Legality of artificial openings and responses

[qwery_hi]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

 

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

 

"Used for many different purposes."

 

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

 

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

 

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

 

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

Is it a single purpose? Or, does the fact that it can be bid on any shape of hand mean that it is really used for many purposes? All a matter of interpretation. Neither is necessarily wrong just looking at the words. But it is probably safe to assume that the GCC is not supposed to ban Precision, so I know which interpretation I'd use.

And that is exactly my point. Either the GCC intends to allow only precision + std systems, or it does not. If the former, it is easy for the GCC to do so. IMO The committee which writes the GCC would like to pretend that there are fewer restrictions on legal systems than there are in practice. Shame on them for allowing this sorry state of affairs to continue.

 

Is it true that 1D showing 4+S encompasses lesser number of hands than 1C showing 16+?

[jdonn]

Pots and kettles come to mind.

Nice to see that when you don't have any actual argument or response with any validity to the point that was made, you respond in the predictable way.

[Cascade]

Pots and kettles come to mind.

Nice to see that when you don't have any actual argument or response with any validity to the point that was made, you respond in the predictable way.

I have plenty to say.

 

One side of this argument has as one of its main points that the regulations are badly written. This conveniently allows them to dismiss for example the full meaning of "all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural)" or at least interpret it to say what they want it to mean rather than what the words chosen by the regulators actually mean.

 

On the one hand they argue that it is proper to play by the rules but when they don't like what is actually written they find this way to distort the rules.

 

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

 

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

 

I asked the question "why..." because I did not know her motivation. Perhaps she can resolve the conflict between any defense being allowed to conventional bids and the possibility that some defense is considered destructive. Perhaps she considers her convention 1♣ is natural. Perhaps perhaps perhaps ...

[Cascade]

Given the set-universe of legal bids according to the GCC, I can pick any opening

in {1c, 1d} and define my other openings such that these become "all-purpose" in the sense that they cover hand types not covered by other bids.

 

GCC is neither perfect nor imperfect. It is a set of rules. The issue is when TD's choose to selectively apply the rules.

I am not sure what you mean but for clarity I would have thought that there was nothing stopping you choosing both 1♣ and 1♦ for these all-purpose bids.

 

Both are licenced and there is no restriction saying that one can have only one all-purpose bid.

[rbforster]

I happen to agree with Jan's interpretation (this rule clearly seems to me to disallow any overcall that shows 'any hand'), but I can see how yours is perfectly valid as well and would not be surprised to find disagreement on these admittedly somewhat contradictory points.

 

Jan seems to clearly agree that it's not clear, as she says she only thinks the ruling is wrong, and later uses "wrong" in quotation marks.

As long as you can play the same artificial methods over a conventional 2+ 1♣ opening that you can over a conventional Precision strong club, I think the ruling is fine. People will disagree over the "purely destructive" clause you cite, but if you want to play psychosuction against my strong club, I think I should be able to return the favor over your 2+♣.

 

There has been some indication that maybe the more common and "natural" 2+ clubs or balanced opening should get more protection from artificial defenses than a strong club does (as seen in the incident Richard relates). But this isn't in the rules, and shouldn't be implemented ad hoc based on directors making up rules rather than following them. If the ACBL decides to protect those 2+ minor openings and decide to declare them natural, that's fine - defenses will be restricted over them (but there are likely to be other implications they won't like as much, such as allowing "natural" 2/1 bids on 2+ suits, or opening 2+ canape minor preempts, etc).

[Cascade]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

 

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

 

"Used for many different purposes."

 

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

 

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

 

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

 

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

A natural 4+ suit 1♣ is used for the single purpose of showing clubs.

 

The regulations state that the "all-purpose" can be "artificial or natural". There is no other qualification on "artificial or natural". So if in your words the 'single purpose' of showing clubs is ok then the 'single purpose' of showing spades is ok.

 

In fact a bid that shows 4+ spades could include multiple hand types:

• Balanced with four or five spades
  
• Canape with four (or less often five spades)
  
• Two (or three) suited with five spades
  
• One suited with long spades
  

When does this become not 'single purpose'?

