading English have anything to do with interpreting the Conventions charts.

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

There is a very simple way to resolve this...

Write a letter to Memphis. 
Ask whether or not the GCC sanctions a 1♦ opening promising 4+ Spades.
I suspect that you will (eventually) receive the same answer that I did...  Whatever "all purpose" means, it doesn't include transfer opening bids. 

But you see the thing is that I don't need Memphis's approval to play my system at a Midchart event - it's not like if someone complains the director will call up Memphis and ask their opinion. Just play it and have a reasonable interpretation on the relevant Chart's rules that make your system legal and explain that if someone questions you. Throw in a comment or two about how a local bridge pro plays the same methods (which is where you learned them) and you're almost certainly off the hook. You just have to convince either the opponent who asks or the director and that's sufficient.

As for actually asking Memphis anything, I'm sure you're aware of the awful inconsistencies that come out of asking them questions. If you want a complete contradiction of a plainly written rule, just ask them if you can make some clearly legal GCC opening in a confusing way and they'll respond that it's not GCC but Midchart because of some unrelated rule. They're worse than useless since they're so inconsistent in what they say.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jul 2 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

There is a very simple way to resolve this...

Write a letter to Memphis. 
Ask whether or not the GCC sanctions a 1♦ opening promising 4+ Spades.
I suspect that you will (eventually) receive the same answer that I did...  Whatever "all purpose" means, it doesn't include transfer opening bids. 

But you see the thing is that I don't need Memphis's approval to play my system at a Midchart event - it's not like if someone complains the director will call up Memphis and ask their opinion. Just play it and have a reasonable interpretation on the relevant Chart's rules that make your system legal and explain that if someone questions you. Throw in a comment or two about how a local bridge pro plays the same methods (which is where you learned them) and you're almost certainly off the hook. You just have to convince either the opponent who asks or the director and that's sufficient.

As for actually asking Memphis anything, I'm sure you're aware of the awful inconsistencies that come out of asking them questions. If you want a complete contradiction of a plainly written rule, just ask them if you can make some clearly legal GCC opening in a confusing way and they'll respond that it's not GCC but Midchart because of some unrelated rule. They're worse than useless since they're so inconsistent in what they say.

A long time ago I had to make a fundamental decision about how I wanted to play this game.

One option was to do precisely what you're recommending. Game the system as much as possible. Look for inconsistent rulings. Meticulously document anything that backs what I wanted to hear. Conveniently forget anything that contradicts me. Constantly search for new (inconsistent) opinons any time that I received bad news.

From my perspective, this amounts to cheating.

Moreover, you better pray that no one ever sees you write stuff like this and then catches you playing something of dubious providence. That's not going to end anyplace good...

[TimG]

Quote

1♦ isn't legal at the GCC level.  The Conventions Committee explictly clarified that an 'all purpose' 1♦ opening is separate and distinct from a transfer opening bid.  This ruling came about in response to questions about an all purpose 1♦ opening that promised 4+ Hearts rather than 4+ Spades, however, I would expect that the basic principle would stand.

In April, I asked Rick Beye: "1) The GCC allows an "all-purpose" 1D opening bid. In a GCC event, may I use a 1D opening to show hearts (and 10+ points)? Or, would this not qualify as a 'all-purpose' use?"

His response: "NO, that would not be 'all-purpose'."

Quote

In years past, the 1♦ opening would have been legal at the Midchart level based on the clause that explicitly sanctioned any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit.  Unfortuantely, the powers that be yanked this clause.  Instead, they explictly sanctioned a number of different methods at the Midchart level.  As far as I can remember, a 1♦ opening promising 4+ Spades was not one of those methods.

Even before the most recent changes, a 1♦ opening promising 4+ spades would not have been allowed -- even though, as you say, is appeared to fall under the "4+ cards in a known suit" rule. It would have required an approved defense, and the C&C Committee is very reluctant to approve transfer type opening bids. If you check the defense database, you will find that there is an approved defense for a 1♦ opening bid which shows 5+ hearts (is forcing and is in every other way identical to a standard American 1♥ opening bid). You will also notice that it is approved only for events with 12+ board segments.

In April, I also submitted for approval a defense to a 1♥ opening bid which shows 5+ spades (is forcing and is in every other way identical to a standard American 1♠ opening bid). I was told that the request would be forwarded to the C&C Committee and that "the time frame is indeterminate."

