[rbforster]

I think there's an analogy with 1 level bids that might be instructive here. Here's a fairly natural set of opening bids:

1♣ strong 15+ (all below are 10-14 unless specified)
1♦ 4+ unbal
1♥ 5+ unbal
1♠ 5+ unbal
1N 12-14 balanced, including 5332's and 4414
2♣ 5+ unbal, precision style
2♦ 6+ one suited
2M 6+ one suited

It might not be the best system, but I'd be surprised if the rules lawyers claimed you should "get the book thrown at you" for playing it. Observe that the 1♥ opening will always have a side suit due to the intermediate one-suited 2♥ option. So here you have a bid of

1♥ 10-14 5+♥, 4+ unknown suit

Under the "this is conventional, not natural, and must be specifically sanctioned" interpretation, at what level can I bid 1♥ this way? The answer is that under that interpretation, this opening is illegal at all ACBL levels including SuperChart. The new Midchart removed the "4+ known suit" clause, and there are no specifically allowed bids for 1♥ that show hearts (it's ok if it shows spades though!). Superchart does not extend allowed 1 level openings beyond that of the Midchart.

Does anyone honestly think this is a Bermuda-only level system? I would be 99% positive that you could run this system by any director and he'd say it was totally fine under GCC. This leads me to believe the "conventional, not natural" interpretation is not just unreasonable, its consequences are completely absurd. Don't forget that the 1♦ and 1♠ openings above are also illegal since they promise unknown side suits too!

Yet here we have a 2♥ bid showing the exact same shapes as this 1♥ opening and it causes everyone to get all upset. (Ok, the OP here asked about 5/5+, but you could equivalently ask about the looser Polish 2♥ version where you only need 5♥/4+ which is the exact same shapes)

So here's my question to those of you who think 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+ other is not GCC. Do you think my system above is illegal at Superchart? Really? Or do you not worry about logical inconsistencies and just don't like people playing weak two bids different than yourself? And if you think my 1♥ bid above is ok under GCC, then surely the 2♥ version must be allowed under the same reasoning (i.e. natural), whether weak or not.

Perhaps someone should shoot off an email asking about this system and its natural, unbalanced and 2-suited one level bids and see if they are allowed. I would say it's very likely these would be approved - just don't mention the 2 level version since I think some of the guys in Atlanta are hardwired to reject any 2 level opening proposed as illegal (seriously).

[TylerE]

I've played a similar system in GCC events.


1♣ - 15+ Bal, 16+ Unbal
1♦ - 2+, 11-15, Unblanced, Canape
1♥ - 4+, 11-15, Canape
1♠ - 4+, 11-15, Canape
1NT - 11-14, Includes 5M322, 5M422 (optional, may be opened in the 4 card suit), 6m322...
2♣ - 4+, 11-15, Canape (yes, this is mandatory systemically on, say, 6=1=2=4)
2♦ - Mini-Roman (Don't snigger...nessesary to make the system work.)
2M - 10-13, 6M, no 4 card side suit
2N - Minors

Notice how the 1x openings practically promise a side suit (and in fact we systemically open the side suit, not the 6 bagger....pretty strict canape)

Never had any director complaints playing in mostly sectional-level events.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Oct 21 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

I think there's an analogy with 1 level bids that might be instructive here. Here's a fairly natural set of opening bids:

1♣ strong 15+ (all below are 10-14 unless specified)
1♦ 4+ unbal
1♥ 5+ unbal
1♠ 5+ unbal
1N 12-14 balanced, including 5332's and 4414
2♣ 5+ unbal, precision style
2♦ 6+ one suited
2M 6+ one suited

It might not be the best system, but I'd be surprised if the rules lawyers claimed you should "get the book thrown at you" for playing it. Observe that the 1♥ opening will always have a side suit due to the intermediate one-suited 2♥ option. So here you have a bid of

1♥ 10-14 5+♥, 4+ unknown suit

Under the "this is conventional, not natural, and must be specifically sanctioned" interpretation, at what level can I bid 1♥ this way? The answer is that under that interpretation, this opening is illegal at all ACBL levels including SuperChart. The new Midchart removed the "4+ known suit" clause, and there are no specifically allowed bids for 1♥ that show hearts (it's ok if it shows spades though!). Superchart does not extend allowed 1 level openings beyond that of the Midchart.

