[hrothgar]

I just received the following from Rulings@acbl.org

From: rulings@acbl.org <rulings@acbl.org>
Date: Sep 19, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: Re:
To: rwilley@sloan.mit.edu



This agreement would not be legal. On the GCC, Item #6 indicates that
the minimum 2-suited opening requires 4-5 or better in the two known
suits. Future printing of the GCC will clarify.

Carl

"richard willey" <richard.willey@gmail.com>

I was playing in an ACBL sectional over the weekend. I ran into a pair
playing a convention that I hadn't seen before. Their 2D opening was
defined as either

1. A two suited hand with 5 Hearts and 4 Spades ( ~ 11-15 HCP)

or

2. A three suited hand 4+ Hearts, 4+ Spades, and 0-1 Diamonds. (~ 11 - 15 HCP)

The ACBL GCC explicitly sanctions

QUOTE
5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
A) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
B) a strong hand.
C) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

I'm curious how the phrase "both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP"
should be interpreted. Are 4-4 patterns legit or is a 5-4 required?

[ralph23]

Ten Philadelphia lawyers will not be enough to straighten this one out

[hrothgar]

ralph23, on Sep 19 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

Ten Philadelphia lawyers will not be enough to straighten this one out

BTW, I sent a followup specifically noting that this bid is part of Sontag's Matchpoint Precision system and recieved the following reply:

While it has been years since I read the Sontag book, most of his stuff is MidChart or SuperChart treatment. The agreement you originally wrote about has been disseminated to Tournament Directors across the continent. As I pointed out, the next printing of the GCC will further clarify.

Of note, we have seen this agreement pop up in isolated areas of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as on the west coast. Tournament staffs are dealing with it.

Carl

"richard willey" <richard.willey@gmail.com>

Thanks very much for the quick reply. For what its worth, I agree with this ruling, however, I think that it would be very useful to provide some additional clarification on these matters. As I understand things, this 2D opening is a basic part of Alan Sontag's Matchpoint Precision system, so there might be some squawking if it is made illegal.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Sep 19 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

Future printing of the GCC will clarify.

I'll believe that when I see it

When I wrote to the EBU asking about one of their regulations, the reply came with a very clear disclaimer saying, "Advice given here does not replace a TD's ruling." Similarly in the ACBL, even if a TD was shown a copy of this email, he wouldn't be bound to follow what is suggested. In my opinion the 2♦ bid is permitted according to the regulations as written, and I would be prepared to rule as such.

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Sep 19 2007, 08:59 PM, said:

As I understand things, this 2D opening is a basic part of Alan Sontag's Matchpoint Precision system, so there might be some squawking if it is made illegal.

Hmm, is that correct?
As I remember it the 2♦ opening in Alan Sontag's Matchpoint Precision showed either a weak 2♥ or a strong 3-suiter(4441 17-24 any singleton). But I might misremember (I doubt that ).
EDIT: I'm mistaken, that's the 2♦ opening i Power Precision. So much for my memory!

[rbforster]

Rulings@acbl.org, on Sep 19 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

Future printing of the GCC will clarify.

I'd be willing to believe that they might print another version of the GCC. However, given the history, I would bet money that "clarify" will not be the most common adjective used to describe the new rules.

[blackshoe]

I have no idea who "Carl" is. I do know he's not Mike Flader, who writes the "Ruling the Game" column.

Quote

The agreement you originally wrote about has been disseminated to Tournament Directors across the continent.

Disseminated by whom, and under what authority? The Competitions and Conventions Committee is responsible for convention regulations. If there's a question how those regulations are to be interpreted, the answer must come from the committee.

Aside from that, "Tournament Directors," in Memphis' vernacular, does not include club directors. They don't disseminate anything to club directors.

Quote

As I pointed out, the next printing of the GCC will further clarify.

Uh, huh. Sure. When will that be, 2012? I'm with Rob on this one.

IMO, the agreement in question is illegal because the regulation says "one of", and they're using two of the options. ISTR explaining my reasoning recently somewhere else, probably IBLF or rec.games.bridge.

[ralph23]

ralph23, on Sep 19 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Ten Philadelphia lawyers will not be enough to straighten this one out

Make that 25 Philadelphia lawyers.

Seriously though, it shouldn't be hard to get a copy of what ACBL sent out on this.... should it? Maybe someone would put Richard up to asking for a copy from Carl?

[han]

You are getting old Harald!

[jdonn]

I know Steve and Betty Bloom play this method, the 2♦ opening as Flannery or precision style. They are a pair who (I believe?) does well in senior events on the national level here. I can't say I'm a fan of the method at all though.

