[DrTodd13]

blackshoe, on Dec 17 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

I'm not an expert on the underlying philosophy of either the ACBL or the EBU regs, but I don't think the assumption DrTodd proposes is valid. And even if it is, how does that make the comparison unfair? If the assumption is valid, it seems to me the obvious conclusion that the ACBL needs to come up with a more consistent regulating philosophy. Nothing unfair about that.

I suspect that there are things allowed and disallowed in both the OB and the ACBL charts that are so for historical or political reasons rather than because of any underlying philosophy.

What am I proposing? I said I don't know much about EBU regs and only assumed something for the purpose of discussion. My comment was only about how it is unfair to compare them. Look if EBU wanted to allow everything, their convention card would say "Everything is allowed." You cannot therefore state "Well, EBU's convention card is only 3 words long, why can't ACBL's convention card be 3 words long." The goals of their convention cards are entirely different so comparing their length serves no purpose. So, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the length of two convention cards unless the purpose of those writing them is to allow or disallow roughly the same things.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 18 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 17 2008, 08:57 PM, said:

If the regulators continue to restrict systems with bad rules that do not say clearly what they mean or how they are going to be interpreted then I believe they will continue to be criticized in their endevours to restrict systems particular for bias. 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

I believe you are biased and that you will continue to criticize committees for being biased regardless how clearly the rules are worded. Perhaps your accusations of bias will stop when the committee issues rules that match the rules that your personal bias favors (ie no rules at all).

In my view that criticism is well justified.

In my view it is unjustified to make a connection between unclear wording and bias.

Just when I thought the black helicopters were gone...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yes I am biased.

I am biased in favour of clear rules that mean what they say.

I am biased against officials that make rules and then disallow methods that are clearly allowed by their own rules.

I am biased against officials that decree that a bid that is "conventional" by definition is "natural" for the sole purpose of disallowing their opponents to play Brown Sticker Conventions against it when the rules clearly stated that Brown Sticker Conventions were allowed against Conventional openings.

I am biased against officials that without authority stand up and announce midway through a tournament that certain methods are not allowed (e.g. random overcalls over a Precision 1♣) when the regulations stated that "any defense" to a Precision 1♣ was licensed. Yes this happened and I wasn't directly involved.

What basis is there to make a ruling about whether an agreement is legal or not except what is written in the rules. If someone is going to rule contrary to the written rules and those contrary rulings have a pattern in one direction then I cannot see how you can come to any other conclusion other than that the official making the ruling (or someone that he is speaking on behalf of) has a bias. Even if their happens to be no bias this is certainly a situation in which it does not seem that justice is done.

As for "no rules", well 'anything goes system regulations'. I do happen to think that would be much better than the current situation where regulations do not mean what they say.

Personally it is unlikely to affect me as I don't play any Brown Sticker Conventions or HUMs and I cannot imagine that I would in any long-term serious partnership if the rules did change. Although because rules and wording is different in different jurisdictions I have had problems in the past e.g. at one point the NZ Brown Sticker Regulations required strong bids that did not promise a suit to be forcing - this meant that we could not play (in pairs) a Mexican 2♦ if we intended to pass with weak hands with diamonds. It would be much better and simpler if there was a consistent set of regulations that were universally applied. I have actually argued in other places that WBF regulations should be universally applied.

If there are to be system restrictions then I think that it is important that they say exactly what they mean and they are administered strictly and therefore fairly.

[awm]

Perhaps a reasonable thing to do is come up with a list of questions and forward them to the C&C committee. Here are a couple:

(1) It is clear that some natural bids (such as 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 10+ points) are intended to be allowed in addition to the specifically allowed methods on the general chart. Is it the intent that all natural bids are allowed? If so, please add the sentence "all natural opening bids" under allowed for clarity. If the intent is that some natural bid are not allowed (and there is some evidence to this effect, for example the natural bid of 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is on the mid-chart) then please add language explaining in which cases natural bids are to be allowed or disallowed.

