WJ05 2H opening and the ACBL

[olegru]

There is a subtle difference between the Polish 2♥ and your 2♦ ...

Main part of my posting is not my convention, but reason given to reject, having nothing to do with nature of convention or quality of deffence.

 

Actualy, I already received the reply to my 5th try. Here it is:

 

The committee has repeatedly rejected the defenses offered for this agreement, as I noted in earlier messages. They do not explain their reasons to me, though I do not believe they are going to add any defenses to the Mid Chart which will require more than one page of notes.

Rick

[rbforster]

Let me interpret that for you:

 

Actualy, I already received the reply to my 5th try. Here it is:

 

The committee has repeatedly rejected the defenses offered for this agreement, as I noted in earlier messages. They do not explain their reasons to me, though I do not believe they are going to add any defenses to the Mid Chart period.

Rick

(note the minor difference from the original)

 

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but maybe a historian could tell us how many years have past since the C&C committee approved a new defense or convention, and did it have to be submitted by a current C&C member to get approved? I say play what you want - the regulators aren't listening and don't care, either about clarifying the current rules or adding defenses to currently legal conventions. I'd suggest voting the bums out ('tis the season and all), but sadly the C&C members aren't elected. Just ignore them, like they ignore their duties.

[benlessard]

I am assuming that your decision to restrict the discussion to the Midchart means that you don't agree with Adam's fudge

No its not my decision its in the initial post.

This is obviously quite illegal under the ACBL General Convention Chart, but it also seems to be illegal by the Midchart. The Midchart lists under illegal...

Its also common sense that you try to legalize something in the midchart before even thinking in the GCC.

 

For the rest of your post there is no argument as why a director will bug you about an opening bid wich require no new defense and that is 95% similar to an already allowed conventions. My experience tell me opponents and directors will let it slide the same way a policeman will allow some speeding.

 

If you say that driving 2MPH over the speed limit is illegal there is nothing to say against it, but anybody who think that way should deserve that every car in front of him run 5MPH under the speeding limit for a couple of months . After that theyll notice that there is a difference between laws and real life.

 

He also deserve that his accountant declare every revenues for the income tax.

[awm]

In general the ACBL takes issue with bids that show a weak hand which may or may not have length in the suit opened. In fact a lot of other SO's have problems with these bids also, which is why 2♥ showing a weak two in either major (for example) is frequently disallowed.

 

This is the reason it will be difficult to get a defense approved for a 2♦ opening showing five-five in spades and another suit (where the second suit might or might not be diamonds).

 

It is not clear that this has any impact on bids which actually show the suit opened.

[hrothgar]

For the rest of your post there is no argument as why a director will bug you about an opening bid wich require no new defense and that is 95% similar to an already allowed conventions. My experience tell me opponents and directors will let it slide the same way a policeman will allow some speeding.

 

If you say that driving 2MPH over the speed limit is illegal there is nothing to say against it, but anybody who think that way should deserve that every car in front of him run 5MPH under the speeding limit for a couple of months . After that theyll notice that there is a difference between laws and real life.

 

He also deserve that his accountant declare every revenues for the income tax.

And now we see the core of the argument:

 

Ben thinks its OK to break the rules in competitive games of skill (Just so long as he doesn't cheat too much).

 

As I said in my original post, one of these days you're gonna get caught by someone who cares. I really hope that they have a copy of this thread handy when they do so...

[awm]

Hrothgar is awfully quick to accuse people of wanting to cheat.

 

From my viewpoint:

 

(1) I read the convention charts. It looked like to me natural bids were intended to be legal on the general chart.

 

(2) I thought about a bunch of methods I've seen people play in tournaments. Some of them include two-level openings that seem to be both natural and conventional (like Bailey twos, showing 2-3 cards in the other major). Directors had no problem with these methods.

 

(3) In order to make absolutely sure, I sent email to rulings@acbl.org. Mike Flader promptly responded and agreed with me that a 2♥ opening showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is general chart.

