BBO Discussion Forums: The ACBL does it again - BBO Discussion Forums

barmar, on 2012-April-06, 09:55, said:

With the oh-so-silly clause that, 1♣ openings on 4=4=3=2 patterns are considered "natural" for the purpose of this regulation

blackshoe, on 2012-April-06, 09:57, said:

It's in the unstated "but you know what we mean" clause.

Basically, it's common sense: they couldn't possibly have meant to exclude what every bridge player knows as natural bidding. The purpose of the written definition is to clarify the borderline cases, and include some things that might not be obvious (e.g. 3-card minors, 2-card clubs in a specific case).

blackshoe, on 2012-April-06, 09:57, said:

The quoted-upthread portion of the Alert Procedure includes the phrase "offer to play in the suit for the first time", while the GCC text merely refers to "opening suit bid or response".

The more pedantically-inclined would suggest that if the ACBL wanted these two clauses to mean the same thing they would have used the same words. I think it's clear that they are intended to mean the same thing even if they don't read identically.

I think the GCC is implicitly considering a raise to be distinct from a response.

Left hand, please meet right hand. Try to get along.

I thought I was pedantic, but the thread takes the cake. Seriously, if a failure to clarify that 3-card raises are natural is the biggest problem with the wording of the gcc, it must be extremely well written.

barmar, on 2012-April-06, 10:15, said:

Common sense isn't common. Also, what's common sense to one person may well be ridiculous to another.

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-06, 10:18, said:

I don't know why you would think that, other than it provides a way out of the dilemma. In which case it seems to me that you're just fishing for a way out of it.

helene_t, on 2012-April-06, 13:14, said:

You are pedantic. I didn't say this was the GCC's biggest problem, or even that it's a big problem, or indeed any problem at all. Common sense or no, people (including me) will continue to ignore this anomaly and treat a three card raise of a major as natural and legal, whatever the GCC actually says. I just found it odd that the writers of the regulation (and its readers, including me) would miss what seemed, once I saw it, a rather obvious implication.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-06, 09:57, said:

The ACBL regulates conventions, and provides a definition:

"A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named."

Since the raise from 1M to 2M, as played by SAYC and most ACBL members does not meet this definition, it is not regulated.

LH2650, on 2012-April-06, 18:26, said:

What's a "meaning related to the denomination named"? How about "I have between 6 and 9 points", is that related to "spades" or not?

mgoetze, on 2012-April-06, 18:30, said:

Of course it is. You have 6-9 support points for spades, hence related to spades.

aguahombre, on 2012-April-06, 18:40, said:

OK let's say I have never heard of "support points" and only know about "HCP".

mgoetze, on 2012-April-06, 18:50, said:

Then you will just have to assume that 2S is related to spades and shows a responding hand.

Yes, it is very confusing. Another example is a 1NT response to a 1♦ opening in standard. This bid does not promise a balanced hand (it is the normal call on a hand with long clubs that is too weak to bid 2♣). So it's not natural? They also never state that any meaning for a 1♥ opening is allowed on the general chart. So 1♥ openings are banned?

The meaning of "conventional" that people use (and this one is not restricted to ACBL) is confusing too. What does it mean "having a meaning not related to the denomination names"? If my 1♦ opening promises an unbalanced hand (with 4+ diamonds) is this a meaning not related to the denomination named? What if my 1♦ opening denies a five card major (in addition to showing diamonds)? Apparently if my 2♥ opening shows 5+♥ and 4+♠ this is a convention and thus banned by the general chart (since not specifically allowed) but 5+♥ and 2+♠ is apparently not a convention (Bailey twos are allowed despite not specifically being legalized).