(2) The general chart specifically allows 1♣ or 1♦ to be an "all-purpose" opening bid, natural or artificial, provided it shows 10 or more points. Does this mean that any meaning for a 1♦ opening is allowed provided it promises ten or more points? For example, is a 1♦ opening which shows ten or more points and four or more hearts permitted? If this is not the case, then please add language to specify which meanings of a minor suit opening are not to be permitted in spite of promising ten or more points.

It seems like we could come up with a list like this, and then have one (or maybe several, to get their attention) person forward it to ACBL.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Dec 18 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

Fred is right.

To achieve the level of precision some are asking for, the convention charts would either have to be almost as long as the Laws, or they might simply be huge laundry lists of allowed systems and conventions.

The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent.

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

If I think I know that my methods are allowed I can never be sure that some man in a black coat (or whatever directors wear - a suit in Ken's earlier story) won't come along and toss them and me out.

A rule that leaves the all critical boundary between allowed and not allowed undefined is completely useless when someone wants to play a method near the fuzzy boundary.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 18 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

Perhaps a reasonable thing to do is come up with a list of questions and forward them to the C&C committee. Here are a couple:

(1) It is clear that some natural bids (such as 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 10+ points) are intended to be allowed in addition to the specifically allowed methods on the general chart. Is it the intent that all natural bids are allowed? If so, please add the sentence "all natural opening bids" under allowed for clarity. If the intent is that some natural bid are not allowed (and there is some evidence to this effect, for example the natural bid of 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is on the mid-chart) then please add language explaining in which cases natural bids are to be allowed or disallowed.

(2) The general chart specifically allows 1♣ or 1♦ to be an "all-purpose" opening bid, natural or artificial, provided it shows 10 or more points. Does this mean that any meaning for a 1♦ opening is allowed provided it promises ten or more points? For example, is a 1♦ opening which shows ten or more points and four or more hearts permitted? If this is not the case, then please add language to specify which meanings of a minor suit opening are not to be permitted in spite of promising ten or more points.

It seems like we could come up with a list like this, and then have one (or maybe several, to get their attention) person forward it to ACBL.

Getting generic clarification like this is much better IMO than asking about a specific meaning.

Tim said that he asked about 1♣ showing 4+ spades and was told that this was not allowed which is all very well except that you still have not clarified precisely where the boundary lies.

[H_KARLUK]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

Also, there is something to be said for the GCC being thinner than the average telephone book.

I agree with Fred.

This post has been edited by H_KARLUK: 2008-December-17, 21:14

[rbforster]

"All purpose" sure sounds like all purposes to me. I don't buy the other interpretation, especially since lots of random 1m openers are already played. You'd have to claim that the 1m bid is fine for any existing system with a funky 1m opener (Polish, SAYC, short club, Swedish club, Precision 2+ diamond, Precision 0+ diamond, etc), but somehow it's not ok for the one use you want? That just sounds like bad logic, from Mr Beye or anyone else. I certainly haven't seen any interpretation that explains why all of those 1m openers are fine and why it's not if 1♣ shows 4+♥ or whatever.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 02:57 AM, said:

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

It is not intended to satisfy you.

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

You are not one of them.

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole. He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

The thing is, that's really a self-perpetrating argument. If there was more exposure to different methods, the average partnership would spend a little time discussing basic meta defenses (Unusual vs Unusual and the like), and then be able to very quickly reach agreements at the table. Anyone unwilling to put in that sort of basic "due diligence" deserves no protection from themselves.

[TimG]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

I asked, and I was serious when I asked. I am not upset with the answer and did not attempt to persuade Mr. Beye that he was wrong and should reconsider. I have not asked anyone else and will not attempt to convince any ACBL director that the method can be played.

But...it seems to me that whoever drafted the GCC wanted to allow Precision and Precision type systems. And, rather than say that, made a generic allowance for 1C and 1D openings. One reasonable interpretation is that they thought it was appropriate to allow 1C and 1D to be used artificially, not just specifically as Precision. Another reasonable interpretation is that they wanted to word things such that Precision variants would be allowed, but intended the extension away from purely Precision to encompass only Precision-like systems rather than broader artificial methods.

I really didn't think of my question as trying to take advantage of a loophole, but rather just trying to find out what the official position was. I now know.