Does anyone honestly think this is a Bermuda-only level system? I would be 99% positive that you could run this system by any director and he'd say it was totally fine under GCC. This leads me to believe the "conventional, not natural" interpretation is not just unreasonable, its consequences are completely absurd. Don't forget that the 1♦ and 1♠ openings above are also illegal since they promise unknown side suits too!

Yet here we have a 2♥ bid showing the exact same shapes as this 1♥ opening and it causes everyone to get all upset. (Ok, the OP here asked about 5/5+, but you could equivalently ask about the looser Polish 2♥ version where you only need 5♥/4+ which is the exact same shapes)

So here's my question to those of you how think 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+ other is not GCC. Do you think my system above is illegal at Superchart? Really? Or do you not worry about logical inconsistencies and just don't like people playing weak two bids different than yourself? And if you think my 1♥ bid above is ok under GCC, then surely the 2♥ version must be allowed under the same reasoning (i.e. natural), whether weak or not.

Perhaps someone should shoot off an email asking about this system and its natural, unbalanced and 2-suited one level bids and see if they are allowed. I would say it's very likely these would be approved - just don't mention the 2 level version since I think some of the guys in Atlanta are hardwired to reject any 2 level opening proposed as illegal (seriously).

I don't think anyone believes that the ACBL regulatory structure is well conceived. It's riddled with inconsistencies. Pointing this out doesn't advance your argument.

I have long maintained that regulatory systems should be based on the set of hands shown by a bid rather than the vocabulary used to describe it. Furthermore, I don't think that it should matter at all whether if you have an explict agreement that a 1♥ opening promises a two suited hand or, alternatively, that you have an agreement that 1♥ shows 5+ hearts unbalanced (But always promises a two sutied hand because hands with 6+ hearts get opened something else).

From a practical perspective, the two bids are identical. I think that the regulatory structure show treat them in an identical fashion. I think that we're both in agreement about this.

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I'm not the one who gets to make the rules. My opinions about an optimal regulatory structure don't matter jack *****.

What does matter (alot) is how you want to be playing the game. We all know that its possible to hoodwink the opponents and the directors by playing silly games with disclosure. It's easy enough to cheat at bridge. But why would you want to play a game where you need to behave this way?

I have a very simple question for all of you who are trying to find ways to rules lawyer the existing regulation... Why don't you invest the same time and effort constructing a simple, clear description of your two heart opening bid and then submit this to Memphis and see what they have to say? Those of you who care about the 1♥ opening should do the same.

I suspect that the reason that you aren't doing this is that you already know what answer they're going to bring back and you don't want hear it directly.

[olegru]

cardsharp, on Oct 20 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

Contact and process details for getting a defense approved can be found on the ACBL Defense Database page. I suspect that no-one has ever asked for this specific convention to be approved.

Are you kidding?
Since 2004 I was trying to get approval (or at least reasons for disapproval) for 2 diamonds pre-emptive openning showing 5 cards spade and 5 card in unknown suit. Of cause I submit full description of method and sugessted deffence.
The last reply from 03/02/2007 was:
"The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment. They have stated that they are not adding any weak agreement at this time. Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year. Please be patient.
Respectfully,
Richard F. Beye"

Now I am sending my proposal 5th time.

[paulg]

olegru, on Oct 21 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 20 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

Contact and process details for getting a defense approved can be found on the ACBL Defense Database page. I suspect that no-one has ever asked for this specific convention to be approved.

Are you kidding?
Since 2004 I was trying to get approval (or at least reasons for disapproval) for 2 diamonds pre-emptive openning showing 5 cards spade and 5 card in unknown suit. Of cause I submit full description of method and sugessted deffence.
The last reply from 03/02/2007 was:
"The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment. They have stated that they are not adding any weak agreement at this time. Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year. Please be patient.
Respectfully,
Richard F. Beye"

Now I am sending my proposal 5th time.

