General Convention Chart

[kenrexford]

Here are some variations for 1♣/1♦ all of which I have seen played (almost all) or proposed (one or two). It is not intended as a complete list.

 

Does anyone know definitively which of these are GCC legal? I mean do you know not tell me your opinion. I am not for now interested in which you think are legal and which not just simply "Do you know?"

I thought I "knew," namely that all were legal. Now, however, I have no idea if SAYC is allowed.

[barmar]

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.

But the wording problems people are talking about are not just in the GCC, they're in all the ACBL convention charts. Mid-Chart and Superchart suffer from most of the same problems, and they're specificaly for the high-level tournaments.

[awm]

I've had several email correspondences with Rick Beye as representative of the C&C committee. These conversations have generally been quite frustrating. He seems able to make several statements in a single email which directly contradict one another; it is difficult to respond to this sort of tactic. To summarize:

 

(1) At some point I faced opponents whose opening agreement was "rule of 20 in first/second seat and a king lighter in third/fourth." This seems to be an agreement to open some seven-counts in third chair, and in fact they did open a 5-5 seven-count against me, then avoided disaster when partner (the first-chair passer) chose not to invite on an eleven-count. I asked whether such an agreement was allowed. Rick Beye's response made the following four points:

 

-- The rules regarding first and third seat opening agreements are identical.

-- An agreement to open the hand in question in first chair would be illegal.

-- An agreement to open the hand in question in third chair was fine.

-- "We all" open this hand in third chair.

 

(2) More recently, I sent an email questioning the legality of natural bids on the general chart. I pointed out that there is no specific language legalizing natural bids, and asked for the chart to be amended to include such language. I pointed out several natural bids which may/may not be allowed. Rick Beye's points:

 

-- The charts clearly define natural bids, so there should be no question about their legality.

-- Opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ and 4♠ is not allowed.

-- Opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ and 3♠ is "just partnership style", and therefore allowed.

 

He ignores the point which I specifically raised in my initial email that opening 2♥ to show 5+♥ is always a natural bid according to the definition which he so definitively points out.

 

--------

 

I would make the point that one of the primary purposes of a "league" in any game or sport is to maintain clear and coherent rules and make sure they are enforced in a fair manner. Yet ACBL seems to have rules which are deliberately fuzzy, deny that they are fuzzy when questioned, and make rulings which contradict themselves in a single response. In fact they recently rewrote the alert rules to make them more fuzzy. I don't really think this is acceptable. Again, it's not a question of what is/isn't allowed -- it's a concern that the rules specifying what is and isn't allowed are very much subject to the reader's judgment, and that they don't seem to see anything wrong with this. It leads to a situation where different directors will have different rules about allowed methods, and where different pairs may have different rules depending on how they disclose their bids (in general, better disclosure is more likely to get your methods banned!) and how much the director is inclined to listen to them (i.e. established pros, especially those on the C&C committee get a lot of leeway, younger players will be ruled against even trying to play the same methods).

 

One of my friends was playing precision in a regional tournament recently, and using a 2♦ opening which showed a three-suiter short in diamonds, but included (43)15 patterns. The director ruled that this was an illegal method because "a three suiter must have four cards in each of three suits." Okay, yet another area where the laws are fuzzy? Yet my friend's reply was to name several top pairs who play precision in this way such as Meckwell and Berkowitz-Cohen... and the director changed his ruling! Is this really what we want, where the legality of a method depends not upon any written regulation but upon whether "you can name top pros who play the method"?

 

And to reply to one of Fred's comments, most of the rules regarding opening bids from the general chart are in place on the mid-chart also (with a small number of exceptions). And the mid-chart governs almost all national-level events including the Reisinger.

[kenrexford]

AWM -- fun read. Scary, but fun.

 

My experience has been similar. Some of my favorites:

 

1. You cannot have an agreement that a response in a three-card major is allowed. Thius, despite the fact that the Bulletin carries pointers suggesting that very style for some hands. However, you are allowed to deviate. Therefore, you are free to use 3-card majuor responses, so long as you do not alert the opponents. I actually got this ruling direcftly from the ACBL.

