[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2013-April-29, 16:44, said:

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]

hrothgar, on 2013-April-29, 16:45, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 13:30, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2013-April-29, 09:53, said:

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.).

mycroft, on 2013-April-29, 09:53, said:

(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.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-29, 10:13, said:

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

[antonylee]

I don't see how this is relevant then. The GCC only prohibits conventional "understandings" over such an opening, not natural ones (for whatever meaning you attach to "conventional" and "natural").

[aguahombre]

The point was that the method is unworkable without conventional responses, which are not allowed, according to that TD who allowed the method itself.

[antonylee]

Why do you think so that the method is unworkable without conventional responses?
Something like 2N=natural invite; 3C=3+, NF; 3M=GF sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure you can find useful and natural meanings to the remaining bids.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-29, 18:48, said:

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.

The way I imagine the GCC evolved is that there were a collection of conventions that had become common over time, such as Drury, Cappalletti, and Gambling 3NT. Since most players were familiar and comfortable with them, they had to be allowed. So when they designed the GCC, they included rules that allowed these things, but not other, unfamiliar conventions. The point of the GCC is to restrict players mostly to familiar conventions, so their opponents won't have to devise lots of defenses to strange sequences.

I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that something like Drury is allowed because it's "someone's favorite convention". It's a convention that has been popular among most of the expert community for a long time, and has been adopted by many intermediate and advanced players as well.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 13:30, said:

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 restructuring that i feel is necessary is more organisational. The policy makers, the BoD through the Competitions and Conventions Committee, need to ensure that the policy implementers, the Tournament Directors, are doing what they want and expect on a consistent basis. At the moment it would appear that there is a major disconnect between these bodies. This disconnect leads to a vacuum when it comes to interpretation of the policy which people try to fill as best as they can but causes major inconsistencies at all levels of play.

I don't believe the ACBL has to adopt EBU regulations and policies, but it could do a lot worse than copy some of its modus operandi. Namely, having senior directors either on the CCC or attending its meetings, answering questions directly and publishing detailed minutes over policy decisions. All of this helps to drive consistency from the tournament game down through to the clubs.

[aguahombre]

antonylee, on 2013-April-30, 00:32, said:

Why do you think so that the method is unworkable without conventional responses?
Something like 2N=natural invite; 3C=3+, NF; 3M=GF sounds reasonable to me. I'm sure you can find useful and natural meanings to the remaining bids.

An opening bid as described, which may have 4 of the suit or zero of the suit, and which might be a 3-suiter or a two-suiter, makes almost all responses conventional. I could argue successfully that Pass or Correct bids and stalling bids which do not necessarily show a desire to play in that suit are conventional. If they are disclosed, they are unallowable conventions; if not, they are concealed agreements.

[mycroft]

As described, it has 4 in the suit bid. Period. It doesn't have 4 of the other major, and isn't balanced (4333 or 4432).

I would argue that it is possible to play this legally (very close to the limit), but I'd be watching every step of the way for auctions that imply "natural but" agreements and any attempt to WeaSeL out of problems.

I'm not implying they aren't Very Careful about this, and I assume given how long they've been playing it that they are in fact doing it ethically; but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to gather evidence of "no conventional responses afterward".

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-April-30, 10:25, said:

As described, it has 4 in the suit bid. Period. It doesn't have 4 of the other major, and isn't balanced (4333 or 4432).

O.K. "OM" was other major, not opening major. My bad; Still, I would be as watchful as you would be.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2013-April-30, 09:18, said:

I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that something like Drury is allowed because it's "someone's favorite convention". It's a convention that has been popular among most of the expert community for a long time, and has been adopted by many intermediate and advanced players as well.

Please substitute the Romex Dynamic 1NT opening for Drury.
(If you prefer to go a bit further back, the Precision 2D opening)

[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2013-April-30, 09:49, said:

[/size]
The restructuring that i feel is necessary is more organisational. The policy makers, the BoD through the Competitions and Conventions Committee, need to ensure that the policy implementers, the Tournament Directors, are doing what they want and expect on a consistent basis. At the moment it would appear that there is a major disconnect between these bodies. This disconnect leads to a vacuum when it comes to interpretation of the policy which people try to fill as best as they can but causes major inconsistencies at all levels of play.

I don't believe the ACBL has to adopt EBU regulations and policies, but it could do a lot worse than copy some of its modus operandi. Namely, having senior directors either on the CCC or attending its meetings, answering questions directly and publishing detailed minutes over policy decisions. All of this helps to drive consistency from the tournament game down through to the clubs.