[jdonn]

I have plenty to say.

Even lovlier. You found it more prudent to toss out an insult than to contribute any of the 'plenty' you have to say.

 

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

 

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

 

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

 

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

 

I asked the question "why..." because I did not know her motivation.

I don't think it takes much imagination to see that I did not find your question:

Why is this the wrong ruling?

To be in poor taste (especially since I attempted to answer it!) but rather I was referring to your question:

Or is this another issue where those that do not like the wording in the regulation think that they know it doesn't apply to their pet methods?

 

Perhaps she can resolve the conflict between any defense being allowed to conventional bids and the possibility that some defense is considered destructive.  Perhaps she considers her convention 1♣ is natural.  Perhaps perhaps perhaps ...

I doubt it in either case. It seems unlikely she would have been ruled against if so.

[Cascade]

I don't think it takes much imagination to see that I did not find your question:

Why is this the wrong ruling?

To be in poor taste (especially since I attempted to answer it!) but rather I was referring to your question:

Or is this another issue where those that do not like the wording in the regulation think that they know it doesn't apply to their pet methods?

I think it is in poor taste when one group of players want one side to conform to what they believe is the spirit of the regulations and disregard what is actually written in the regulations.

 

As such I think it is a legitimate question.

[sireenb]

The precision 1C opening bid is used for the single purpose of showing a 16+ HCP hand - It should also be illegal if this is the case.

It is interesting that you mentioned that....

 

I play precision with my regular partner. I do not live in the US and know nothing about the ACBL. We wanted to play in an ACBL tournament on BBO so I downloaded the rules and plowed through them first.

 

After I read and reread them many times, I was still not sure if precision was allowed or not. The rules appeared quite complicated to me. There were some parts that I felt I did not understand very well. English is not my first language so maybe that did not help!

 

In the end I just asked ACBL on BBO and was told it was OK to play precision so I stopped trying to understand all the rules because every time I looked at them I felt really stupid :rolleyes: !

 

I may try to read them again now ... after following this interesting discussion :(

[straube]

 

On the one hand they argue that it is proper to play by the rules but when they don't like what is actually written they find this way to distort the rules.

 

To me this seems completely similar to what Jan is arguing when she is playing her pet conventional method and the opponents who are licenced to play any defense to conventional bids come up with something she does not like.

 

I grant that there is a rule prohibiting methods that destroy they opponents methods but it is hard to interpret since this phrase is not defined in the regulations.

 

 

Seems like a put down to use the word "pet" to describe Jan's method.

 

I think that the rule prohibiting methods that destroy the opponents methods can be vague, too, but something like a 1S overcall to show any hand against an artificial opening seems easily to fall in this category. Just because it's vague sometimes doesn't mean it isn't obvious at other times.

[jdonn]

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

 

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

 

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

[Cascade]

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

 

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

 

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

To me it is far from clear whether

 

under allowed

 

"7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls"

 

trumps

 

under disallowed

 

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods."

 

or vice verca.

 

My understanding is that in a document the specific normal trumps the less specific.

 

But to me it is far from clear which of these is more specific. One applies to a defense to any conventional bid and one to any bid that is considered destructive.

 

Maybe I can be easily convinced one way or the other maybe not.

 

As I am sure you can tell I am not at all impressed when someone wants to interpret the regulations subjectively so as to protect their own favoured methods.

[akhare]

As long as you can play the same artificial methods over a conventional 2+ 1♣ opening that you can over a conventional Precision strong club, I think the ruling is fine. People will disagree over the "purely destructive" clause you cite, but if you want to play psychosuction against my strong club, I think I should be able to return the favor over your 2+♣.

Absolutely -- and if a 13 cards 1♠ overcall is deemed legal over a strong 1♣ opening, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed over 1♣/1♦ = 2+.

 

Note that I do think that the 13 cards 1♠ overcall should fall under the "purely destructive" methods category and that it should therefore be disallowed, but if it's ruled kosher, everyone should be allowed to unleash it with equal panache against either variety of 1♣...

