Legality of artificial openings and responses

[awm]

Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts).

 

I sent email to a bunch of Los Angeles' area's better players. None of these folks are BBO forum posters (or have even read these forums as far as I know). One can argue about the relative skills of these players (certainly District 23 is not the strongest in the country in any case) but all of these are players who have "been around" for quite some time, served on committees, scored up many thousand of masterpoints. I think if Jan is right and "everyone" really does know what this means, then we should see some consensus. Here are my replies so far:

 

In my opinion, the chart is clear in that ALL meanings of 1C or 1D promising 10+ HCP are allowed.... If you want to play that a 1C opener is a "transfer" to hearts and 1D is a transfer to spades, that is perfectly ok.

 

I think the key word in that ruling is "all-purpose."  For example, if a 1D opening promised spades, I don't think that is "all-purpose." If it covers systemic holes, then it's a catch-all.  So balanced or some set of minor suit hands sounds OK, even if it's never length in diamonds.

 

I think the term "all-purpose" really means any purpose you choose to assign to it.  Probably "multi-purpose" would be more precise, since virtually everyone that opens 1C or 1D in any method has a list of specific hand types that it might show.  So if you chose to assign the meaning to 1C that it shows 10+ points and exactly 2 clubs, or exactly 4 spades, or anything else you like, that would be legal.

 

No high-ranking director has ever spelled this out to me - so I am unencumbered by specific knowledge. However, I am still sure what is meant and what is right. It says "all-purpose" so I would take that to mean "all purpose", right? Any shape, any distribution.

 

Hmm three out of the four agree with my interpretation that any call is allowed. Only one (Goldsmith) agrees with Jan's interpretation. Certainly this doesn't make one interpretation "right" and it's a small sample size anyway (I'm expecting some more replies later, including from some regional level directors) but it does seem enough to contradict her point that everyone knows she is right aside from a small number of crazies who post to BBO forums.

[jdonn]

I find the interpretation any meaining is allowed to be absurd! If that was the intention it would say "any meaning at all" or "any strength and distribution". The fact that any other term is used is clear evidence that it does NOT mean any meaning is allowed.

[DrTodd13]

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd. That should teach 'em!

 

Look, language is not precise. There are multiple ways to say the same thing. Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever." "Ever" doesn't add anything. Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

 

What is really going on is some people believe that the text of the rule is all that matters and others believe that the intent is what matters. The former would argue that we can't possibly divine intent and the latter would say that the rules would be too voluminous otherwise. For those in the former camp, several online dictionaries defined "all-purpose" as "useful for many purposes" OR "not limited in use or function." For our purposes, this definition is completely worthless. Pick the first part and we have no idea which of the many purposes are acceptable and which aren't. Pick the second part and there would be no restrictions. The word "all-purpose" is just a terrible word to use in a regulation. I bet if you asked those same people what they thought the intent of the C&C committee in using the word "all-purpose" that you would get different answers. I don't think they intended to allow those bids to be used for any possible meaning but the regulation itself gives me no idea what is allowed or not.

[rbforster]

If that was the intention it would say "any meaning at all" or "any strength and distribution". The fact that any other term is used is clear evidence that it does NOT mean any meaning is allowed.

Perhaps that's what they did say, and you just have an odd interpretation of "all purpose". I agree with Adam and his experts that the "obvious" interpretation of this rule is that 10+ points and anything you want is what's allowed. Of course that's just my opinion, but it's based on what the rules says since I have no idea about the authors' intent (and I don't have any nefarious plans for playing 1♦ to bias me).

 

I find the interpretation any meaining is allowed to be absurd!

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

[jdonn]

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd.  That should teach 'em!

Yes obviously that's why I posted here. To teach a bunch of people in California a thing or two.

 

Look, language is not precise.  There are multiple ways to say the same thing.  Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever."  "Ever" doesn't add anything.  Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Dr Todd is very bad at analogies. That should teach 'em!

 

Aside from the fact that "all purpose" is a different term rather than an extraneous word added onto something like "any meaning", "ever" on Mythbusters changes the TONE of the sentence, implying more serious consequences for failing to follow the advice than if "ever" hadn't been there. So your analogy wasn't only irrelevant, it was also incorrent.

 

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

And you are still posting why?

