ACBL C&C Committee

[jdonn]

Writing complaints already, and not even because either the decision or the process is wrong but because the reasoning is flawed. I'm sure this will encourage them to continue posting the minutes!

Hi Josh

 

From my perspective, the process is actually much more important than the actual decisions.

 

Ultimately, I don't care that much whether any given convention is legal at th GCC level, the Midchart level, or the superchart. What I do care about - and quite a lot I might add - are issues like the following:

 

Is the C & C committee able to issue simple, clear guidance?

Is there a rules set that tournament organizers and participants are able to understand?

Are the rules and regulations enforced in a fair and transparent manner?

 

All of this requires process.

Simple, easy to replicate process...

 

Unfortunately, you can't build a process on random / arbitrary decision making.

Executive fiat, no matter how talented the executives, can't substitute.

I understand, but my perspective is the process is fine and it was simply flawed reasoning in the case you pointed out. Personally if I were to change anything it would be how the committee is chosen (and I'm not saying I have a particular problem with any current committee members), not how they make their decisions. I would probably also make it larger.

 

I know you want sort of system where the general public can discuss these things in some online forum, suggest defences for a period of time, etc. There are a few flaws with that, but in any case I can say at best I feel it's way ahead of its time. I just don't think it's in very good taste to bombard the committee with complaints (not that you personally did so) the moment they are kind enough to actually post their minutes, which is something we have all wanted for some time.

[olegru]

A method submitted on May of 2009 probably wouldn't be discussed at the Summer 2009 meetings -- the process tends to be slower than that.

 

If it was a weak opening, it is likely being tabled indefinitely.  But, you should have received notice if that was the case.

Between May, 6 and July 27 is almost 3 months. Wow! I guess the ConCom is overloaded by the suggested defences if 3 months is not enough just to put one for meeting discussion. But somehow none of submissions are presented in minutes. :blink:

Seriously it is hard to believe that I the only person who sent suggested defence for approval during the 6 month covered by these 2 meetings.

By the way, I did not get any official reply.

I got reply from the person who is not the Committee member that convention was rejected because convention is hard to defence upon and the suggested defence should be really good to be approved.

Don’t get me wrong. It is completely OK with me if my suggestion was rejected because it is not good enough. I am just curious how the committee members knew it is not good enough if they did not discuss it as I clearly can see from the minutes.

There was mention in the minutes of at least one MC method rejected: the 1♦ opening which shows hearts.  Along with that, the approved defense to a 1♥ opening which shows spades was removed.  (Though it was still in the Defense Database last time I checked.)

Stop… stop… stop! :ph34r:

As far as I can see it was rejected based on nature of convention, no suggested defence was mentioned.

I was under impression that it is not Conventions that The Committee supposed to approve or disapprove. I imagined that committee supposed to look at defences and approve or reject them. :)

Do you see the difference?

[TimG]

I'd like to draw attention to the following two selections from the C&C minutes from the summer meeting

 

7.  Precision 2C opener (Was #6)

 

a. Question about whether this is legal under the GCC.

b. Unanimously agreed that this is GCC legal. (Section 1, Definitions. This is a natural call since it shows clubs.)

 

11. Improved wording on #12 of MC to include 5M and add that 5H + 4S is allowed.

 

a. Current wording of #12 (under ALLOWED): “Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid with a 4‐card minor”

 

b. Committee felt that the wording was not incorrect, that the intent to disallow 5H + 4S was in fact intentional. Currently the both majors convention is not legal under MC. No action taken.

 

I find it remarkable that a Precision 2♣ opening is legal at the GCC level because it is a natural bid (showing clubs). While a 2♥ showing 5 Hearts and 4+ cards in a side suit - also natural - is illegal for midchart events...

Maybe I am misreading it, but doesn't that say a WEAK 2 showing 5♥and4♠?

 

That is VASTLY different from an opening range hand showing same. One is constructive, the other is not. Flannery 2♥ is a legal method, even in GCC, if I am not mistaken.