 

So I have three different reasons to believe this is allowed: (1) my reading of the charts (2) my observations of "rules on the ground" (3) my correspondence with ACBL headquarters.

 

Is hrothgar suggesting that I should not play this method just because he tells me it's not allowed? Is he calling me a cheater just because I play a method which has been indicated to be legal in three different ways? Why does his opinion of what ACBL allows trump all of my opinion, the directors' opinions at the local tournaments, and ACBL headquarters' opinion? It is true that he claims he has also had correspondence with ACBL and received a contradictory reply, but I don't see any reason that this invalidates my email correspondence or observations.

[hrothgar]

Is hrothgar suggesting that I should not play this method just because he tells me it's not allowed? Is he calling me a cheater just because I play a method which has been indicated to be legal in three different ways? Why does his opinion of what ACBL allows trump all of my opinion, the directors' opinions at the local tournaments, and ACBL headquarters' opinion? It is true that he claims he has also had correspondence with ACBL and received a contradictory reply, but I don't see any reason that this invalidates my email correspondence or observations.

I am suggesting that you should not play this method because

 

1. There is clearly enormous ambiguity regarding the legality of this method. You have correspondence from Mike Flader that says X. You say that local TDs in your area say say Tomato, I've had a bunch of run ins with the Conventions Committee who stated Tomahto. You've seen people play Baily Two bids in Tournaments. I point to the fact that these Muiderberg is listed as Midchart methods on ACBL defensive database. You and I might differ regarding which opinion trumps another. However, I would hope that we can both agree that there is ambiguity.

 

2. I would argue that the most sensible course of action in the presence of ambiguity is "First Do No Harm". There is no pressing reason why you (or anyone else) needs to be able to play a Polish 2H opening, a Muiderberg 2M opening, what have you. The correct course of action is to refrain from using the opening while attempting to resolve the ambiguity.

 

3. You (obviously) can do whatever you damn well please. However, I maintain the opinion that if you knowingly play an opening that is of dubious providence, this should be taken into consideration if you ever get called on this.

 

For what its worth, I have a proposal for you:

 

I'm willing to wager a reasonable sum of money that my interpretation will be upheld by the Conventions Committee: I'm willing to bet any amount between $500 and $2,500 - Loser donates the agree upon sum to the ACBL's Junior's program. (I figure if we fork the money over to an ACBL charity it might actually prompt the Conventions Committee to provide an answer in a timely matter)

 

The terms of the bet are as follows:

 

You claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is a natural bid and therefore legal at the GCC level. In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is a natural bid and legal at the GCC level. (Presumably, the suggested defenses provided in the Defense Database are provided as courtesy but not actually required)

 

I claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

 

that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named;

 

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call. Neither of these artificial opening bids is GCC legal. The 2S bid in question is sanctioned by the clause 12 under allowed:

 

12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a 4-card minor. (2)

 

The 2♦ bid is not explicitly sanctioned at the Midchart level; It can not be played in Midchart events (Who knows about the Superchart)

[TimG]

I claim the following: A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

 

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call.

I believe these are both natural and conventional, but not artificial.

[hrothgar]

I claim the following:  A 2♠ opening that systemically promises 5+ Spades, a 4+ card minor and 6-10 HCPs is an artificial call that

 

In a similar vein, a 2♦ opening that promises 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major and 6-10 HCP is an artificial call.

I believe these are both natural and conventional, but not artificial.

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

 

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information

(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than

willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass

which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises

or denies values other than in the last suit named.

 

Conventional and natural aren't included in the definitions section

[awm]

There is a general problem when there is no absolute authority to make a decision on these things, and the various authorities that do exist give contradictory information.

 

In this situation there are several possible approaches:

 

(1) Ask a reasonable authority. Abide by their answer, regardless of the fact that other authorities may be simultaneously giving different answers. This is the approach most people take (usually under the assumption that the authorities are consistent) but might run you afoul of the directing staff if the authority they listen to is different from yours.

