General Convention Chart

[helene_t]

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid.

The Lorenzo system (pass=8-11, 2x = 4+ cards, 0-7 points) looks like an attempt to make a bizare system which is not BSC/HUM (dunno if it's GCC though). Problem is, 8-11 points is very useless message to send to p. With hands in that range you want to say something about your shape. However, since you cannot play ferts it is difficult to require a pass to show something about your shape.

 

I thought of something like

pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points

1cl = 16+

1di = 8-15 catchall

1he = exactly 3 hearts, 8-15 points

1sp = 5+ spades, 8-15 points

1NT = 5+m, 4 spades, 8-15 points

2cl/di = 4+ cards, 0-7 points

2he = 2-3 hearts, 4-5 spades, 0-7 points

2sp = 5+ spades, 0-7 points.

[gwnn]

Agree with Hamdi.

[DrTodd13]

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid.

The Lorenzo system (pass=8-11, 2x = 4+ cards, 0-7 points) looks like an attempt to make a bizare system which is not BSC/HUM (dunno if it's GCC though). Problem is, 8-11 points is very useless message to send to p. With hands in that range you want to say something about your shape. However, since you cannot play ferts it is difficult to require a pass to show something about your shape.

 

I thought of something like

pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points

1cl = 16+

1di = 8-15 catchall

1he = exactly 3 hearts, 8-15 points

1sp = 5+ spades, 8-15 points

1NT = 5+m, 4 spades, 8-15 points

2cl/di = 4+ cards, 0-7 points

2he = 2-3 hearts, 4-5 spades, 0-7 points

2sp = 5+ spades, 0-7 points.

I know that at least the 1♦ isn't GCC legal since it doesn't promise at least 10 points. Of course, there isn't anything in the GCC that says you must use A=4,K=3,Q=2,J=1 but try to make that argument and see how far it gets you. :)

 

One thought I had of something way up the ridiculousness scale was to have 1♣ show an odd number of points and 1♦ show an even number of points above the GCC minimum of 10 of course. Again, I'm sure this would be ruled as not an "all purpose" bid.

Although, once I did modify a two-way club system called Tangerine to attempt to be GCC legal and have 1♣ as 10-12bal or 16+. We played this in a tournament (it wasn't a good system) and there were some director calls but I don't remember if it was for the 1♣ bid or some other bid. I don't recall the two non-contiguous ranges to have been declared not GCC legal though. If two distinct ranges are GCC legal when why not 3 or 4 or 5?

[Cascade]

...

 

I thought of something like

pass = 4+ hearts, 0-15 points

1cl = 16+

1di = 8-15 catchall

...

I know that at least the 1♦ isn't GCC legal since it doesn't promise at least 10 points. Of course, there isn't anything in the GCC that says you must use A=4,K=3,Q=2,J=1 but try to make that argument and see how far it gets you. :)

I think you will be on the back foot since the bid is described as "8-15".

 

Again, I'm sure this would be ruled as not an "all purpose" bid.

 

It is very hard when the regulations do not define this term.

 

All we know is that:

 

1. A natural 1♣ is allowed and can be "all-purpose" since the regulation clarifies that he "all-purpose opening bid" can be "(artificial or natural)";

 

2. An artifical 1♣ that is balanced or natural is allowed;

 

3. A Polish Club that is balanced or natural or very strong is allowed;

 

4. A Precision Club that is artificial and stronger than some number of points is allowed;

 

and perhaps some others i haven't thought about.

 

"all-purpose" here clearly doesn't mean the bid must cater to every purpose. The closest to that sort of meaning is a Precision style club that is limited only by high-card strength otherwise any purpose is allowed.

 

Actually maybe Polish club is closer (except that the strong hands are more restricted) as it also caters to some weaker hands.

 

Balanced or clubs is allowed which caters only to two hand types "balanced" or length in one particular suit.

 

Perhaps the meaning of "all-purpose" is that any purpose for these bids is allowed that fits the diversity of the examples above easily but not the belief (or reality) that some methods would be not allowed under this clause.

 

It would be much better if the regulators are going to use loose undefined terms to allow or disallow certain methods if they clearly defined what was intended by those terms.

 

I will reiterate that from the examples:

 

1♣ showing 4+ hearts (maybe canape) or balanced

 

seems to be an example of an all-purpose bid that should be allowed by the regulations as they are written. It is more "all-purpose" than "balanced or clubs" which is allowed.