 

2. A 2♥ opening cannot show 5+ hearts and 4+ of an unknown minor, 11-15 HCP. That would be a convention. However, you are allowed to play that 2♥ shows 5-6 hearts and an unbalanced hand, 11-15 HCP. You can also agree as a treatment to not open this with a four-card major. If you always open 1♥ with 6331, that creates an inference that you do not need to alert. Well do the math on that one.

 

3. 1NT is allowed as a three-suited takeout, with no strength requirement. A double can be anything. So, if you play that 1NT shows three-suited and weak, that's OK. If you play 1NT as three-suited and strong, that's OK. If you play 1NT as three-suited and either weak or strong, with double covering the middle, that's OK (barely). If, however, X handles 0-4 or intermediate or 23+, and 1NT for 5-10 or 18-22, that's not OK. The reason? That's just too much to handle.

 

All of these are actual ruling given in tournaments.

[awm]

To further indicate the ridiculous nature of some ACBL regulations:

 

Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss occasionally respond in a three-card suit to their minor suit openings. They are very ethical about this and disclose it with an alert (I have seen them do this). Unfortunately, this disclosure would get them in trouble in general chart events, where an agreement to respond in this way is not allowed. Of course, they don't play very many general chart events so perhaps it doesn't come up.

 

Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell also occasionally respond in a three-card suit to their 1♦ opening. In fact I suspect they do this more often than Fred and Brad, if only because the "problem hands" where you might want to come up more often in a precision-style system. Nonetheless, they do not generally alert or disclose this tendency at the table (I have played against them several times, as have friends of mine, and all concur with this observation). This keeps them out of trouble in general chart events, which (as full-time pros) they do occasionally play, since it is just "a tactical bid" and not a partnership agreement. In fact they have been called on this occasionally and made exactly that argument.

 

So in essence, being ethical and disclosing your methods restricts your options as to what you can play? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

[helene_t]

So in essence, being ethical and disclosing your methods restricts your options as to what you can play? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

Yes but it has nothing to do with the GCC. 3-card responses are illegal, but of course you may deviate from your agreements.

 

If a pair solves this problem by failing to disclose their (implicit) agreement about 3-card responses, they violate the laws. That TDs don't always recognize this has nothing to do with the GCC.

[kenrexford]

So in essence, being ethical and disclosing your methods restricts your options as to what you can play? Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

Yes but it has nothing to do with the GCC. 3-card responses are illegal, but of course you may deviate from your agreements.

 

If a pair solves this problem by failing to disclose their (implicit) agreement about 3-card responses, they violate the laws. That TDs don't always recognize this has nothing to do with the GCC.

Actually, the problem is that the GCC fails to account for normal, natural bidding. When a 3-card major bid as Responder is disallowed even if it is the obvious bid playing with no conventions at all, something is wrong.

[fred]

To further indicate the ridiculous nature of some ACBL regulations:

 

Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss occasionally respond in a three-card suit to their minor suit openings. They are very ethical about this and disclose it with an alert (I have seen them do this). Unfortunately, this disclosure would get them in trouble in general chart events, where an agreement to respond in this way is not allowed. Of course, they don't play very many general chart events so perhaps it doesn't come up.

You may be thinking of me playing (Precision) with someone else. Maybe Geoff Hampson or Marc Jacobus?

 

Brad and I don't respond in 3-card majors systemically. In the 10 years or so of our partnership I doubt we have made a call like this for "tactical" reasons more than a handful of times. I honestly can't remember the last time that one of us bid a 3-card major in response to 1m.

 

I am quite sure that we have never alerted this (because it is a bid we don't make and have never made).

 

Playing with some of my Precision partners we do alert 1D-1M. In the style we played it was (barely) systemic. The 3-card card major was either a relatively rare "least of evils" choice (that we tried to avoid) or, if not vul, maybe a complete psych.

 

Thanks for your compliment about our ethics, but I think one of us must be confused about who deserves the credit ;)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Obviously any document is likely to have some loopholes. But my view is that when a loophole is pointed out, the proper action of the committee in charge of the document is to amend it in such a way that the loophole is closed.

 

Arguments about "phone books" are a bit extreme at this point, since the convention charts are conveniently one page each. If increasing them to two pages each could close the vast majority of gaping ambiguities, wouldn't this be an improvement? We are not exactly talking phone book here.

