[JoAnneM]

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing? I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

BTW, Rick Beye is no longer head honcho for the ACBL Directors and they are in a "transition" period which I finally tracked down was where my "picky" emails from ACBL were coming from recently.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Dec 17 2008, 02:56 AM, said:

I actually ran into a pair once playing a 7-8HCP balanced 2NT opening.

I knew a couple pairs around Boston who were playing the same
(Only in 2nd seat, only white versus red)

I think it was more for amusement value than anything else

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Dec 16 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

The insanity of the laws is starting to emerge.

A bid is called conventional under certaun circumstances that I cannot quite understand. A bid is called "natural" if it shows the suit bid, unless that fact is merely coincidental, in a sense. A bid is stil "natural" if the bid is somehow primarily natural but a "treatment."

[snip]

I mean, the "problem" might be that the other guy cannot figurte out this nonsense document, and think outside the box, sufficiently, which gives what is really an unfair, lawyer-like advantage. Well, maybe enough of us doing that would force the ACBL and the rest of the bridge world to fix the stupid problem sensibly.

The term "conventional" is no longer defined in the laws, and only appears there in one place - Law 40B1(, which says that the term "special partnership understandings" incudss conventions.

The definition of "convention" in the previous laws had its difficulties. The lawmakers are trying to move away from use of the term, I think, but they missed this one.

None of that makes the law book "nonsense".

[barmar]

JoAnneM, on Dec 16 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing? I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

Non-forcing 1NT is a natural bid, not a convention, so it's not regulated by the GCC. The section you refer to is saying that a forcing 1NT opening is also allowed.

[rbforster]

barmar, on Dec 17 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 16 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing?  I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

Non-forcing 1NT is a natural bid, not a convention, so it's not regulated by the GCC. The section you refer to is saying that a forcing 1NT opening is also allowed.

I'm not sure if the GCC gets to regulate what the ACBL calls natural since natural bids aren't supposed to be regulated, but that issue aside...

if you're opening 1NT with a balanced hand (which GCC says is generally no singleton, void, or >2 doubletons), you can do it by agreement on any hands with at least 8 points. The point of the "forcing NT opening" is to allow you to open 1NT on unbalanced hands as a strong artificial opening similar to the strong 1♣ or 2♣ openings used in more standard systems.

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Dec 17 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid.

The Lorenzo system (pass=8-11, 2x = 4+ cards, 0-7 points) looks like an attempt to make a bizare system which is not BSC/HUM (dunno if it's GCC though). Problem is, 8-11 points is very useless message to send to p. With hands in that range you want to say something about your shape. However, since you cannot play ferts it is difficult to require a pass to show something about your shape.

I thought of something like
pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points
1cl = 16+
1di = 8-15 catchall
1he = exactly 3 hearts, 8-15 points
1sp = 5+ spades, 8-15 points
1NT = 5+m, 4 spades, 8-15 points
2cl/di = 4+ cards, 0-7 points
2he = 2-3 hearts, 4-5 spades, 0-7 points
2sp = 5+ spades, 0-7 points.

[gwnn]

Agree with Hamdi.

[DrTodd13]

helene_t, on Dec 17 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 17 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid.

The Lorenzo system (pass=8-11, 2x = 4+ cards, 0-7 points) looks like an attempt to make a bizare system which is not BSC/HUM (dunno if it's GCC though). Problem is, 8-11 points is very useless message to send to p. With hands in that range you want to say something about your shape. However, since you cannot play ferts it is difficult to require a pass to show something about your shape.

I thought of something like
pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points
1cl = 16+
1di = 8-15 catchall
1he = exactly 3 hearts, 8-15 points
1sp = 5+ spades, 8-15 points
1NT = 5+m, 4 spades, 8-15 points
2cl/di = 4+ cards, 0-7 points
2he = 2-3 hearts, 4-5 spades, 0-7 points
2sp = 5+ spades, 0-7 points.

I know that at least the 1♦ isn't GCC legal since it doesn't promise at least 10 points. Of course, there isn't anything in the GCC that says you must use A=4,K=3,Q=2,J=1 but try to make that argument and see how far it gets you.

