[peachy]

kevperk, on Oct 16 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural.

Kevin

I would be interested to know by whom you were "told" . The ACBL regulation itself seems clear enough, when it defines 3+ minor natural; that makes 2+ minor *not natural*. If there is some ACBL originated interpretation somewhere that says the non-forcing catchall 2+ club should be treated the same as 3+ club, then perhaps you can give a link or copy.

[Cascade]

kevperk, on Oct 16 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural.

Kevin

I am not very good on intentions - jdonn will tell you.

It is very hard to know the "intention" when all you have to go on is the written words in the regulation.

If the intention is different from the written regulation then the regulators have a responsibility to rewrite the regulation.

Directors are by law "bound" by the announced regulations. As a director I would be very uncomfortable ruling contrary to those announced regulations.

[Gerben42]

Quote

It is very hard to know the "intention" when all you have to go on is the written words in the regulation.

If the intention is different from the written regulation then the regulators have a responsibility to rewrite the regulation.

Directors are by law "bound" by the announced regulations. As a director I would be very uncomfortable ruling contrary to those announced regulations.

I think this is right. It's not the thought that counts, it's the law.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL clearly does not have a good way of getting the word out to the 'hoi-polloi', including club-level directors, or at least not a good track record on doing so.

I agree, in principle, with the premise that one should rule according to what the law says rather than according to some rumored interpretation that "everybody knows" but nobody can put a finger on an official statement to that effect. However, in practice, if a club level TD rules that a "could be short" opening is not natural (which is in fact what the regulation says*) so that any defense is allowed, and the pair(s) who receive that ruling then go to a tournament where the TD "knows" that the regulation doesn't mean what it says, but that "could be short" openings are to be taken as natural, in spite of what the regulation says, then those players are going to be very unhappy when the ruling does not match their expectation.

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case.

[Gerben42]

Quote

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case. wacko.gif

No, if opening a minor on 3 or more cards is considered natural, then anything outside this set like opening a minor on 2 or more cards, is NOT considered natural. So anything goes against that. There is no possible discussion about that. If I were a player who got this ruling, I would appeal and write the relevant part of the regulations in Bold and doubly underlined so that the AC at least gets it right. With 10 copies for the TD so he doesn't mess up next time.

Many players don't really know the rules they are playing under. I couldn't play like that. I want to know what I am allowed to do and more important what opponents are allowed to do.

Josh wrote:

Quote

So if a 1♣ opening bid that shows 3+ clubs differs by regulation from a 1♣ opening bid that shows 2+ clubs (such as one being conventional and one not), I would treat a system in which the 1♣ opening is 'either 3+ clubs or exactly 4432' as a 3+ 1♣ system. However if the 1♣ opening was 'either 3+ clubs or balanced without a 4 card major' so 1♣ could be 4432, 4342, 3442, or 3352 then I would not treat that system as a 3+ 1♣ system.

You can do this in defense of such an opening bid, after all you can agree with your partner whatever you like. The regulations don't care about such distinctions. If it did, you would be able to read about it.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Oct 16 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case.

The regulations don't mention all sorts of stuff... Should we also presume that these bids might be natural?

One area where the regulations are pretty damn clear is the following (which appears in big bold letters with stars at the top of the GCC)

ALLOWED   Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed  

[kevperk]

I know I heard this from Rick Beye when he was chief TD. I thought I saw it somewhere "in print", but I can't seem to find it. I agree that it should be made official if this is what is wanted.

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Oct 16 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

Josh wrote:

Quote

So if a 1♣ opening bid that shows 3+ clubs differs by regulation from a 1♣ opening bid that shows 2+ clubs (such as one being conventional and one not), I would treat a system in which the 1♣ opening is 'either 3+ clubs or exactly 4432' as a 3+ 1♣ system. However if the 1♣ opening was 'either 3+ clubs or balanced without a 4 card major' so 1♣ could be 4432, 4342, 3442, or 3352 then I would not treat that system as a 3+ 1♣ system.

You can do this in defense of such an opening bid, after all you can agree with your partner whatever you like. The regulations don't care about such distinctions. If it did, you would be able to read about it.

