[TimG]

xcurt, on Dec 18 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

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.

Indeed I am. That was my point.

[kenrexford]

Actually, a simpler example of the danger of Beye is easy. For years, I played Precision. After a while, however, I grew to dislike the three-pack combo of the 1♦, 2♣, and 2♦ openings, for reasons that many who play Precision will know (agree or not).

So, I restructured those three bids.

2♦ ended up showing a limited hand (intermediate) with both minors (at least 5-4). Completely GCC allowed.

2♣ became Mini-Roman (with a 2♦ asking bid). Completely GCC allowed.

What this did was to leave as a residue the 1♦ opening as (1) balanced but not the 13-15 range, or (2) either minor but not both minors (1♦...2♣ showed just clubs).

With "any" different from "all," that treatment might be subject to interpretation out of the GCC for no apparent reason.

When playing canape for about 10 years with another, simpler approach to Livorno/Rosso-e-Nerro, this same basic structure was adopted, as well. With the canape approach, however, 1♦ showed (1) either minor but not both, or (2) 3+ diamonds and a 5+ major (canape ♦ opening). This was approved for 10 years. Now, the Beye might deem this not covered by "all" even if covered by "any."

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

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

If there is really a single person out there sufficiently out of touch with reality to think that "no forcing pass" gives them a green light to play "strong but not forcing pass" in GCC games, then I suppose what will happen is this:

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it
2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.
3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".
4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.
5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

In the more likely event that the person who discovers the loophole is not completely out of touch with reality, he can simply let the ACBL know that they have a wording problem and we can proceed directly to step 5) above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

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

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.

This is the kind of bad logic and reasoning that makes dealing with the ACBL Charts and officials so frustrating.

1. the 100K+ GCC players don't have the right not to "deal with 1C=spades" no more than they have the right not to "deal with" people playing Precision 1D, or 8-10 NT, or any number of other odd conventions that are allowed by the rules under GCC. Just because they might not like it doesn't mean it's not legal. I bet they don't like preempts either, why don't we ban those too? Better yet, why don't we say they're allowed as natural bids, but ban/sanction a non-pro whenever they bid one? That's more in the ACBL spirit I think.

2. it's not his job to "close the loophole." If a convention is allowed under the rules as written as an "all purpose" artificial opening, it's not his job go around making up subjective and arbitrary interpretations (which he does very very frequently if you look at the history of his responses to what people ask). If something "should be illegal", the laws need to be changed first and it's legal until then.

3. I'm sick and tired of selective enforcement of the laws against unknown/young players. Meckwell wanted to play 2♥ as a precision 2♦ opener, and magically it gets a defense approved for Midchart (when was the last time that happened?) and a special exception written in. I bet if they decided to play 1♣ was 16+ or 10-15 5+♦ it would be ruled an "all purpose opening," but if you're a nobody you have to play some famous person's system. Innovation is forbidden on the first 2 bids of the auction.

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

In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

I'm sure you think this based on what you wrote about "protecting the masses". But that's like convicting a poor black guy on trumped up charges because he was "probably guilty of something" - you know, for the general good. If the ACBL can't follow it's own laws, they should just admit they're a dictatorship where you must ask the C&C guys about every convention you want to play and they just tell you yes or no based on whim. There's no point in having laws if you don't follow them!

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.

Sure, but that's because his ridiculously inconsistent rulings are well known thanks to the internet. "No transfer opening are allowed!" is a standard response to even unrelated questions! And he's still wrong when the question is about 1m showing something artificial with 10+ points.

[Gerben42]

As an outsider, let me say that I find the GCC as it is currently written very tough to make heads or tails of. If it's too restrictive or not is none of my business.

I would start with something like:

ALLOWED:

1. A Natural opening bid that promise at least 10 HCP.

2. A Natural suit opening bid on the 2-level or higher that promise at least 5 cards in the bid suit.

3. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an opening bid showing one or more of:
a. A Natural opening bid with at least 10 HCP.
b. A balanced hand with at least 10 HCP.
c. A strong hand with at least 15 HCP.

4. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

5. STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER, showing at least 18 HCP.

6. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a. both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
b. a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

7. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

8. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors.

9. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of
a. a solid suit or
b. a minor one-suiter.

10. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.


Now other than making things clearer, I think I haven't changed much. And this is much clearer, I think.

[rbforster]

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this. What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be. Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too. But it is simpler.

