Allowed defenses to "could be short" 1C or 1D

[hrothgar]

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case. :wacko:

The regulations don't mention all sorts of stuff... Should we also presume that these bids might be natural?

 

One area where the regulations are pretty damn clear is the following (which appears in big bold letters with stars at the top of the GCC)

 

ALLOWED   Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed  

[kevperk]

I know I heard this from Rick Beye when he was chief TD. I thought I saw it somewhere "in print", but I can't seem to find it. I agree that it should be made official if this is what is wanted.

[jdonn]

Josh wrote:

 

So if a 1♣ opening bid that shows 3+ clubs differs by regulation from a 1♣ opening bid that shows 2+ clubs (such as one being conventional and one not), I would treat a system in which the 1♣ opening is 'either 3+ clubs or exactly 4432' as a 3+ 1♣ system. However if the 1♣ opening was 'either 3+ clubs or balanced without a 4 card major' so 1♣ could be 4432, 4342, 3442, or 3352 then I would not treat that system as a 3+ 1♣ system.

 

You can do this in defense of such an opening bid, after all you can agree with your partner whatever you like. The regulations don't care about such distinctions. If it did, you would be able to read about it.

When I was talking about how I would treat these systems it was an example of a change I want to see in the regulations, not talking about how I want to defend against them. I thought I was clear, but since I continue to be misunderstand in ways I hadn't predicted I must be communicating badly.

[TimG]

One area where the regulations are pretty damn clear is the following (which appears in big bold letters with stars at the top of the GCC)

 

ALLOWED   Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed  

So, an opening bid of 1♠ which shows 12+ HCP and 5+ spades is disallowed?

[the hog]

It is pretty obvious that these regulations are a mess. Why don't some of you get together and petition the ACBL to clarify them? Seriously!

[keylime]

I'd be all for an Orange Book style system (is that color for EBU?) here.

[Gerben42]

I'd be all for an Orange Book style system (is that color for EBU?) here.

 

Agree with that. I wrote an alternative GCC which clears up all the fuzzy lines, sent it to JoAnn Martel. And I'm not even in the ACBL, just want to help you poor people so that you have clear regulations. There was one point that I missed, but I guess that can be corrected. If there is interest I can post it (it's already in here somewhere though).

 

Gerben

[BudH]

Here is the response I received today to my inquiry, written by Mike Flader and also the letter I wrote that he responded to:

 

 

Dear Bud,

 

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

 

Regards,

 

Mike Flader

 

 

===============================================================================

"Bud Hinckley" <budh9534@gmail.com> 10/16/2010 15:43

 

To <rulings@acbl.org>

cc

bcc

 

Subject: Defenses allowed on GCC after "could be short" 1C or 1D bids

 

In the ACBL, when limited to the General Convention Chart, are you allowed to use any defense (such as a Midchart convention such as Suction) when the opponents open either of these two opening bids:

 

1. 1C "could be short", when it could be a doubleton only with a 4=4=3=2 distribution (and could be 12 HCP or 19 HCP)

 

 

2. 1D, "could be short", when it could be as short as a doubleton in a Precision type structure.

 

 

3. Either of the two above, but when the doubleton could occur more often than "rarely" and/or might rarely be a singleton.

 

 

 

Bud H

[PrecisionL]

Dear Bud,

 

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

 

Regards, Mike Flader

 

Almost exactly what I Quoted earlier in this thread, but AWM said I have strange ideas about the GCC. :D

[hrothgar]

Here is the response I received today to my inquiry, written by Mike Flader and also the letter I wrote that he responded to:

 

Dear Bud,

 

These defenses may be applied to artificial opening bids. The 1C and 1D openings to which you refer below are natural treatments, and, as such section 7 under competitive in the GCC does not apply, so, they would not be legal.

 

Regards,

 

Mike Flader

 

 

"Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no"

 

JRR Tolkien

 

(I suspect that the quote is off somewhat. I always pictured the elves as being overly nuanced rather than completely incompetent)

[Cascade]

Whatever skills Mr Flader brings to this position clearly he has difficulty with counting to three which unfortunately for his advice is the number of cards required for a bid to be natural by the definition in the GCC.

[helene_t]

I can sorta understand the reason why ACBL wants to treat short minor suit openings as natural in this context, but I would just personally prefer a formal definition of "natural" that were to be interpreted literally, as opposed to the "3+" definition which apparently is not to be interpreted literally.

