ACBL GCC legal preempt?

[Stephen Tu]

GCC event. Opponents play 2M as roughly 8-12 HCP, 4cd M, with either longer unknown minor, or both minors 3-suited short in OM. Opponents apparently got ruling from ACBL official that this is GCC legal as long as they don't open lighter than 8, and don't use conventional responses.

 

Does this make any sense according to the wording on the charts? Does there exist any wording in there, that supports the logic of that ruling? Why would this be GCC, while Muiderberg, with 5M-4+m is midchart? Would Muiderberg if restricted to 8+ HCP be GCC? Is there anything in WBF laws that overrides ambiguities in member org's convention charts, or that clearly defines what is allowed as "natural" ?

[manudude03]

I thought this was on the fringe of being a BSC, just checked the WBF site, and it appears to cross the line.

a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:

i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below

average strength) AND

ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a

known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four

card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average

strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at

least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings

show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is

not a Brown Sticker Convention.)

EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a

weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of

strong hand types containing 16 high card points or more, or

with equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for

opponents as in 6 below.

 

Weak is defined as "high card strength below that of an average hand". So it seems to me as if it would be fine if it promised 10+. The ACBL never did seem consistent though.

[campboy]

It's not BS because it shows a known suit. But it's not GCC legal either. The only clause which allows a conventional 2M opening is this one:

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits

which clearly doesn't cover it.

[edit] Oops, actually there is another one which allows 2M to be a strong asking bid.

[antonylee]

I disagree, the bid shows 4 cards in a major which by itself makes the bid natural: "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit" (GCC). This also does not satisfy a)ii) of WBF BSC, and is thus not BSC.

Yes, natural bids are not specifically allowed by GCC but note that natural 1M openings aren't specifically allowed by GCC either; thus logically it implies that all natural openings are allowed.

On the other hand such an opening bid is restricted by

- Disallowed 1) Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods (I guess the ACBL ruled that 8+ made it non-primarily destructive, whereas 6+HCP Muiderberg is primarily destructive... don't ask me :-)); and

- Disallowed 7) CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after [...] and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit (note that the wording makes it reasonably clear that such an opening is legal; only conventional responses etc. are illegal).

[manudude03]

I disagree, the bid shows 4 cards in a major which by itself makes the bid natural <snip>

From the look of the OP, it looks like a 2S opener can be (and not unlikely to be) 31(45), so it doesn't promise 4.

[paulg]

GCC event. Opponents play 2M as roughly 8-12 HCP, 4cd M, with either longer unknown minor, or both minors 3-suited short in OM. Opponents apparently got ruling from ACBL official that this is GCC legal as long as they don't open lighter than 8, and don't use conventional responses.

Unfortunately there are too many ACBL officials who you can ask and quite often you can find one who does not understand the charts.

 

I disagree, the bid shows 4 cards in a major which by itself makes the bid natural: "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit" (GCC).

It is quite clear from the charts that just having a known 4-card major is insufficient to make a bid natural. I know that this is what the chart says, but it is shorthand for "if it shows four or more cards in the major and says nothing else about the hand". If your interpretation were correct, then much of the Mid-Chart would be redundant as most of the opening two bids that are Mid-Chart guarantee at least one suit.

 

I believe that if you were to ask the Competition and Conventions Committee or the Chief Tournament Director, this opening bid would be classified as Super Chart. In order to play it at Mid-Chart or GCC with only a four-card major, then the range would need to be 10+ points and BOTH suits must be specified.

 

The discussion about Brown Sticker Conventions is a distraction. It is irrelevant to ACBL events.

[hrothgar]

[/size]

Unfortunately there are too many ACBL officials who you can ask and quite often you can find one who does not understand the charts.

 

 

It is quite clear from the charts that just having a known 4-card major is insufficient to make a bid natural. I know that this is what the chart says, but it is shorthand for "if it shows four or more cards in the major and says nothing else about the hand". If your interpretation were correct, then much of the Mid-Chart would be redundant as most of the opening two bids that are Mid-Chart guarantee at least one suit.

 

I believe that if you were to ask the Competition and Conventions Committee or the Chief Tournament Director, this opening bid would be classified as Super Chart. In order to play it at Mid-Chart or GCC with only a four-card major, then the range would need to be 10+ points and BOTH suits must be specified.

 

The discussion about Brown Sticker Conventions is a distraction. It is irrelevant to ACBL events.

 

Paul (pretty much) says it all

[antonylee]

From the look of the OP, it looks like a 2S opener can be (and not unlikely to be) 31(45), so it doesn't promise 4.

I am pretty sure I know the pair Stephen was playing (congratulations, by the way!) and no, their 2M doesn't include (31)(45), though it does include (41)44.