[blackshoe]

I'd be willing the bet the method of dissemination is a periodic - monthly, I think, though I'm not sure - newsletter Memphis sends to ACBL TDs. When I asked Rick Beye if I could get on the distro list he said no - in fact, he was unhappy I even knew it existed. So good luck getting a copy of one from Memphis.

Of course, if you're friendly with one of the in crowd, you might get him to show you his. If you're lucky.

Boy, am I in a bad mood tonight.

[hrothgar]

Here's the latest

Richard,

I don't know about 'shopping' opinions. I do recall an instance within the last 18 months or so where Mike and I disagreed on a response which was sent out. This disagreement was primarily due to a bit of careless in trying to deal with a high volume of responses being sent from the rulings mailbox. In the end Mike and I agreed on the ruling. The internet chat on this ruling, the chat that I viewed, was inaccurate.

You will note that item #5 states that you may play 'one of' the options below. As pointed out to you in an earlier email, any confusion will be clarified in the next printing of the GCC. Item #6 applies to item # 5a.

I hope this helps.

Rick

Richard F. Beye
Chief Tournament Director
American Contract Bridge League
2990 Airways Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38116
901-332-5586, ext. 1331
www.acbl.org


Hi Carl

Sorry to keep bothering you, but I'm getting a bunch of supplemental
questions about this ruling:

1. A couple people noted that its often possible to shop opinions
from rulings@acbl.org. They specifically note a few cases where Mike
Flader and Rick Beye have issued completely contradictory opinions.
The first question is how we can determine whether this ruling is
official or not.

2. The second question has to do with the wording of the GCC. As I
noted earlier, the GCC sanctions

5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
a strong hand.
c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

Section 6 permits:

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.

If "both majors" in section 5 requires at least 5-4 in the two suits,
how is this clause any different than the more general regulation
describe in Section 6 which allows any two known suits with at least
5-4 shape. Is 5 (a) redundant? If not, how do the two clauses
differ?


On 9/19/07, rulings@acbl.org <rulings@acbl.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> While it has been years since I read the Sontag book, most of his stuff is MidChart or SuperChart treatment. The agreement you originally wrote about has been disseminated to Tournament Directors across the continent. As I pointed out, the next printing of the GCC will further clarify.
>
> Of note, we have seen this agreement pop up in isolated areas of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as on the west coast. Tournament staffs are dealing with it.
>
> Carl
> "richard willey" <richard.willey@gmail.com>
>
> Thanks very much for the quick reply. For what its worth, I agree with this ruling, however, I think that it would be very useful to provide some additional clarification on these matters. As I understand things, this 2D opening is a basic part of Alan Sontag's Matchpoint Precision system, so there might be some squawking if it is made illegal.
>
> On 9/19/07, rulings@acbl.org <rulings@acbl.org> wrote:
> This agreement would not be legal. On the GCC, Item #6 indicates that the minimum 2-suited opening requires 4-5 or better in the two known suits. Future printing of the GCC will clarify.
>
> Carl
>
> "richard willey" < richard.willey@gmail.com>
>
>
> I was playing in an ACBL sectional over the weekend. I ran into a pair
> playing a convention that I hadn't seen before. Their 2D opening was
> defined as either
>
> 1. A two suited hand with 5 Hearts and 4 Spades ( ~ 11-15 HCP)
>
> or
>
> 2. A three suited hand 4+ Hearts, 4+ Spades, and 0-1 Diamonds. (~ 11 - 15 HCP)
>
> The ACBL GCC explicitly sanctions
>
> QUOTE
> 5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
> a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
> a strong hand.
> c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.
>
> I'm curious how the phrase "both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP"
> should be interpreted. Are 4-4 patterns legit or is a 5-4 required?
>
>
>
>

[VicMoll]

joshs, on 2007-September-10, 14:44, said:

This is Alan Sontag's 2D opening from his matchpoint precision. I have asked for clarification about this bid in the past. I was even told that
2D showing flannary OR a precision 2D (can be 4-3 in the majors if 5 clubs) was GCC legal. I still wonder about that one....

Funny, the first time I met Flannery was when I learned Sontag/Weichsel's Power Precision. In PP they used 2H for 4=5-x-x / 4=4=1=4 / 4=4=0=5 and 11-poor 16 HCP; 2D was Multi, showing a weak 2H, strong 4-4-4-1 or strong balanced hand. I wonder what advantages Sontag saw that he changed to the new system?