 

The problem is that I just wouldn't be sure where the slippery slope ends. What about a Ultimate Club 1♦ opening? OK, it is similar to a Precision 1♦ opening and the extra hands it contains (4+ diamonds and 5+ spades) actually contain diamonds so I suppose that is natural. But what about a Crazy Diamond 1♦ opening? Probably artificial, but where exactly is the threshold?

[blackshoe]

I doubt it's Flader's fault. He's probably just repeating what he's been told by more senior ACBL directors.

[Cascade]

I doubt it's Flader's fault. He's probably just repeating what he's been told by more senior ACBL directors.

 

That is a much more palatable position:

 

The senior directors cannot count to three and the less senior directors are unwilling to correct this obvious mistake.

 

The law remains that a director on the floor is 'bound ... by the announced regulations' and they are not bound by Mr Flader's interpretation. In a matter that involves counting to three Mr Flader's or his bosses interpretation counts for little when it is contrary to law.

 

Further it is perverse to define as "natural" something that is clearly not natural in any simple interpretation of the plain language.

 

To me it is simply wrong and unfair that the regulators and directors use their position to favour one method over another by distorting the announced regulations.

[NickRW]

Since when has this bothered the ACBL?

[awm]

The following needs to be understood about how ACBL operates in these matters:

 

(1) Emails from Flader or Beye or the other folks at ACBL headquarters are not binding on tournament directors.

(2) Emails from the above people can quite often contradict each other and ACBL's written documents; in fact they may even be self-contradictory within a single email.

(3) Interpretations of the convention regulations frequently have more to do with what the person asked thinks "should be allowed" than what is written on the charts.

 

In this particular case, note that Flader's explanation was very straightforward: "These openings are natural treatments." This directly contradicts the definition of natural which is specifically stated in the general chart (i.e. 3+ cards in the suit for a minor suit opening). Combined with the fact that his reply is not binding on any tournament director, I wouldn't view this as any sort of authoritative reply.

[NickRW]

(1) Emails from Flader or Beye or the other folks at ACBL headquarters are not binding on tournament directors.

 

One wonders, from afar, what the point of writing to them is? Even are they being paid something for an entirely useless product? It is not that I am trying to be nasty to them individually - I just wonder!

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has a hierarchy of tournament TDs. These are ACBL employees. Flader is one of these ("National TD", I think). He also writes a column for the Bulletin, but that's meaningless in terms of "authoritative sources" (IMO, of course). Rick Beye used to be the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director. As I understand it, the ACBL no longer has a CTD, having done away with the post. What Beye's current position is, I don't know.

 

IAC, the definitive source for interpretations of convention and alert regulations would seem to be the committee responsible for those regulations, which is if I'm not mistaken the Competition and Conventions Committee. Good luck getting an answer from them to any questions that might arise.

[NickRW]

Meh. The equivalent people in the EBU might have an opinion that one does not agree with - but they at least seem to be relatively authoritative. Or perhaps I mean they are relatively right because the regulations are less open to interpretation. Whatever.

 

Dunno how you guys stay in business. Ordinary North Americans must be a tolerant species!

[CSGibson]

We just played in the open flight NAPs using point-coded minor suit openings, which could be as short as 2 if we actually had a balanced hand. Only one of our opponents used "systems" over that bid, and the result of that was +1100 against our making 3N, and +200 against no making contract. In the 2nd of those, they wound up playing a 3-2 fit. Those boards made up our margin of victory for the entire event, so at the moment I'm very much in favor of having and allowing people to play systems...

[wyman]

In another forum, someone asked if it was GCC-legal to play a catch-all 1C defined as no 5cM, 8-14 HCP, could be as few as 2 clubs.

 

Per GCC, I think the answer is no, but if "as few as 2" clubs is natural (per Flader/Beye), then I think this would have to be allowed. In particular, I think a TD would either have to take a stand to disallow this but allow conventional defenses to a "could be short" 1C OR allow this but disallow conventional defenses to a "could be short" 1C.

[Cascade]

In another forum, someone asked if it was GCC-legal to play a catch-all 1C defined as no 5cM, 8-14 HCP, could be as few as 2 clubs.