I also told Mr. Beye that I would someday like to be able to play transfer openings in a strong club system. He responded that this would be limited to SuperChart events and that it was "highly unlikely you will see these methods approved for Mid Chart events." He later told me that the method would be SuperChart because the "4+ cards in a known suit" rule was being removed from the mid-chart.

Anyway, the "all-purpose" clause cannot be used to allow a 1♣ or 1♦ opening which promises 4 spades. And, it sure sounds like it is going to take quite some time before transfer openings are permitted at the mid-chart level (at least in a strong club system or in events with segments of less than 12 boards).

Tim

[goodwintr]

As far as I know, they've never explained what an "all-purpose opening bid" IS, as opposed to what it ISN'T in particular instances. Maybe I've just missed the explanation. I guess an opening bid of one club (or one diamond) that means "I open the bidding" would be an all-purpose opening bid. Then an opening bid of one heart or one spade would mean "I DON'T have an opening bid: I would have bid an all-purpose one club (or one diamond) with that."

Good regulation.

[OleBerg]

Hi Glen,

I have just glanced at your system.

Obviously, when constructing the system, you have tried to gain some advantages. Some by the 1♣ opening, some by describing the spade suit a lot.

You have to weigh this against the disadvantages. I see three obvious disadvantages:

1) The 1♣ opening is vulnrable to interference. Many players have lived with this before, and if your opponents do not organize their defence properly, it will be no big deal.

2) You will have a lot of trouble bidding constructively with hearts, especially after the 2♥ opening bid. I guess slam bidding will not be a big problem, but on partscore and game hands, I foresee some trouble.

3) You cannot use 2♦ and 2♥ for preemptive bidding.


One thing I would definately do, would be to remove the ambiguety from the 1♦ opening, thus letting it always promise 4♠s. This will be very usefull for your partner, whenever the auction becomes competitive. (And be sure to have many different ways to support this opening.)

You might even consider exchanging the meaning of 1♦ and 1♠. This has some advantages as well as disadvatages too.


So, if you can overcome the legal problems, my advice would be:

Try it out, see what happens, make improvements. (Manegement Gurus will probably have a name for this.)


Edit: If you try it out, I would love hear of your experience.

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

...Game the system as much as possible.  Look for inconsistent rulings.  Meticulously document anything that backs what I wanted to hear.  Conveniently forget anything that contradicts me.  Constantly search for new (inconsistent) opinons any time that I received bad news.

From my perspective, this amounts to cheating. 

<snip - random threats>

Cheating?! Who are you kidding - you must be taking semantics lessons from the RIAA when they keep whining about music "theft". If the rules were clear and I played a disallowed convention, then perhaps I might get an Avg- for the board and told to stop by the director per the rules. Frivolous accusations of cheating are the kind of strong language that gets the ACBL hit with lawsuits and are best avoided all around. Just remember that your morals aren't law, and cheating is a legal violation not an offense to your sensibilities.

Before you hold Memphis and Mr. Beye up as the final arbitrator of all misunderstandings involving conventions, I suggest you review this fine ruling of his, where he disallowed strong (15+) 2♣/2♦ openings because they were "transfers" to the corresponding major. Never mind the GCC states in no uncertain terms that 2♣ or 2♦ are specifically allowed to be an artificial opening showing a strong hand. Not an "all purpose" opening, or a "non-transfer" opening, or a "only if I like you" opening, but any strong opening you like. If Mr. Beye can't read the chart as written, he can hardly be worthy as the final interpretor of such things. Other officials in the ACBL agreed that these bids were indeed legal - it's just him being confused. Other rulings from him have been similarly ill-informed and inconsistent.

In short, don't believe Mr. Beye's "interpretations" of the convention charts when you're designing your system - read it for yourself and follow the rules as they're written. There's a fair bit of history showing Mr Beye's not reading the rules and just sends back random often unrelated nonsense when asked questions about conventions.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jul 3 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

...Game the system as much as possible.  Look for inconsistent rulings.  Meticulously document anything that backs what I wanted to hear.  Conveniently forget anything that contradicts me.  Constantly search for new (inconsistent) opinons any time that I received bad news.