[awm]

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

 

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

 

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

 

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

 

It seems to me that folks are putting a lot of "I'll know it when I see it" thinking into this, basing their decisions about what is allowed on what they think "should" be allowed and not on what the regulations actually say.

 

To give an extreme example, consider these two systems, the first which everyone seems to think is okay and the second which some people seem likely to take issue with:

 

(1) Matchpoint Precision

 

1♣ = 15+ any shape

1♦ = 10-14 points with one or more four-card majors, maybe longer minor, maybe balanced

1M = 10-14 points with 5+ in the bid major

1NT = 12-14 balanced without a four-card major

2m = 10-14 with 5+ in the bid minor, no 4-card major

higher = natural preempts

 

(2) Multi One Diamond

 

1♣ = 15+ any shape

1♦ = 10-14 points with one or more five-card or longer majors

1M = 10-14 points with exactly four in the bid major, maybe longer minor, maybe balanced

1NT = 12-14 balanced without a four-card major

2m = 10-14 with 5+ in the bid minor, no 4-card major

higher = natural preempts

 

I cannot really see any reason that the first system's 1♦ opening is "all-purpose" and the second is not. Each system the 1♦ opening promises length (four or more cards) in one of the two majors. Each system the 1♦ opening handles all hands with 10+ points that don't fit any other opening. While some of us may not "like" the second system as much as we "like" the first I really cannot see anything in the regulations that supports a difference in legality.

[joshs]

I was asked how my transfer opening methods got "approved and posted on the web site when the committee never approved them".

 

Well, I still don't know. I would love to have dates when the committee met, and some minutes of those meetings. But the whole process has been under a shroud of secrecy. (Woo hoo, I got to say "Shroud of Secrecy"!!)

 

Here is one hypothetical story:

The acbl passed a rule that required this committee to form and decided on defenses before the Toronto nationals (otherwise lots of commonly played midchart stuff would not be allowed. Keep in mind my other 2 submissions were kaplan inversion which was common at that time, and x-fers over 1C, which was not common yet, but there were a few of us playing those methods). To the frustration of the co-ordinating director, they never met, so finally he approved the defenses. Somehow, by 2 years later (philadelphia nationals), they still had not met.

 

As to the "all-purpose 1D opening". No one has any idea what is actually allowed. In practice, in GCC events you see all sorts of rubbish being played, and its a complete waste of time arguing that someone can't play those methods. When I submitted my defense to my x-fer 1D opening, I actually did not think by the letter of the law I needed a defense there, but as for the spirit of the law, people should not have to prepare for every sort of highly unusual mnethod in pairs movements, hence I thought I should provide a defense.

 

One method, popular in Texas and New Mexico, has 1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major (this fills a hole for those players who open a canape 1M, for instance). Anyway, I have my methods over all this rubbish, as any self respecting bridge player who is interested in bidding would...

[straube]

Early in this thread, I pointed out the interesting language of the GCC.

 

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

 

I wondered if this meant that only one of them could be used. The other might have to be natural or more likely, artificial and strong. After all, the ACBL could just have easily written...

 

ONE CLUB AND ONE DIAMOND may be used as all-purpose opening bids (artifical or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

 

Just now I found where this very concern was being discussed.

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/012158.html

 

I'll include the text at the end of this post.

 

People can interpret OR as...

1. one but not both

2. and/or

 

So we have another ambiguous GCC statement.

 

Apparently, two different TDs gave two different opinions on whether it should be the one meaning or the other. Richard Beye, the Chief TD, had the opinion that the rule means "either" or "both". If so, then it seems even more likely that one can assign more meaning to "all-purpose" than some have thought.

 

I think many of us (at least myself) have thought of "all-purpose" as a catchall bid which is somewhat necessary if playing a strong club and even more necessary if playing a strong club with a 5-card major system.

 

If we can have 2 all purpose bids and neither of them is designated strong, then it wouldn't make sense to have 2 catchall bids...at least not 2 catchall bids showing the same set of hand-types.

 

I had argued for 1D as four spades predicated on other legal openings denying four spades. My argument was that 1D didn't "show" spades so much as "infer" spades.

 

I can't say "1C is my stuck bid for hands that don't qualify for 1D, 1H, 1S, etc. bids" while simultaneously saying "1D is my stuck bid for hands that don't qualify for 1C, 1H, 1S, etc. bids" I have to give meaning to one before the other can become a stuck bid.

