[TimG]

Minutes from the spring and summer 2009 meetings are now available at the C&C Committee page at acbl.org.

[aguahombre]

thank you. Presumably the minutes are published in such an untimely manner because they are not "approved" until the next meeting at the next NABC.

Since the committee reserves the right to conduct almost all its other business via email, it would seem they could approve the minutes by email, as well, and publish them in time to get more input before the next meeting.

[TimG]

Baby steps.

[blackshoe]

They were apparently supposed to consider for approval changes to the convention charts and alert procedure in November. I look forward to seeing those changes — preferably before some TD tells me I've violated one of them!

[hrothgar]

I'd like to draw attention to the following two selections from the C&C minutes from the summer meeting

Quote

7.  Precision 2C opener (Was #6)

a. Question about whether this is legal under the GCC.
b. Unanimously agreed that this is GCC legal. (Section 1, Definitions. This is a natural call since it shows clubs.)

Quote

11. Improved wording on #12 of MC to include 5M and add that 5H + 4S is allowed.

a. Current wording of #12 (under ALLOWED): “Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid with a 4‐card minor”

b. Committee felt that the wording was not incorrect, that the intent to disallow 5H + 4S was in fact intentional. Currently the both majors convention is not legal under MC. No action taken.

I find it remarkable that a Precision 2♣ opening is legal at the GCC level because it is a natural bid (showing clubs). While a 2♥ showing 5 Hearts and 4+ cards in a side suit - also natural - is illegal for midchart events...

[aguahombre]

I might guess that Since 2C is a necessary part of forcing club systems which have been in use for a very long time --and has easy and established defenses, while a weak bid showing more than one suit is neither a necessary part of any established style --nor are the defenses to it that clear, there might be logic in the acceptance of one but not the other.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Dec 31 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

I might guess that Since 2C is a necessary part of forcing club systems which have been in use for a very long time --and has easy and established defenses, while a weak bid showing more than one suit is neither a necessary part of any established style --nor are the defenses to it that clear, there might be logic in the acceptance of one but not the other.

I'm not arguing with the decision; rather I am commenting on the decision making process.

I find it remarkable that the committee can rule that natural bids are GCC legal then - a few minutes later - rule that another natural bid is illegal at the Midchart level.

I don't think its unreasonable that the C&C committee clarify when a natural bid is / is not legal because it VERY clear that all sorts of natural bids are banned at both the GCC and the Midchart level.

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Dec 30 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

I might guess that Since 2C is a necessary part of forcing club systems which have been in use for a very long time --and has easy and established defenses, while a weak bid showing more than one suit is neither a necessary part of any established style --nor are the defenses to it that clear, there might be logic in the acceptance of one but not the other.

The end result may be reasonable, but the reasoning the C&C Committee used to get there appears flawed.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Dec 30 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Dec 31 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

I might guess that Since 2C is a necessary part of forcing club systems which have been in use for a very long time --and has easy and established defenses, while a weak bid showing more than one suit is neither a necessary part of any established style --nor are the defenses to it that clear,  there might be logic in the acceptance of one but not the other.

I'm not arguing with the decision; rather I am commenting on the decision making process.

I find it remarkable that the committee can rule that natural bids are GCC legal then - a few minutes later - rule that another natural bid is illegal at the Midchart level.

I don't think its unreasonable that the C&C committee clarify when a natural bid is / is not legal because it VERY clear that all sorts of natural bids are banned at both the GCC and the Midchart level.

agree 100%. Just sent off an email to that effect. My personal gripe is that 2♣ as natural is allowed but 2♥ or 2♠ as showing 11-15 (the exact same range) is not allowed if the partnership has a treatment where the opening also promises 4+ in some unknown minor (just like Michaels or Cappelletti). please.

And then the audacity to be dense and say "it's natural."

When you then go to even barring natural calls at the MC level, this is stupid beyond belief. I mean, if you want to define "natural" as 5+ in the suit at the tw-level, fine. At least that would allow 2♥ and 2♠ to be that major and a minor, which is so obviously "natural."

Drives me nuts.

I also found it odd to define a call that says nothing about your hand (a 2NT response to a weak two opening) as a "psychic control" problem. The weak two was not a psychic, and the 2NT call cannot be a "psychic" because it doesn't show a damned thing. It is a pure asking bid. Just because people assume that it implies something is irrelevant. It is not a psychic, nor is it a psychic control to answer a question duly asked.