 

(2) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. If any one of them gives a negative answer, then consider that the answer is no. This is least likely to get you in trouble with the directors, but also means that you may be substantially more restricted in what you can play than virtually anyone else, since you searched far and wide for even one authority who might tell you no.

 

(3) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. If any one of them gives a positive answer, then consider that the answer is yes. Perhaps carry a copy of this correspondence with you in case you run into trouble with the directing staff.

 

(4) Ask lots of reasonable authorities. Try to go with the majority decision. If they are fairly evenly split, select a decision that seems well-stated/reasoned and go with that. If necessary carry a copy of this correspondence in case you run into trouble.

 

I don't think any of these approaches can be viewed as cheating. Ideally they should all obtain the same results (i.e. authorities would be consistent). Personally I took approach (1) by asking Flader for a ruling, although perhaps now that I have heard hrothgar's tales of woe one should take me as using approach (4).

 

As for asking the C&C people, I suspect that:

 

(1) If you do not bother to mention Frelling twos and mention only 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a minor, it is quite possible that your response would be different (these folks apparently have an unreasoning hatred of Frelling twos).

 

(2) It is quite possible that the reply might be different depending on who asks the question. I suspect that a top-level pro asking the question would get a much more cordial (and timely, and quite likely favorable) reply than some random guy known to want to play his Frelling Twos in local regionals.

[TimG]

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

 

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information

(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than

willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass

which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises

or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Ahh, I was laboring under old definitions. This sounds a lot like the old definition of conventional.

[the hog]

"(2) It is quite possible that the reply might be different depending on who asks the question. I suspect that a top-level pro asking the question would get a much more cordial (and timely, and quite likely favorable) reply than some random guy known to want to play his Frelling Twos in local regionals."

 

Gee, and here was I thinking Bridge was a game for everybody and not just the top players. Tres deluded.

[NickRW]

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I'm not the one who gets to make the rules.  My opinions about an optimal regulatory structure don't matter jack *****. 

 

What does matter (alot) is how you want to be playing the game.  We all know that its possible to hoodwink the opponents and the directors by playing silly games with disclosure.  It's easy enough to cheat at bridge.  But why would you want to play a game where you need to behave this way?

Well, I'm a critic of the EBU orange book regulations - but, whatever its faults may or may not be, it is one hell of a lot better than the dog's breakfast that the ACBL regulations would seem to be.

 

Sure, nobody (or very very few anway) want to hoodwink the opponents, but who wants to play under such a set of ambiguous rules either?

 

You're effectively saying that is legal to play 1♥ as guaranteeing another, but, apparently, not 2♥ simply because the 1♥ bid emerges as a consequence of the rest of the system, whereas the 2♥ does not.

 

To my mind that is playing with words simply to justify conformance to rules - for what - the sake of conforming??? I certainly do not regard someone who takes a different view to you as a "cheat".

 

Perhaps you guys over the pond should sack your conventions committee and employ some people who know how to write a rule book.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

 

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information

(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than

willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass

which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises

or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Well, as I read it, part of the problem then is not the ACBL, but the 2007 Laws.

 

The key bit of that law is, according to how I understand it, the semi colon - which I take it to signify a separator giving 2 definitions.

 

Definition 1 = "a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named"

 

Definition 2 = "a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named"

 

Clearly, under definition 1, a 2♥ opening that promises hearts and another unspecified suit, but which is, self evidently, willing to play in hearts is not an artificial bid.

 

Equally, promising values in another suit, is artificial under definition 2.

 

Perhaps someone has some guidance as to what the Laws should be interpretted as saying here... Or perhaps I misunderstand the Law???

 

Nick

[Finch]

Sitting in the position of an interested bystander, is it really true that no-one seems to know who has the ultimate authority in the ACBL to say what is permitted and what isn't?

 

As NickRW says, there may be things wrong with the EBU (although we don't necessarily agree on what they are) but at least I know who has the final say.

 

Although in actual fact it's not who you think it might be...

