[mgoetze]

Since the new BBO Speedballs are apparently run according to the ACBL GCC, with which I have never previously had the misfortune to be confronted, I have some questions.

I'll start with opening bids. Keeping in mind that "unless specifically listed below, methods are disallowed", I note that 1♥ and 1♠ openings are not listed under opening bids. This means that any agreement to open come hand types 1♥ or 1♠ is illegal, correct?

Furthermore it seems the only legal meaning for a 1NT opening is "15+ HCP, forcing", is that correct?

I am having a lot of difficulty seeing how to construct a legal bidding system within this framework. My spontaneous idea was to have 1♣ as 4+ hearts, 1♦ as 4+ spades, 1NT as the only strong opening, 2♣ as 5+♣4+♦ and 2♦ as 4+♣5+♦ but that still leaves me stuck because I cannot open 14 HCP 2344/3244 hands. Oh well I guess I can live with passing those, but it does seem like bad bridge to me.

Also, absolutely the only preempts I am allowed to play are 2NT for the minors and 3NT thru 4♥ as transfer preempts, is that correct? It does seem a bit unusual to allow transfer preempts but not normal preempts but I guess they did it because transfer preempts are easier to defend against, two bites of the cherry and all that...

Anyway at present it seems extremely restrictive making the BBO speedball events very unattractive but perhaps I have merely missed something somewhere.

[diana_eva]

We heard you the first time, M

[mgoetze]

I'll take that as a "just don't play in them" answer.

Too bad, I had so many nice followup questions in mind once someone claims natural bids are implicitly allowed.

[diana_eva]

I don't know why you would take that as "just dont play in them". You've been around long enough to know exactly what i meant.

Sorry I ruined your chance to continue exposing all the flaws associated with the GCC - but we are aware it's not perfect and we already explained we're flexible.

 barmar, on 2012-April-06, 08:12, said:

This was a difficult decision for us. We discussed being more liberal, or perhaps "GCC + Multi". But since we allow robot partners, we were worried about allowing too many things that would confuse them -- there's just no way that they'll do the right thing after someone opens a multi 2D.

We decided to start with something familiar, but we may open it up in time.

 barmar, on 2012-April-06, 09:16, said:

I've just brought this up with the rest of the staff, since we didn't realize this when we were discussing it earlier.

This is new for us, please allow for some growing pains.

 barmar, on 2012-April-06, 10:23, said:

We're going to stick with GCC initially. While part of the reason was concern over confusing robots, we also want to make the transition from ACBL speedballs easy for the players. We expect these tourneys to evolve as we get more participation and feedback.

 Rain, on 2012-April-06, 11:55, said:

The actual tourneys begin on Saturday, but there will also be free trial tourneys today, 3pm-8pm.

In the actual tourneys, if you do win with a robot, you get $1.50. Robots do not pay the tourney entry fee of $1 or whatever so they are normally ineligible for any prizes. Engaging the service of a robot partner is $0.25.

Re convention cards/systems:
You can use your own convention cards. For now, they have to be GCC. If you don't upload a CC, the default one is GIB 2/1.
As Barmar mentioned, we are experimenting. If the format is popular, I'm confident less restrictive tournaments will be created.

[mgoetze]

All those answers assume the only problem with the GCC is that it's too restrictive.

A much more serious problem with the GCC is that it doesn't mean what it says. The ACBL attitude is "we know what it's supposed to mean and if you don't that's your problem". I would have hoped that BBO, when using the GCC, would at least be so kind as to provide an official interpretation of what the GCC means at least as far as BBO events are concerned.

[brian_m]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 06:26, said:

All those answers assume the only problem with the GCC is that it's too restrictive.

A much more serious problem with the GCC is that it doesn't mean what it says. The ACBL attitude is "we know what it's supposed to mean and if you don't that's your problem". I would have hoped that BBO, when using the GCC, would at least be so kind as to provide an official interpretation of what the GCC means at least as far as BBO events are concerned.

Couldn't agree more. The ACBL could learn a lot from the English Bridge Union's attitude - I've seen drafts of the EBU's Orange Book posted on rec.games.bridge with an invitation to try to find flaws.

[fred]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 06:26, said:

I would have hoped that BBO, when using the GCC, would at least be so kind as to provide an official interpretation of what the GCC means at least as far as BBO events are concerned.

We would be happy to do that.

I suggest you send any questions you have to acbl@bridgebase.com. The person who responds to that address (Jacki) is our expert on such things. If she is not sure about an answer to one of your questions then she will contact an appropriate person at ACBL.

Yes we know that the GCC is not exactly a brilliantly written document, but please don't waste our time by asking about loopholes or ambiguity caused by poor wording when you already know the answer. For example, I have no doubt that you know it is legal to have agreements about your 1H and 1S opening bids even if there exists wording in the GCC that makes this unclear.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mgoetze]

 fred, on 2012-April-07, 06:49, said:

Yes we know that the GCC is not exactly a brilliantly written document, but please don't waste our time by asking about loopholes or ambiguity caused by poor wording when you already know the answer. For example, I have no doubt that you know it is legal to have agreements about your 1H and 1S opening bids even if there exists wording in the GCC that makes this unclear.

The thing is I am trying to figure out the general principle. Let's take a quick, more realistic example

(a) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 5-7 hearts;
(b) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 4+ hearts and 4+ spades.