From my perspective, this amounts to cheating. 

<snip - random threats>

Cheating?! Who are you kidding - you must be taking semantics lessons from the RIAA when they keep whining about music "theft". If the rules were clear and I played a disallowed convention, then perhaps I might get an Avg- for the board and told to stop by the director per the rules. Frivolous accusations of cheating are the kind of strong language that gets the ACBL hit with lawsuits and are best avoided all around. Just remember that your morals aren't law, and cheating is a legal violation not an offense to your sensibilities.

Before you hold Memphis and Mr. Beye up as the final arbitrator of all misunderstandings involving conventions, I suggest you review this fine ruling of his, where he disallowed strong (15+) 2♣/2♦ openings because they were "transfers" to the corresponding major. Never mind the GCC states in no uncertain terms that 2♣ or 2♦ are specifically allowed to be an artificial opening showing a strong hand. Not an "all purpose" opening, or a "non-transfer" opening, or a "only if I like you" opening, but any strong opening you like. If Mr. Beye can't read the chart as written, he can hardly be worthy as the final interpretor of such things. Other officials in the ACBL agreed that these bids were indeed legal - it's just him being confused. Other rulings from him have been similarly ill-informed and inconsistent.

In short, don't believe Mr. Beye's "interpretations" of the convention charts when you're designing your system - read it for yourself and follow the rules as they're written. There's a fair bit of history showing Mr Beye's not reading the rules and just sends back random often unrelated nonsense when asked questions about conventions.

Robert, telling someone that their behavior is stupid is not the same thing as making a threat. Its much more akin to warning a small child not to play in traffic. You have no personal plans to run the kid over. You're just noting that this sort of thing happening...

Second: The issue at hand is not whether or not Memphis issues contradictory rulings or whether Beye has a clue how to read the convention charts. Anyone who has any kind of dealing with the ACBL is well aware that the regulatory system is badly mismanaged. Rather, the central issue is how should one behave in this type of environment.

I'd argue that shopping for opinions is completely reprehensible. If you encounter an ambiguity you work to resolve the issue. In some cases, the best way to resolve the issue is civil disobedience.

Play an "illegal" convention
Deliberately generate a test case
Use this to have the ruling over turned

But this isn't what your recommending.

You're recommending shopping for opinions, selectively ignoring the rulings that you don't happen to like, and hoping that you don't get caught.

[PrecisionL]

[QUOTE]In years past, the 1[di] opening would have been legal at the Midchart level based on the clause that explicitly sanctioned any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Unfortuantely, the powers that be yanked this clause. Instead, they explictly sanctioned a number of different methods at the Midchart level. As far as I can remember, a 1[di] opening promising 4+ Spades was not one of those methods.[/QUOTE]

I also told Mr. Beye that I would someday like to be able to play transfer openings in a strong club system. He responded that this would be limited to SuperChart events and that it was "highly unlikely you will see these methods approved for Mid Chart events." He later told me that the method would be SuperChart because the "4+ cards in a known suit" rule was being removed from the mid-chart.

Anyway, the "all-purpose" clause cannot be used to allow a 1[cl] or 1[di] opening which promises 4 spades. And, it sure sounds like it is going to take quite some time before transfer openings are permitted at the mid-chart level (at least in a strong club system or in events with segments of less than 12 boards).

Tim[/QUOTE]

Oh, No! My favorite improvement to Precision is to play 1[di] as 10-15 hcp and at least one 4-card major, but no 5-card major. I suppose this will now be interpreted as a transfer opening.

Rats!

Now I will have to play 4-card majors as this solved the problem very nicely.

Larry

[AlexOgan]

We play 1D as either 14-16 bal OR 11-15, at least one 4-card major, no 5-card major, not 5+/5+ in the minors. Never had a hint of a problem.

[Apollo81]

AlexOgan, on Jul 3 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

We play 1D as either 14-16 bal OR 11-15, at least one 4-card major, no 5-card major, not 5+/5+ in the minors.  Never had a hint of a problem.

What do you do on (13)(45) ?

I think you would get poor results from opening (13)45 2♣ if the clubs aren't very strong, since it sounds like your 2♣ otherwise would show 6.

We do something similar (our 2♦ opener shows xx5+4+, x<4), but we could open 1♦ on the (13)(54)s.