Is a constructive 2♥ opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4+ card minor mid-chart legal? Is it GCC legal?

 

One could read the charts such that the answer to both these questions is "no".

 

The GCC specifically allows two level openings which show two known suits and a minimum of 10 HCP. No where does it sanction a two level opening which shows one known suit and one unknown suit. The only additions to this on the mid-chart is for a weak opening of 2♥ or 2♠ which shows that major plus an unknown minor suit (Item #12*), and for a 2♥ opening which shows 5-5 in the majors (Item #14) or 5-4 in the majors (Item #16). So, the method is not sanctioned under the GCC or the MC.

 

You may argue that a constructive 2♥ opening showing hearts and a minor is allowed in a GCC event because it is a natural method. But, that argument does not depend upon "constructive", or at least nothing in the GCC's definition of natural says anything about strength promised by a natural call.

 

The GCC needs clarification as to which natural methods are allowed and which are not.

 

Tim

 

 

 

* The request that led the C&C Committee to review mid-chart item #12 was to change the wording from "showing a weak two with a 4+ card minor" to "showing a weak two with a 4+ card side suit". The request was not for specifically 4♠ and 5♥, but rather for 2♥ showing hearts plus an unspecified 4+ card suit suit. I do not know why the Committee said "[c]urrently the both majors convention is not legal under MC" in light of mid-chart items #14 and #16.

[TimG]

As far as I can see it was rejected based on nature of convention, no suggested defence was mentioned.

I was under impression that it is not Conventions that The Committee supposed to approve or disapprove. I imagined that committee supposed to look at defences and approve or reject them. :)

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference, though I am not sure it really matters. The minutes could just as easily have said "A request was made to approve a defense to the 1D opening bid" and concluded that the Committee felt the defense inappropriate for the MC level.

 

Out of curiosity, what suggested defense did you submit?

[hrothgar]

Writing complaints already, and not even because either the decision or the process is wrong but because the reasoning is flawed. I'm sure this will encourage them to continue posting the minutes!

Hi Josh

 

From my perspective, the process is actually much more important than the actual decisions.

 

Ultimately, I don't care that much whether any given convention is legal at th GCC level, the Midchart level, or the superchart. What I do care about - and quite a lot I might add - are issues like the following:

 

Is the C & C committee able to issue simple, clear guidance?

Is there a rules set that tournament organizers and participants are able to understand?

Are the rules and regulations enforced in a fair and transparent manner?

 

All of this requires process.

Simple, easy to replicate process...

 

Unfortunately, you can't build a process on random / arbitrary decision making.

Executive fiat, no matter how talented the executives, can't substitute.

I understand, but my perspective is the process is fine and it was simply flawed reasoning in the case you pointed out. Personally if I were to change anything it would be how the committee is chosen (and I'm not saying I have a particular problem with any current committee members), not how they make their decisions. I would probably also make it larger.

 

I know you want sort of system where the general public can discuss these things in some online forum, suggest defences for a period of time, etc. There are a few flaws with that, but in any case I can say at best I feel it's way ahead of its time. I just don't think it's in very good taste to bombard the committee with complaints (not that you personally did so) the moment they are kind enough to actually post their minutes, which is something we have all wanted for some time.

Hi Josh

 

You are definitely correct that I favor a very different process for approving methods. However, in this case, I wasn't being quite so ambitious...

 

Even if the C&C decides to constrain themselves to working with the existing system, I think that they can make significant improvements to the process. In this restrictive example case, I think that the C&C would serve itself well if they were to clarify which subset of natural bids are considered legal. (Clearly, the notion of "natural" in and of itself is a no-op)

 

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book. If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

[jdonn]

Richard, fair enough. I think this discussion is at least partly about semantics. What you call process and what I call reasoning are the same thing, I believe. When I think of process what I mean is 3 committee members sit in a room and decide on a case by case basis what is and isn't allowed. When I say (flawed) reasoning I mean the reasons by which they justified allowing the 2♣ bid and disallowing the 2♥ bid. Although reading back, I think it's both of those things you are disagreeing with, so we are perhaps in some agreement.