I honestly cannot see anything in the GCC which would allow a different ruling on these two openings, and yet I know that opening (a) is routinely allowed in the ACBL, and opening (b) is routinely disallowed. So what I want to know is: when you say these tournaments are being run according to the GCC, do you mean the GCC as written along with an attempt by BBO to interprete it as practically and logically as possible, or do you mean the GCC along with all of the oft-contradictory ACBL case law? And if you mean the latter, do you really think it is fair to your international customers to expect them to not only read the GCC but then go on to research how it is interpreted by ACBL directors? Always keeping in mind that there is plenty of evidence on this forum that if you send the same question to rulings@acbl.com twice you may well get two different answers.

[fred]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 07:16, said:

The thing is I am trying to figure out the general principle. Let's take a quick, more realistic example

(a) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 5-7 hearts;
(b) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 4+ hearts and 4+ spades.

I honestly cannot see anything in the GCC which would allow a different ruling on these two openings, and yet I know that opening (a) is routinely allowed in the ACBL, and opening (b) is routinely disallowed. So what I want to know is: when you say these tournaments are being run according to the GCC, do you mean the GCC as written along with an attempt by BBO to interprete it as practically and logically as possible, or do you mean the GCC along with all of the oft-contradictory ACBL case law? And if you mean the latter, do you really think it is fair to your international customers to expect them to not only read the GCC but then go on to research how it is interpreted by ACBL directors? Always keeping in mind that there is plenty of evidence on this forum that if you send the same question to rulings@acbl.com twice you may well get two different answers.

Yes of course we will try to answer whatever questions we receive as practically and logically as possible, but various ACBL sources (like case law or e-mailing ACBL) might come into play if we are not sure about the answers to specific questions. If such sources provide contradictory, ambiguous, or incomplete information then we will just have to try to make the best and most consistent decisions that we can.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

Replace "unless specifically listed below, methods are disallowed" with "unless specifically listed below, conventions are disallowed; other bids are allowed unless specifically disallowed". Then you will find that

Quote

(a) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 5-7 hearts;

is allowed, because it is not a convention.

Quote

(b) A 2♥ opening showing a weak hand with 4+ hearts and 4+ spades.

is not allowed, because it is a convention, and is not "listed below".

[mgoetze]

So Andy, is a classical precision 2♣ opening a convention?

[Siegmund]

Quote

So Andy, is a classical precision 2♣ opening a convention?

No. A bid which shows the suit named and no other promises, any level, any strength, is not a convention, and is GCC-legal unless it runs foul of the rule about 1-level bids a king below average strength.

Remember that the GCC was written before 2007, at a time when non-conventional bids could not be restricted -- there is really no choice but to treat the 1997 definition of "Convention" in the laws as part of the GCC now. (And count our blessings that the ACBL has not yet moved to restrict any additional non-conventional treatments since they gained the power to do so in 2007.)

We argued then, as we still can today, about whether a natural weak two that denies a 4-card major, vs. a natural weak two that can have any side distribution, vs. a natural weak two that promises an unbalanced hand, "convey a message other than" length and strength in the suit named.

[gnasher]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 08:17, said:

So Andy, is a classical precision 2♣ opening a convention?

According to the interpretation I suggested earlier a 2♣ opening wouldn't be allowed, but I believe that in practice this is treated as "natural" (which the rule-writers seem to use to mean "anything that is not a convention").

[mgoetze]

 Siegmund, on 2012-April-07, 09:36, said:

No. A bid which shows the suit named and no other promises, any level, any strength, is not a convention, and is GCC-legal unless it runs foul of the rule about 1-level bids a king below average strength.

But it promises a 4-card major if it has only 5 clubs. If this is not a convention then I can play Supermuiderberg, a 2♥ opening showing (a) 5+ hearts and a 4-card minor or (b) 12 solid hearts with no outside ace. (In answer to the 2NT enquiry, opener bids 5 of his singleton with hand (b), and responder will then know whether to bid 6 or 7.)

[Siegmund]

As I tried to point out in my last paragraph, there was always some dispute as to what counted as conveying a message other than willingness to play in / length in / strength in a suit. But that problem lived in the interpretation of the definition of a convention, not in the way the ACBL wrote the GCC. (There were problems with the 1987 definition, too, which were partially fixed and partially made worse by the 1997 definition.)

The ACBL's intention was clear enough, pre-2007 -- "among all bids which we have the power to regulate, we wish to allow only these" -- and there was some inconsistent case law about having traditionally accepted precision 2C as not conventional (and weak twos promising no void and no 4-card major as not conventional) but 5+4 bids as conventional. Plenty of us were upset about it at the time, but more or less learned to shut up since we knew all we would accomplish was getting more stuff banned by drawing analogies with things that were tolerated

@gnasher: at least some of the rule-writers understood that natural vs. artificial was a matter of how bids were described in common usage, while conventional vs. not conventional was a matter of law, and there were bids that fell in each of the 4 possible combinations of the two.

[barmar]

Interpretation of the GCC is not BBO-specific, so is this really on-topic here? Yes, we use the GCC, but the issues being raised are the same for people playing in f2f ACBL games. There's no "BBO GCC" -- we're using the same GCC that we used for the BBO ACBL tourneys (and the same TDs, too).

The best place for this discussion would probably be down in the IBLF forums: either Laws & Rulings for discussion of interpretation, or Changing Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss how it should be rewritten to be more clear.

[mgoetze]

 barmar, on 2012-April-08, 08:34, said:

Interpretation of the GCC is not BBO-specific, so is this really on-topic here? Yes, we use the GCC, but the issues being raised are the same for people playing in f2f ACBL games. There's no "BBO GCC" -- we're using the same GCC that we used for the BBO ACBL tourneys (and the same TDs, too).

I find not only the GCC itself horrible but also the ACBL's method of "interpreting" it, so this was not at all obvious to me. Anyway, that's all I need to know really.