It seems to me that the ACBL has a nice hierarchical structure, from the HQ level through the Districts and down to the Units, and then the clubs. For a long time (as far back as I can remember anyway) HQ hasn't cared much what clubs do, as long as they (the ACBL) get their piece of the action. IME club owners have come to recognize this, to the point that they believe (correctly, IMO, at least until very recently) that they can do whatever they want, whether it's "legal" according to the laws and ACBL regulations or not. In the past few months, I've seen some rumblings that somebody in Horn Lake wants to change this, but I think we'll have to wait and see how successful they are.

One problem that I know exists is that ACBL Tournament TDs, who are all ACBL employees, get information on how certain laws and regulations are to be interpreted that is not readily available to club TDs. This is, IMO, a Bad Thing™. Everyone should be on the same page, and the ACBL needs to make sure that everyone is on the same page. My suggestion would be to task the Units to conduct an ongoing continuing education program for club level TDs. One that does not require them to attend nationals. They could use the ACBL TDs who live in or close to their areas to accomplish this. Of course, a good program would require that all these TDs who are doing the educating are in line with what HQ wants. That might (or might not, I just don't know) require modification of the existing training program, whatever it may be, for ACBL employee TDs.

At present, if you ask six different TDs a rulings question, in the ACBL you're like to get six or seven different answers. That has to change.

[awm]

The problem is really that there is a nebulous exception for natural bids. There are many cases where a bid shows length in the suit named such that it would be categorized as natural, but also carries some other information about distribution. Some simple examples that I see fairly frequently in ACBL events:

1. Bailey two bids -- 2M showing 5-6 in the bid suit with 2-3 in the other major and no voids.
2. Opening 1♦ showing 4+♦ and guarantees an unbalanced hand.
3. Fit showing responses which show length in the bid suit but also support for partner's suit.
4. Precision 2♣ opening showing 5♣ and a four-card major, or 6+♣.
5. Preempts which show 5-6 in the bid suit and deny holding 4+ cards in any unbid major.
6. 1M openings in a canape style which show either 4M and a longer side suit, or 6+M.
7. 1NT opening in matchpoint precision: balanced 12-15 range and denies holding any 4+ card major.
8. Two level preempt showing 5+ in the bid suit and also 4+ in a minor.
9. Two level preempt showing 5+ in the bid suit and also 5+ in any other suit.
10. 2♥ showing 5+♥ and 4♠.

Since it's never been made explicit when exactly a natural bid is allowed under the general chart (clearly some natural bids not explicitly described are allowed; I see people playing the first seven of these in general chart events without anyone ruling against them), the legality of certain calls becomes very unclear. The ACBL refuses to recognize that there is even an issue; a recent case tried to get precision 2♣ explicitly legalized on the general chart and the board ruled that this was "obviously allowed" and to make no amendment, even though it seems equally obvious (or non-obvious) that Muiderburg 2M is allowed (which apparently it is not).

[awm]

I'll also mention that the closest I've seen to a rule describing how these things work "in practice" is the following:

* If an opening suit bid promises length in the bid suit (4+ if a major, 3+ if a minor) and might be a hand where the bid suit is the only suit of 4+ cards, then it is considered non-conventional and allowed (regardless of other inferences about distribution). However, an opening suit bid which always contains a suit other than the one named (whether a specific other suit or one of several) is considered conventional and is not allowed unless explicitly mentioned on the chart.

This seems to explain the common examples (i.e. Bailey twos allowed, precision 2♣ allowed, Muiderburg not allowed). If this were law (and keep in mind I haven't seen it stated anywhere before, it's just something I conjured up to explain the "rules on the ground") then it would seem to make the method you encountered illegal on the general chart.

[mycroft]

While I agree with blackshoe and awm; and with the "GCC is 'everyone's favourite conventions, de-named'" (see my history as to why); a reminder that with the new Law Book and the WBFLC's ruling of "what can be defined a 'special partnership understanding'", does everyone really want the team that has gutted the Mid-Chart over the last 15 years to be rewriting the GCC right at this moment?

[aguahombre]

Actually, some of the GCC restrictions are owing to favorite conventions of un-favorite players.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-01, 09:41, said:

Actually, some of the GCC restrictions are owing to favorite conventions of un-favorite players.

I would hate to see changes to the GCC make Romex unplayable under that chart.

Perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the Limited Chart. Make that the "go to" chart for the clubs full of LOLs (of both sexes) and liberalize the GCC a bit, and the Mid-Chart a lot. Allow just about anything, including Forcing Pass systems, on the Superchart. Make the Mid-Chart standard at the Regional level, which would require TOs to specifically advertise (in advance) that their Regional is limited to the GCC.

I know, I know. Can't happen, won't happen, yada, yada. So I'm a radical. Sue me.