 

If I have 2 "all-purpose" bids, it seems reasonable that I ought to be able to organize them such that both have meaning. If my openings (yes, no strong bid)are now...

 

1C-four hearts

1D-four spades

1H-five hearts

1S-five spades

1N-balanced, no major

2C-clubs

2D-diamonds

 

it would be disingenuous to say that my 1D "infers" spades. No, it unapologetically "shows" spades.

 

Perhaps the ACBL had envisioned something instead like...

1C-promises a 4-card major

1D-denies a 4-card major

 

Perhaps they didn't. Anyway, I feel more comfortable assigning meaning to 1C and 1D, and I have the email from the ACBL (which I posted earlier) as confirmation.

 

Here's the text from the link I found...

 

 

 

 

 

The quoted ACBL General Conditions of Contest regulation is ambiguous.

 

> Grattan is interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical

operator

> Exclusive Or - with an implicit "not both" in the GCC.

 

> Others have been interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the

logical operator

> Inclusive Or - with an implicit "and/or" in the GCC.

 

I noticed the same thing and asked 'rulings@acbl.org' about it. Notice

the effect, though, if you think the rule means "but not both." If that

were so, whether a particular 1C agreement is legal would depend not

only on which hands are shown by the 1C bid but also on which hands

might bid 1D on an entirely different deal. Such a rule would be hard

to enforce, to say the least. In fact, Richard Beye, the ACBL's Chief

Tournament Director, confirms that the rule means "either or both."

However, this confirmation came only after a different TD had given me

the opposite answer! So Richard Hill's basic point, that the rule needs

to be written unambiguously, is confirmed.

[DrTodd13]

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Josh Donn said that their interpretation is absurd.  That should teach 'em!

Yes obviously that's why I posted here. To teach a bunch of people in California a thing or two.

 

Look, language is not precise.  There are multiple ways to say the same thing.  Some people add qualifiers that don't add anything to the sentence like Mythbusters' "Don't try anything you're about to see us do at home....ever."  "Ever" doesn't add anything.  Your argument is like saying that if they hadn't said "ever" then what they really meant was that sometimes it is ok to try the stuff at home and that we need to divine their true intention about when it is ok.

Adam, please go to everyone on your list who said it could mean "any purpose" and tell them that Dr Todd is very bad at analogies. That should teach 'em!

 

Aside from the fact that "all purpose" is a different term rather than an extraneous word added onto something like "any meaning", "ever" on Mythbusters changes the TONE of the sentence, implying more serious consequences for failing to follow the advice than if "ever" hadn't been there. So your analogy wasn't only irrelevant, it was also incorrent.

 

I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

And you are still posting why?

What you were saying is that "all purpose" doesn't mean "all purpose" unless they also add on "Yes...I'm really serious...any and every possible purpose...you can use it for anything...any shape...8+ disjoint ranges if you want." If all-purpose means any purpose then you don't need a single word extra. My argument was that just like the "ever," you don't need extra words...all purpose means all purpose and if you add a whole bunch of extra words that also mean also purpose you haven't changed the meaning one iota.

 

Forget that we have information outside the GCC for a moment. What makes more sense? That all-purpose means any purpose (and therefore needs no clarification) or that all-purpose means some limited number of purposes out of the thousands of purposes that it could potentially have but then they didn't bother to tell us which of those possibilities were among the few that were allowed? Taking into account our extraneous knowledge, we do indeed know that they have done the ridiculous. They've used a word that effectively means..."you can use 1♣ or 1♦ for a variety of things" but then have spectacularly failed to in any way clarify what is or isn't allowed.

 

On a side note, I would suggest that you read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. It has some tips on how to have discussions with people without sounding like a pompous ass.

[jdonn]

Here is one hypothetical story:

The acbl passed a rule that required this committee to form and decided on defenses before the Toronto nationals (otherwise lots of commonly played midchart stuff would not be allowed. Keep in mind my other 2 submissions were kaplan inversion which was common at that time, and x-fers over 1C, which was not common yet, but there were a few of us playing those methods). To the frustration of the co-ordinating director, they never met, so finally he approved the defenses. Somehow, by 2 years later (philadelphia nationals), they still had not met.