[awm]

It does seem like it might be interesting to present the following to the committee. Consider the following three conventions:

 

(1) 2♥ opening showing five or six hearts, two or three spades, 8-11 points.

(2) 2♥ opening showing five or six hearts, three or four spades, 8-11 points.

(3) 2♥ opening showing five or six hearts, four or five spades, 8-11 points.

 

All three of these are natural bids, guaranteeing five or more cards in the major suit opened. The first method is a version of Bailey twos and is apparently legal on the general chart (at least, I know a number of directors who would be very surprised to learn otherwise). The third method is a weak Flannery opening, which according to the minutes of the summer C&C meeting is not even permitted on the mid-chart. Thus we have a continuum of natural openings, the first of which is general chart, the last of which is super-chart.

 

The question I'd like to see resolved is the criteria by which some natural bids are allowed whereas others are disallowed. It would be nice if this makes clear why the first method is fine, why the third method is not fine, and clarifies the status of the second method (and other potential "in between" agreements) without having to resort to querying the committee directly for every possible variant of this type of opening.

[TimG]

(3) 2♥ opening showing five or six hearts, four or five spades, 8-11 points.

 

The third method is a weak Flannery opening, which according to the minutes of the summer C&C meeting is not even permitted on the mid-chart.

I know you said "according to the minutes", but see items #14 and #16 on the mid-chart.

[hrothgar]

Richard, fair enough. I think this discussion is at least partly about semantics. What you call process and what I call reasoning are the same thing, I believe. When I think of process what I mean is 3 committee members sit in a room and decide on a case by case basis what is and isn't allowed. When I say (flawed) reasoning I mean the reasons by which they justified allowing the 2♣ bid and disallowing the 2♥ bid. Although reading back, I think it's both of those things you are disagreeing with, so we are perhaps in some agreement.

I probably wasn't being particularly clear...

I do think that we are fundamentally in agreement.

 

I agree that three people sitting in a room rendering judgment is a process. I don't think its a particularly good one.

 

Three people, sitting in a room, referencing a clear, publicly available rule book and showing how a new decision is consistent with the rules and precedence is a much better process.

 

Happy New Years all. (Time to get back to the move. L'sigh)

[JanM]

(3) 2♥ opening showing five or six hearts, four or five spades, 8-11 points.

 

The third method is a weak Flannery opening, which according to the minutes of the summer C&C meeting is not even permitted on the mid-chart.

This is exactly the sort of comment that will make committees unhappy to continue posting minutes. Surely you know that what they meant when they said "the both majors convention" isn't allowed on the Midchart was that it wasn't allowed as a possible meaning of a weak bid showing a 5 card Major and a 4 card side suit, not that it wasn't allowed when the side suit HAD to be spades.

 

Of course whoever wrote the minutes could have done a better job, but to start picking at how things are reported is really not going to endear you either to the committee members or to whoever is responsible for producing minutes.

[Vampyr]

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book.  If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

Multi 2D allowed at all levels, and all 2-level opening bids allowed to be played multi-style at virtually all tournaments?

 

The 2-suited 2-bids under discussion would be allowed at all levels, and much stranger 2-level (and 1NT) openings would be allowed at tournaments.

 

These are just examples; there are other regulations which might not be very suitable for American players. So the exceptions to the Orange book would probably be very similar in nature and in creation to the present regulations.

[awm]

I'm open to suggestions about how to phrase this in a way that will get the committee to listen. I've emailed them about this problem before, but get responses that make it clear that the person replying did not read or understand what I said. I'll try to phrase this as clearly as possible here and people can give advice if they want.