[xcurt]

From the standpoint of defending against artificial 1m calls -- with Tim's proposed method (1♣ showing spades) responder knows something about a specific suit in opener's hand, and can do things like bid

1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

If 1♣ is one of the Precision Club/Polish Club/could-be-short-but-ostensibly-natural methods, responder knows something about the general parameters of opener's hand, but there are enough different shapes and primary suits in there that responder is hard pressed to place the strain unless he has his own self-sufficient suit.

Maybe "all-purpose" is poorly worded but since we cannot create complete contracts, probably not even if we return to a convention chart that is an enumeration of allowed methods -- and that would be far worse than what we have now -- this is a problem without a good solution.

Maybe what we need is a commentary on the charts from the C&C committee explaining the logic and giving mad scientists some idea of what's going to be allowed in actual play.

Curt

[H_KARLUK]

I read all posts. Then I acknowledged Jim Davis (American Actor. 1915-1981) to be right. He quoted that “Good morning is a contradiction of terms”.

I do not see even a small unfair thing about WBF & ACBL decisions. I and my fianceee especially will go on to support ACBL on BBO. This will not change when i start to live in USA.

[TimG]

xcurt, on Dec 17 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

From the standpoint of defending against artificial 1m calls -- with Tim's proposed method (1♣ showing spades) responder knows something about a specific suit in opener's hand, and can do things like bid

1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal.

I would expect that it is easier to defend against 1C = exactly 4 spades than 1D = 0+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand. Easier but for the unfamiliarity, that is.

It is sort of funny that you are arguing that 1C = 4 spades should not be allowed because it shows a suit which makes things easier for the opening side. But, when people want to play methods like 2D = weak with either major, you will now claim that this shouldn't be allowed because an opening with no known suit is hard to defend against.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 18 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 02:57 AM, said:

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

It is not intended to satisfy you.

Just to get the context clear this is what I was responding to:

"The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent. "

Are you satisfied by the fuzzy rules and the problems they cause.

Quote

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

You are not one of them.

True but I have played in ACBL games.

Quote

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

Its not really relevant to my argument. You say "live in the loopholes" as if it is clear what is a loophole. The problem is that it is not clear whether a method is part of the "loopholes" or whether it is allowed by the chart.

Even if the percentages for the above are small there is another group of regular players that believe methods that there opponents legitimately play are not allowed and complain and sometimes cause an unnecessary fuss. The methods they complain about are things like: Polish Club; non-standard NT ranges; offshape NTs; 'multi' openings that are not multi etc.

However even if the percentages are small these problems could be easily eliminated if the convention chart was clear and therefore better for everyone not just those who wish to experiment with system.

Quote

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole.

He did no such thing. The loophole is not closed. The GCC is as ambiguous as it was before Rick Beye expressed an opinion.

Quote

He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been  "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

The right thing would be to change the GCC properly. Issuing a document that allows certain actions and then allowing someone to override that on some whim (however valid or not you believe a particular decision is) is a very dangerous situation.

If it is right to disallow methods that the GCC allows then it is much better to ammend the GCC than expect players to "infer the intent".

How are players and directors on the ground supposed to know what Rick Beye said in some private correspondence?

Quote

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

I am not trying to make a judgement on whether or not any particular decision is good or bad.

Nor am I trying to pick on the ACBL or its GCC. Similar problems occur elsewhere.

I simply believe that regulations should say what they mean and mean what they say.

[xcurt]

TimG, on Dec 18 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

xcurt, on Dec 17 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

...
1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal.

You're arguing that any convention theoretically worse than the natural treatment should be allowed because, well, it's easier to defend against than the corresponding natural method.

Quote

I would expect that it is easier to defend against 1C = exactly 4 spades than 1D = 0+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand.  Easier but for the unfamiliarity, that is.

That's the point of the charts. We're playing bridge, not "Game Theory of Bridge Bidding ™."

Quote

It is sort of funny that you are arguing that 1C = 4 spades should not be allowed because it shows a suit which makes things easier for the opening side.  But, when people want to play methods like 2D = weak with either major, you will now claim that this shouldn't be allowed because an opening with no known suit is hard to defend against.

