[TimG]

goodwintr, on Jul 10 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

The 5+M/5+m 2M opening bid appears as an authorized method on the ACBL Mid-Chart. Isn't that some evidence that it is not authorized, either explicitly or implicitly, on the GCC?

That is some evidence. But, the mid-chart authorized method is specifically for a weak opening, not the "minimum opening bid" method under consideration here.

One could conclude either that ACBL permits the weak opening, but not the constructive opening, in mid-chart events, or that the constructive opening is considered natural and does not need specific authorization under the GCC or mid-chart.

[xcurt]

I'd vote for 2M = 5M/4+m is not GCC legal.

This puts a huge dent in trying to design a MAF Canape strong club system playable in a GCC event. You really need a sensible way to bid 54xx nonreversing hands where the 5-card suit is the higher one.

[jjbrr]

sorry, mostly irrelevant. missed the part about "minimum opening bid"

[kenrexford]

Many years ago, I had a long discussion with a national TD regarding this very issue. The decision was that a 2M opening as intermediate with 5+ of the major and 4+ of a minor is a convention and not allowed. However, a call that showed 5+ of a major, not both majors, and unbalanced was a treatment and allowed.

However, when we discussed further, that the major would not be longer than 6, the obvious 6331 was seen as the obvious only case when the call did not show precisely 5+M/4+minor. That was deemed enough, but poor tactics.

So, we decided instead, as a partnership, that 2M was allowed to be bid with a one-suiter, just like Precision, to get around the rule and to achieve fairness (in our view). However, the caveat was that the one-suiter must be 7-card, usually. Hence, 2M showed unbalanced with 5-6 cards, or 7+ and one-suited. This was deemed OK, as a "parallel" to precision, especially as 6331 hands were deemed "optional."

This was not the end of the world, as an occasional 2M opening with 7+ in the major was easy enough to correct, as a 2M-P-3♣-P-3M, for example. We made a point of doing this a few times and saving the convention card, results, and hand records, as proof for later (if needed).

Of course, all of this is utterly stupid, as 5+ in the major with the treatment being a four-card minor also is not a convention buit a treatment anyway. Stupid GCC.

[aguahombre]

I think we all know the "spirit" of the rules they devised when creating a GCC and and Mid Card. Instead of trying to beat the system, how about not using the exotic methods which are questionable in a GCC event?

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I think we all know the "spirit" of the rules they devised when creating a GCC and and Mid Card. Instead of trying to beat the system, how about not using the exotic methods which are questionable in a GCC event?

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic?

I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not.

Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not.

[aguahombre]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I think we all know the "spirit" of the rules they devised when creating a GCC and and Mid Card.  Instead of trying to beat the system, how about not using the exotic methods which are questionable in a GCC event?

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic?

I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not.

Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not.

fortunately I dont have to distinguish. the ACBL has done it. then they made these big charts. I just have to read them, and ask if I have a question. All of this careful examination of the exact terminology only applies to a small number of events, since at the club you can just get the director to waive anything you want him/her to waive.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Jul 11 2009, 02:28 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I think we all know the "spirit" of the rules they devised when creating a GCC and and Mid Card.  Instead of trying to beat the system, how about not using the exotic methods which are questionable in a GCC event?

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic?

I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not.

Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not.

fortunately I dont have to distinguish. the ACBL has done it. then they made these big charts. I just have to read them, and ask if I have a question. All of this careful examination of the exact terminology only applies to a small number of events, since at the club you can just get the director to waive anything you want him/her to waive.

Its wonderful that you're happy with the current system.

Personally, I prefer a playing environment where I have some clue what rules are going to be enforced on any given Sunday. Suffering under completely ambiguous rule set and a needing to trust the competency of large number of idiosyncratic directors isn't a very satisfactory solution...

[peachy]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

2S showing spades is natural and not conventional. 2S showing spades and a minor is natural and conventional. This sort of topic has been discussed "everywhere" on occasion and it still keeps popping up. The ACBL GCC language on _this_ is pretty clear; see what ArtK78 quoted.

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I think we all know the "spirit" of the rules they devised when creating a GCC and and Mid Card.

Are you calling a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the bid major and 4+ in a minor exotic?

I don't see how that is exotic but a 2D opener which shows any three-suiter is not.

Please tell me how this 2D opening follows the "spirit" of the GCC but the 2M opening does not.

fortunately I dont have to distinguish.

You're the one that said we all know the "spirit" of the GCC. Now you seem to be saying that you don't, or at least that you cannot or will not explain it.

[TimG]

peachy, on Jul 10 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

2S showing spades is natural and not conventional. 2S showing spades and a minor is natural and conventional. This sort of topic has been discussed "everywhere" on occasion and it still keeps popping up. The ACBL GCC language on _this_ is pretty clear; see what ArtK78 quoted.