[paulg]

Well, I'm a critic of the EBU orange book regulations - but, whatever its faults may or may not be, it is one hell of a lot better than the dog's breakfast that the ACBL regulations would seem to be.

I'm not trying to defend the current ACBL regulations, which are a mess, but it seems that they are trying for a simple one-pager rather than the tome that is the EBU Orange Book. I expect that this is an objective, in part, due to the homogeneous nature of bridge in the ACBL.

 

The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee does an excellent job with the Orange Book. You may not like what is in it, but you can work out what is permitted almost all the time. But it does take 30 pages as opposed to the 3 pages for the ACBL charts.

 

And the EBU committee is approachable and answers questions promptly. And publishes its meeting minutes more promptly than any other EBU body.

 

Paul

[hrothgar]

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

 

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information

(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than

willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass

which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises

or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Well, as I read it, part of the problem then is not the ACBL, but the 2007 Laws.

 

The key bit of that law is, according to how I understand it, the semi colon - which I take it to signify a separator giving 2 definitions.

 

Definition 1 = "a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named"

 

Definition 2 = "a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named"

 

Clearly, under definition 1, a 2♥ opening that promises hearts and another unspecified suit, but which is, self evidently, willing to play in hearts is not an artificial bid.

Let me get this straight:

 

RHO opened 2♥. By partnership agreement, this 2♥ opening explictly promises 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in some other suit.

 

It seems blinding obvious that this opening convery information other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

 

The same holds true if the 2♥ opening promises a 4+ card minor

 

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

 

Therefore, these 2♥ openings are all artificial. The fact that the bids all show willingness to play in the denomination named is irrelevent. So long as the bid conveys other information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) the bid is artificial.

[paulg]

I see the principal problem with the ACBL regulations is the definition of natural which, in its current form, permits many conventional bids to meet the criteria.

 

The SBU definition is not much longer, but more natural ... so to speak.

 

A call is natural if it is any of the following:

• A no-trump bid that shows nothing other than a willingness to play in no-trump
   
  
• A suit bid that shows nothing other than
    willingness to play in the suit or
    high card strength in the suit or
    at least three cards in the suit
   
  
• A double (or redouble) that shows nothing other than a willingness to defend (or play in) play in the doubled (or redoubled) contract
   
  
• A pass that shows nothing other than willingness to play in the last-named contract.
  

The 'nothing other' qualifier is fundamental to the definition.

 

The EBU eschews the whole argument by providing regulations that do not use the terms natural, artificial or conventional.

[rbforster]

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

By your reasoning, the same would hold true if the 2♥ opening denied 4+ spades. Guess what - this means that almost everyone in the US who opens a normal 6 card "weak 2♥", but who won't do this when they also have 4 spades, is using an illegal method! Agreements not to have a side 4 card major for any weak two apply similarly.

 

Good luck convincing everyone that under your interpretation all the standard weak two bids are illegal!

[david_c]

The EBU eschews the whole argument by providing regulations that do not use the terms natural, artificial or conventional.

They haven't quite reached that stage yet. I would like the EBU to get rid of the remaining instances of the word "natural" in its system regulations, but there are plenty still there at the moment. For example, a 1M opening has to be "natural" - which means that RobF's system is technically not allowed in the EBU.

[NickRW]

Let me get this straight:

 

RHO opened 2♥. By partnership agreement, this 2♥ opening explictly promises 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in some other suit.

 

It seems blinding obvious that this opening convery information other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

Well, you clearly want to use the fact the 2 suited opener shows willingness to play in another suit to outlaw it. I use the fact that it has willingness to play in the suit named as evidence that it is a perfectly natural call - and we're both reading the same text!!!

 

Your position would be more consistent if you also wanted to outlaw the opening 1♥ bid mentioned elsewhere in the thread that happened to also show another suit. I don't really see how you - or any regulatory authority - can logically permit one and outlaw the other. It would be a totally arbitrary decision and, though arbitraries are possibly permitted, one which is going to be a continual source of complaint.