The point is not whether the opening bid shows a suit, or suits. The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening. Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

[mrdct]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 11:24 PM, said:

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

Sure there probably aren't a lot of people amongst "club players" who would want to explore loopholes in system regulations or play 1♣=♠, but when it comes to being interested in experiencing playing against methods which are a bit different I would expect a significant majority would be ambivolent.

Of the minority there may well be a few that are turned off the game by the stress of dealing with something different, but I think a greater number would be genuinely interested in playing against something different.

The other comment I would make is that playing against 1♣=♠ sounds a lot easier to me than playing against, for example, a Polish 1♣ that includes several quite different sorts of hands that would take a fair bit of thought and preparation to work out the optimal defence; especially if you haven't had a chance to discuss anything with your partner.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 18 2008, 07:24 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 02:57 AM, said:

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

It is not intended to satisfy you.

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

You are not one of them.

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole. He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The GCC is completely irrelevant to club players.

Club owners allow whatever they please and ban whatever they please. The games they run might all be described as "bridge", but there are dramatic variations regarding what is/is not allowed.

This is all fine and dandy. Look back regarding the psots in this thread.
Few, if any care, what happens in their local club.

The purpose of the GCC is to allow players who normally compete in their own local clubs to compete against one another in broader tournament.

These players need clear guidance regarding what is/is not permissable. They need to understand what parts of the game are standard and what parts are a pipe dream concocted by the club owner.

[TimG]

xcurt, on Dec 18 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening. Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc.

Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs.

Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

[xcurt]

TimG, on Dec 18 2008, 08:20 AM, said:

xcurt, on Dec 18 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening.  Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc.

Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs.

Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

You are talking about natural calls.

Besides, natural over their NT isn't awful. Landy is almost natural and I much prefer Landy to, say, Cappelletti.

Against opening suit bids at the 1-level I don't find the "standard" set of 2-suited overcalls to be that great. That doesn't mean leaving them undefined is best, but I could certainly defend, say, 1♥ natural just with takeout doubles and natural other calls.

[kenrexford]

Back in the early 90's, I played a version of canape. Many patterns were handled through the bids 1♥ through 2NT. However, there were some gap patterns. We also needed a strong, forcing opening.

The strong, forcing opening was originally 1♦, and then 1♣, and then 1♦. We bounced back and forth as the months passed.

In any event, the other one covered the gap patterns.

These gap patterns were, if I recall correctly, all limited hands, hands with just clubs or diamonds. We also handled hands with one 5+ major and one unknown 4+ minor if the hand was worth about five losers. We also handled a gap light balanced (12-15 or so).

This "all purpose" bid was necessary to make the entire system work. Everything except the "all purpose" opening was GCC compliant. The system was not made up; it was made up by someone but had been around for a while.

In any event, that meaning of either 1♣ or 1♦ was allowed back then, because of the "all purpose" language. This was not some attempt to be silly just to be silly. This was not some loophole sought after to take advantage of the GCC. This was a legitimate "nebulous 1♦" (or 1♣, depending) in the context of the version of canape we were playing (included many LTC-based tiers in the structure).

Back then, the most known national tournament director (Brian M-something, maybe) approved this approach as obviously allowed. He did not see some sort of difference between the words "all" and "any."

Now, however, it seems that some local who might not like it if Srcan and I were winning to much might be able to persuade the TD that "all" does not mean "any," and that the definitional difference between "all" and "any" is that "all" does not include this specific meaning we needed for our system to be used.

I mean, come on. If the meaning of "all purpose" is somehow limited beyond that which plain English suggests, then why is it not explained at least somewhat?

What you are missing is how wildly unfair this reinterpretation is. When Srcan introduced me to what he called "Rosso e Nerro," which is similar to Livorno, I checked to see if it was GCC compliant. I asked TD's. All was good. So, I spent a few years working on understanding this. If I then show up and have someone arbitrarily say that this is no longer allowed, because "all" does not mean "any," and all that time preparing is lost, and I have to play SAYC because of this, I get pissed off, for good reason.