[TimG]

Rob F, on Dec 18 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

I don't find that a problem. It seems to be in the spirit of the GCC that players are not to be expected to defend against opening bids which may or may not be based upon length in the suit opened (except for 1C and 2C to allow strong hands). I think if we are to follow the unwritten spirit of the GCC the 0+ or 1+ Precision 1D should not be allowed.

I do have a two small nits to pick with Gerben's chart, however. Item 6a is redundant -- it is covered by item 7. And, I do not see why three-suited openings should be allowed for 2D and 2C only. I would combine 4 and 6b into one item and allow it for any suit opening at the 2-level. (I understand Gerben's choices were influenced by trying to duplicate the content of the current GCC, so that this second nit is a little off topic.)

[H_KARLUK]

Rob F, on Dec 18 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

Am I mistaken about classic demagogy methods? Long years passed.

Apples and oranges (like mixing of incomparable quantities), Half-truth, False authority, Unrelated facts, Emotional appeal or personal attack, Demonization, Loaded questions, mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization?

The worst "False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

You might knew well, populism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites."

The ACBL is strong. World Bridge Federation is strong. That's why their policies depend strong reasons.

They will always remain strong. Especially Americans never give up.

[DrTodd13]

kenrexford, on Dec 18 2008, 06:28 AM, said:

Actually, a simpler example of the danger of Beye is easy. For years, I played Precision. After a while, however, I grew to dislike the three-pack combo of the 1♦, 2♣, and 2♦ openings, for reasons that many who play Precision will know (agree or not).

So, I restructured those three bids.

2♦ ended up showing a limited hand (intermediate) with both minors (at least 5-4). Completely GCC allowed.

2♣ became Mini-Roman (with a 2♦ asking bid). Completely GCC allowed.

What this did was to leave as a residue the 1♦ opening as (1) balanced but not the 13-15 range, or (2) either minor but not both minors (1♦...2♣ showed just clubs).

With "any" different from "all," that treatment might be subject to interpretation out of the GCC for no apparent reason.

When playing canape for about 10 years with another, simpler approach to Livorno/Rosso-e-Nerro, this same basic structure was adopted, as well. With the canape approach, however, 1♦ showed (1) either minor but not both, or (2) 3+ diamonds and a 5+ major (canape ♦ opening). This was approved for 10 years. Now, the Beye might deem this not covered by "all" even if covered by "any."

It isn't consistent we know but a lot of this is probably a snap judgment. If you describe it as you did where you needed a bid for the stuff left over then I would bet it would be classified as "all-purpose" and allowed. However, one would have trouble honestly describing a system where everything managed to get defined except intermediate hands with exactly 4 hearts. If you could it would probably be allowed. If you hear the description it sounds like that was one of the first bids defined, not the last. They wanted to allow various "catch-all" bids in 1♣ and 1♦. If you wanted to precisely define that term you probably couldn't do it but it is like pornography, they know a catch-all bid when they see it.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 19 2008, 04:04 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

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

If there is really a single person out there sufficiently out of touch with reality to think that "no forcing pass" gives them a green light to play "strong but not forcing pass" in GCC games, then I suppose what will happen is this:

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it
2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.
3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".
4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.
5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

In the more likely event that the person who discovers the loophole is not completely out of touch with reality, he can simply let the ACBL know that they have a wording problem and we can proceed directly to step 5) above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred you are on record as saying that you are happy where the line has been drawn.

Now you are arguing that some things need to be changed.

With all due respect there is an obvious inconsistency in your reasoning.

[rbforster]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 18 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

Rob F, on Dec 18 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

Huh? I wasn't criticizing his response - Gerben offered a simple and clearly worded proposal very similar to the GCC except without the ambiguity. My last remark was pointing out some of the differences between what some people play now and what would be allowed under his simplified version.

It's certainly good to have rules that are unambiguous - it avoids mistakes and misunderstandings and everyone can be clear on what they can play. That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording that makes it hard to know even if a natural 1♥ opener is allowed.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Fred you are on record as saying that you are happy where the line has been drawn.

Now you are arguing that some things need to be changed.

With all due respect there is an obvious inconsistency in your reasoning.

I am not suggesting that the GCC line needs to be changed. I think it is fine where it is right now. If it moved a bit to the left or to the right, that would also be fine with me and I suspect it would be fine for most other GCC players too.

The line is fine. It is the way the line is drawn that I am suggesting has room for positive change (at least in terms of making the definition more exact - I would expect such change to be negative in terms of comprehensibility).

The line is certainly fuzzy in some areas. Removing that fuzziness can only be good, especially if/when the fuzziness exists in places where the intent is not obvious.