[jdonn]

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

 

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

 

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

To me it is far from clear whether

 

under allowed

 

"7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls"

 

trumps

 

under disallowed

 

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods."

 

or vice verca.

I specifically avoiding asking which regulation trumps the other. I was asking whether you agreed with a few specific claims about one of them. I even granted that if you did agree, the regulations would still be in contradiction. Of course I can't force you, but care to answer what I asked? I'm genuinly interested in your opinion if only I can get you to give it...

[JanM]

The case that I was referring to was the one involving one of the Dutch Pairs playing in one of the big WBF events a couple years back.

 

As I recall, they were playing a canape overstructure over short club openings. 

 

The Dutch claimed that they were playing a conventional defense to the opponents conventional opening.

 

There was a counter claim that

 

1.  A 1♣ opening that shows either clubs or a balanced hand is natural

2.  The Dutch were using a Brown Sticker Convention without appropriate disclosure. 

 

I think that they might have also run afoul of a restriction on the total number of BSCs that they were allowed to use.

 

I was rather shocked when John Wignall ruled that the 1♣ opening was, indeed, natural...

 

Seem to recall that you were involved in that case in some way

Ah, that - sorry I didn't understand your reference. I may be remembering wrong, but I think that:

The structure the Dutch were playing over any 1 club opening wasn't anything as benign as canape overcalls. I don't remember the whole thing, and haven't seen it recently, presumably because it really doesn't work well when the opening bid can be essentially natural, but I know it included jump overcalls that might or might not have length in the suit named and simple overcalls that showed extremely varied hand patterns and values. The bids were clearly brown sticker, and the argument about whether there were too many of them had to do with counting - if you play a method where 1♦ shows either diamonds or hearts or clubs (I'm just making this up) and 1♥ shows either spades or diamonds or hearts and 1♠ shows either spades or clubs or diamonds, all of them with less than 8 HCPs, are you using one BS method or 3? One of the 2 pairs playing the method had described the method as one BS bid (and 2♥ or 3♥ showing length in either hearts or spades as a second BS bid) and therefore claimed that their opponents didn't have seating rights under the rule about 3 or more BS bids. Their teammates had described the same thing as multiple bids. I think that this was a situation where our position (you're playing more than 2 BS bids) was clearly correct.

 

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear. That was relevant to whether the Dutch methods were allowed in the Round Robin. For Shanghai, the ruling was that such a 1♣ bid was to be treated as natural, so BS methods were not allowed over it in the Round Robin. I believe that ruling has subsequently been changed for WBF events.

[fred]

As I am sure you can tell I am not at all impressed when someone wants to interpret the regulations subjectively so as to protect their own favoured methods.

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was:

 

*******

I am not impressed when someone other me, who always interprets subjective matters in the one and only correct way, wants to interpret the regulations subjectively, especially when I think (and I am always right about such things) that their intention is to protect their own favoured methods.

*******

 

As for me, I am not impressed when someone thinks their own subjective interpretations are always correct.

 

Nor am I impressed when someone ascribes nefarious intentions to those who express subjective interpretations they happen to disagree with.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[akhare]

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear.

Out of curiosity, do you by extension express similar equivocation about any opening bid that promises 2+ cards in the suit or a balanced hand? And if not, why not?

 

For instance, it's perfectly logical to apply to same argument to 1♥/1♠ opening showing 2+ or a balanced hand (however ridiculous that system might be)...

 

EDIT: Considering that it's unclear whether the convention charts allow such a 1♥/1♠ opening, the question may be moot.

[paulg]

For reference, you can see the Netherlands convention cards for the 2007 Bermuda Bowl in this folder on the Ecatsbridge site.

[straube]

To me it is far from clear whether

 

under allowed

 

"7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls"

 

trumps

 

under disallowed

 

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods."

 

or vice verca.

 

My understanding is that in a document the specific normal trumps the less specific. 