When I was talking about how I would treat these systems it was an example of a change I want to see in the regulations, not talking about how I want to defend against them. I thought I was clear, but since I continue to be misunderstand in ways I hadn't predicted I must be communicating badly.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

One area where the regulations are pretty damn clear is the following (which appears in big bold letters with stars at the top of the GCC)

ALLOWED   Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed  

So, an opening bid of 1♠ which shows 12+ HCP and 5+ spades is disallowed?

[the hog]

It is pretty obvious that these regulations are a mess. Why don't some of you get together and petition the ACBL to clarify them? Seriously!

[keylime]

I'd be all for an Orange Book style system (is that color for EBU?) here.

[Gerben42]

keylime, on 2010-October-17, 06:55, said:

I'd be all for an Orange Book style system (is that color for EBU?) here.

Agree with that. I wrote an alternative GCC which clears up all the fuzzy lines, sent it to JoAnn Martel. And I'm not even in the ACBL, just want to help you poor people so that you have clear regulations. There was one point that I missed, but I guess that can be corrected. If there is interest I can post it (it's already in here somewhere though).

Gerben

[BudH]

Here is the response I received today to my inquiry, written by Mike Flader and also the letter I wrote that he responded to:


Dear Bud,

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

Regards,

Mike Flader


===============================================================================
"Bud Hinckley" <budh9534@gmail.com> 10/16/2010 15:43

To <rulings@acbl.org>
cc
bcc

Subject: Defenses allowed on GCC after "could be short" 1C or 1D bids

In the ACBL, when limited to the General Convention Chart, are you allowed to use any defense (such as a Midchart convention such as Suction) when the opponents open either of these two opening bids:

1. 1C "could be short", when it could be a doubleton only with a 4=4=3=2 distribution (and could be 12 HCP or 19 HCP)


2. 1D, "could be short", when it could be as short as a doubleton in a Precision type structure.


3. Either of the two above, but when the doubleton could occur more often than "rarely" and/or might rarely be a singleton.



Bud H

[PrecisionL]

Quote

Dear Bud,

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

Regards, Mike Flader

Almost exactly what I Quoted earlier in this thread, but AWM said I have strange ideas about the GCC.

[hrothgar]

BudH, on 2010-October-21, 16:11, said:

Here is the response I received today to my inquiry, written by Mike Flader and also the letter I wrote that he responded to:

Dear Bud,

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

Regards,

Mike Flader

"Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no"

JRR Tolkien

(I suspect that the quote is off somewhat. I always pictured the elves as being overly nuanced rather than completely incompetent)

[Cascade]

Whatever skills Mr Flader brings to this position clearly he has difficulty with counting to three which unfortunately for his advice is the number of cards required for a bid to be natural by the definition in the GCC.

[helene_t]

I can sorta understand the reason why ACBL wants to treat short minor suit openings as natural in this context, but I would just personally prefer a formal definition of "natural" that were to be interpreted literally, as opposed to the "3+" definition which apparently is not to be interpreted literally.

The problem is that I just wouldn't be sure where the slippery slope ends. What about a Ultimate Club 1♦ opening? OK, it is similar to a Precision 1♦ opening and the extra hands it contains (4+ diamonds and 5+ spades) actually contain diamonds so I suppose that is natural. But what about a Crazy Diamond 1♦ opening? Probably artificial, but where exactly is the threshold?

[blackshoe]

I doubt it's Flader's fault. He's probably just repeating what he's been told by more senior ACBL directors.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2010-October-23, 11:29, said:

I doubt it's Flader's fault. He's probably just repeating what he's been told by more senior ACBL directors.

That is a much more palatable position:

The senior directors cannot count to three and the less senior directors are unwilling to correct this obvious mistake.

The law remains that a director on the floor is 'bound ... by the announced regulations' and they are not bound by Mr Flader's interpretation. In a matter that involves counting to three Mr Flader's or his bosses interpretation counts for little when it is contrary to law.

Further it is perverse to define as "natural" something that is clearly not natural in any simple interpretation of the plain language.

To me it is simply wrong and unfair that the regulators and directors use their position to favour one method over another by distorting the announced regulations.

[NickRW]

Since when has this bothered the ACBL?