 

If the regulators continue to restrict systems with bad rules that do not say clearly what they mean or how they are going to be interpreted then I believe they will continue to be criticized in their endevours to restrict systems particular for bias.

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

[fred]

If the regulators continue to restrict systems with bad rules that do not say clearly what they mean or how they are going to be interpreted then I believe they will continue to be criticized in their endevours to restrict systems particular for bias. 

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

I believe you are biased and that you will continue to criticize committees for being biased regardless how clearly the rules are worded. Perhaps your accusations of bias will stop when the committee issues rules that match the rules that your personal bias favors (ie no rules at all).

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

 

In my view it is unjustified to make a connection between unclear wording and bias.

 

Just when I thought the black helicopters were gone...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

If the regulators continue to restrict systems with bad rules that do not say clearly what they mean or how they are going to be interpreted then I believe they will continue to be criticized in their endevours to restrict systems particular for bias. 

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

I believe you are biased and that you will continue to criticize committees for being biased regardless how clearly the rules are worded. Perhaps your accusations of bias will stop when the committee issues rules that match the rules that your personal bias favors (ie no rules at all).

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

 

In my view it is unjustified to make a connection between unclear wording and bias.

 

Just when I thought the black helicopters were gone...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I think you have a point, but I also see a different point. There is no way that Rick Beye could come up with a conclusion that 1♣ or 1♦ as showing 4+ heart or unbalanced would not be GCC legal unless Rick Beye adds his own interpretation to what is actually very clear language to create a new meaning that cannot be tied to the actual words in any way. There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine. One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused. The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

 

I suppose that the words become irrelevant if the interpreters of those words ignore them.

[fred]

There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine.  One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused.  The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

Ken, I am suprised that someone with your imagination would have trouble coming up with another explanation that doesn't make Rick Beye out to be either illiterate or biased.

 

Of course I am not claiming that unclear wording is good, but clear wording is hard as is thinking of every possible loophole through wording that you thought clearly expressed what it is you wanted to say.

 

Also, there is something to be said for the GCC being thinner than the average telephone book.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Fred is right.

 

To achieve the level of precision some are asking for, the convention charts would either have to be almost as long as the Laws, or they might simply be huge laundry lists of allowed systems and conventions.

 

The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent.

[DrTodd13]

I don't think the GCC being thinner than a phone book is any advantage to players. Those that don't play anything strange don't need to look at it. So who looks at it? The rare pair who want to play something maybe unusual, the director who has to determine if it is legal, and the people who decide what is legal and write the GCC. If the GCC were a phone book sized thing of allowable stuff then players could consult it and find if what they want to play is in there and if so write down the line number. If they can't determine if it is legal based on the document then what good is it to them? If the director is asked if it is legal, just give the line number. So, it seems that the people who benefit most from vague rules are the ones who would have to compile the laundry list if people didn't tolerate the vagueness.

 

Ask Rick Beye and you don't like the answer? Just keep asking directors until you find one that has him own opinion of the vague "intention" and allows your convention and then keep playing it and quoting the director who said it was legal. But seriously, what is legal changing day by day based on who the director is is no way to run anything. Either go for the laundry list or confine yourself to a set of generic but precise regulations, which should dramatically reduce uncertainty as to something's legality. If you can't write something generic and precise then, imo, that is a hint that you shouldn't be trying to write it at all. Yes, you may end up banning stuff that people actually play in order to keep stuff you don't want out or vice versa but in my opinion that situation is preferable to many sections of the GCC that are so vague as to be useless.

[kenrexford]

There are only two reasons for this that I can imagine.  One is that Rick Beye cannot read English and acts completely randomly when confused.  The other is that Rick Beye allows his bias to allow him to see words that are not there (like words that somehow modify the obvious into something more restrictive).

Ken, I am suprised that someone with your imagination would have trouble coming up with another explanation that doesn't make Rick Beye out to be either illiterate or biased.

 

Of course I am not claiming that unclear wording is good, but clear wording is hard as is thinking of every possible loophole through wording that you thought clearly expressed what it is you wanted to say.

 

Also, there is something to be said for the GCC being thinner than the average telephone book.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

But, I think you are missing my point.

