[jmcw]

Mr.C wants to simplify bidding.
It's really quite straight forward he explains to his multiple partners

All minimum hands 12-14 are opened 1 suit and make a minimum rebid.
All strong hands 18-19 make a jump rebid of somekind (reverse, jump shift etc.)
All 20+ hand are opened 2NT or 2♣.

With 15/17 open 1NT.

On board 4 his partner picks up.

---

Later on our superstar gets dealt

---

And on board 22 he gets yet another opportunity

---

All were opened 1NT.

After the game our Director is assailed by 3 disgruntled players claiming that this "agreement" is illegal and should not be allowed. 1 guy is especially pissed claiming he misdefended(misinterpreting a count signal)............

My question is 2 parts.

1. Does ACBL regulation "legalize" this agreement. If yes, does Mr.C have to announce or pre-alert.
2. Does the Director have the authority to "bar" Mr.C from continuing this practice. If yes, then how might that restriction be framed and enforced.


Just so we are clear here. My question is directed toward the "legality" of their 1NT agreement. Board 4 (the first example was pass at 1NT, so their 1NT is not forcing

[semeai]

1. Yes, it's legal. See item 2 under Opening Bids on the GCC: "FORCING 1NT OPENING BID (15+ HCPs) indicating a strong hand, balanced or unbalanced"

It does need to be alerted, not announced. The explanation should make sure to inform the opponents it may be any distribution. Announcing "15-17" would be misinformation.

No need to pre-alert I think, but it wouldn't hurt.

No comment on 2.

[hrothgar]

 jmcw, on 2012-August-17, 07:45, said:

My question is 2 parts.

1. Does ACBL regulation "legalize" this agreement. If yes, does Mr.C have to announce or pre-alert.
2. Does the Director have the authority to "bar" Mr.C from continuing this practice. If yes, then how might that restriction be framed and enforced.

From what I can tell, the player is advocating that a 1NT opening be used as an artificial opening bid showing a specific HCP range.

I am not aware of any clause in the GCC or the Midchart that sanctions such a convention.

[semeai]

 hrothgar, on 2012-August-17, 08:24, said:

From what I can tell, the player is advocating that a 1NT opening be used as an artificial opening bid showing a specific HCP range.

I am not aware of any clause in the GCC or the Midchart that sanctions such a convention.

See my comment. I guess it does have to be forcing to be GCC legal, which Mr. C may not like.

On the midchart, it doesn't even have to be forcing: "5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid."

[blackshoe]

Clubs can establish whatever convention regulations they like for their own games. Something like a STaC would have to use the regulations established by the Unit for that contest, usually the GCC. Absent a published club regulation, I would say the GCC is in force, and this 1NT opening is not legal under the GCC. It would be legal if they made it forcing.

I used to play Romex. My partner and I had been playing it for three months when the director walked up and said "I understand you're playing a forcing 1NT opening". We said we were, he said "that bid is banned in this club," and walked away. The club had no published regulations, and the TD did not own the club. I would have appealed to the club's BoD, but my partner passed away, so I just don't play at that club, which is now owned by that TD. The point being that even if the club doesn't publish a convention regulation, the director can "make it up" on the fly — and the ACBL will uphold it.

I think this answers both your questions.

[CamHenry]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-17, 09:02, said:

I used to play Romex. My partner and I had been playing it for three months when the director walked up and said "I understand you're playing a forcing 1NT opening". We said we were, he said "that bid is banned in this club," and walked away. The club had no published regulations, and the TD did not own the club. I would have appealed to the club's BoD, but my partner passed away, so I just don't play at that club, which is now owned by that TD. The point being that even if the club doesn't publish a convention regulation, the director can "make it up" on the fly — and the ACBL will uphold it.

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

[blackshoe]

 CamHenry, on 2012-August-17, 09:06, said:

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

Different strokes...

I know you have small businesses in England that are owned by a single person. A "bridge club" is no different.

[hrothgar]

 semeai, on 2012-August-17, 08:29, said:

See my comment. I guess it does have to be forcing to be GCC legal, which Mr. C may not like.

On the midchart, it doesn't even have to be forcing: "5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid."

thanks for the correction

[jmcw]

 hrothgar, on 2012-August-17, 08:24, said:

From what I can tell, the player is advocating that a 1NT opening be used as an artificial opening bid showing a specific HCP range.

I am not aware of any clause in the GCC or the Midchart that sanctions such a convention.

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-17, 09:02, said:

Clubs can establish whatever convention regulations they like for their own games. Something like a STaC would have to use the regulations established by the Unit for that contest, usually the GCC. Absent a published club regulation, I would say the GCC is in force, and this 1NT opening is not legal under the GCC. It would be legal if they made it forcing.