 

It is quite clear from the charts that just having a known 4-card major is insufficient to make a bid natural. I know that this is what the chart says, but it is shorthand for "if it shows four or more cards in the major and says nothing else about the hand". If your interpretation were correct, then much of the Mid-Chart would be redundant as most of the opening two bids that are Mid-Chart guarantee at least one suit.

Looking at mid-chart again, only 12) (Muiderberg), 14) and 16) (altogether, a 2H opening showing 5+4+ in the majors) are about "natural" bids (in the sense that they show the major BID, not just any major). Logically I assume such bids would be allowed if 8+ (well, if the ACBL is consistent with itself at least). In any case, "much of mid-chart" is not about "natural" bids.

[hrothgar]

 

Looking at mid-chart again, only 12) (Muiderberg), 14) and 16) (altogether, a 2H opening showing 5+4+ in the majors) are about "natural" bids (in the sense that they show the major BID, not just any major). Logically I assume such bids would be allowed if 8+ (well, if the ACBL is consistent with itself at least).

 

The ACBL is not consistent with itself.

Best I can figure out, Muiderberg is NOT legal at the GCC level.

[barmar]

I am pretty sure I know the pair Stephen was playing (congratulations, by the way!) and no, their 2M doesn't include (31)(45), though it does include (41)44.

Seems really confusing to describe that as "both minors 3-suited short in OM" instead of "4144 or 40(54)"? And the first part of the description seems to allow 42(52) or 43(51) as well. So what hands with a 4-card major are NOT included? I guess they're just saying that it's not a flat hand.

[antonylee]

Seems really confusing to describe that as "both minors 3-suited short in OM" instead of "4144 or 40(54)"? And the first part of the description seems to allow 42(52) or 43(51) as well. So what hands with a 4-card major are NOT included? I guess they're just saying that it's not a flat hand.

The alert I got from them is "unbalanced, exactly 4 cards in the major, not 4 in the other major", e.g. 42(61) hands are included as well (and 43(51) too).

[blackshoe]

If I were presented with this agreement at the table, I would request a TD ruling, whatever the opponents claimed.

 

IMO, this agreement is not GCC legal. Also, there is no provision in law or regulation for the WBF to override another Regulating Authority's regulations. I agree with Paulg: WBF regulation are irrelevant to the question of legality under the GCC.

[Stephen Tu]

I disagree, the bid shows 4 cards in a major which by itself makes the bid natural: "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit" (GCC).

 

The GCC also defines a convention as:

"A convention is a bid or call that, by agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named ".

 

So a bid can be both natural and conventional if it shows something about the other suits. A bid could be natural+conventional, artificial+conventional, natural + non-conventional. I'm pretty sure that's how they justifying regulating Muiderberg to mid-chart. I see nothing in GCC to justify their HCP ruling, GCC only seems to regulate light *opening one-bids*, not *opening two-bids*. The ruling that including 7 counts or lower makes their bid "destructive" appears to have been pulled from thin-air IMO.

 

Seems really confusing to describe that as "both minors 3-suited short in OM" instead of "4144 or 40(54)"? And the first part of the description seems to allow 42(52) or 43(51) as well. So what hands with a 4-card major are NOT included? I guess they're just saying that it's not a flat hand.

 

Supposedly 42(52)/43(51) is acceptable. It is not balanced. Apparently at one time they also included more balanced hands, but this was ruled as destructive. ACBL has well-known hatred of Ekren type bids so I guess that's why balanced was ruled not allowed?

 

If I were presented with this agreement at the table, I would request a TD ruling, whatever the opponents claimed.

I did. However, this pair has apparently previously managed to convince various ACBL officials, including at previous nationals, that this method was GCC. So the local directors abided by the previous rulings, after e-mail correspondence with headquarters (most likely some opp had queried earlier in this event, I imagine that this likely comes up almost any GCC event this pair plays).

 

I just can't find any justification for it though in the wording of the GCC. I just wanted to solicit opinions before I argue for the ACBL to either make the GCC more explicit in what is allowed or disallowed, or rule that this method should be mid-chart (I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed as mid-chart, other than getting a defense approved).

 

Too much to ask, I guess, for an ACBL official to read their own chart and rule consistently and according to the published wording, rather than make justifications from personal gut feelings about what ought to be allowed and inventing new rules like 8+ HCP is OK?

[hrothgar]

The GCC also defines a convention as:

"A convention is a bid or call that, by agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named ".

 

Too much to ask, I guess, for an ACBL official to read their own chart and rule consistently and according to the published wording, rather than make justifications from personal gut feelings about what ought to be allowed and inventing new rules like 8+ HCP is OK?