 

-------------------------

 

There are a number of popular treatments which involve natural bids, which also carry additional inferences about length or shortage in various other suits. Some of these treatments are routinely considered to be allowed on the general chart, with the usual explanation being "it's natural, so it's allowed." Such methods include for example: a weak two bid showing six cards in the bid suit and denying four or more cards in any unbid major, a precision 2♣ opening showing either 5♣ and a 4-card major or 6+♣, a bailey two bid which shows five or six cards in the bid suit and either two or three cards in each unbid major, a 1♥ opening which denies holding as many as four spades (strong club plus flannery), a natural and intermediate two-level opening which shows a balanced shape with five or six cards in the suit opened (denies any singleton or void).

 

On the other hand, there are also a number of similarly popular treatments involving natural bids with additional inferences about length or shortage in other suits which are routinely considered to be disallowed on the general chart (and possibly even the mid-chart). The explanation given is that these fall under "methods not specifically allowed are disallowed" even though they are natural and even though this seems to contradict the claim that natural bids are allowed. Such methods include for example: a weak two bid showing five or more cards in the bid suit and a four-card or longer minor (Muiderburg twos; mid-chart), a weak two bid in hearts showing five or six hearts and four or five cards in spades (weak Flannery; mid-chart, six board and longer rounds), a weak two-level opening showing five or more cards in the suit bid and five or more cards in an unspecified side suit (Polish twos; super-chart as best I can tell since the mid-chart does not list it).

 

There are a large number of methods falling into the gray area as well, and no one is quite certain whether these are permitted on the general chart or not. While it's possible to correspond with the committee directly for each such opening, the process is slow and often leads to contradictory replies (statements like "this is obviously general chart -- it is natural" and then in the same email "this other thing is obviously not allowed even on the mid-chart" even though the other thing referenced is also natural, or simply different people emailing and getting different replies from different people at ACBL HQ). Perhaps the worst case I'm aware of is statements strongly implying that a 2♥ opening showing exactly five hearts and a four-card or longer unspecified side suit is not allowed even on the mid-chart (in fact this very issue was discussed in the summer meeting) whereas a 2♥ opening showing exactly five hearts and an unbalanced hand is apparently legal on the general chart even though these two methods contain exactly the same set of hands within the 2♥ opening.

 

I feel that it's obvious this situation could do with some clarification. The new Laws allow regulation of natural bids, so there's no potential issue there. It seems straightforward to have some discussion, and add some statement to the general chart listing under allowed "natural bids" with possibly some exceptions if the committee so desires.

[Oren Goren]

I don't know anything about recent decades of C&C rulings, but perhaps invoking the early 70s definitions might help?

 

The ACBL defined THREE kinds of bid, "natural" which showed length and/or strength in the denomination named, "convention" which did not show length and/or strength in the denomination, and ...

 

"treatment" which showed length and/or strength in the denomination but also gave additional information.

 

And those definitions included the condition that only conventions could be disallowed.

 

Clearly, for example, the Polish 2-Bids are treatments.

 

But logic was and is no barrier to dark-orifice rulings. For example, two decades after the definitions were on the books "they" were still ruling that natural NTs by position were conventions.

 

The nature of the ACBL C&C universe is clear. I just hope none of us wake up as a giant cockroach,

[jdonn]

Adam, did you notice all of your allowed examples do not promise 'natural length' in any side suits (in other words 3+ in any minor or 4+ in any major) and all your disallowed examples do promise natural length in at least some side suit? It's really not very hard to figure out the dividing line they have used, whether they have stated it or not. Yes the 2♥ case you got a bad ruling from someone but their general intent is clear. Natural bids promising 2-suited hands are disallowed on the general chart, natural bids not promising 2-suited hands are allowed.

 

I'm all for more clarification, but we are allowed to use our heads too. There is no need to send them a book on this issue.

[bluecalm]

whereas a 2♥ opening showing exactly five hearts and an unbalanced hand is apparently legal on the general chart even though these two methods contain exactly the same set of hands within the 2♥ opening.

 

This is great. I think even people with disrespect for logic and with clouded judgement/understanding of bridge will understand that rules simply MUST be more clear.

