[awm]

Besides that what Josh describes isn't formalized anywhere, there's still an awful lot of gray area. For example:

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and at most 2♠. This implies a 3+ card minor. But I'm sure it's GCC.
2♥ showing 5-6♥ and a 3+ card minor. Almost the same as the above, but less clear...
2♥ showing 5-6♥ and 3+♣. I've got no idea whether this one's allowed.
2♥ showing 5-6♥ and 3-4♠. Not a "natural" spade suit, but this one might be banned?
2♥ showing 5-6♥ and exactly 3♠. A subset of Bailey Twos, but seems fuzzier...
2♥ showing either (5♥ and 4♠) or 6♥. Rather similar to precision 2♣, but I don't know...

And these are just 2♥ openings. We can also consider one-level openings:

1♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ side suit. My feeling is might be GCC even if similar 2♥ isn't.
1♥ showing 5+♥ and either a 4+ side suit or substantial extras.
1♥ showing exactly 4♥, possibly with a longer minor.
1♥ showing 4+♥ and denying a balanced hand.
1♥ showing 4-5♥ and denying a balanced hand.

[bluecalm]

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

[Mbodell]

bluecalm, on Jan 2 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

I agree, but what about a split range non-forcing 1♥ showing 0-7 or 16+ and 5+ hearts. I think some people would find playing against that with no advanced prep past a pre-alert to be trying.

[kenrexford]

bluecalm, on Jan 3 2010, 12:48 AM, said:

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

That's the amazingly obvious solution.

If a weak two with a 5-card suit is allowed, then allow any variation of that by treatment.

If an intermediate two-level opening is allowed with 5+ in the suit, then allow any variation of that by treatment.

How can anyone complain about that? If my weak two opening in hearts promises the Jack of diamonds, then let that be my agreement. It seems so simple.

But, no! Let's be ignorant dopes and persist with the nonsense.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I agree, but what about a split range non-forcing 1♥ showing 0-7 or 16+ and 5+ hearts.

I was only talking about 2level openings. I believe there is some limit for strength for 1 level openers ? (not less than a king from average hand ?). So you couldn't play that anyway.
Maybe a good idea is to have similair limit for 2level openers. If you want to ban very weak destructive openers you can for example make a following law :

2level openers are only legal if they promise at least 8 "points" where "points" are defined as hcp + 1 for every card above 4 in every suit or something like that.
If ACBL really wants to ban only destructive/difficult to defend methods they could easily work this out. If they want to ban everything which isn't popular among american pairs then it's different story...

[jdonn]

I'm not saying there isn't gray area (though how many of those examples to people really want to play?) I'm not even saying my exact interpretation was correct. I'm not saying they shouldn't make things much clearer. I'm just saying we can easily tell their goal is to disallow 2-suited openings on the general chart, with very few specific exceptions (flannery). That much is quite clear.

[TimG]

bluecalm, on Jan 3 2010, 12:48 AM, said:

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

This has been proposed to the Committee. It perhaps did not reach the serious consideration phase since it did not appear in the Summer 2009 minutes. Or, maybe it is part of the convention chart discussion that was tabled.

Tim

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Dec 31 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book. If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

I (personally) don't think the EBU Orange Book is perfect - but it (or at least its general approach) seems to be an order of magnitude better than what you guys are struggling with in North America.

I suggest that the amount of work is worth it.

Nick

[paulg]

NickRW, on Jan 7 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 31 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book.  If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

I (personally) don't think the EBU Orange Book is perfect - but it (or at least its general approach) seems to be an order of magnitude better than what you guys are struggling with in North America.

I suggest that the amount of work is worth it.

Nick

It's an order of magnitude bigger too.

It is a very good reference but would be a huge change for the ACBL and its members.