 

I have long argued that one of the ACBL's worst failure mode is their gross inability to provide clear and consistent guidance regarding what methods are / are not legal.

 

Its unclear to me whether

 

1. The ACBL is legitimately incompetent

2. The folks in charge actually value this type of ambiguity

 

I wish you luck in you endeavor. However, I feel obliged to point out the difficulty in nailing the ACBL down on whether Muiderberg is legal at the GCC level.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure I would agree that it is GCC legal, given that 5M promising 5-other-suit is not legal.

 

If it is, however, I would ensure that they truly are not playing any conventions thereafter - that includes a defence to your penalty or takeout doubles (or penalty-or-takeout!), or Blackwood, or a 3♣ call that could be short (i.e. "pass or correct"); and any hint of that happening would be a "check with the TD to see if it's legal".

 

And this is from someone who played an "8 to 15 or so" NT in third seat for a while.

 

(and, until "The Alert Chart is rewritten to reflect the ruling", I assume they pre-Alert this?)

[aguahombre]

It would seem that it would become a moot point for any competent pair without CPU's, once the TD stipulated that they could not use conventional responses.

[blackshoe]

[i did. However, this pair has apparently previously managed to convince various ACBL officials, including at previous nationals, that this method was GCC. So the local directors abided by the previous rulings, after e-mail correspondence with headquarters (most likely some opp had queried earlier in this event, I imagine that this likely comes up almost any GCC event this pair plays).

 

I just can't find any justification for it though in the wording of the GCC. I just wanted to solicit opinions before I argue for the ACBL to either make the GCC more explicit in what is allowed or disallowed, or rule that this method should be mid-chart (I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed as mid-chart, other than getting a defense approved).

 

Too much to ask, I guess, for an ACBL official to read their own chart and rule consistently and according to the published wording, rather than make justifications from personal gut feelings about what ought to be allowed and inventing new rules like 8+ HCP is OK?

Someone needs to get this in front of the BoD and get them to require a thorough review and restructuring of all bidding and play regulations. Until that happens you're never going to get consistent rulings.

 

If it were up to me I'd lobby for something like the EBU's Orange Book, but I'm sure if anyone suggested that there'd be an immediate "not invented here" reaction. :(

[barmar]

1. The ACBL is legitimately incompetent

2. The folks in charge actually value this type of ambiguity

3. They don't think it's a serious enough problem to require fixing

[hrothgar]

3. They don't think it's a serious enough problem to require fixing

 

I file that under legitimately incompetent...

[hrothgar]

Someone needs to get this in front of the BoD and get them to require a thorough review and restructuring of all bidding and play regulations. Until that happens you're never going to get consistent rulings.

 

If it were up to me I'd lobby for something like the EBU's Orange Book, but I'm sure if anyone suggested that there'd be an immediate "not invented here" reaction. :(

 

Personally, I think that the best thing we could do would be the adopt the EBU regs. hook, line, and sinker...

[barmar]

I file that under legitimately incompetent...

Not if they're right. But I guess your response implies that you don't think that's possible.

[blackshoe]

Personally, I think that the best thing we could do would be the adopt the EBU regs. hook, line, and sinker...

We could do worse. It won't happen, though.

[Vampyr]

Someone needs to get this in front of the BoD and get them to require a thorough review and restructuring of all bidding and play regulations. Until that happens you're never going to get consistent rulings.

The problem with "restructuting" is that there doesn't seem to be an underlying structure. I can't see any rationale behind the ACBL's bidding regulations; it's all piecemeal, as though someone's favourite convention got put in from time to time. For example, you can use 2♣ as an invitational raise of partner's major -- but only if you are a passed hand. Over the opps' 1NT, you can use 2♣ to show an unnamed suit, but not 2♦. If you use an opening 3NT bid to show a single-suited hand, the suit must be solid -- unless the only potential suits are minors.

[antonylee]

If it is, however, I would ensure that they truly are not playing any conventions thereafter - that includes a defence to your penalty or takeout doubles (or penalty-or-takeout!), or Blackwood, or a 3♣ call that could be short (i.e. "pass or correct"); and any hint of that happening would be a "check with the TD to see if it's legal".

Pretty sure that they don't (no Blackwood, penalty doubles and redoubles, etc.).

 

(and, until "The Alert Chart is rewritten to reflect the ruling", I assume they pre-Alert this?)

At least every time I've played against (or with) them.

 

It would seem that it would become a moot point for any competent pair without CPU's, once the TD stipulated that they could not use conventional responses.

CPU=?

[chrism]

Concealed Partnership Understanding