I used to play Romex. My partner and I had been playing it for three months when the director walked up and said "I understand you're playing a forcing 1NT opening". We said we were, he said "that bid is banned in this club," and walked away. The club had no published regulations, and the TD did not own the club. I would have appealed to the club's BoD, but my partner passed away, so I just don't play at that club, which is now owned by that TD. The point being that even if the club doesn't publish a convention regulation, the director can "make it up" on the fly — and the ACBL will uphold it.

I think this answers both your questions.

This article http://www.columbia....b.org/node/1192 by Mike Flader seems to provide exception to your reply.

♠K ♥QJxx ♦AKxx ♣KTxx. I think many of us would judge 1NT to be a valid "legal" opening bid. Flader's article muddies the waters by stating that judgement "justifies" 1NT to include unbalanced patterns.
So, where does this leave us? Is it now up to a director to "rule" on the wisdom of their judgement?.

[campboy]

 jmcw, on 2012-August-17, 09:54, said:

This article http://www.columbia....b.org/node/1192 by Mike Flader seems to provide exception to your reply.

♠K ♥QJxx ♦AKxx ♣KTxx. I think many of us would judge 1NT to be a valid "legal" opening bid. Flader's article muddies the waters by stating that judgement "justifies" 1NT to include unbalanced patterns.
So, where does this leave us? Is it now up to a director to "rule" on the wisdom of their judgement?.

The regulation quoted in that link says that a natural 1NT should "generally [have] no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons". The inclusion of "generally" means that this is not an absolute requirement and so, presumably, that it is ok to occasionally open unbalanced hands 1NT provided that they are sufficiently rare and sufficiently close to being balanced. A pair who only open 1NT on a singleton if it is a singleton A or K in a 4441 shape would be abiding by this regulation IMO.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-17, 09:08, said:

I know you have small businesses in England that are owned by a single person. A "bridge club" is no different.

We do, they're just generally not called "Smith's Hardware Club".

[gnasher]

 CamHenry, on 2012-August-17, 09:06, said:

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

Not all. There are several bridge clubs in London that are owned by individuals or companies, and run for profit.

[barmar]

 CamHenry, on 2012-August-17, 09:06, said:

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

Is your confusion abot clubs being privately owned by individuals, or specifically about that individual being the director? I.e. would you be less confused if the director were an employee rather than the owner?

In the US, we have a mix of privately owned and non-profit membership clubs.

[mycroft]

http://www.acbl.org/...aSingleton.html - this quotes the (ACBL, GCC) interpretation of the regulation clearly and concisely. http://www.bridgehan...ALANCED%20HANDS gives a more technical answer. Note that both of these articles are old, and the GCC has changed under them, but that doesn't change the argument.

In particular, we need to see that there is a systemic call for some 15-17 handshape without a singleton that isn't 1NT, therefore your system does not force you to "judge" to open it 1NT. If that is not the case, then you're not offloading "rare" unbalanced hands "that are not strictly showing point count"; it's not Natural, so unless you're playing it 15+ and forcing, you're playing something illegal under the GCC.

Also see the requirement to not have a systemic or implicit way of not landing in an N/1 fit if partner decides to put you there opposite a more balanced pattern. Open the hand in Flader's article, and you'd better be a good little soldier and accept the transfer to spades - and certainly can't be playing "anti-superaccepts" to get out in 3♣ (or 2♥) with a hand like your 2).

In answer to the original questions, it's clear that 1NT is intended to be a catchall, NF, "15-17". That agreement is not GCC legal. In fact, all three of these hands look like reversers to me (and if it promises 18, so be it. Let's hope we're not in a total misfit). And in the club, the club Director or owner is entitled to allow or bar pretty much anything they wish (although almost all will be effectively GCC); I've played in clubs that wouldn't allow a strong club system on a night (but would allow a weak NT in a natural system), and clubs that technically didn't allow strong pass systems, but if nobody complained, and you were willing to play something "normal" against the odd pair that asked you to, well, that sort of thing got overlooked. Something close to both of those happened *at the same club* (on different nights, obviously).

Answering the OP question at #9, yes, it is a judgement matter. A/K=4=4=4, and in particular, 4=4=(4-A/K), "everybody" would consider balanced. Make the K in Flader's example a 2 and fewer would. Make it 5-4, in particular 5-4 Majors, and fewer yet. Nobody in their right mind would consider that 1=4=1=7 albatross "balanced".

Were you to be allowed to play it in a particular game, an Alert (rather than a range Announcement) would be required, and if it were to be done in a "non-GCC treatments must be Pre-Alerted" environment, then yes, Pre-Alerted.

[Cyberyeti]

 CamHenry, on 2012-August-17, 09:06, said:

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

I'm sure somebody who played there more regularly than I did will correct me, but didn't Warwick own the YC and direct in the early days ?

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-17, 16:13, said:

I'm sure somebody who played there more regularly than I did will correct me, but didn't Warwick own the YC and direct in the early days ?

Not just in the early days. In later years he used to hire directors generally, but it is only about ten years ago that he (incredibly generously) gave the club to its members.