 

Unfortunately the response has generally been to:

 

-- Deny that any loophole exists.

-- Make rulings which are inconsistent with the rules as they are written.

-- If any amendments are made, frequently they increase the amount of ambiguity.

[awm]

You may be thinking of me playing (Precision) with someone else. Maybe Geoff Hampson or Marc Jacobus?

I could easily have misremembered. I just have this recollection of watching you play on BBO and seeing you alert a 1M response for this reason. At the time I remember thinking: "Wow, I have never seen anyone alert that before, even though I have seen many people (including Meckwell multiple times) bid in that way."

[TimG]

(1) At some point I faced opponents whose opening agreement was "rule of 20 in first/second seat and a king lighter in third/fourth." This seems to be an agreement to open some seven-counts in third chair, and in fact they did open a 5-5 seven-count against me, then avoided disaster when partner (the first-chair passer) chose not to invite on an eleven-count.

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level. Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate.

 

Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape). The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count. So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director.

 

When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away. So, I guess HCP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value. At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

[awm]

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level. Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate.

 

Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape). The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count. So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director.

 

When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away. So, I guess HP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value. At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

This is exactly the problem.

 

I have seen the opposite ruling made by regional level directors (at least about first seat openings). Honestly I don't care so much what the rule is...

 

But isn't the purpose of a bridge league so that the rules can be the same in any serious game I play in? Do I need to ask the director before the start of each event if he will allow me to open seven-counts with 6-4 in two suits, and then change my methods if he won't?

[jdonn]

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level.  Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate.

 

Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape).  The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count.  So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director.

 

When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away.  So, I guess HP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value.  At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

This is exactly the problem.

 

I have seen the opposite ruling made by regional level directors (at least about first seat openings). Honestly I don't care so much what the rule is...

 

But isn't the purpose of a bridge league so that the rules can be the same in any serious game I play in? Do I need to ask the director before the start of each event if he will allow me to open seven-counts with 6-4 in two suits, and then change my methods if he won't?

Granting that I wasn't there, I disagree with Tim's last sentence and thus your reaction to it. I strongly suspect the director didn't say to himself "they have a good point that HCP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value according to the laws, so his bid was legal." I bet he said to himself "the opponents don't care, so I don't care." Legal purists such as blackshoe might disagree (I don't intend that in any way as an insult), but I am fine with a director taking that attitude, although in fairness he should have expressed that to Tim and Richard (if it were the case) in case a later opponent was bothered by them opening such a hand.

[TimG]

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level.  Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate.

 

Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape).  The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count.  So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director.

 

When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away.  So, I guess HP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value.  At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

This is exactly the problem.

 

I have seen the opposite ruling made by regional level directors (at least about first seat openings). Honestly I don't care so much what the rule is...

 

But isn't the purpose of a bridge league so that the rules can be the same in any serious game I play in? Do I need to ask the director before the start of each event if he will allow me to open seven-counts with 6-4 in two suits, and then change my methods if he won't?

I agree with you about consistency (my ruling was also from a regional level director, though I have forgotten exactly who). And, was really providing my example as a case of inconsistency -- it seem in contradiction to the GCC which (at the time) made specific mention of HCP.

[awm]

It may also be worth mentioning that in two different regional tournaments, I have had a 4-6-1-2 seven-count opened against me in first chair.

 

In both cases I called the director to question the legality of this bid. In one case the director ruled that it was fine (provided the opponents pre-alerted light opening bids) whereas in the other case the director ruled that the opening agreement was illegal and "equity must be restored" -- eventually adjusting the result of the board.

 

So even in cases where it is a regional-level tournament and opponents indicated that they did care I have seen contrasting rulings made.

 

I have had similar experiences playing against a pair using a 1NT response to a major suit opening to show nine or more points opposite a sound (12-16) opening style. The first time I played them, the director ruled that it was fine. The second time, the director ruled that it was illegal (shows invitational or better values) and they took it off their card. More recently they have put it back on their card.

[TimG]

I bet he said to himself "the opponents don't care, so I don't care."

I'm sure you are mostly right. But, if we had been playing a convention that was not allowed, the director would have said "you can't play that method". He did not tell us that we could not agree to open a 7 HCP hand (and we were clear that Richard had done this by agreement).