That seems entirely plausible. If so then there really wasn't a committee at all, just a list of names who were assigned to a committee that didn't really exist. And of course even if the director did that, he ought to have at least informed the other committee members by email. The way you tell your end of the story, it does sound like nothing much was happening but you just sort of prodded him enough times that he finally made a decision.

 

I wonder if there's any way any more to find out who this person was...

 

What you were saying is that "all purpose" doesn't mean "all purpose" unless they also add on "Yes...I'm really serious...any and every possible purpose...you can use it for anything...any shape...8+ disjoint ranges if you want."

I don't think that's at all what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant to say. I think you are taking my criticism of your analogy completely out of context and using it to credit me with an argument I never made.

 

If all-purpose means any purpose then you don't need a single word extra.

This is like that dumb argument about the word "range" that occurred not too long ago. Lots of things have different meanings depending upon the context. That does not change the obvious. In this case it is plainly evident that if they wanted anything to be legal they would have said "anything is legal" or "10+ any shape" or "no shape restrictions" or "all meanings allowed" or any of dozens of very clear phrases. So evident that this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. Just because a definition of 'all purpose' that reads 'any purpose' can be found doesn't change that it obviously wouldn't apply with that meaning here. I mean how literal can people be?

 

I want to mention that I have never said that I know everything that is allowed or exactly where the line is drawn, as Adam seems to believe I think. I am only saying "all purpose" clearly doesn't mean you can play absolutely anything you want to. It must restrict you somehow.

 

My argument was that just like the "ever," you don't need extra words...all purpose means all purpose and if you add a whole bunch of extra words that also mean also purpose you haven't changed the meaning one iota.

I still believe "ever" does change the tone and implication in your example. But in any case you are arguing against a straw man here. When did I ever say that if they wanted to allow anything they would have said "all purpose" and then qualified it ten times?

 

Forget that we have information outside the GCC for a moment.  What makes more sense?  That all-purpose means any purpose (and therefore needs no clarification) or that all-purpose means some limited number of purposes out of the thousands of purposes that it could potentially have but then they didn't bother to tell us which of those possibilities were among the few that were allowed?  Taking into account our extraneous knowledge, we do indeed know that they have done the ridiculous.  They've used a word that effectively means..."you can use 1♣ or 1♦ for a variety of things" but then have spectacularly failed to in any way clarify what is or isn't allowed.

I'll try, although it's hard to ignore facts I already know. What makes more sense to me? That they wouldn't use a term with (at least) two meanings to mean something when multiple other terms that far more clearly have the same meaning are available. Note that under your second option, there is no (short) term that is clear. Probably they didn't imagine it would end up mattering.

 

On a side note, I would suggest that you read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.  It has some tips on how to have discussions with people without sounding like a pompous ass.

This one almost made me fall out of my chair. I could easily just refer you to the first paragraph of your first reply to me and then ask you to read your tip to me again while trying not to laugh too hard at yourself, but instead I'll ask a question.

 

I have not been rude to Josh. I have not been rude to Jan. I have not been rude to Fred. I have not been rude to Richard. I have not been rude to straube. I have not been rude to akhare. And for that matter, I have not been rude to the DrTodd who posted in the water cooler at least twice recently (bears no relation to the DrTodd to whom I am now speaking.)

 

What do all those people have in common that differs from the people to whom I have been rude?

[Cascade]

This is like that dumb argument about the word "range" that occurred not too long ago. Lots of things have different meanings depending upon the context. That does not change the obvious. In this case it is plainly evident that if they wanted anything to be legal they would have said "anything is legal" or "10+ any shape" or "no shape restrictions" or "all meanings allowed" or any of dozens of very clear phrases. So evident that this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. Just because a definition of 'all purpose' that reads 'any purpose' can be found doesn't change that it obviously wouldn't apply with that meaning here. I mean how literal can people be?

I agree your argument about "range" was dumb. :rolleyes:

 

It could also be argued that it is plainly obvious if they wanted to put some restriction on these 1♣ and 1♦ openings then they would have stated precisely what those restrictions were. After all they did manage to put in one restriction (10+). The plain inference from lack of other restrictions and the included terms "artificial or natural" is that there are no other restrictions.

 

To not put in restrictions and then claim that there are some is simply a perverse game.