 

I am not claiming that the GCC has vague or ambiguous language here. Rather, I am claiming that the GCC rightly has very clear language. When considering what methods should be allowed for 1♣ and 1♦ openings, the drafters obviously decided that "anything goes" is OK for these two calls if the minimum is 10 HCP. That's not vague. That's very clear. "All-Purpose" means what it says.

 

I like that approach, as well. No need to create sixteen "but's" and "or if's" when it comes to 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Simple works. "All-purpose" is a fine term.

 

And, to add in redundant definition, the GCC folks even added the parenthetical "natural or artificial" to make sure that we all know that "all-purpose" means exactly what it says.

 

And, then along comes Rick Beye and re-interprets the meaning by attributing an artificial meaning as somehow not "all-purpose."

 

I do have a lot of imagination, but I'm really having a difficult time explaining Rick Beye's analysis. I suppose there is a third possibility, namely that these words were meant to cover a specific system or a specific set of systems. Rick Beye might know what was intended. Then, whoever came up with the actual draft of what the wording should be used just about the most ridiculous language possible to describe what they meant.

 

Except, I know for a fact that the pre-Beye top TD's in the ACBL interpreted this language differently in the past. I doubt highly that "all-purpose" once meant some secret, limited meaning that was meant to cover specifically a "Nebulous Diamond," then meant what the words in the King's English actually mean, and then reverted back to this absurdly limited meaning. What might have happened is that this language was tossed around with some other language, some majority agreed on the actual language, but some minority who disliked that language and wanted more limited language now simply interprets the language as they would want it to be understood, namely like some unknown language they wanted.

[Echognome]

Fred is right.

 

To achieve the level of precision some are asking for, the convention charts would either have to be almost as long as the Laws, or they might simply be huge laundry lists of allowed systems and conventions.

 

The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent.

Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if there is no middle ground. Have you seen the Orange Book from the EBU? It certainly seems clearer to me than the ACBL convention charts. It's obviously not as short as they are, so I can understand the tradeoff, but it doesn't have to be "almost as long as the Laws".

[DrTodd13]

"All purpose" is not the same as "any purpose." Perhaps one could make an argument that they should mean the same thing but as far as I know, in this context, all purpose never did mean nor was it ever intended to mean "any purpose." A 1♣ showing exactly 4♥ would be a "specific purpose" bid. They would argue that "specific purpose" and "all purpose" are mutually exclusive.

[DrTodd13]

Fred is right.

 

To achieve the level of precision some are asking for, the convention charts would either have to be almost as long as the Laws, or they might simply be huge laundry lists of allowed systems and conventions.

 

The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed.  Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent.

Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if there is no middle ground. Have you seen the Orange Book from the EBU? It certainly seems clearer to me than the ACBL convention charts. It's obviously not as short as they are, so I can understand the tradeoff, but it doesn't have to be "almost as long as the Laws".

This is not a fair comparison. EBU and ACBL allow different things. I don't know much about EBU regs but assume that what EBU allows has a much more consistent underlying philosophy than what ACBL allows. Given this consistency you can write exhaustive and precise rules in a shorter amount of space. In contrast, sit down with an ACBL representative and try to write down everything that is allowed and then extract commonality so as to minimize the space required. The inconsistencies in the GCC are going to make this much tougher and will necessarily produce a longer set of rules. To the degree that the humans doing this will fail to find and extract commonality, the rules may either lengthen or shorten. They will do the former if the rules remain precise but non-coalesced and the latter if rules are coalesced incorrectly via imprecise language.

[blackshoe]

I'm not an expert on the underlying philosophy of either the ACBL or the EBU regs, but I don't think the assumption DrTodd proposes is valid. And even if it is, how does that make the comparison unfair? If the assumption is valid, it seems to me the obvious conclusion that the ACBL needs to come up with a more consistent regulating philosophy. Nothing unfair about that.

 

I suspect that there are things allowed and disallowed in both the OB and the ACBL charts that are so for historical or political reasons rather than because of any underlying philosophy.

[Cascade]

"All purpose" is not the same as "any purpose." Perhaps one could make an argument that they should mean the same thing but as far as I know, in this context, all purpose never did mean nor was it ever intended to mean "any purpose." A 1♣ showing exactly 4♥ would be a "specific purpose" bid. They would argue that "specific purpose" and "all purpose" are mutually exclusive.

