[jdonn]

bluejak, on Mar 10 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules.  A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional.  That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it.  It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

What kind of debate is this? Any time someone disagrees with you do you just say they are wrong because.... well I can't see any reason why except because you insist it is so, and that's the way it is. Well what you call "pedantic flim-flam" I call "proof you are wrong", as anyone who has taken a math class knows it only takes one counter-example to disprove a theory. Not that it matters since in this case there are a number of counter examples, namely any 2 or 3 suited bid shown by bidding one of the suits.

How about this. A 2♥ overcall over 1NT showing hearts and a minor is conventional, that is obvious. It is natural because it shows hearts. QED? Or maybe not, because you say so...

[mycroft]

atlantajon, on Mar 9 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

The GCC says:  Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings. are not allowed.

So, we have to look at the auction....and determine if any of these are the case here.

The auction went:  P,P,1C (alerted as could be as short as 2),X
                          XX,1S,P,P
                          P....

We need to determine if the 1C bid is conventional or artificial.

This was not provided to us all; and the OP claims the 2+ is not accurate. I don't see it Alerted in myhands, but then, I don't see any Alerted, but unexplained call highlighted in myhands, so that doesn't mean anything either. Ignoring what actually happened, however, let me talk about this auction, as presented:

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls). I happen to, personally, disagree with that decision (because of issues like this one, and because of the fact that it isn't in writing for the punters), but there it is, and I rule, when I do rule, accordingly. So, if it's conventional for the purposes of DISALLOWED, 2, but not conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7, that seems unfair, as well as even more arbitrary than it currently is.

I would agree with you on the rest of your logic (snipped) IF I was allowed to play holo-bolo over the "could be 2" 1C openings, or if I had to defend against crazy overcalls over my Precision 1D (2+) opener.

Having said all of that (and this is more aimed at the OP), subsequent/consequent is not really relevant to "use of illegal convention", at least as much as the offender's score is concerned; nor as far as the non-offender's score is concerned, unless the "subsequent" is a "serious error or wild and gambling action". Although as I said, I know the hand, I choose not to apply my judgement to that question.

[hrothgar]

mycroft, on Mar 10 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls). I happen to, personally, disagree with that decision (because of issues like this one, and because of the fact that it isn't in writing for the punters), but there it is, and I rule, when I do rule, accordingly. So, if it's conventional for the purposes of DISALLOWED, 2, but not conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7, that seems unfair, as well as even more arbitrary than it currently is.

I would agree with you on the rest of your logic (snipped) IF I was allowed to play holo-bolo over the "could be 2" 1C openings, or if I had to defend against crazy overcalls over my Precision 1D (2+) opener.

For the record, said regulations are enforced in a VERY slipshod fashion.

I've had no problems playing

2♥ = weak jump overcall in Hearts or Spades

over 2+ minor suit openings.

[hrothgar]

Duplicate post deleted

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Mar 10 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls).

Hang on a minute. Who is "we", and who told them?

[bluejak]

hrothgar, on Mar 10 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 10 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules.  A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional.  That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it.  It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

You might want to sit down and have a chat with John Wignall, since the WBF established a very different precedent during a recent event...

Oh, yes? Are you sure? And why would that affect the ACBL?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Mar 11 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

And why would that affect the ACBL?

Actually, that's a pretty interesting question. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice "it's just a matter of who is to be master, that's all."

My reading of the WBF Constitution and Bylaws leads me to believe that the ACBLLC, as part of a Zonal Authority, is subordinate to the WBFLC, so if the latter issues an interpretation of law (unless the WBFLC explicitly restricts the scope of the interpretation) it is binding in the ACBL. OTOH, the ACBL maintains that it has the power to interpret law (and indeed, to promulgate basic law) in its jurisdiction in ways which differ from the WBF's promulgations and interpretations, notwithstanding anything it says in the WBF Constitution and Bylaws.

What it boils down to is that the answer to the question is "it wouldn't" if the ACBL's position is valid, and "because the ACBL's interpretations of law are subordinate to the WBF's" if it is not. Practically speaking, of course, the former is the case, since the WBF isn't going to press the issue.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Mar 11 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 10 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 10 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules.  A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional.  That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it.  It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

You might want to sit down and have a chat with John Wignall, since the WBF established a very different precedent during a recent event...