I certainly never claimed that the line is perfect or that it even makes any sense to try to drawn a perfect line. I think the line is getting the job done and I believe that most GCC players would agree.

That is why I am happy with it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

fred, on Dec 18 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it
2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.
3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".
4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.
5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

Your story sounds very likely, except from part 5), I would bet against it happening...

[Benoit35]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

I think that would actually be fun.

I used to play with my dad sometimes, in club games, that we used no conventions at all. All doubles penalty, all jumps stronger than not jumping, jumping another level even stronger.

The two best stories were I got to overcall 2NT natural, and we got 1100 from the auction 1♥ (penalty double) 1♠ (penalty double) all pass.

Sorry for puling this up from the first page, but... Just. Awesome.

Probably something that every player who aspires to improve should do at least once... Use logic skills and stop relying on those absurdly fancy Stayman and Blackwood conventions!

Fun thing is, I bet you spent the whole evening alerting...

[Cascade]

Here are some variations for 1♣/1♦ all of which I have seen played (almost all) or proposed (one or two). It is not intended as a complete list.

Does anyone know definitively which of these are GCC legal? I mean do you know not tell me your opinion. I am not for now interested in which you think are legal and which not just simply "Do you know?"

If you don't know or more importantly you suspect that no one (outside the Conventions Committee) or not very many people know then this highlights the problem with fuzzy regulations.

If you think nearly everyone will instinctively know then I guess the fuzzy regulations are good.

1. Acol or Goren etc
1♣/1♦ Natural 4+

2. Standard
1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds
1♦ Natural 3+ only three with precisely 4=4=3=2 distribution

3. Preferred Minor on suit quality
1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds
1♦ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand can be 3=3 in the minors

4. Short Club
1♣ Natural or Balanced 2+
1♦ Natural

5. Precision
1♣ 16+ (or 13+ or whatever) unlimited distribution
1♦ Natural (can be canape with clubs)

6. Precision with short diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced 2+

7. Precision with 1+ diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1

8. Precision with 0+ diamond
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1 or 4=4=0=5 with bad clubs

9. Symmetric Diamond (without the relays of course)
1♣ 16+ any
1♦ Two or three suit unbalanced no five-card major (in other words length in either minor)

10. Matchpoint Precision
1♣ 16+
1♦ Promises an undisclosed 4-card major

5-10 could be repeated (perhaps with some changes) for strong diamond systems.

11. Omnibus Club
1♣ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1
1♦ 5+

12. MidMac
1♣ Guarantees one or both 4-card major(s)
1♦ Denies a 4-card major

13. Diamond Major
1♣ Denies a 4-card major
1♦ Promises one or both 4-card major(s)

14. Transfer Openings
1♣ 4+ hearts
1♦ 4+ spades

15. Tied Major
1♣ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 hearts
1♦ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 spades

16. Canape
1♣ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major
1♦ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major

17.
1♣ Natural or Balanced
1♦ Natural or Balanced
with Balaned open 1♣/♦ at random

18.
1♣ Natural or Balanced 12-14
1♦ Natural or Balanced 18-19
other ranges would be possible

19. Polish Club variations
1♣ Natural or Balanced or Artificial Strong
1♦ Natural
There are variations on this where 1♦ is less natural.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Dec 18 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

Here are some variations for 1♣/1♦ all of which I have seen played (almost all) or proposed (one or two). It is not intended as a complete list.

Does anyone know definitively which of these are GCC legal? I mean do you know not tell me your opinion. I am not for now interested in which you think are legal and which not just simply "Do you know?"

I thought I "knew," namely that all were legal. Now, however, I have no idea if SAYC is allowed.

[barmar]

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

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.

But the wording problems people are talking about are not just in the GCC, they're in all the ACBL convention charts. Mid-Chart and Superchart suffer from most of the same problems, and they're specificaly for the high-level tournaments.

[awm]

I've had several email correspondences with Rick Beye as representative of the C&C committee. These conversations have generally been quite frustrating. He seems able to make several statements in a single email which directly contradict one another; it is difficult to respond to this sort of tactic. To summarize:

(1) At some point I faced opponents whose opening agreement was "rule of 20 in first/second seat and a king lighter in third/fourth." This seems to be an agreement to open some seven-counts in third chair, and in fact they did open a 5-5 seven-count against me, then avoided disaster when partner (the first-chair passer) chose not to invite on an eleven-count. I asked whether such an agreement was allowed. Rick Beye's response made the following four points:

-- The rules regarding first and third seat opening agreements are identical.
-- An agreement to open the hand in question in first chair would be illegal.
-- An agreement to open the hand in question in third chair was fine.
-- "We all" open this hand in third chair.