There is a subtle difference between the Polish 2♥ and your 2♦, namely that the Polish 2♥ guarantees the bid suit (and so opponents have a takeout double) and your 2♦ that may, or may not, have a diamond suit. Many authorities take the view that this is significant in making a defence easier to play.

In terms of the ACBL process, I started my way down this road a couple of months ago. I play a multi 2♦ where the only weak option is a weak 2♥. This is permitted at Mid Chart using the current multi defence, but I am trying to get a more appropriate defence approved. Time will tell.

Paul

[olegru]

cardsharp, on Oct 21 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

There is a subtle difference between the Polish 2♥ and your 2♦ ...

Main part of my posting is not my convention, but reason given to reject, having nothing to do with nature of convention or quality of deffence.

Actualy, I already received the reply to my 5th try. Here it is:

Quote

The committee has repeatedly rejected the defenses offered for this agreement, as I noted in earlier messages. They do not explain their reasons to me, though I do not believe they are going to add any defenses to the Mid Chart which will require more than one page of notes.
Rick

[rbforster]

Let me interpret that for you:

olegru, on Oct 21 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Actualy, I already received the reply to my 5th try. Here it is:

Quote

The committee has repeatedly rejected the defenses offered for this agreement, as I noted in earlier messages. They do not explain their reasons to me, though I do not believe they are going to add any defenses to the Mid Chart period.
Rick

(note the minor difference from the original)

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but maybe a historian could tell us how many years have past since the C&C committee approved a new defense or convention, and did it have to be submitted by a current C&C member to get approved? I say play what you want - the regulators aren't listening and don't care, either about clarifying the current rules or adding defenses to currently legal conventions. I'd suggest voting the bums out ('tis the season and all), but sadly the C&C members aren't elected. Just ignore them, like they ignore their duties.

[benlessard]

Quote

I am assuming that your decision to restrict the discussion to the Midchart means that you don't agree with Adam's fudge

No its not my decision its in the initial post.

Quote

This is obviously quite illegal under the ACBL General Convention Chart, but it also seems to be illegal by the Midchart. The Midchart lists under illegal...

Its also common sense that you try to legalize something in the midchart before even thinking in the GCC.

For the rest of your post there is no argument as why a director will bug you about an opening bid wich require no new defense and that is 95% similar to an already allowed conventions. My experience tell me opponents and directors will let it slide the same way a policeman will allow some speeding.

If you say that driving 2MPH over the speed limit is illegal there is nothing to say against it, but anybody who think that way should deserve that every car in front of him run 5MPH under the speeding limit for a couple of months . After that theyll notice that there is a difference between laws and real life.

He also deserve that his accountant declare every revenues for the income tax.

[awm]

In general the ACBL takes issue with bids that show a weak hand which may or may not have length in the suit opened. In fact a lot of other SO's have problems with these bids also, which is why 2♥ showing a weak two in either major (for example) is frequently disallowed.

This is the reason it will be difficult to get a defense approved for a 2♦ opening showing five-five in spades and another suit (where the second suit might or might not be diamonds).

It is not clear that this has any impact on bids which actually show the suit opened.

[hrothgar]

benlessard, on Oct 21 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

For the rest of your post there is no argument as why a director will bug you about an opening bid wich require no new defense and that is 95% similar to an already allowed conventions. My experience tell me opponents and directors will let it slide the same way a policeman will allow some speeding.

If you say that driving 2MPH over the speed limit is illegal there is nothing to say against it, but anybody who think that way should deserve that every car in front of him run 5MPH under the speeding limit for a couple of months . After that theyll notice that there is a difference between laws and real life.

He also deserve that his accountant declare every revenues for the income tax.

And now we see the core of the argument:

Ben thinks its OK to break the rules in competitive games of skill (Just so long as he doesn't cheat too much).

