[A2003]

GCC convention chart, competitive section 3

According to this what should be the 1NT overcall range for using
competitive section 3a and 3b.

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have a known suit.) or
b ) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

ACBL TD rules this 1NT overcall or direct range has to be within 5HCP range.
TD site this based on disallowed section, No. 7.

CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

Is it illegal to use 6-14HCP for 1NT overcall range for 3 suited takeout and no conventional responses used?

[blackshoe]

Disallowed item 7 has absolutely nothing to do with Competitive item 3. The TD was completely wrong.

[kenrexford]

I also have seen this made-up rule regarding ranges for conventional 1NT overcalls. No basis on the GCC for that.

[mycroft]

...and you pointed to him the key word "natural" in DISALLOWED, 7? And he still didn't get it?

...and you pointed out to him that you have no conventional followups to the NT overcall (please note, that means no conventional followups whatever, including takeout doubles and Blackwood) so that DISALLOWED, 7 doesn't apply? (Please note, this is what is otherwise known as the Endicott Loophole, which was rendered unnecessary in the latest revision of the Laws; so expect DISALLOWED, 7 to go away eventually, replaced by a ban on the agreements themselves; so don't count on this half too much).

Please tell me this is a club TD, not at a tournament.

[A2003]

This happened at BBO ACBL speedball Tournament.
After the result, TD ruled and corrected score to Ave - for using illegal NT range.

I would like to know whether it is legal or illegal call.
Based on that, I have to revise my CC.
We play 1NT as 3 suited t/o (6-14) and dbl as power dbl (15+).

This is the conversation I had:
->ACBL_nn: brd1 why was adjusted?
ACBL_nn (Lobby): you have used an illegal 1nt overcall range of 6-14. it is not permitted by the gcc. no more than 5pt range is allowed for a nt bid or a nt overcall bid
->ACBL_nn: not true
->ACBL_nn: pls check in the forum
ACBL_nn (Lobby): yes true., you may refer to the gcc under disallowed paragraph 7
->ACBL_nn: this was discussed in the bridge forum, I will repost again, this is allowed
ACBL_nn (Lobby): it is not allowed in the acbl tournaments
ACBL_nn (Lobby): http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf
ACBL_nn->Tournament: I am repeating since there seems to be some confusion as to what is allowed and not allowed in these acbl tournaments
ACBL_nn->Tournament: !H All ACBL events are Zero Tolerance Events. Be nice! ACBL General Convention Chart applies. NO Multi, Wilkosz, nor mid-chart. Post your convention card or play the basic SAYC one provided for you by default on BBO. Self alerting is required.
ACBL_nn->Tournament: GCC chart only
ACBL_nn->Tournament: event:http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf

TD number removed per policy requirement.
ACBL_nn (Lobby): that is not what disallowed the call... the call was disallowed on the pt range.
RS99 (Lobby): np...chg cc to 9-14 for 1nt overcall
->RS99: ok

[glen]

Please remove the number of the ACBL TD from your discussion, replacing with nn, to avoid identifying a particular TD. The recommended, by BBO, approach to resolving these problems is to first discuss with the BBO ACBL team, before bringing it to the forums.

[rbforster]

A2003, on Feb 18 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

We play 1NT as 3 suited t/o (6-14) and dbl  as power dbl (15+).

What more can we say - this is not a new method and it's completely fine GCC. Your TD can't read the chart in front of him. Pointing him to the "specifically allowed" part of GCC probably wouldn't have helped. Sadly, this is par for the course for most TDs when it comes to unusual conventions.

I suppose he wouldn't have appreciated you pointing out that you could still play 0-5 (or 6-14 if you prefer) balanced NT overcalls under GCC, as long as you played solely natural continuations. He's wrong on both accounts.

[rbforster]

glen, on Feb 18 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

Please remove the number of the ACBL TD from your discussion, replacing with nn, to avoid identifying a particular TD.

Why? I'd like to avoid that TD too... let's not reward ignorance of the laws by letting Mr nn off the hook, especially on a cut-and-dry issue like this one.

[mycroft]

When I had an issue with an ACBL BBO club TD (and they are club TDs, ACBLonBBO is a club, even if some of them are also tournament-rated; some are not) I asked here what to do, and followed the instructions; I got a very comfortable response from the club manager.

I was asked, for politeness' sake, to do something I strictly speaking do not have to do (self-alert the range of my Precision 1M openers); but was also told that I was correct in that I didn't, by a strict reading, have to do so. I was also told that ACBL_nn would have the relevant part of the Alert chart explained to him or her, so that the ruling given would not be repeated (which I appreciated).
I didn't get my score adjustment rescinded; but I don't really care that much about it - it's a club game after all.

Heh, did a search on "who to talk to", and found this:

mycroft said:

email the head of online tournaments for the ACBL (sorry, don't remember the address at the moment, but should be available with a quick search).

uday said:

You can email anything acbl-related to acbl@bridgebase.com
that goes to Jacki, and drifts by my desk as well.

Hmm, I don't get involved in these discussions, do I?

[fred]

Rob F, on Feb 19 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

glen, on Feb 18 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

Please remove the number of the ACBL TD from your discussion, replacing with nn, to avoid identifying a particular TD.

Why?

Because we don't like to publicly embarass the members of our staff who are very nice people that try very hard to do a good job, even if they sometimes make mistakes.

Because we have repeatedly asked people not to go through the proper channels if they want to complain about a ruling in our ACBL games.

Quote

I'd like to avoid that TD too...

Assuming "Rob F" is your BBO user ID, as far as I can tell you avoid all of our ACBL TDs - you have never played in an ACBL tournament on BBO.

Quote

let's not reward ignorance of the laws by letting Mr nn off the hook, especially on a cut-and-dry issue like this one.

We have procedures in place that try to ensure that our TDs learn from their mistakes. Public floggings are not constructive even if they come from someone like you who is obviously far too knowledgable about ACBL rules to ever make a mistake in the interpretation of such rules.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Rob F, on Feb 18 2010, 09:20 PM, said:

glen, on Feb 18 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

Please remove the number of the ACBL TD from your discussion, replacing with nn, to avoid identifying a particular TD.

Why? I'd like to avoid that TD too... let's not reward ignorance of the laws by letting Mr nn off the hook, especially on a cut-and-dry issue like this one.

Assuming the TD in question does learn from this mistake, I don't see any reason to avoid him in future.

This isn't a case of "ignorance of the laws", anyway — it's a case of misreading of an ACBL regulation. One which is well known for its lack of clarity.