 

Per GCC, I think the answer is no, but if "as few as 2" clubs is natural (per Flader/Beye), then I think this would have to be allowed. In particular, I think a TD would either have to take a stand to disallow this but allow conventional defenses to a "could be short" 1C OR allow this but disallow conventional defenses to a "could be short" 1C.

 

Careful they don't like it when you use their definitions and interpretations against them.

[wyman]

Careful they don't like it when you use their definitions and interpretations against them.

 

Noted. Will make gimmick account for next such post. Thanks for the heads-up!

[PrecisionL]

This thread still bothers me and I post a response I received August 25, 2011:

 

[snip about ACBL sanctioned clubs having full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted at their clubs.] .

 

"Responses from the rulings@acbl.org address deal with how a ruling would typically be determined at an ACBL sanctioned tournament where the ACBL Convention Charts are part of the conditions of contest. But we are also human and make mistakes, or we may have been presented with different information than what the on-site director had for determining a ruling. We try to make sure and preference our responses with statements along the line of ”based upon the information you have presented…” or “I might need to have been there…” so that people recognize we are making pronouncements based upon second hand evidence. We even have had responses aimed at one particular set of circumstances applied to a complete different set, and all we can say is that what we said then did not apply in the second instance."

 

Keith Wells

ACBL Tournament Director

 

P.S. When playing in ACBL Tournaments on the East Coast (VA, DC) I find that TDs allow Multi-Landy over an opponent's NT opening, a Mid-Chart convention. Thus, TDs Rule (instead of the GCC?). AWM is correct and I am naive to think posted rules rule. :<)

[BudH]

This thread still bothers me and I post a response I received August 25, 2011:

 

[snip about ACBL sanctioned clubs having full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted at their clubs.] .

 

"Responses from the rulings@acbl.org address deal with how a ruling would typically be determined at an ACBL sanctioned tournament where the ACBL Convention Charts are part of the conditions of contest. But we are also human and make mistakes, or we may have been presented with different information than what the on-site director had for determining a ruling. We try to make sure and preference our responses with statements along the line of ”based upon the information you have presented…” or “I might need to have been there…” so that people recognize we are making pronouncements based upon second hand evidence. We even have had responses aimed at one particular set of circumstances applied to a complete different set, and all we can say is that what we said then did not apply in the second instance."

 

Keith Wells

ACBL Tournament Director

 

P.S. When playing in ACBL Tournaments on the East Coast (VA, DC) I find that TDs allow Multi-Landy over an opponent's NT opening, a Mid-Chart convention. Thus, TDs Rule (instead of the GCC?). AWM is correct and I am naive to think posted rules rule. :<)

Keith,

 

Since this thread started about a year ago, the ACBL Board of Directors minutes from Toronto this summer show the following: "Conventions and Competitions Committee Suggestions – Alert Chart - Amend the definitions of natural openers to include a 1C opener on specifically 4432 with 2 clubs and 4-4 in the majors. Effective January 1, 2012."

 

And the September 2011 newsletter to club managers says "... the definitions of natural openers will include a 1C opener on specifically 4432 with 2 clubs and 4-4 in the majors. (The purpose is to prevent the opponents as treating this 1C opening as artificial which allows conventional defenses not on the General Convention Chart.)"

You can debate whether it is the Alert Chart or General Convention Chart that needs to change because of this change effective this upcoming January 1 in the ACBL. But starting in January, if an opponent opens 1C which could be less than three cards only if holding 4=4=3=2 shape, then that bid will be considered natural and defenses over that 1C will be limited.

 

What isn't clear from the Board of Director minutes is whether that 1C opening bid is still to be announced "could be short" on January 1, 2012. Mike Flader, both verbally and by email, says that 1C bid will no longer need to be announced "could be short" if it is short only when holding 4=4=3=2 shape. I made the point that the Alert Chart specifically says to state "could be short for non-forcing 1C and 1D calls which may be shorter than three cards" so that the Alert Chart AND the General Convention Chart would need to both be changed (as well as the ACBL convention cards on what is labeled blue regarding minor suit openings).

 

At the moment, it appears a special interpretation has been made which is linked to the Board of Directors change that the announcement of "could be short" will not be required starting in January on 1C openings which are short only when holding 4=4=3=2 shape.

 

I encouraged ACBL to place a short paragraph on this in the monthly ACBL Bulletin either in the December or January editions so it is clear to everyone.

 

Bud H