[fred]

This is exactly the problem.

 

No I think part of the problem is:

 

- a pair of players were bored and decided it would be amusing to do an experiment in the middle of a "serious game" (to use your characterization) without any concern for ruining the "seriousness" of the game for the other players

- to that end they invented and played a system likely for only 1 reason: because it was probably not legal

- they deliberating broke a rule that they thought was a dumb rule

- then they completed the fun by confessing to the opponents and suggesting that their opponents call the TD, admitting to everyone "we have no respect for you or the game"

 

I would agree that the TD should not have simply walked away.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I bet he said to himself "the opponents don't care, so I don't care."

I'm sure you are mostly right. But, if we had been playing a convention that was not allowed, the director would have said "you can't play that method". He did not tell us that we could not agree to open a 7 HCP hand (and we were clear that Richard had done this by agreement).

I'll use that segue to give Adam another story to add to his amazingly expansive repertoire of these sorts of things.

 

Some years ago I was playing in the swiss team on the last day of the Saratoga Springs regional in upstate NY. I believed the event to be midchart, but hadn't bothered to check and apparently it wasn't. So one round my RHO opened 1NT and I overcalled 2♦ showing one major, which was an illegal convention on the GCC. My LHO doubled intending it to show diamonds, but RHO took it as penalty interest for my major, and the opponents ended up with some bad result stemming from their misunderstanding. They then started wondering out loud whether the 2♦ bid was legal, and called the director to ask.

 

The director said our convention wasn't legal and he was going to give an artificial score on the board, 3 imps to them I think (maybe he was also intending to give us some penalty for using an illegal convention, I can't remember). However I said that I thought they shouldn't gain since they had a misunderstanding. The director of course replied that they would have never been in a position to have a misunderstanding but not that they were up against an illegal convention. So I asked the opponents, in all honesty, how would you play a double of a 2♣ overcall in cappeletti? And (very honestly, to their credit) LHO said clubs, and RHO said general values geared toward penalty. So I said see, it wasn't our convention that caused the misunderstanding, it was their own lack of agreement. The director considered that, and decided to throw out the board!

 

In hindsight I felt bad since it was obviously a bad ruling and we shouldn't have gotten away totally unscathed. So Adam, how's that for inconsistent directing, think we could get anyone else to make that ruling?

[TimG]

No I think part of the problem is:

 

- a pair of players were bored and decided it would be amusing to do an experiment in the middle of a "serious game" (to use your characterization) without any concern for ruining the "seriousness" of the game for the other players

- to that end they invented and played a system likely for only 1 reason: because it was probably not legal

- they deliberating broke a rule that they thought was a dumb rule

- then they completed the fun by confessing to the opponents and suggesting that their opponents call the TD, admitting to everyone "we have no respect for you or the game"

 

I would agree that the TD should not have simply walked away.

I understand your contempt for our actions. Certainly some of it is justified.

 

It was an attempt to get a ruling on the record by doing something that was apparently illegal. Which probably means we were showing some disrespect for the game and our opponents. But, if doesn't mean we have "no respect" for either.

 

Our agreements, had we not been opening certain 7 HCP hands, would have been to open 8 HCP hands. We "stretched" only one point. There was no "system invention" unless you call shifting a range by one point an "invention".

 

Our opponents were pre-alerted and made no objection; we were not ruining their game.

[hrothgar]

Richard (hrothgar) and I once agreed to open certain 7-counts at the one level.  Our belief was that the ACBL's use of HCP as to determine what constitutes "a king below average" was inappropriate.

 

Richard picked up something like xx KQxx QTxxxx x and opened 1H (we were playing canape).  The opponents bought the contract and played the hand without event -- no one had noticed that Richard opened a seven count.  So, Richard tabled his hand and announced his infraction and asked the opponents to call the director.

 

When the director came to the table and was told what had happened, he shrugged, told us to continue and walked away.  So, I guess HP aren't the sole measure of a hand's value.  At least that's what one of the lower courts has determined.

This is exactly the problem.

 

I have seen the opposite ruling made by regional level directors (at least about first seat openings). Honestly I don't care so much what the rule is...

