TimG

Thin would be one description.

Without re-reading the thread in the Bridge Laws sections, I will offer my opinion that the reaction to your opinion there was at least in part based upon a misunderstanding of how broadly you wanted to apply procedural penalties or rulings which would have attempted to restored equity. The example I remember you posing was of the auction 1N-2C-3N where one player understood 2C to be a natural 2/1 game force while the other meant Stayman. This sort of misunderstanding could only be perpetrated by true beginners, players who you would not be facing in any "serious" events. I think the Laws do allow penalties against those who are frequent offenders. Law 74B1: Showing up unprepared is "paying insufficient attention to the game" in my opinion, and I expect most would agree. It also seems to me that the "Conduct and Etiquette" section is the right place for this rule.

In the RESPONSES AND REBIDS section (allowed): Following directions and looking at #7 under DISALLOWED: Sorry, it doesn't say "or" in either section. P and Q in one section, ^P and ^Q in the other section. Seems to me that a strict reading of the GCC would result in a conclusion that conventional responses are permitted over weak two-bids which show a range of at most 7 HCP and contain at least a five card suit. This is specifically allowed by the first cited rule above. The second cited rule makes reference to some things which are disallowed, it does not specifically allow any methods. One cannot look at the second cited rule and conclude "they did not specifically disallow it, so it must be allowed". Early on the chart is the rule "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". So, you cannot conclude a method is allowed by its failure to be disallowed.

The link you provide is to: http://www.acbl.org/documentLibrary/units/convChart12_03.pdf which makes it look like this is a convention chart from December 2003 in some sort of document archive. I wouldn't know how to find it at the ACBL site, but it is nice that it exists. Anyway, this chart contains the same item that has been quoted here a couple of time: it's just #6 instead of #7. Notice the "and" (that I bolded). In this allowed section it says P and Q; in the disallowed section it says ^P and ^Q.

AMW is correct, I was mixing up methods. From a September 1998 Bridge World article by L. Andrew Campbell: Sorry for my confusion.

This is very much like a Bailey two-bid (5332 and 8-12 along with a suit quality requirement, I believe) which is commonly allowed in GCC events.

A quick search of the ACBL Convention Charts turns up no specific mention of "special partnership understanding". I don't think ACBL has explicitly designated any. But, it seems to me that inclusion of a method on a chart is an implicit designation. For instance, a 2M opening showing 5+ in the major and 4+ in a minor is specifically permitted on the mid-chart. To me, this constitutes designation of this natural call as a special partnership understanding. Whether this is the way it should be doesn't really matter. No director is knowingly going to allow this method in a GCC event based upon the technicality that ACBL has not designated it as a special partnership understanding.

This link is not to a current ACBL General Convention Chart. In fact, it looks like a modified version of the GCC. Perhaps meant for use in the Dana Harbor Bridge Center?

From the GCC RESPONSES AND REBIDS section: 7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.) Seems to me that he meant just what he said.

I generated 10,000,000 deals and counted how many times south would get to open a mini (10-12), weak (12-14), or strong (15-17) NT in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat. [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1st [space] [space] [space] 2nd [space] [space][space] [space]3rd [space] [space] [space] 4th mini [space] 1,028,996 [space] 622,642 [space] 318,994 [space] 103,323 weak [space] [space] 809,465 [space] 535,865 [space] 317,150 [space] 146,547 strong [space] 407,163 [space] 303,392 [space] 213,693 [space] 137,097 Notrump openings were 4333, 4432 or 5m332. Opening bids were 12+ HCP with any shape or 6+ HCP with 6+ spades, hearts or diamonds or 7+ clubs. Even in 3rd seat. In other words, everything was very loosely defined, but I think this gives a general idea of what you were looking for.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor. That's not a convention. That's a treatment. You've suggested as much before. What are your definitions of "treatment" and "convention" and where did you find them?

At one point today, the poll was 10 to 1 in favor of natural, now it is 12 to 8.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor.

Why is the Hall of Fame important to us as fans? Does our opinion of Jim Rice change now that 75% of the voters said he was worthy of induction?

Suppose the following was added to the ACBL General Convention Chart in the OPENING BIDS section What dastardly, exotic, diabolical, or otherwise difficult to defend against openings would you be able to unleash on the masses? Get creative. But, also remember that no conventional responses, follow-ups, etc. are permitted over weak two-level opening bids with a range greater than 7 HCP. Also, if you are from a jurisdiction other than ACBL, are there restrictions on these types of bids where you play?