Oh, yes? Are you sure? And why would that affect the ACBL?

During a (fairly) recent championship, one of the Dutch pairs was using a complicated / artificial defense to the opponents conventional minor suit openings.

Said pair's convention card stated that they used this defense over 1m openings that could be 2+ cards.

The US lodged a complaint, claiming that short minor openings are not conventional and that the Dutch Pairs overcall structure should be treated as a Brown Sticker Convention rather than as a defense to a conventional opening.

In, what I considered to be a rather ludicrous decision, the WBF Committee concurred with the US interpretation and the Dutch pair was initially penalized for using an excessive number of BSCs. (I don't recall off hand whether Wignall was responsible for drafting this decision or issued this decision as the Committee Chair)

I don't recall seeing ever seeing anything from the WBF that superceeded said decision.

Simply put...

While this may be both "simple and obvious" to the learned David Stevenson, your interpretation of the regulations doesn't match the one used in at least one World Championship. (Which is a pity, because I agree with your interpretation).

I readily admit that WBF don't matter jack ***** so far as the ACBL / USBF is concerned. They do whatever the damn well please.

What is important is that it was the North American team that lodged said complaint. The fact that said team would advance this complaint suggests that the North American powers that be have a VERY different interpretation of this issue that your formulation.

Last, but not least, your gross oversimplification of the issue actually does a grave dis-justice to anyone who actually might want to use these methods.

You are almost guarunteed to face multiple director calls in ACBL land.

The Directors almost certainly know next to nothing about the issue at hand and their natural inclination is going to be to side with the nice pair playing a short club rather than the young expert with his nasty overcalls.

And, the fact thay you consider something sensible and obvious really doesn't carry that much weight.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

The Directors almost certainly know next to nothing about the issue at hand and their natural inclination is going to be to side with the nice pair playing a short club rather than the young expert with his nasty overcalls.

As one of those "nice pairs playing a short club" I can assure you that in ACBL tournaments, the opponents will be allowed to play whatever they want over a 1♣ opening bid that can have 2 clubs. At least, at NABCs & GNT and things like that - I haven't played at a club game recently.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Mar 11 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

The Directors almost certainly know next to nothing about the issue at hand and their natural inclination is going to be to side with the nice pair playing a short club rather than the young expert with his nasty overcalls.

As one of those "nice pairs playing a short club" I can assure you that in ACBL tournaments, the opponents will be allowed to play whatever they want over a 1♣ opening bid that can have 2 clubs. At least, at NABCs & GNT and things like that - I haven't played at a club game recently.

I was wondering whether someone attending ACBL Nationals would be willing to conduct an experiment for me:

Adopt the following defense over Short Club / short Diamond openings

2♥ = Weak Jump shift in either Hearts or Spades
3♣ = Weak Jump shift in either Clubs or Diamonds

Let us know

1. How many director calls you get...
2. How many different conflicting rulings you receive...

Alternatively, if one of you is heading into a major event like the Blue Ribbonpairs, ask the director in charge whether this method is allowed...

[kenrexford]

This is the sort of dumb-ass idiocy that seems to have a solution, one that I sometimes get "forced into" and find hilarious.

We all know that a XX is often BS. Please. So, the ACBL may or may not prohibit that "psychic." What to do?

Well, define the XX differently.

"That XX shows 10+ and implies no fit, OR it shows any pattern with an extremely weak hand."

Maybe "extremely weak" is defined.

This makes the XX never a "psychic." Plus, you get the added benefit (they asked for it) of making each and every XX you make a "multi" two-way redouble that scares the blues even worse. Heck, I'd even alert and pre-alert it if I could. I might even offer a courtesy "suggested defense," and I'd place mention of this on the convention card.

You just HAVE to punish this nonsense.

The same plan works, by the way, when someone calls the TD for some ridiculous nuance or asks too many questions about nuance. Make sure that you define bids just a tad unusually, and then alert.

"1♣"

"Alert!"

"What's that?"