One thought I had of something way up the ridiculousness scale was to have 1♣ show an odd number of points and 1♦ show an even number of points above the GCC minimum of 10 of course. Again, I'm sure this would be ruled as not an "all purpose" bid.
Although, once I did modify a two-way club system called Tangerine to attempt to be GCC legal and have 1♣ as 10-12bal or 16+. We played this in a tournament (it wasn't a good system) and there were some director calls but I don't remember if it was for the 1♣ bid or some other bid. I don't recall the two non-contiguous ranges to have been declared not GCC legal though. If two distinct ranges are GCC legal when why not 3 or 4 or 5?

[Cascade]

DrTodd13, on Dec 18 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 17 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

...

I thought of something like
pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points
1cl = 16+
1di = 8-15 catchall
...

I know that at least the 1♦ isn't GCC legal since it doesn't promise at least 10 points. Of course, there isn't anything in the GCC that says you must use A=4,K=3,Q=2,J=1 but try to make that argument and see how far it gets you.

I think you will be on the back foot since the bid is described as "8-15".

Quote

Again, I'm sure this would be ruled as not an "all purpose" bid.

It is very hard when the regulations do not define this term.

All we know is that:

1. A natural 1♣ is allowed and can be "all-purpose" since the regulation clarifies that he "all-purpose opening bid" can be "(artificial or natural)";

2. An artifical 1♣ that is balanced or natural is allowed;

3. A Polish Club that is balanced or natural or very strong is allowed;

4. A Precision Club that is artificial and stronger than some number of points is allowed;

and perhaps some others i haven't thought about.

"all-purpose" here clearly doesn't mean the bid must cater to every purpose. The closest to that sort of meaning is a Precision style club that is limited only by high-card strength otherwise any purpose is allowed.

Actually maybe Polish club is closer (except that the strong hands are more restricted) as it also caters to some weaker hands.

Balanced or clubs is allowed which caters only to two hand types "balanced" or length in one particular suit.

Perhaps the meaning of "all-purpose" is that any purpose for these bids is allowed that fits the diversity of the examples above easily but not the belief (or reality) that some methods would be not allowed under this clause.

It would be much better if the regulators are going to use loose undefined terms to allow or disallow certain methods if they clearly defined what was intended by those terms.

I will reiterate that from the examples:

1♣ showing 4+ hearts (maybe canape) or balanced

seems to be an example of an all-purpose bid that should be allowed by the regulations as they are written. It is more "all-purpose" than "balanced or clubs" which is allowed.

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.

[fred]

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

[kenrexford]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 04:19 PM, 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

I think you have a point, but I also see a different point. There is no way that Rick Beye could come up with a conclusion that 1♣ or 1♦ as showing 4+ heart or unbalanced would not be GCC legal unless Rick Beye adds his own interpretation to what is actually very clear language to create a new meaning that cannot be tied to the actual words in any way. There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine. One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused. The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

I suppose that the words become irrelevant if the interpreters of those words ignore them.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Dec 17 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine.  One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused.  The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

Ken, I am suprised that someone with your imagination would have trouble coming up with another explanation that doesn't make Rick Beye out to be either illiterate or biased.

Of course I am not claiming that unclear wording is good, but clear wording is hard as is thinking of every possible loophole through wording that you thought clearly expressed what it is you wanted to say.

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

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.

[DrTodd13]

I don't think the GCC being thinner than a phone book is any advantage to players. Those that don't play anything strange don't need to look at it. So who looks at it? The rare pair who want to play something maybe unusual, the director who has to determine if it is legal, and the people who decide what is legal and write the GCC. If the GCC were a phone book sized thing of allowable stuff then players could consult it and find if what they want to play is in there and if so write down the line number. If they can't determine if it is legal based on the document then what good is it to them? If the director is asked if it is legal, just give the line number. So, it seems that the people who benefit most from vague rules are the ones who would have to compile the laundry list if people didn't tolerate the vagueness.

Ask Rick Beye and you don't like the answer? Just keep asking directors until you find one that has him own opinion of the vague "intention" and allows your convention and then keep playing it and quoting the director who said it was legal. But seriously, what is legal changing day by day based on who the director is is no way to run anything. Either go for the laundry list or confine yourself to a set of generic but precise regulations, which should dramatically reduce uncertainty as to something's legality. If you can't write something generic and precise then, imo, that is a hint that you shouldn't be trying to write it at all. Yes, you may end up banning stuff that people actually play in order to keep stuff you don't want out or vice versa but in my opinion that situation is preferable to many sections of the GCC that are so vague as to be useless.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Dec 17 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 17 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine.  One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused.  The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

Ken, I am suprised that someone with your imagination would have trouble coming up with another explanation that doesn't make Rick Beye out to be either illiterate or biased.