[JanM]

Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts).

 

I sent email to a bunch of Los Angeles' area's better players. None of these folks are BBO forum posters (or have even read these forums as far as I know). ...

 

Hmm three out of the four agree with my interpretation that any call is allowed. Only one (Goldsmith) agrees with Jan's interpretation. Certainly this doesn't make one interpretation "right" and it's a small sample size anyway (I'm expecting some more replies later, including from some regional level directors) but it does seem enough to contradict her point that everyone knows she is right aside from a small number of crazies who post to BBO forums.

Maybe you're right and my feeling that only a very few people would actually believe that "all-purpose" means "any purpose" or "all purposes" is wrong. I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids. Obviously, 1♣ showing any hand with 16+ HCPs is artificial, so they put that word in.

By the way, I neither said "crazies" nor intended that. I don't think BBOF posters are crazies, but sometimes they can get involved in questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when most people would just use the pin to attach two things together.

[straube]

Jan, would you mind replying to my last post? I am curious what sorts of meanings could be distributed between 1C and 1D if a partnership uses both as all-purpose openings. They ought not mean the same thing. My next question might be why are they allowed to be divided between certain holdings and not possibly others? I think that most of us are used to thinking about what "all-purpose" means in the context of a strong club system. If instead we use two "all-purpose" bids, our understanding of "all-purpose" is likely to change from a catchall sort of meaning to something more definitive. Do you agree?

[awm]

I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids.

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

 

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids. Well I hate to tell you this, but your opinions on these matters are not what "everyone" knows. A very large number of people (quite possibly a majority of knowledgeable people) disagree with you. We have the right to our opinion too. And we resent implications that we are a tiny minority of BBO forum posters, or are cheaters, or are somehow misreading plain english -- especially from someone who seems quite capable of ignoring the clearly written definition of natural when it comes to her own one club openings.

[jdonn]

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids.

Um Adam? Hello??

 

Maybe you're right and my feeling that only a very few people would actually believe that "all-purpose" means "any purpose" or "all purposes" is wrong.

Jan seems to have graciously admitted the exact opposite of what you now seem outraged at her about. I don't know where your last post came from...

 

Frankly if you are outraged then you should direct it at me if anyone, she has conceded far more ground on this issue than I have. I guess I'm forced to admit a lot of people see it different, but I still can't believe it since it seems so obvious to me.

[akhare]

I don't think BBOF posters are crazies, but sometimes they can get involved in questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when most people would just use the pin to attach two things together.

On the contrary, I would argue that the people on this forum are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether they can pin their systems together using the 1♣/1♦ bids.

 

However, apparently, doing so requires them to somehow "divine" the intent of the drafters, which no one really seems to know either.

 

If the "intent" was for those bids to allow filling of (valid) systemic holes, I don't really see how 1♣/1♦ showing 5+ cards in a major can be disallowed (in context of a system that promised exactly 4 cards in a major in a 1M opening) (see Adam's example).

 

Similarly, I can't see how 1♣/1♦ showing exactly 4 cards in a major can be disallowed either, in the context of a 5 card major system.

[straube]

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

 

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear" (she was not utterly convinced that her 1C was a natural bid)and apparently it was ruled natural in the Shanghai event she describes below. To me, it seems like that event ruled incorrectly. I don't understand how that bid can be ruled anything but conventional. Jan, why do you think it's unclear when natural requires 3 clubs?

 

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.

[jdonn]

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

[hrothgar]

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Just to be clear:

 

As I recall, the Dutch Pair was playing in the Open Event.

 

I don't think that Jan was competing in that event. (Not even sure whether she plays a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ Clubs)

 

My impression was that she was involved in this discussion because of her role with the USBF. I didn't think that she was a principal who was directly involved in the event.

[rbforster]

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

 

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

 

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

 

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says you have to play a reasonable bidding system. So with appropriate context, you can have an all purpose 1♦ mean absolutely anything -

 

P - anything I don't want to open

1♣ whatever else has 10+ points I want to open (not 1♦)

1♦ whatever I want with 10+ points

1♥+ to taste

 

Or if you somehow take issue with the two all purpose bids (not a real issue apparently), you can even have

 

P - anything I don't want to open, or anything with 10-15 not in 1♦

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦

1♦ 10+ anything I want

1♥+ to taste

 

So even if you think the rule is a system catchall thing, you can't really escape the conclusion that there exists perfectly legal systems where 1♦ can mean absolutely anything. So how is that different than "1♦ can be anything with 10+" again? The rule doesn't say "... and you can't play the rest of your system so as to leave 1♦ as something we don't like off the following list".