Here is what Art said:

Quote

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. 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."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

The language is very clear. Both suits must be known. If it were intended that a 2M bid showing the bid major and an unknown minor suit with 10+ HCP were to be allowed, it would have been very easy to say so. But the language clearly states that both suits must be known. So an unknown minor suit is not allowed.

I have two issues with this.

1) #6 above can apply to a 2C opening which shows majors, that is the suit opened does not have to be one of the suits shown. It does not seem to me that it is unreasonable to treat an opening bid in a known suit differently, especially since:

2) A 2C opening bid which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4+ card major is allowed, but not specifically allowed. Does not the "or 5+ clubs and a 4+ card major" make this natural and conventional? If so, why is it allowed without specific mention? If not, why is this 2C not conventional while a 2M opening which shows 5+ in the major and a 4+ card minor is conventional?

[aguahombre]

Tim, it gets tiresome....you never really have any questions, just opinions on any thread. I, and others, have made the mistake of thinking things worded like questions were looking for answers. My learning curve, flat as it is, now tells me to stop when you start.

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Jul 10 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

Tim, it gets tiresome....you never really have any questions, just opinions on any thread.  I, and others, have made the mistake of thinking things worded like  questions were looking for answers.  My learning curve, flat as it is, now tells me to stop when you start.

Even though I have opinions here, I am also looking for answers. It may seem like "lawyering" to some, but I don't think it unreasonable to look for consistent application of the rules or to hope for clear rules. That the answers often change depending upon what ACBL official is asked supports the notion that the rules are not clear enough.

[awm]

After a long discussion with various ACBL people on this matter (and yes, it has been brought up multiple times before) the conclusions seem to be:

(1) There is a difference of opinion on the particular bid Tim mentions. Some directors believe that it's a natural bid and therefore legal (I have email from Mr. Flader to this effect). Others believe that it is conventional and therefore disallowed (I have email from Mr. Beye to this effect). Neither view necessarily carries any official weight however, and rulings are likely to be made on a case to case basis.

(2) People like Tim and myself apparently misunderstand the purpose of the General Convention Chart. The purpose is not to define which methods/conventions/agreements are legal or illegal. In fact legality is defined based on the gut feelings of the people involved (in particular the C&C committee and Director in Charge of event in question) and is sort of like the legal definition of pornography ("I'll know it when I see it"). The chart exists primarily to give the rest of us some insight into what the gut feelings of the important people might be.

(3) Attempts have been made to point out that a primary purpose of having a league is to have clearly stated rules which are enforced fairly and even-handedly. Complaints have been made that basing rules on gut feelings (another example of this is "unusual and unexpected" in the alert policy) is not really doing this. These complaints generally fall on deaf ears, and in fact ACBL's regulations have moved further in the direction of fuzziness and "director's discretion" in the past few years. Claims that the regulations are vague and should be made less vague are met with insistence that this is not the case, combined with sets of self-contradictory statements about what is allowed (i.e. I have a single email which states in sequence that: the convention chart is totally clear on what is legal, all natural bids are allowed, the bid you describe is natural, the bid you describe is not allowed).

(4) All the people writing these charts are volunteers and being on the C&C committee is quite arduous (in fact they cannot even spare the time to write/post the required minutes). They are trying to do what they believe to be best for bridge, and while their actions may sometimes appear biased or self-serving, we need to remember that it's a tough job and they're not being paid to do it.

[ulven]

I believe there's a difference in the strength of the opening bid. While 2M showing 5+M & 4+m is regulated, the suggested ACBL-defence states it's a weak, obstructive bid.

If you were to play the same opening bid with a range of say 11-15, i.e. a natural constructive bid, I think that's ok. As for the statement about 10+ hcp and two known suits I think the intent is to refer to constructive non-natural openings, such as Flannery 2D. So playing 2D as 11-15 and 5+S & 4+ minor isn't allowed. When you don't have the suit opened, both suits has to be known. The reasoning revolves around how difficult it is to defend, i.e can a T/O double be passed out and it turns out that was opener's second suit.

E.g. Ekeblad plays 2C as 6+C or 4+C & 5+S and 11-15.

[paulg]

ulven, on Jul 11 2009, 07:02 AM, said:

E.g. Ekeblad plays 2C as 6+C or 4+C & 5+S and 11-15.

I'm guessing that Ekeblad is playing Superchart, rather than GCC, events.