As I said in my original post, one of these days you're gonna get caught by someone who cares. I really hope that they have a copy of this thread handy when they do so...

[awm]

Hrothgar is awfully quick to accuse people of wanting to cheat.

From my viewpoint:

(1) I read the convention charts. It looked like to me natural bids were intended to be legal on the general chart.

(2) I thought about a bunch of methods I've seen people play in tournaments. Some of them include two-level openings that seem to be both natural and conventional (like Bailey twos, showing 2-3 cards in the other major). Directors had no problem with these methods.

(3) In order to make absolutely sure, I sent email to rulings@acbl.org. Mike Flader promptly responded and agreed with me that a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is general chart.

So I have three different reasons to believe this is allowed: (1) my reading of the charts (2) my observations of "rules on the ground" (3) my correspondence with ACBL headquarters.

Is hrothgar suggesting that I should not play this method just because he tells me it's not allowed? Is he calling me a cheater just because I play a method which has been indicated to be legal in three different ways? Why does his opinion of what ACBL allows trump all of my opinion, the directors' opinions at the local tournaments, and ACBL headquarters' opinion? It is true that he claims he has also had correspondence with ACBL and received a contradictory reply, but I don't see any reason that this invalidates my email correspondence or observations.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 21 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Is hrothgar suggesting that I should not play this method just because he tells me it's not allowed? Is he calling me a cheater just because I play a method which has been indicated to be legal in three different ways? Why does his opinion of what ACBL allows trump all of my opinion, the directors' opinions at the local tournaments, and ACBL headquarters' opinion? It is true that he claims he has also had correspondence with ACBL and received a contradictory reply, but I don't see any reason that this invalidates my email correspondence or observations.

I am suggesting that you should not play this method because

1. There is clearly enormous ambiguity regarding the legality of this method. You have correspondence from Mike Flader that says X. You say that local TDs in your area say say Tomato, I've had a bunch of run ins with the Conventions Committee who stated Tomahto. You've seen people play Baily Two bids in Tournaments. I point to the fact that these Muiderberg is listed as Midchart methods on ACBL defensive database. You and I might differ regarding which opinion trumps another. However, I would hope that we can both agree that there is ambiguity.

2. I would argue that the most sensible course of action in the presence of ambiguity is "First Do No Harm". There is no pressing reason why you (or anyone else) needs to be able to play a Polish 2H opening, a Muiderberg 2M opening, what have you. The correct course of action is to refrain from using the opening while attempting to resolve the ambiguity.

3. You (obviously) can do whatever you damn well please. However, I maintain the opinion that if you knowingly play an opening that is of dubious providence, this should be taken into consideration if you ever get called on this.

For what its worth, I have a proposal for you:

I'm willing to wager a reasonable sum of money that my interpretation will be upheld by the Conventions Committee: I'm willing to bet any amount between $500 and $2,500 - Loser donates the agree upon sum to the ACBL's Junior's program. (I figure if we fork the money over to an ACBL charity it might actually prompt the Conventions Committee to provide an answer in a timely matter)

The terms of the bet are as follows:

You claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is a natural bid and therefore legal at the GCC level. In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is a natural bid and legal at the GCC level. (Presumably, the suggested defenses provided in the Defense Database are provided as courtesy but not actually required)

I claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

Quote

that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named;

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call. Neither of these artificial opening bids is GCC legal. The 2S bid in question is sanctioned by the clause 12 under allowed:

Quote

12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a 4-card minor. (2)

The 2♦ bid is not explicitly sanctioned at the Midchart level; It can not be played in Midchart events (Who knows about the Superchart)

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

I claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call.

I believe these are both natural and conventional, but not artificial.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Oct 22 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

I claim the following:  A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call.

I believe these are both natural and conventional, but not artificial.

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

Quote

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Conventional and natural aren't included in the definitions section

[awm]

There is a general problem when there is no absolute authority to make a decision on these things, and the various authorities that do exist give contradictory information.