[hrothgar]

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.

I just went back and reviewed the Convention Cards for the Dutch Pair

 

The Dutch Pair were using a defensive structure that they refer to as "Holo Bolo". As Jan notes, this is a pretty complicated overcall strcuture that includes lots of multi-meaning bids. For example:

 

Over a 1C opening, a 2H jump overcall is weak with Hearts or Spades

Over a 1D opening, a 2S overcall is intermediated with Clubs or Diamonds.

 

At the same time, I think that it is very misleading to characterize this as a Brown Sticker Convention. The WBF definition of a BSC is very clear. For the purpose of this discussion, clause B is the releveant one. Clause B establishes that the following class of bids is Brown Sticker.

 

An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

 

    EXCEPTION: A natural overcall in no trumps.

    EXCEPTION: any cue bid suit that shows a strong hand.

    EXCEPTION: a jump cue bid in opponent's known suit that asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in that suit.

 

Nice to see that the WBF [eventually] corrected their mistake on this one...

[straube]

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

 

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

 

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

 

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says you have to play a reasonable bidding system. So with appropriate context, you can have an all purpose 1♦ mean absolutely anything -

 

P - anything I don't want to open

1♣ whatever else has 10+ points I want to open (not 1♦)

1♦ whatever I want with 10+ points

1♥+ to taste

 

Or if you somehow take issue with the two all purpose bids (not a real issue apparently), you can even have

 

P - anything I don't want to open, or anything with 10-15 not in 1♦

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦

1♦ 10+ anything I want

1♥+ to taste

 

So even if you think the rule is a system catchall thing, you can't really escape the conclusion that there exists perfectly legal systems where 1♦ can mean absolutely anything. So how is that different than "1♦ can be anything with 10+" again? The rule doesn't say "... and you can't play the rest of your system so as to leave 1♦ as something we don't like off the following list".

 

 

Yay. I think we're advancing the same thing. The difference is mostly semantic, but we don't have to play for example...

 

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦

1♦ 10+, 4 spades by inference

1♥+ legal openings denying 4 spades

 

We can play...

 

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦

1♦ 10+, 4 spades

1♥+ to taste

 

I'm trying to think of a system where the difference now would not be semantic.

 

Maybe I don't have to be so precise when I define my other openings and I can decide whether I want to show 4 spades or some other feature of my hand...

 

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦

1♦ 10+, 4 spades

1♥ 4+ hearts

1♠ 5 spades or 4 really good spades

1 NT could have 4 spades or 4 hearts

2♣ 6 clubs possibly with 4 spades OR 4/5 in minors

2♦ 6 diamonds possibly with 4 spades OR 5/4 in minors

 

Not that I would want to play that...

[straube]

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

 

Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+.

[straube]

I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids.

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

 

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids. Well I hate to tell you this, but your opinions on these matters are not what "everyone" knows. A very large number of people (quite possibly a majority of knowledgeable people) disagree with you. We have the right to our opinion too. And we resent implications that we are a tiny minority of BBO forum posters, or are cheaters, or are somehow misreading plain english -- especially from someone who seems quite capable of ignoring the clearly written definition of natural when it comes to her own one club openings.

 

I think you should retract this post. So much of it has been shown to be wrong by comparing it to Jan's previous posts.

[helene_t]

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

 

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear" (she was not utterly convinced that her 1C was a natural bid)and apparently it was ruled natural in the Shanghai event she describes below. To me, it seems like that event ruled incorrectly. I don't understand how that bid can be ruled anything but conventional. Jan, why do you think it's unclear when natural requires 3 clubs?

If Shanghai would simply have used the normal BSC definition then everything would have been clear, but at some point ( I think a few weeks before the event) it was decided that the 1♣ opening in a 5542 system would, for this particular event, be treated as natural, and there was a confusing discussion here as well as on r.g.b. about how far that extents. For example, which of the many more or less nebulous precision 1♦ openings would be treated as natural.