I suppose part of me wishes that the minutes were kept secret like they were before. Sometimes I just don't even want to know...

[jdonn]

Writing complaints already, and not even because either the decision or the process is wrong but because the reasoning is flawed. I'm sure this will encourage them to continue posting the minutes!

[Phil]

I'm with Josh here. There is so much I'd like to just rip on reading the minutes, but I also know that pissing off decision makers is not the road to change.

[kenrexford]

What's the point of posting the minutes if you cannot comment on them? Just to torture us?

[awm]

Well it's good to see them posting minutes. Given the many complaints people have had about this committee in the past, it's unsurprising that some of the decisions they make are ones we disagree with, or that the reasoning seems rather flawed. But in the long run, getting these things out in the open will help.

[TimG]

I think it is possible to point out the flaws without pissing off members of the committee. I attempted to do just that last week after first reading the minutes.

I also think it is a good thing if lots of people point out the flaws and/or offer their opinions. The more people who comment on specific items the less likely we'll be considered a fringe minority or crackpots.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

What's the point of posting the minutes if you cannot comment on them? Just to torture us?

Knowing is half the battle. GI Joe!

[TimG]

aguahombre, on Dec 30 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

I might guess that Since 2C is a necessary part of forcing club systems which have been in use for a very long time --and has easy and established defenses, while a weak bid showing more than one suit is neither a necessary part of any established style --nor are the defenses to it that clear,  there might be logic in the acceptance of one but not the other.

I think it is difficult to define necessary. There are forcing club systems that use 1♣ for both strong hands and "standard" club hands. There are also forcing club systems that use 2♣ specifically for club single suiters rather than possible club/major two-suiters.

Some very good players think Flannery is a necessary part of standard methods. There was a Flannery exception on the GCC for many years. It was not that long ago that the exception was changed to cover any constructive two-level opening that showed two specific suits rather than just 2♦ for the majors.

It is my opinion that if you are going to allow a 2♣ opening which is either 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major, you ought to either: 1) make it clear that this is a exception; or preferably 2) allow all 2-level openings which show either 6+ in the suit bid or 5+ in the suit opened along with some possible 4-card suit suits (similar to what was done for Flannery type openings). Claiming that the 2♣ treatment under review is allowed because it is natural while disallowing other natural bids, even other natural bids that are very similar, without making the charts clear in this regard is a mistake.

Tim

[Phil]

TimG, on Dec 30 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

I think it is possible to point out the flaws without pissing off members of the committee. I attempted to do just that last week after first reading the minutes.

I also think it is a good thing if lots of people point out the flaws and/or offer their opinions. The more people who comment on specific items the less likely we'll be considered a fringe minority or crackpots.

In the span of 15 posts, the forum regulars have used the terms:

"flawed reasoning" (twice) and "audacious and dense, stupid beyond belief".

Look, I think that the decision making process so far has a lot to be desired. But if you were on C and C and happened to stumble onto these fora and this thread, and read these remarks, I wouldn't be asking myself, "hey, we must be a bunch of dunderheads, because some people I've never heard of (well, maybe Josh) are criticizing our processes"

[Mbodell]

I think there is an obvious difference between 2♣ precision and the 2M bids that people are talking about. The 2♣ precision only promises clubs, and can be a single suited hand. I.e., you don't always have a side suit. You have 6+ clubs, or you have 5+ clubs and a 4 card major. If you only had the 5+clubs and a 4 card major than I don't think it would be allowed.

Similarly a 2M opening that showed either 6+ of the major and single suited or a two suiter with 5+ of the major and 4+ of another suit (or of a minor) is allowed AFAIK. What isn't allowed is just the 5+ of a major and always 4+ of another suit.

You can argue, rightly, that "natural" versus "not natural" is not the best way to make the distinction, but I think there is something different between the precision 2♣ and the 2M that is a legitimate difference. In the one that the committee allows the ONLY thing you promise is the suit in question with no other promises about side suits.

I like most people think all of these should be legal. But I don't think you advance the cause if you completely gloss over any difference.

[TimG]

Mbodell, on Dec 30 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

I like most people think all of these should be legal. But I don't think you advance the cause if you completely gloss over any difference.

I do agree with you that the two are different in nature (one promises a side suit, one does not) but both are natural. I believe the GCC needs clarification as to which natural methods are allowed and which are not.

[blackshoe]

Well, apparently the charts are up for revision soon. In fact, they were apparently supposed to finish that up in the last meeting of the CandC, so maybe we'll see soon what they've come up with.