Much the same as 'Natural or Balanced' is a specific purpose or '16+ any' is a specific purpose.

 

The problem is that no one knows exactly where the boundary is between what is allowed and what is not allowed with the language that has been chosen.

[DrTodd13]

I'm not an expert on the underlying philosophy of either the ACBL or the EBU regs, but I don't think the assumption DrTodd proposes is valid. And even if it is, how does that make the comparison unfair? If the assumption is valid, it seems to me the obvious conclusion that the ACBL needs to come up with a more consistent regulating philosophy. Nothing unfair about that.

 

I suspect that there are things allowed and disallowed in both the OB and the ACBL charts that are so for historical or political reasons rather than because of any underlying philosophy.

What am I proposing? I said I don't know much about EBU regs and only assumed something for the purpose of discussion. My comment was only about how it is unfair to compare them. Look if EBU wanted to allow everything, their convention card would say "Everything is allowed." You cannot therefore state "Well, EBU's convention card is only 3 words long, why can't ACBL's convention card be 3 words long." The goals of their convention cards are entirely different so comparing their length serves no purpose. So, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the length of two convention cards unless the purpose of those writing them is to allow or disallow roughly the same things.

[Cascade]

If the regulators continue to restrict systems with bad rules that do not say clearly what they mean or how they are going to be interpreted then I believe they will continue to be criticized in their endevours to restrict systems particular for bias. 

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

I believe you are biased and that you will continue to criticize committees for being biased regardless how clearly the rules are worded. Perhaps your accusations of bias will stop when the committee issues rules that match the rules that your personal bias favors (ie no rules at all).

 

In my view that criticism is well justified.

 

In my view it is unjustified to make a connection between unclear wording and bias.

 

Just when I thought the black helicopters were gone...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Yes I am biased.

 

I am biased in favour of clear rules that mean what they say.

 

I am biased against officials that make rules and then disallow methods that are clearly allowed by their own rules.

 

I am biased against officials that decree that a bid that is "conventional" by definition is "natural" for the sole purpose of disallowing their opponents to play Brown Sticker Conventions against it when the rules clearly stated that Brown Sticker Conventions were allowed against Conventional openings.

 

I am biased against officials that without authority stand up and announce midway through a tournament that certain methods are not allowed (e.g. random overcalls over a Precision 1♣) when the regulations stated that "any defense" to a Precision 1♣ was licensed. Yes this happened and I wasn't directly involved.

 

What basis is there to make a ruling about whether an agreement is legal or not except what is written in the rules. If someone is going to rule contrary to the written rules and those contrary rulings have a pattern in one direction then I cannot see how you can come to any other conclusion other than that the official making the ruling (or someone that he is speaking on behalf of) has a bias. Even if their happens to be no bias this is certainly a situation in which it does not seem that justice is done.

 

As for "no rules", well 'anything goes system regulations'. I do happen to think that would be much better than the current situation where regulations do not mean what they say.

 

Personally it is unlikely to affect me as I don't play any Brown Sticker Conventions or HUMs and I cannot imagine that I would in any long-term serious partnership if the rules did change. Although because rules and wording is different in different jurisdictions I have had problems in the past e.g. at one point the NZ Brown Sticker Regulations required strong bids that did not promise a suit to be forcing - this meant that we could not play (in pairs) a Mexican 2♦ if we intended to pass with weak hands with diamonds. It would be much better and simpler if there was a consistent set of regulations that were universally applied. I have actually argued in other places that WBF regulations should be universally applied.

 

If there are to be system restrictions then I think that it is important that they say exactly what they mean and they are administered strictly and therefore fairly.

[awm]

Perhaps a reasonable thing to do is come up with a list of questions and forward them to the C&C committee. Here are a couple:

 

(1) It is clear that some natural bids (such as 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 10+ points) are intended to be allowed in addition to the specifically allowed methods on the general chart. Is it the intent that all natural bids are allowed? If so, please add the sentence "all natural opening bids" under allowed for clarity. If the intent is that some natural bid are not allowed (and there is some evidence to this effect, for example the natural bid of 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is on the mid-chart) then please add language explaining in which cases natural bids are to be allowed or disallowed.