It's really vague. But the ACBL representatives I've mentioned this to insist it's clear, despite giving rather mysterious reasons (2♣ precision is allowed because it shows clubs; 2♥ muiderburg is not allowed even though it shows hearts).

helene_t, on 2012-April-06, 13:14, said:

IMO, Blackshoe has highlighted a real problem: a few pathetic masochists, understand English, read the rules, and do their best to comply with them

Some local regulations are barking mad. But directors still enforce many of these. How can the ordinary player know which of their daft regulations the rule-makers intend us to ignore? Here, the secretary-bird, privy to such insider-knowledge, enjoys a significant advantage

Long-term solution: simple sensible comprehensive up-to-date WBF regulations, globally enforced.
Interim fix: local regulators remove/correct anomalies, as soon as they are made aware of them.

LH2650, on 2012-April-06, 18:26, said:

I was going to point out that this definition does not exist anywhere in the convention charts, but I see that the latest version, effective a whole four months ago (1/2012), now says "For a complete list of definitions see Alert Pamphlet-Definitions", and the cited definition is in there. Fair enough.

Another sort of funny one is the standard auction (opponents passing) 1NT - 2♦ (transfer) - 2♥. Is the 2♥ bid natural? It does not really promise hearts. In fact if they play a style where all hands with 4+♥ would super-accept, the 2♥ bid might actually deny length in hearts.

Of course, there is little question that such a bid is allowed on the general chart. But a more interesting might be:

1♦ (showing an unbalanced hand with one or both minors) - 2♣ (pass or correct). Is it natural? It doesn't show clubs... but it's very non-forcing, trying to raise partner's "suit"....

The Laws define an artificial call as one showing something other than "willingness to play in the denomination named"; the previous edition of the Laws (which were in effect when the GCC was last updated) used this wording in the definition of "convention". Under this definition, pass/correct and accepting a transfer are not conventions, and so were not subject to regulation under those laws. So the GCC didn't need to explicitly allow them.

I also think they just expect everyone to understand that if they allow a convention that they obviously must allow the followups -- how can you allow someone to transfer without allowing his partner to bid the suit transferred to?

barmar, on 2012-April-10, 08:54, said:

This definition seems a little dangerous also. For example, is a gambling 3NT an artificial call? It certainly suggests to play 3NT. How about 2♥ showing a weak two in either major? It certainly suggests partner pass if he doesn't have a good hand or a good heart fit.. so it's also "willingness to play in the denomination named" opposite a wide range of hands.

If the argument is that these calls, while showing a willingness to play in the denomination named, also show something else (i.e. a running suit, or length in a major possibly other than the one bid) then you can say the same about virtually any call. For example, if I accept partner's transfer it shows "not enough cards in that suit to super-accept"; if I make a "pass or correct" bid it denies willingness to play a higher level of that suit, may imply something about length in other suits partner might hold, and also might say something about values.

That's all true, and causes frequent debates like this.

I think the general understanding is that if a calls promises something specific (e.g. Gambling 3NT's running minor), it's still artificial. But if the only additional information is the inability to make some other, more descriptive, call, then we consider it natural.

ACBL's GCC suffers greatly from trying to fit everything on a single page. By comparison, the analogous regulation in EBU is Chapter 11 of the OB, which is over 20 pages long. It's obvious that an enormous amount is being deferred to tradition and common sense. So my general approach is to assume that if it would be ridiculous to interpret the GCC in a certain way, I won't. E.g. no one has ever suggested the interpretation in the OP, and no one has ever alerted or been chastised for failing to alert a normal raise; it would be ridiculous to consider one of the simplest, most natural auctions in the game to be artificial, and I refuse to believe that the authors of the GCC could have intended it.

IWBNI the GCC were simply a summary of a more explicit document, like the relationship between the Alert Chart and the Alert Procedures (although even the latter is sorely lacking). But given that the GCC is the whole document, I think it's misguided to try to interpret it pedantically -- it's not even an attempt to be a complete, legalistic document.

barmar, on 2012-April-13, 15:24, said:

What does IWBNI mean?

The ACBL seems to depend an awful lot on the "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" school of regulating. That's fine, I suppose, if you're Edgar Kaplan, but he's dead, and I daresay there is no one currently alive in North America whose opinion on these things cannot be disputed.

Personally, I would be happiest if the CandC Committee would clean up these regs, but they don't seem so inclined.

IWBNI = It would be nice if