 

But isn't the purpose of a bridge league so that the rules can be the same in any serious game I play in? Do I need to ask the director before the start of each event if he will allow me to open seven-counts with 6-4 in two suits, and then change my methods if he won't?

I agree with you about consistency (my ruling was also from a regional level director, though I have forgotten exactly who). And, was really providing my example as a case of inconsistency -- it seem in contradiction to the GCC which (at the time) made specific mention of HCP.

Sol Weinstein

[DrTodd13]

Edited after I saw something I had missed. I agree though that HCP is an unacceptable way to judge "king below average hand." HCP is not mandated in the laws nor should it be in regulations or in determination of infraction.

[kenrexford]

This would be funny.

 

Whoever thinks that they have the worst possible reputation for weird stuff with Rick Beye could send to him a request for a pre-approval of a new convention. That new convention could be something like this:

 

"Rick, my partner Schvenkoffski and I want to start playing the Schvenkoffski 1♣ in ACBL GCC events, but we do not want to provide any suggested defenses. We think it is unfair for us to tell the opponents how to bid.

 

"The basic idea to Schvenkoffski 1♣ is that it is a one-level multi bid. It shows one of three different hand types. Opener might have a Class A hand, which denies a five-card major, in which case he could have up to six diamonds but at least three clubs, with clubs always longer than the diamonds. A Class B hand is one with at least four clubs, with a stiff or a void somewhere. A Class C hand shows a five-card, or possibly even a six-card, major, with at least five clubs, although the clubs are usually longer than the unknown major."

 

You could have a lot of fun with this.

 

A forcing Satay 2♣ response to 1NT, saying nothing about clubs but denying a five-card major unless you have exactly four cards in the other major, asking partner if he has at least seven cards in the minors.

 

Puppet 1NT responses to a major opening, asking opener for his best minor unless he has six or more of his major or a very strong hand.

 

Inverted Denial Blackwood, asking partner how many Aces he is missing ("inverted" because you answer in inverted steps).

 

The Transfer Denial Overcalls. This is a non-jump two-level overcall showing at least 5-5 pattern in two suits, one of which is not Opener's suit. When you have that pattern, you transfer into the suit that is the shortest of the three unbid suits. You only play this convention, however, over a 1♣ opening.

[H_KARLUK]

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

 

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

Huh? I wasn't criticizing his response - Gerben offered a simple and clearly worded proposal very similar to the GCC except without the ambiguity. My last remark was pointing out some of the differences between what some people play now and what would be allowed under his simplified version.

 

It's certainly good to have rules that are unambiguous - it avoids mistakes and misunderstandings and everyone can be clear on what they can play. That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording that makes it hard to know even if a natural 1♥ opener is allowed.

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

 

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

 

Am I mistaken about classic demagogy methods? Long years passed.

 

Apples and oranges (like mixing of incomparable quantities), Half-truth, False authority, Unrelated facts, Emotional appeal or personal attack, Demonization, Loaded questions, mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization?

 

The worst "False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

 

You might knew well, populism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites."

 

The ACBL is strong. World Bridge Federation is strong. That's why their policies depend strong reasons.

 

They will always remain strong. Especially Americans never give up.

 

Your remarks :

"Funny Gerben....

Funny Americans doing with their rules, rather than what should be.

Just look it up in the orange book and check, right? It's certainly good to have rules that are unambiguous....

That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording..."

 

One of demagogy methods :

Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities.

 

Another one is :

Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. i.e, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar competitors.

 

Finally, False authority — relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. For example, "the professor read my book, and liked it very much," omitting the fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on history.

 

WBF will remain highest authority, ACBL will remain fair and wise.

 

I am unsure you are objective.

[the hog]

Karluk, I am sorry but I have read your post twice and have no idea what you are posting.

[shevek]

Proposed new GCC

 

1) 1-level major openings, responses & overcalls must show 4+ cards in the bid suit.

2) 2-level openings must show opening strength or 5+ cards in a specific suit

3) Share & enjoy.

 

Only a start but don't need much more. Maybe 1NT balanced-ish, pass not strong. Don't see a problem with open slather on minor openings.

 

If the C&C comes across something they don't like, they should bear it for a few months, changing the rules via a quarterly update.

 

Nick