Wayne, any chance you could rerun the simulation to address this? Honestly I don't understand his point. The simulation already takes into account the possibility of someone opening in front of the second, third and fourth seat openings. A pair playing 10-12 will have someone (partner) opening slightly more often since partner might open 1NT in first or 2nd seat. Is this the simulation you would like for me to do? Sitting in 2nd seat with 10-12, sometimes RHO will open in front of you taking away your chance to open 1N. Sitting in 2nd, 3rd or 4th seat with 15-17, sometimes someone will open in front of you taking away your chance to open 1N. I thought you already took that into account, but Richard and Art don't seem sure.

So, for you 4♠ does not exist? What would it mean if you were partnering yourself so you could be 100% confident that no misunderstanding would result? It would be clubs playing with myself since I think that's the best treatment, my point was that I would never assume this for anyone else. Playing with a random person I would definitely assume it is spades. When I see these sorts of posts, I think of them as "my regular partner and I had a disagreement over this sequence, what should we agree going forward" rather than "I encountered this in a pickup game, what should I expect next time some random partner pulls this". I think the response here is mostly answering the latter and wanted to double-check on the former.

That thread was worth it just for "vituperation".

So, for you 4♠ does not exist? What would it mean if you were partnering yourself so you could be 100% confident that no misunderstanding would result?

I agree that it's not quite apples to apples, but don't think it is quite apples to oranges, either. Take this thread, for instance. Maybe the misunderstanding (and the disagreement amongst those who responded) is a result of lots of us not understanding negative doubles. Or, maybe it is the case that many of us have made an error in bridge reasoning. I would contend that "you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game" for every bidding eventuality. There may be a difference between forgetting that you are playing Texas transfers and not fully understanding follow-ups in negative double auctions. But, to me, it is a minor distinction. Over 20 years ago, my partner and I started an uncontested auction 1♦-1♠, 1N-2♣. One of us thought this was forcing and one of us thought it was non-forcing. Should we have been forced to play a less complex system as a result of our misunderstanding? Should Hanoi5 and his partner have been asked to remove negative doubles from their card as a result of their misunderstanding (in the above linked thread)? I believe there is a provision in the Laws that makes "paying insufficient attention to the game" (or something like that) a violation. I think habitual system forgets due to complexity would qualify as paying insufficient attention (perhaps what qualifies as "habitual" should change as the seriousness of the event changes). I also think that the occasional forget or misunderstanding is as inevitable as mis-playing a hand from time-to-time, and in general neither should be subject to a procedural penalty.

Assuming you have a way to invite, I don't think you want to include 15 HCP for opener in your simulation -- whether you force or invite, you are always getting to game when opener has 15 and responder 11 or 12. 11 or 12 opposite 13 might make up a significant portion of the 40% of all hands that are down. I also think if you do this by specific HCP pairs (opener 13, responder 11; opener 13, responder 12; opener 14, responder 11; opener 14, responder 12) you will be surprised by the different percentages you get. And, this should help you more with deciding which hands to invite with and which to force with. To get some sort of idea of the value of 4333 hands, you ought to compare the results of two simulations: 1) 4333 11 counts opposite balanced 14 counts; and 2) 4432 11 counts opposite balanced 14 counts. Or similar. There will be a statistically significant trick difference.

It's some sort of club raise. With a hand that is too weak to bid a forcing 3♠, but nonetheless wants to play 4♠, partner would have simply bid 4♠ instead of starting with a double.

System misunderstandings (or forgets) seem to me to be just another form of bad bridge (which I have been guilty of as often as the next) which usually works well for the other side, but sometimes results in a bad score for the innocent bystanders. Remembering agreements is just another bridge skill. Penalizing players (or compensating the other side) for a bidding misunderstanding seems little different than penalizing a declarer for misplaying a suit combination (or awarding the other side the result that would have occurred had declared played the suit correctly).

So, what ACBL needs to do in order to regulate a NT opening which may commonly be made with a singleton is to designate it as a special partnership understanding. Or, they could just make a blanket proclamation that calls that are not natural by their definition of natural are special partnership understandings.

From the GCC DISALLOWED section: It's not clear to me whether the director's statement that you were "too light" was in relation to your stated range or if it was meant to suggest that the minimum of your stated range was too low. If you have 3-11 as your HCP range for a weak two-bid, a director might think you weren't allowed any conventional responses after a 2♠ opening. If your stated range is 5-11 HCP and you routinely open with 3 HCP, it is my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to play any conventional responses (under ACBL rules). If you intentionally try to get around this restriction by stating a 5-11 HCP range while routinely opening with 3 HCP, I think you could "face serious consequences". I don't mean to suggest that you were doing any of these things, just guessing at how a director might have been confused. * I bolded the "and" because I think the intent of ACBL is "or" and am assuming that is what the regulation is for the purpose of this post. Which again is meant merely as speculation on how the director might have been confused, not a judgment on the players or the regulation.