Of course I am not claiming that unclear wording is good, but clear wording is hard as is thinking of every possible loophole through wording that you thought clearly expressed what it is you wanted to say.

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

But, I think you are missing my point.

I am not claiming that the GCC has vague or ambiguous language here. Rather, I am claiming that the GCC rightly has very clear language. When considering what methods should be allowed for 1♣ and 1♦ openings, the drafters obviously decided that "anything goes" is OK for these two calls if the minimum is 10 HCP. That's not vague. That's very clear. "All-Purpose" means what it says.

I like that approach, as well. No need to create sixteen "but's" and "or if's" when it comes to 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Simple works. "All-purpose" is a fine term.

And, to add in redundant definition, the GCC folks even added the parenthetical "natural or artificial" to make sure that we all know that "all-purpose" means exactly what it says.

And, then along comes Rick Beye and re-interprets the meaning by attributing an artificial meaning as somehow not "all-purpose."

I do have a lot of imagination, but I'm really having a difficult time explaining Rick Beye's analysis. I suppose there is a third possibility, namely that these words were meant to cover a specific system or a specific set of systems. Rick Beye might know what was intended. Then, whoever came up with the actual draft of what the wording should be used just about the most ridiculous language possible to describe what they meant.

Except, I know for a fact that the pre-Beye top TD's in the ACBL interpreted this language differently in the past. I doubt highly that "all-purpose" once meant some secret, limited meaning that was meant to cover specifically a "Nebulous Diamond," then meant what the words in the King's English actually mean, and then reverted back to this absurdly limited meaning. What might have happened is that this language was tossed around with some other language, some majority agreed on the actual language, but some minority who disliked that language and wanted more limited language now simply interprets the language as they would want it to be understood, namely like some unknown language they wanted.

[Echognome]

barmar, on Dec 17 2008, 03:23 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.

Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if there is no middle ground. Have you seen the Orange Book from the EBU? It certainly seems clearer to me than the ACBL convention charts. It's obviously not as short as they are, so I can understand the tradeoff, but it doesn't have to be "almost as long as the Laws".

[DrTodd13]

"All purpose" is not the same as "any purpose." Perhaps one could make an argument that they should mean the same thing but as far as I know, in this context, all purpose never did mean nor was it ever intended to mean "any purpose." A 1♣ showing exactly 4♥ would be a "specific purpose" bid. They would argue that "specific purpose" and "all purpose" are mutually exclusive.

[DrTodd13]

Echognome, on Dec 17 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

barmar, on Dec 17 2008, 03:23 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.

Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if there is no middle ground. Have you seen the Orange Book from the EBU? It certainly seems clearer to me than the ACBL convention charts. It's obviously not as short as they are, so I can understand the tradeoff, but it doesn't have to be "almost as long as the Laws".

This is not a fair comparison. EBU and ACBL allow different things. I don't know much about EBU regs but assume that what EBU allows has a much more consistent underlying philosophy than what ACBL allows. Given this consistency you can write exhaustive and precise rules in a shorter amount of space. In contrast, sit down with an ACBL representative and try to write down everything that is allowed and then extract commonality so as to minimize the space required. The inconsistencies in the GCC are going to make this much tougher and will necessarily produce a longer set of rules. To the degree that the humans doing this will fail to find and extract commonality, the rules may either lengthen or shorten. They will do the former if the rules remain precise but non-coalesced and the latter if rules are coalesced incorrectly via imprecise language.

[blackshoe]

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.

[Cascade]

DrTodd13, on Dec 18 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

"All purpose" is not the same as "any purpose." Perhaps one could make an argument that they should mean the same thing but as far as I know, in this context, all purpose never did mean nor was it ever intended to mean "any purpose." A 1♣ showing exactly 4♥ would be a "specific purpose" bid. They would argue that "specific purpose" and "all purpose" are mutually exclusive.

Much the same as 'Natural or Balanced' is a specific purpose or '16+ any' is a specific purpose.

The problem is that no one knows exactly where the boundary is between what is allowed and what is not allowed with the language that has been chosen.