[awm]

Besides that what Josh describes isn't formalized anywhere, there's still an awful lot of gray area. For example:

 

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and at most 2♠. This implies a 3+ card minor. But I'm sure it's GCC.

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and a 3+ card minor. Almost the same as the above, but less clear...

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and 3+♣. I've got no idea whether this one's allowed.

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and 3-4♠. Not a "natural" spade suit, but this one might be banned?

2♥ showing 5-6♥ and exactly 3♠. A subset of Bailey Twos, but seems fuzzier...

2♥ showing either (5♥ and 4♠) or 6♥. Rather similar to precision 2♣, but I don't know...

 

And these are just 2♥ openings. We can also consider one-level openings:

 

1♥ showing 5+♥ and a 4+ side suit. My feeling is might be GCC even if similar 2♥ isn't.

1♥ showing 5+♥ and either a 4+ side suit or substantial extras.

1♥ showing exactly 4♥, possibly with a longer minor.

1♥ showing 4+♥ and denying a balanced hand.

1♥ showing 4-5♥ and denying a balanced hand.

[bluecalm]

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

[Mbodell]

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

I agree, but what about a split range non-forcing 1♥ showing 0-7 or 16+ and 5+ hearts. I think some people would find playing against that with no advanced prep past a pre-alert to be trying.

[kenrexford]

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

That's the amazingly obvious solution.

 

If a weak two with a 5-card suit is allowed, then allow any variation of that by treatment.

 

If an intermediate two-level opening is allowed with 5+ in the suit, then allow any variation of that by treatment.

 

How can anyone complain about that? If my weak two opening in hearts promises the Jack of diamonds, then let that be my agreement. It seems so simple.

 

But, no! Let's be ignorant dopes and persist with the nonsense.

[bluecalm]

I agree, but what about a split range non-forcing 1♥ showing 0-7 or 16+ and 5+ hearts.

 

I was only talking about 2level openings. I believe there is some limit for strength for 1 level openers ? (not less than a king from average hand ?). So you couldn't play that anyway.

Maybe a good idea is to have similair limit for 2level openers. If you want to ban very weak destructive openers you can for example make a following law :

 

2level openers are only legal if they promise at least 8 "points" where "points" are defined as hcp + 1 for every card above 4 in every suit or something like that.

If ACBL really wants to ban only destructive/difficult to defend methods they could easily work this out. If they want to ban everything which isn't popular among american pairs then it's different story...

[jdonn]

I'm not saying there isn't gray area (though how many of those examples to people really want to play?) I'm not even saying my exact interpretation was correct. I'm not saying they shouldn't make things much clearer. I'm just saying we can easily tell their goal is to disallow 2-suited openings on the general chart, with very few specific exceptions (flannery). That much is quite clear.

[TimG]

I understand all the concerns about people being not prepared for strange openings but why just not allow EVERY natural opener promising 5+ cards in given suit ? It can't possibly be that hard to defend against...

This has been proposed to the Committee. It perhaps did not reach the serious consideration phase since it did not appear in the Summer 2009 minutes. Or, maybe it is part of the convention chart discussion that was tabled.

 

Tim

[NickRW]

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book. If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

I (personally) don't think the EBU Orange Book is perfect - but it (or at least its general approach) seems to be an order of magnitude better than what you guys are struggling with in North America.

 

I suggest that the amount of work is worth it.

 

Nick

[paulg]

If we want to wander a bit further afield, I don't think it unreasonable that the C&C committee generates something akin to the EBU Orange Book.  If this is considered too much work, it might be easier if we just handed responsibility for regulating conventions over to the Brits and adopt whatever set of regulations they use...

I (personally) don't think the EBU Orange Book is perfect - but it (or at least its general approach) seems to be an order of magnitude better than what you guys are struggling with in North America.

 

I suggest that the amount of work is worth it.

 

Nick

It's an order of magnitude bigger too.

 

It is a very good reference but would be a huge change for the ACBL and its members.

[billw55]

If they want to ban everything which isn't popular among american pairs then it's different story...

bingo