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Jul 10 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

After a long discussion with various ACBL people on this matter (and yes, it has been brought up multiple times before) the conclusions seem to be:

(1) There is a difference of opinion on the particular bid Tim mentions. Some directors believe that it's a natural bid and therefore legal (I have email from Mr. Flader to this effect). Others believe that it is conventional and therefore disallowed (I have email from Mr. Beye to this effect). Neither view necessarily carries any official weight however, and rulings are likely to be made on a case to case basis.

(2) People like Tim and myself apparently misunderstand the purpose of the General Convention Chart. The purpose is not to define which methods/conventions/agreements are legal or illegal. In fact legality is defined based on the gut feelings of the people involved (in particular the C&C committee and Director in Charge of event in question) and is sort of like the legal definition of pornography ("I'll know it when I see it"). The chart exists primarily to give the rest of us some insight into what the gut feelings of the important people might be.

(3) Attempts have been made to point out that a primary purpose of having a league is to have clearly stated rules which are enforced fairly and even-handedly. Complaints have been made that basing rules on gut feelings (another example of this is "unusual and unexpected" in the alert policy) is not really doing this. These complaints generally fall on deaf ears, and in fact ACBL's regulations have moved further in the direction of fuzziness and "director's discretion" in the past few years. Claims that the regulations are vague and should be made less vague are met with insistence that this is not the case, combined with sets of self-contradictory statements about what is allowed (i.e. I have a single email which states in sequence that: the convention chart is totally clear on what is legal, all natural bids are allowed, the bid you describe is natural, the bid you describe is not allowed).

(4) All the people writing these charts are volunteers and being on the C&C committee is quite arduous (in fact they cannot even spare the time to write/post the required minutes). They are trying to do what they believe to be best for bridge, and while their actions may sometimes appear biased or self-serving, we need to remember that it's a tough job and they're not being paid to do it.

IMO, it's best for bridge that they not volunteer if they don't have the time to do justice to the job.

[kenrexford]

IMO, with Michaels and Cappelletti played by about 99% of the "oh, they might get scared and run to the director" crowd that the GCC is apparently designed to appease, and with the friggin' Roman 2M opening around since Korea actually did something rather than threatened something, and with the call promising five or more of the bid major, and with the Precision 2♣ problem in mind, and ion light of the ability to circumvent the GCC with lawyerly tactics, and with so much debate ofver such an obvious "treatment" rather than "convention"...

...any sane persomn on the conventions committee would simply point out that THIS one is and should be a no-brainer fix-it. Moronically, it is not. So, there is either a political will problem or these committee people are arrogant or idiotic. I cannot buy any other argument, on this specific issue.

Define damn "natural" right, I say.

BTW -- for the lawyerly types out there, it seems the the bylaws of the ACBL allow for a "coup" at the annual meeting where it might be possible to storm the place with enough people to make a bylaw change vote pass, adding a bylaw to the effect that the ACBL cannot ban treatments, or something like that. Or, some enforced mechanism to allow consideration of new proposals by initiation of someone other than the CIA-spooks of bridge.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Jul 11 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

Tim, it gets tiresome....you never really have any questions, just opinions on any thread.  I, and others, have made the mistake of thinking things worded like  questions were looking for answers.  My learning curve, flat as it is, now tells me to stop when you start.

Aquahombre:

You're relatively new to the forums. You probably don't have rich enough context to understand the purpose of of some of these discussions. A lot of this is predicated on a bunch of other discussions that took place in years past.

Tim isn't asking simple "yes or no" type questions. He is exploring a problem spacing and trying to determine whether its possible to move towards any kind of consensus.
The simplistic formulations (The spirit of the rules is obvious, all you need to do is ask) simply show that you don't understand the topic that's being discussed.

Now you're offering a pissy post and saying that you're going away and we are worse for your passing. The quality of your contributions leads me to differ.

regardless,

Ciao

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 11 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

(1) There is a difference of opinion on the particular bid Tim mentions. Some directors believe that it's a natural bid and therefore legal (I have email from Mr. Flader to this effect). Others believe that it is conventional and therefore disallowed (I have email from Mr. Beye to this effect). Neither view necessarily carries any official weight however, and rulings are likely to be made on a case to case basis.

Thanks. As you probably know, Mr. Beye's job responsibilities have changed, so his ruling may not carry the weight it once did. Though it sounds like his successor is of a similar opinion.

Yes, I find the inconsistent application of the rules frustrating. I do not so much mind the basing of rules on gut feeling, so long as one person's gut feeling sets a precedent and that gut feeling is then applied consistently.

kenrexford said:

and with so much debate over such an obvious "treatment" rather than "convention"...

I don't think the Laws or ACBL regulations define either "treatment" or "convention". And, the most recent Laws allow for SOs to regulate just about anything, including "treatments", don't they?

I am curious, though: how would you define "treatment" and "convention"?