"Partner has shown either (A) 8+ HCP and 4+ clubs if he has an unbalanced hand, possibly with a five-card major, or ( 2+ clubs and a balanced hand, with either 11-14 or 18-19 HCP." [translation: short club]

"Pass"

"1♥"

"ALERT!!!"

"What's that show?"

"Well, partner has at least 3 HCP, with 4+ hearts. But, he cannot have longer diamonds unless he has less than GF values. Furthermore, he specifically denies holding exactly four spades and five hearts." [jump to 2♦ with that just to be able to alert 1♥]

"Pass"

"1NT"

"Alert!!!"

"Yes?"

(and so on...)

[FrancesHinden]

atlantajon, on Mar 10 2010, 05:37 AM, said:

Well. As this is an ACBL question, the ruling needs to be based on the ACBL laws and definitions.

Firstly, we need to understand what is allowed and disallowed in the ACBL when it comes to psychs.

The GCC says: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are lessThe auction went: P,P,1C (alerted as could be as short as 2),X
XX,1S,P,P
P....
.....
It reads pretty clearly for me.

Thanks,

Atlantajon (ACBL Director)

Where did you get the idea that 1C was alerted as could be as short as 2?

[Cyberyeti]

A thought:

Quote

"Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings."

Am I completely barking up the wrong tree here, but is there any definition of response that says calls are included as well as bids, and also that this applies in a competitive auction. If I'd just read this in a lawbook without seeing the previous discussion, I'd have assumed it applied only to the nx-P-ny situation and similar.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

During a (fairly) recent championship, one of the Dutch pairs was using a complicated / artificial defense to the opponents conventional minor suit openings.

Said pair's convention card stated that they used this defense over 1m openings that could be 2+ cards.

The US lodged a complaint, claiming that short minor openings are not conventional and that the Dutch Pairs overcall structure should be treated as a Brown Sticker Convention rather than as a defense to a conventional opening.

Was it the BB in Shanghai? There, a 1♣ opening promising 2+ clubs was considered natural for the purpose of the restriction of defenses opps could play. This was a regulation specific to that event. Normally, SOs adopting WBF definitions of BSC would consider the 1♣ opening showing 2+ clubs to be artificial for this purpose.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Mar 12 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

During a (fairly) recent championship, one of the Dutch pairs was using a complicated / artificial defense to the opponents conventional minor suit openings.

Said pair's convention card stated that they used this defense over 1m openings that could be 2+ cards.

The US lodged a complaint, claiming that short minor openings are not conventional and that the Dutch Pairs overcall structure should be treated as a Brown Sticker Convention rather than as a defense to a conventional opening.

Was it the BB in Shanghai? There, a 1♣ opening promising 2+ clubs was considered natural for the purpose of the restriction of defenses opps could play. This was a regulation specific to that event. Normally, SOs adopting WBF definitions of BSC would consider the 1♣ opening showing 2+ clubs to be artificial for this purpose.

That is how the decision was described.

Here's the obvious rejoinder: When was said policy determined / announced?

[helene_t]

It was discussed in this thread: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=20698

I think the criterion was that as long as it was nonforcing it was "natural". I think it was announced a couple of months before the event. By that time, Brink-Drijver played Holo-Bolo against the "can be doubleton" 1♣ opening. I thought they corrected that before the event but obviously that wasn't the case.

[bluejak]

That is fine. If the ACBL were to say "We consider a non-forcing club as natural for the purposes of what is permitted here", then we would know where we are. But that ruling by the WBF does not say that a 1♣ opening on a doubleton is always not artificial, and thus has no relevance to the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Mar 13 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

That is fine. If the ACBL were to say "We consider a non-forcing club as natural for the purposes of what is permitted here", then we would know where we are. But that ruling by the WBF does not say that a 1♣ opening on a doubleton is always not artificial, and thus has no relevance to the ACBL.

I never said that the WBF ruling had any impact on ACBL policy.

I did, however, question your statement that this topic is "sensible and obvious".

I do hope that someone will try the little experiment that I proposed in Reno and ask various directors whether you can play a multi 2♥ overcall over the opponent's short club...

[bluejak]

Of course, feel free to disagree with any opinion of mine. But I think that disagreeing with an opinion because a different organisation decided something in a different position seems strange.