In this situation there are several possible approaches:

(1) Ask a reasonable authority. Abide by their answer, regardless of the fact that other authorities may be simultaneously giving different answers. This is the approach most people take (usually under the assumption that the authorities are consistent) but might run you afoul of the directing staff if the authority they listen to is different from yours.

(2) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. If any one of them gives a negative answer, then consider that the answer is no. This is least likely to get you in trouble with the directors, but also means that you may be substantially more restricted in what you can play than virtually anyone else, since you searched far and wide for even one authority who might tell you no.

(3) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. If any one of them gives a positive answer, then consider that the answer is yes. Perhaps carry a copy of this correspondence with you in case you run into trouble with the directing staff.

(4) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. Try to go with the majority decision. If they are fairly evenly split, select a decision that seems well-stated/reasoned and go with that. If necessary carry a copy of this correspondence in case you run into trouble.

I don't think any of these approaches can be viewed as cheating. Ideally they should all obtain the same results (i.e. authorities would be consistent). Personally I took approach (1) by asking Flader for a ruling, although perhaps now that I have heard hrothgar's tales of woe one should take me as using approach (4).

As for asking the C&C people, I suspect that:

(1) If you do not bother to mention Frelling twos and mention only 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a minor, it is quite possible that your response would be different (these folks apparently have an unreasoning hatred of Frelling twos).

(2) It is quite possible that the reply might be different depending on who asks the question. I suspect that a top-level pro asking the question would get a much more cordial (and timely, and quite likely favorable) reply than some random guy known to want to play his Frelling Twos in local regionals.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

Quote

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Ahh, I was laboring under old definitions. This sounds a lot like the old definition of conventional.

[the hog]

"(2) It is quite possible that the reply might be different depending on who asks the question. I suspect that a top-level pro asking the question would get a much more cordial (and timely, and quite likely favorable) reply than some random guy known to want to play his Frelling Twos in local regionals."

Gee, and here was I thinking Bridge was a game for everybody and not just the top players. Tres deluded.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I'm not the one who gets to make the rules.  My opinions about an optimal regulatory structure don't matter jack *****. 

What does matter (alot) is how you want to be playing the game.  We all know that its possible to hoodwink the opponents and the directors by playing silly games with disclosure.  It's easy enough to cheat at bridge.  But why would you want to play a game where you need to behave this way?

Well, I'm a critic of the EBU orange book regulations - but, whatever its faults may or may not be, it is one hell of a lot better than the dog's breakfast that the ACBL regulations would seem to be.

Sure, nobody (or very very few anway) want to hoodwink the opponents, but who wants to play under such a set of ambiguous rules either?

You're effectively saying that is legal to play 1♥ as guaranteeing another, but, apparently, not 2♥ simply because the 1♥ bid emerges as a consequence of the rest of the system, whereas the 2♥ does not.

To my mind that is playing with words simply to justify conformance to rules - for what - the sake of conforming??? I certainly do not regard someone who takes a different view to you as a "cheat".

Perhaps you guys over the pond should sack your conventions committee and employ some people who know how to write a rule book.

Nick

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

Quote

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Well, as I read it, part of the problem then is not the ACBL, but the 2007 Laws.

The key bit of that law is, according to how I understand it, the semi colon - which I take it to signify a separator giving 2 definitions.

Definition 1 = "a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named"

Definition 2 = "a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named"

Clearly, under definition 1, a 2♥ opening that promises hearts and another unspecified suit, but which is, self evidently, willing to play in hearts is not an artificial bid.

Equally, promising values in another suit, is artificial under definition 2.

Perhaps someone has some guidance as to what the Laws should be interpretted as saying here... Or perhaps I misunderstand the Law???

Nick

[FrancesHinden]

Sitting in the position of an interested bystander, is it really true that no-one seems to know who has the ultimate authority in the ACBL to say what is permitted and what isn't?

As NickRW says, there may be things wrong with the EBU (although we don't necessarily agree on what they are) but at least I know who has the final say.

Although in actual fact it's not who you think it might be...