 

(2) The general chart specifically allows 1♣ or 1♦ to be an "all-purpose" opening bid, natural or artificial, provided it shows 10 or more points. Does this mean that any meaning for a 1♦ opening is allowed provided it promises ten or more points? For example, is a 1♦ opening which shows ten or more points and four or more hearts permitted? If this is not the case, then please add language to specify which meanings of a minor suit opening are not to be permitted in spite of promising ten or more points.

 

It seems like we could come up with a list like this, and then have one (or maybe several, to get their attention) person forward it to ACBL.

[Cascade]

Fred is right.

 

To achieve the level of precision some are asking for, the convention charts would either have to be almost as long as the Laws, or they might simply be huge laundry lists of allowed systems and conventions.

 

The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent.

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

 

If I think I know that my methods are allowed I can never be sure that some man in a black coat (or whatever directors wear - a suit in Ken's earlier story) won't come along and toss them and me out.

 

A rule that leaves the all critical boundary between allowed and not allowed undefined is completely useless when someone wants to play a method near the fuzzy boundary.

[Cascade]

Perhaps a reasonable thing to do is come up with a list of questions and forward them to the C&C committee. Here are a couple:

 

(1) It is clear that some natural bids (such as 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 10+ points) are intended to be allowed in addition to the specifically allowed methods on the general chart. Is it the intent that all natural bids are allowed? If so, please add the sentence "all natural opening bids" under allowed for clarity. If the intent is that some natural bid are not allowed (and there is some evidence to this effect, for example the natural bid of 2♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ minor is on the mid-chart) then please add language explaining in which cases natural bids are to be allowed or disallowed.

 

(2) The general chart specifically allows 1♣ or 1♦ to be an "all-purpose" opening bid, natural or artificial, provided it shows 10 or more points. Does this mean that any meaning for a 1♦ opening is allowed provided it promises ten or more points? For example, is a 1♦ opening which shows ten or more points and four or more hearts permitted? If this is not the case, then please add language to specify which meanings of a minor suit opening are not to be permitted in spite of promising ten or more points.

 

It seems like we could come up with a list like this, and then have one (or maybe several, to get their attention) person forward it to ACBL.

Getting generic clarification like this is much better IMO than asking about a specific meaning.

 

Tim said that he asked about 1♣ showing 4+ spades and was told that this was not allowed which is all very well except that you still have not clarified precisely where the boundary lies.

[H_KARLUK]

Also, there is something to be said for the GCC being thinner than the average telephone book.

 

I agree with Fred.

Edited December 18, 2008 by H_KARLUK

[rbforster]

"All purpose" sure sounds like all purposes to me. I don't buy the other interpretation, especially since lots of random 1m openers are already played. You'd have to claim that the 1m bid is fine for any existing system with a funky 1m opener (Polish, SAYC, short club, Swedish club, Precision 2+ diamond, Precision 0+ diamond, etc), but somehow it's not ok for the one use you want? That just sounds like bad logic, from Mr Beye or anyone else. I certainly haven't seen any interpretation that explains why all of those 1m openers are fine and why it's not if 1♣ shows 4+♥ or whatever.

[fred]

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

 

It is not intended to satisfy you.

 

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

 

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

 

You are not one of them.

 

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

 

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

 

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

 

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole. He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

 

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

 

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

 

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

The thing is, that's really a self-perpetrating argument. If there was more exposure to different methods, the average partnership would spend a little time discussing basic meta defenses (Unusual vs Unusual and the like), and then be able to very quickly reach agreements at the table. Anyone unwilling to put in that sort of basic "due diligence" deserves no protection from themselves.

[TimG]

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

I asked, and I was serious when I asked. I am not upset with the answer and did not attempt to persuade Mr. Beye that he was wrong and should reconsider. I have not asked anyone else and will not attempt to convince any ACBL director that the method can be played.

 

But...it seems to me that whoever drafted the GCC wanted to allow Precision and Precision type systems. And, rather than say that, made a generic allowance for 1C and 1D openings. One reasonable interpretation is that they thought it was appropriate to allow 1C and 1D to be used artificially, not just specifically as Precision. Another reasonable interpretation is that they wanted to word things such that Precision variants would be allowed, but intended the extension away from purely Precision to encompass only Precision-like systems rather than broader artificial methods.

 

I really didn't think of my question as trying to take advantage of a loophole, but rather just trying to find out what the official position was. I now know.