[billw55]

bluecalm, on Jan 3 2010, 02:05 AM, said:

If they want to ban everything which isn't popular among american pairs then it's different story...

bingo

[NickRW]

cardsharp, on Jan 7 2010, 03:43 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jan 7 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 31 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book.  If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

I (personally) don't think the EBU Orange Book is perfect - but it (or at least its general approach) seems to be an order of magnitude better than what you guys are struggling with in North America.

I suggest that the amount of work is worth it.

Nick

It's an order of magnitude bigger too.

It is a very good reference but would be a huge change for the ACBL and its members.

Well, I suppose that is true - however, I read somewhere that the EBU is coming up with a tangerine book - an orange book lite - or something to that effect. Surely the largest bridge playing nation in the world can find someone with the time and the common sense and knowledge enough to produce something of that ilk.

Nick

[Gerben42]

Some time ago I suggested a non-ambiguous GCC for review to help the poor ACBL players who cannot find out what's legal and what's not. I guess the same could be done for the MidChart.

An Orange-Book like approach is necessary, as it cannot be that the legality of the system depends on:

* how you read the text, or
* if the TD likes you or your system.

On the other hand, loopholes like the Midnight Special system should be avoided.

Quote

It is a very good reference but would be a huge change for the ACBL and its members.

Please explain how keeping the rules the same but writing them down in a way that can be understood and is non-ambiguous is a huge change. Of course for the TDs it might be a big change because they now no longer cannot use judgment in rulings on legality of systems...

[blackshoe]

Whether it is actually a huge change in content, or merely a change in presentation is irrelevant, since many players (not to mention TDs) will see it as a huge change, and complain about it, whatever the reality.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Jan 8 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

Whether it is actually a huge change in content, or merely a change in presentation is irrelevant, since many players (not to mention TDs) will see it as a huge change, and complain about it, whatever the reality.

I'm not sure about this.

Apparently there exist these "ACBL Score Tech files" or something like that which clarify some frequent ruling issues such as "psychs" of a strong 2♣ opening. Regional level directors have been known to bring these things out when they make contentious rulings. These files are not even accessible to most players and a lot of people don't even know they exist.

This being the case, I'm not convinced that an additional document which clarified some of the terminology in the convention charts and included a large number of examples of legal and illegal conventions which had been played/ruled upon in the past would cause a problem. In fact the majority of players probably would never even be aware that such a thing existed. This is different from an official "rewrite" which would replace the current charts with something much longer and more complete -- the charts would remain the same and there would just be a large additional "case history" to clarify terms and rulings.

[blackshoe]

A lot of club directors either aren't aware of the tech files, or don't read them, because they're not available when you run ACBLScore in club mode. Aside from that, the tech files aren't all that good as a reference anyway, IMO.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Jan 8 2010, 11:41 PM, said:

A lot of club directors either aren't aware of the tech files, or don't read them, because they're not available when you run ACBLScore in club mode. Aside from that, the tech files aren't all that good as a reference anyway, IMO.

Sure, but I'm reacting to your claim that people will see this as a huge change and react to it.

The fact is that most players have no idea that the convention charts even exist or what they say. People complain about systems which are very obviously allowed on the charts and let slide methods which are quite obviously disallowed with pretty high frequency. A change which doesn't even modify the charts themselves and has very little effect on what's allowed in practice except to clarify some "boundary cases" is highly unlikely to cause additional complaints.

Like the "tech files" the vast majority of players wouldn't even know the change happened. The only people who would know/care would be people who frequently "push the boundaries" in terms of their methods. And a substantial subset of these people would be happy that the rulings they receive would be more consistent and based on something concrete rather than vague feelings from the director or readings of highly ambiguous terms on a chart.

Of course there will still be a few people upset that they can't play the methods they want, and a few people upset that they have to play against the weirder methods which are allowed, but I don't see any reason that this situation would be any worse than it is now.

[mike777]

guys we cannot even see Bod minute meetings from 2 months ago...pls....


tiny tiny baby steps at first please.....

You guys want to see something from some sub sub meeting that 99% of acbl never heard of?