 

Using your interpretation, as someone else pointed out, a "normal" weak 2♥ denying 4 spades is also an artificial call - and therefore also subject to the same law. Surely you don't want to adopt this absurd position???!

 

Good luck to all you guys over in the U.S of A. :D

 

Nick

[TimG]

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

By your reasoning, the same would hold true if the 2♥ opening denied 4+ spades. Guess what - this means that almost everyone in the US who opens a normal 6 card "weak 2♥", but who won't do this when they also have 4 spades, is using an illegal method! Agreements not to have a side 4 card major for any weak two apply similarly.

 

Good luck convincing everyone that under your interpretation all the standard weak two bids are illegal!

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

[NickRW]

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

Er - I am getting punch drunk on just who thinks what - but what does "information taken for granted by players generally" actually mean - who defines it and what national system do you take as a standard to measure by, if any. If you want to take a narrow US only view - then perhaps 2♥ being ♥ and not ♠, but might well have ♦ or ♣ on the side is perhaps "taken for granted". And I guess this is about the ACBL specifically - but such is less obvious in Britain where strong twos are still quite common - and certainly not "taken for granted" in Poland apparently.

[hrothgar]

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

Er - I am getting punch drunk on just who thinks what - but what does "information taken for granted by players generally" actually mean - who defines it and what national system do you take as a standard to measure by, if any. If you want to take a narrow US only view - then perhaps 2♥ being ♥ and not ♠, but might well have ♦ or ♣ on the side is perhaps "taken for granted". And I guess this is about the ACBL specifically - but such is less obvious in Britain where strong twos are still quite common - and certainly not "taken for granted" in Poland apparently.

There is a world of difference between:

 

Might have a 4 card minor on the side and

 

and

 

Explicitly promises a 4+ cards in a minor

[hrothgar]

Well, you clearly want to use the fact the 2 suited opener shows willingness to play in another suit to outlaw it.  I use the fact that it has willingness to play in the suit named as evidence that it is a perfectly natural call - and we're both reading the same text!!!

 

Your position would be more consistent if you also wanted to outlaw the opening 1♥ bid mentioned elsewhere in the thread that happened to also show another suit.  I don't really see how you - or any regulatory authority - can logically permit one and outlaw the other.  It would be a totally arbitrary decision and, though arbitraries are possibly permitted, one which is going to be a continual source of complaint.

 

Using your interpretation, as someone else pointed out, a "normal" weak 2♥ denying 4 spades is also an artificial call - and therefore also subject to the same law.  Surely you don't want to adopt this absurd position???!

 

Good luck to all you guys over in the U.S of A.  :D

 

Nick

Comment 1: I never said that a 2♥ opening that promises 5+ Hearts and a 4+ card minor should be outlawed. I have always advocated liberalizing system regulations here in the US. However, I also believe that if you're playing a game you have an obligation to follow the rules (even if they have been written in an inane manner).

 

Comment 2: For what its worth, I also agree that a 1♥ opening that promises a two suited hand with 5+ Hearts is conventional. It isn't sanctioned at the GCC level. Folks shouldn't be allowed to play this in GCC events.

 

Do I consider the opening in question complete innocuous? Yes.

Do I think that the GCC should be amended to allow this type of bid? Yes.

Do I think that tournament organizers should amend the Conditions of COntest to permit this bid to be played? Once again yes...

 

However, absent some change in the regulatory structure, you shouldn't be using this 1H opening.

 

Comment 3: I (obviously) do not speak for the WBF Laws Committee. However, I suspect that the "not being information taken for granted by players generally" clause is meant to handle stylistic issues. For example, in the US many people have an agreement that a first / second seat 2♥ opening denies a void or 4+ card spade suit. I suspect that this sort of agreement would be taken for granted by players generally. Therefore, this agreement would not transform the 2♥ opening into an artificial bid.

 

I doubt that a Bailey type weak two opening rises to the same standard, so I would consider this to be artificial. (For what its worth, I'd prefer if the rules weren't quite so subjective, but - once again - I'm not the one who made the rules)