(2) More recently, I sent an email questioning the legality of natural bids on the general chart. I pointed out that there is no specific language legalizing natural bids, and asked for the chart to be amended to include such language. I pointed out several natural bids which may/may not be allowed. Rick Beye's points:

-- The charts clearly define natural bids, so there should be no question about their legality.
-- Opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ and 4♠ is not allowed.
-- Opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ and 3♠ is "just partnership style", and therefore allowed.

He ignores the point which I specifically raised in my initial email that opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ is always a natural bid according to the definition which he so definitively points out.

--------

I would make the point that one of the primary purposes of a "league" in any game or sport is to maintain clear and coherent rules and make sure they are enforced in a fair manner. Yet ACBL seems to have rules which are deliberately fuzzy, deny that they are fuzzy when questioned, and make rulings which contradict themselves in a single response. In fact they recently rewrote the alert rules to make them more fuzzy. I don't really think this is acceptable. Again, it's not a question of what is/isn't allowed -- it's a concern that the rules specifying what is and isn't allowed are very much subject to the reader's judgment, and that they don't seem to see anything wrong with this. It leads to a situation where different directors will have different rules about allowed methods, and where different pairs may have different rules depending on how they disclose their bids (in general, better disclosure is more likely to get your methods banned!) and how much the director is inclined to listen to them (i.e. established pros, especially those on the C&C committee get a lot of leeway, younger players will be ruled against even trying to play the same methods).

One of my friends was playing precision in a regional tournament recently, and using a 2♦ opening which showed a three-suiter short in diamonds, but included (43)15 patterns. The director ruled that this was an illegal method because "a three suiter must have four cards in each of three suits." Okay, yet another area where the laws are fuzzy? Yet my friend's reply was to name several top pairs who play precision in this way such as Meckwell and Berkowitz-Cohen... and the director changed his ruling! Is this really what we want, where the legality of a method depends not upon any written regulation but upon whether "you can name top pros who play the method"?

And to reply to one of Fred's comments, most of the rules regarding opening bids from the general chart are in place on the mid-chart also (with a small number of exceptions). And the mid-chart governs almost all national-level events including the Reisinger.

[kenrexford]

AWM -- fun read. Scary, but fun.

My experience has been similar. Some of my favorites:

1. You cannot have an agreement that a response in a three-card major is allowed. Thius, despite the fact that the Bulletin carries pointers suggesting that very style for some hands. However, you are allowed to deviate. Therefore, you are free to use 3-card majuor responses, so long as you do not alert the opponents. I actually got this ruling direcftly from the ACBL.

2. A 2♥ opening cannot show 5+ hearts and 4+ of an unknown minor, 11-15 HCP. That would be a convention. However, you are allowed to play that 2♥ shows 5-6 hearts and an unbalanced hand, 11-15 HCP. You can also agree as a treatment to not open this with a four-card major. If you always open 1♥ with 6331, that creates an inference that you do not need to alert. Well do the math on that one.

3. 1NT is allowed as a three-suited takeout, with no strength requirement. A double can be anything. So, if you play that 1NT shows three-suited and weak, that's OK. If you play 1NT as three-suited and strong, that's OK. If you play 1NT as three-suited and either weak or strong, with double covering the middle, that's OK (barely). If, however, X handles 0-4 or intermediate or 23+, and 1NT for 5-10 or 18-22, that's not OK. The reason? That's just too much to handle.

All of these are actual ruling given in tournaments.

[awm]

To further indicate the ridiculous nature of some ACBL regulations:

Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss occasionally respond in a three-card suit to their minor suit openings. They are very ethical about this and disclose it with an alert (I have seen them do this). Unfortunately, this disclosure would get them in trouble in general chart events, where an agreement to respond in this way is not allowed. Of course, they don't play very many general chart events so perhaps it doesn't come up.

Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell also occasionally respond in a three-card suit to their 1♦ opening. In fact I suspect they do this more often than Fred and Brad, if only because the "problem hands" where you might want to come up more often in a precision-style system. Nonetheless, they do not generally alert or disclose this tendency at the table (I have played against them several times, as have friends of mine, and all concur with this observation). This keeps them out of trouble in general chart events, which (as full-time pros) they do occasionally play, since it is just "a tactical bid" and not a partnership agreement. In fact they have been called on this occasionally and made exactly that argument.

So in essence, being ethical and disclosing your methods restricts your options as to what you can play? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?