ACBL and Muiderberg Twos

[pclayton]

When I asked about Namyats overcalls a few years back by sending an email to the league, I received the reply from Beye, not Flader.

[awm]

I've received replies in the past from Flader, Beye, and Gary Blaiss. I'm not sure any one of them is more "official" than the others, its seems more a matter of who gets to the mail first.

 

I spent some time today talking to John Jones about this (he's a local expert in Southern California who has served on a lot of committees). He indicated that there was no real central authority on this, and that I should just ask our local regional-level director and/or people who frequently serve on committees what they think and go with that (at least in SoCal). This is pretty frustrating but probably the reality of things.

[hrothgar]

World of Warcraft is offline of maintence, so I'm emerging from my week long "slumber". I took the liberty of firing off another email to Memphis. Hopefully, we can get something a bit more definitive back from them.

 

----------------

 

Dear Mr. Beye

 

I was hoping that we could revist our discussion from last month regarding conventional openings and the GCC. My local club is still running into a fair amount of difficulty interpreting the just what the General Convention Chart is trying to do. As I mentioned earlier, we are discussing the following specific example: A player in our district wants to use a Muiderberg 2S opening in GCC events. A Muiderberg 2S opening is defined as follows:

 

Shape: 5+ Spades and 4+ cards in either minor

Strength: Approximately 6 – 10 HCP

 

The player in question maintains that the Muiderberg 2S opening is a natural bid and that the ACBL's GCC permits all natural bids. I maintain that a Muiderberg 2S opening is a conventional bid and that the ACBL's GCC bans all conventional bids that are not explicitly sanctioned.

 

The crux of the debate boils down to the following quote from the GCC: “Allowed: Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed”. Unfortunately, the GCC never defined the word “methods”. Adam claims the following: The GCC never explicitly sanctions the use of a “standard” 1S opening like the one used playing SAYC or 2/1 Game Force. None-the-less, players are allowed to use this bid in tournaments. Therefore, natural bids can not be considered to be “methods”. I claim that “methods” is synonymous with “conventional”. A standard American 1S opening is not conventional, therefore this bid is not a “method”.

 

To further confuse matters, we each now have an email from Rulings@ACBL.org that provide contradictory advice. Mike Flader claims that Muiderberg is legal at the GCC level. You say thats its not legal. Unfortunately, we have no way to understand which of these two rulings has precedence.

 

I would very much appreciate an official and definitive statement on this matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

Richard Willey

[pbleighton]

Richard:

 

I'm stunned.

 

Where did you learn to be so polite?

 

:P

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Obviously he's been keeping it for the people he respects.... :P

[hrothgar]

Here's the "official" word from Memphis.

 

I'll say this for the ACBL: They have a very good response time for these types of questions.

-----------------

 

Richard,

 

A club may elect to allow experimental methods.

A club may elect to be more restrictive than the GCC.

Muiderberg is not a GCC convention.

The use of this convention at your club is solely at the discretion of the club manager.

 

I have pasted the pertinent club regulation below:

 

ALLOWABLE RESTRICTION OF CONVENTIONS

Club managers may regulate conventions in games conducted at their clubs. A complete list of conventions that may be used for club play is shown on the ACBL General Convention Chart/Midchart/SuperChart. See Appendix A.

 

A club manager can bar or allow specific conventions and can bar certain conventions in newcomer games but allow them in open games. The types of events for which this applies are club masterpoint games, club championships, club charity events, ACBL-wide events, unit championships, unit charity events, district charity events, and the first level of play in the North American Pairs event. The Alert procedure and the skip bid announcement are procedures used in tournaments and are optional (and strongly encouraged) in club games.

 

Does this help?

 

Rick

 

Richard F. Beye

Chief Tournament Director

American Contract Bridge League

2990 Airways Boulevard

Memphis, TN 38116

901-332-5586, ext. 1331

[rbforster]

Muiderberg is not a GCC convention...  Does this help?

I guess a prompt direct answer is about all we could hope for. Explaining why would have been too much to ask.

[hrothgar]

Here are the latest exchanges

 

I sent the following message to Rick Beye

 

Thanks very much for the quick reply

 

I have one last question: When the GCC states "Allowed: Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed", what does the word "methods" mean?

 

---------

 

Beye responded as follows:

 

Richard,

 

Finding no name or email address in our database I shall assume you are an inexperienced player. Methods mean what you play, nothing more mysterious.

 

Rick

 

------------

 

Here is my latest comment

 

Hi Rick

 

The reason that I was asking about the definition of the word methods is fairly simple:

 

If methods means "what I play" then the GCC doesn't permit any one of of a number of different bids. There is nothing in the GCC that explicts permits me to play a natural 1S opening showing 5+ spades and opening values. There is nothing in the GCC that permits me to open 1NT showing 15-17 HCP and a balanced hand. However, as we are both aware, both these bids are clearly permitted at the GCC level. I must conclude that "methods" means something very different than "what I

play".

 

I'm very sorry to keep bothering you with this question, however, the regulations (as written) are far from clear. The fact that very experienced directors like you and Mike Flader can issue complete contradictory rulings to a fairly simple question certainly suggests that the Conventions Charts need clarification. An inexperienced player like yours truly certainly has little hope of understanding whats going on.

 

Once agin, I'd like to clarify a basic point:

 

Are natural openings like a Standard American 1N opening considered "methods"? If so, what part of the GCC allows sanctions the use of a natural 1NT opening?

 

Are convention openings like a Flannery 2D opening considered "methods"?

[hrothgar]

And two more

 

Rick Beye

 

Richard,

 

Please see 'Definitions' at the top of the GCC. Too, see #5 under 'Opening Bids' which allows Flannery. I say again, your 'methods' are the things you play. Your methods are legal if they are included on the GCC.

 

-------------------

 

Moi

 

While the Convention Chart provides a definition for a "natural" bid,

it never explictly states that players are permitted to play any

natural bid at the GCC level. Indeed, the Muiderberg example

demonstrates, there are plenty of "natural" opening bids that aren't

allowed.

 

If

 

1. The GCC allows a natural SAYC type 1S opening bid (we both agree

that it does)

 

AND

 

2. The GCC does not allow a natural Muiderberg type 2S openign bid

(we both agree that it doesn't)

 

than the word "methods" must mean something other than "what we play".

 

I would argue that if the word "convention" were substituted for the

word "methods" in the GCC, the document would be more logically

consistant and MUCH easier to understand.

[blackshoe]

What's missing in these exchanges is a reference to the law under which conventions are regulated. It is Law 40D. That law gives to Sponsoring Organizations the authority to regulate conventions, and to Zonal Organizations (the ACBL is, for all practical purposes, both) the authority to regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Note the parenthetical expression. There is no authority, other than this provision, for anyone to regulate non-conventional (i.e., natural) calls. Not in Law 40D, and not in any other Law.

 

I agree that "conventions" rather than "methods" would be better wording. :lol:

[jtfanclub]

Um, did you read the entire thread? It's entirely possible for a bid to be both natural and conventional. For example I think most people would agree that 1!S showing 4!S and 5+ cards in an unknown suit is conventional.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I read the entire thread - though not in its entirety before my last post.

 

There is authority in the laws to regulate conventional bids. There is no authority in the laws to regulate purely natural (that is, not conventional) bids, save the ZO's authority to regulate such openings at the one level with a king less than average strength. Better?