[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]

 awm, on 2010-October-25, 16:16, said:

(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]

 wyman, on 2010-November-01, 09:07, said:

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]

 Cascade, on 2010-November-01, 09:11, said:

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]

 PrecisionL, on 2011-November-22, 09:51, said:

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

[BudH]

 PrecisionL, on 2011-November-22, 09:51, said:

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. :<)

What timing - five minutes after I sent my post, I received an email from Mike Flader, which states that it has been decided that the 1C opening bid on a doubleton only when 4=4=3=2 WILL continue to be announced as it has been. No change to the alert or announcement regulations regarding this topic.

Bud H

[hrothgar]

 BudH, on 2011-November-22, 10:37, said:

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.)"

Does anyone else think that it is ass backwards to accomplish the goal by adding inane special cases to the definition of "natural" rather than modifying the conventional defenses section?
For the life of me, I can't understand why opening 1♣ on a 4=4=3=2 hand is considered "natural", but opening 1♣ on a 4=3=4=2 hand isn't.

[bluejak]

Quite simply, they are confusing natural and normal. Because 4=4=3=2 1♣ openings are becoming normal, and because if you use a fancy defence against them your opponents might burst into tears, they decided to stop fancy defences against that particular 1♣.

But any other short minor - for example if you decide to open any balanced hand with 1♣ even if it has four diamonds - is not to be afforded the same protection.

As someone who plays a fancy defence I think it a pity personally that this protection has been put in. I believe the approach to conventions: 'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is correct; I would not expect anyone to have any limitations in their defences to any of my fancy bids.

But much more annoying is going to be trying to work out which defence we are playing. It seems a silly decision to me: if such a1♣ is natural they should stop announcing it as short. Then it is easy to know what defence is legal.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me what the ACBL's decisions mean is that we're going to have to ask for explanations every time 1♣ is announced.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-November-22, 16:51, said:

Seems to me what the ACBL's decisions mean is that we're going to have to ask for explanations every time 1♣ is announced.

Only if you want to play one of the defenses that's not allowed against natural openings. I doubt this will affect more than 1% of ACBL players.

[Phil]

 hrothgar, on 2011-November-22, 12:07, said:

Does anyone else think that it is ass backwards to accomplish the goal by adding inane special cases to the definition of "natural" rather than modifying the conventional defenses section?
For the life of me, I can't understand why opening 1♣ on a 4=4=3=2 hand is considered "natural", but opening 1♣ on a 4=3=4=2 hand isn't.

Or opening a Precision 1♦ with a weak NT with 2 diamonds isn't.

I can only guess someone had a 2♦ (multi: one M) overcall over their 'short club' and they screamed for the cops.

[blackshoe]

Maybe not, but don't forget that the same "could be short" announcement is made with a minimum length of 0 or 1 in the suit, both of which are still artificial. It seems that while 1♣ with 2 trumps is now to be considered natural, but only with 4=4=3=2, other 1♣ or any 1♦ opening with the same length is still considered artificial.

If the ACBL is just greasing the squeaky wheel without considering the law of unintended consequences (which seems likely) they're probably gonna get bit in the ass sooner or later.

[mikestar13]

Also the new ACBL decision to treat 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands as natural is relevant to their current intentions,which now appear to be:

1) Protect the (often weak) partnerships who play short club rather than convenient minor in an otherwise plain vanilla SAYC or 2/1 context* from artificial defenses.
2) Not to extend the same protection to Precision 1♦ catch-all openings.

Of course, even God and the ACBL itself are often on a guess about what ACBL means, so I could well be wrong, but my experience directing at senior center games suggests this.

*Please don't take offense if your partnership opens short club playing something sophisticated like T-Walsh. These partnerships tend to be quite good.

[mikestar13]

By the way, if I were making the rules, the "any defense allowed" rule would not apply to 1♣/1♦ which are natural (4+ cards IMHO) OR balanced.

[Free]

 mikestar13, on 2011-November-22, 23:06, said:

By the way, if I were making the rules, the "any defense allowed" rule would not apply to 1♣/1♦ which are natural (4+ cards IMHO) OR balanced.

Then glad you're not making the rules