 

But to me it is far from clear which of these is more specific.  One applies to a defense to any conventional bid and one to any bid that is considered destructive.

 

Maybe I can be easily convinced one way or the other maybe not.

 

 

I think that the first definitely trumps the latter. The prohibition against conventions whose purpose is primarily to destroy the opponent's bidding methods reads to me more like a general, almost universal principle. We've all been debating recently the intent behind the allowance of all-purpose bids because it wasn't explicitly stated. In this other case, we know what the intent of the ACBL is because they say what they mean. The intent is clear. Whether a specific convention's purpose is primarily designed to thwart enemy methods is subjective...certainly obvious in some instances, but less so in others. But, we still know what the principle is.

 

Now why would they abandon that principle for a specific instance of defending against a conventional opening? I can't imagine that they did so, because the principle seems quite beneficial to the game. More likely, they were thinking that someone might decide to play transfers over a conventional call or CRASH or something along those lines. Calls like that may impinge on the opponents methods but they also transmit information that both sides may react to at the table.

[straube]

Maybe I can make it more clear. Does anyone want to seriously take the position that the ACBL might have written..."Disallowed are methods whose purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods except in the case that they use a conventional opening/treatment."

[straube]

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear.

 

Why isn't this clear? Is it only unclear because so many people use 1C or 1D to show 2 or more? If so, that doesn't seem like a very good reason. I thought someone had established that opening a minor could only be natural (not conventional) if it promised at least 3 cards...or was it 4?

[Cascade]

Do you have an alternative theory of any realistic purpose at all in playing a defensive bid that shows 'any hand' other than to destroy the opponents methods?

 

And even if you can think of such a purpose, do you think that could possibly be considered the 'primary purpose' by a reasonable person?

 

I mean let's be realistic. If 1. under "DISALLOWED" can't be used to ban an overcall showing 'any hand', then it can't be used to ban anything at all.

Wayne, curious what you think about this. Of course I'll grant you could agree with all this and the regulations would still contradict each other, but this is more in response to you calling 1. under DISALLOWED "hard to interpret". It may well be in the general sense, but I don't think so in this particular case.

I will try again.

 

Yes I can imagine another purpose of playing a bid that shows 'any hand'. Well actually I think that 'any hand' is unlikely as it is probably limited by what other bids show. A valid reason could be that the partnership wants to use pass to show some other sort of hand. This necessitates the 'any hand' bid being put somewhere else.

 

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...). I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit. Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

 

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

 

More importantly I think 'destructive' or rather 'primary purpose is to destroy' needs to be well defined.

 

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary". Would you have argument against this?

[Cascade]

To me it is far from clear whether

 

under allowed

 

"7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls"

 

trumps

 

under disallowed

 

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods."

 

or vice verca.

 

My understanding is that in a document the specific normal trumps the less specific. 

 

But to me it is far from clear which of these is more specific.  One applies to a defense to any conventional bid and one to any bid that is considered destructive.

 

Maybe I can be easily convinced one way or the other maybe not.

 

 

I think that the first definitely trumps the latter.

I don't think this is what you meant.

 

The first is

 

"7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls"

 

which comes under the generic heading "Allowed". It is the 7th item under that heading.

 

"1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods."

 

This comes later under the heading "Disallowed". It is the first item under that heading.

[Cascade]

Maybe I can make it more clear. Does anyone want to seriously take the position that the ACBL might have written..."Disallowed are methods whose purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods except in the case that they use a conventional opening/treatment."

Why not?

 

The cost of using a convention is that the opponents have the right to use any methods over it. That seems like a reasonable possible position to me.

[jdonn]

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...).  I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit.  Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

 

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

Actually I agree with you, or at least think it's not clear.

 

Do you agree that what I said is true if by 'any hand' they mean they never pass, always choosing to bid (I think it was 1♠) instead if none of their other bids fit? That's how I took Jan originally, I guess it was an assumption but it seems quite likely to me. I am not aware of any system that uses a forcing pass after the opponents open...