[richlp]

Shugart23, on 2017-January-07, 16:22, said:

good response....certainly the 1H or 1S response in the canapé system is an offer to play in the suit and not an artificial bid and it has about the expected length. ...I also know the definition in the GCC is not stated as an IF and Only IF statement..It does NOT say A Natural bid REQUIRES 4 cards in the Major or 3 Cards in the Minor...It merely says that IF you have 4 or more cards in the Major, it is natural. Someone can claim it is an 'If and only if statement', but the fact of the matter is , I can read English, and this is not what it says

If I were to write a program specifying

llNatural = LENGTH(hearts) >= 4

then if heart length is 3 llNatural would be FALSE.

My understanding of American is that IF without any other OR clauses is an IF and Only IF.

[barmar]

richlp, on 2017-January-09, 00:58, said:

My understanding of American is that IF without any other OR clauses is an IF and Only IF.

Furthermore , what would be the point of saying that something is "at least N cards", if they didn't intend to exclude the case where it's less than N cards.

[Shugart23]

barmar, on 2017-January-09, 02:22, said:

Furthermore , what would be the point of saying that something is "at least N cards", if they didn't intend to exclude the case where it's less than N cards.

no, American 'if' doesn't mean 'if and only if'.....the example I gave before was "If I drive down main street, I can get to the movie on time' doesn't imply that if I don't drive down main street I won't get to the movie on time. Nor does it imply that if I got to the movie on time, I must have driven down main street. (We only can conclude that if I didn't get to the movie on time, then I didn't drive down main street)

Now, frankly, I think ACBL probably gave a poor definition of what a natural suit is and you are probably correct on what the intentions were. But it is not my job to assume intentions or bend over backwards to interpret the rule differently than is stated. In fact, you are the one that is going beyond what the words actually say, not me.

I claim that the 1H response, holding 3 cards IN A CANAPE SYSTEM, is an offer to play the contract in hearts and is natural, and by definition 6 of the GCC, is not conventional and therefore is allowed . Do you (or anyone) think the 1H response , in a canapé system, is artificial ? (I assume any bid, in any system, is either a natural bid or an artificial bid)

To the person who is thinking of building a system opening 1S with a void or singleton, I think you are missing the point. Nowhere am I asserting all bids are natural. In addition, good luck getting past definition 6 with that scheme.

[Zelandakh]

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 03:02, said:

I claim that the 1H response, holding 3 cards IN A CANAPE SYSTEM, is an offer to play the contract in hearts and is natural, and by definition 6 of the GCC, is not conventional and therefore is allowed.

You can claim this all you want but the GCC is quite clear that if you are responding 1♥ systemically then it is untrue. It is not dissimilar from opening 1♣ with any weak NT hand - ostensibly it is an offer to play in that contract and Responder can and will sometimes pass but it is explicitly not natural under the GCC. That many players would like it to be natural does not change this. Similarly, your wanting this 1♥ response to be allowed does not make it so. You might get lucky with a specific TD or with opps that do not object but you should feel hard done by if (when) you are ruled against on the matter.

[Shugart23]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 04:06, said:

You can claim this all you want but the GCC is quite clear that if you are responding 1♥ systemically then it is untrue. It is not dissimilar from opening 1♣ with any weak NT hand - ostensibly it is an offer to play in that contract and Responder can and will sometimes pass but it is explicitly not natural under the GCC. That many players would like it to be natural does not change this. Similarly, your wanting this 1♥ response to be allowed does not make it so. You might get lucky with a specific TD or with opps that do not object but you should feel hard done by if (when) you are ruled against on the matter.

You are, of course, taking the view that if you hold 4 card heart suit then it is natural implies that if you are not holding a 4 card heart suit then it is not natural, which is logically an incorrect assumption. If A implies B, you absolutely cannot conclude 'not A' implies 'not B', in any language. This illogic, however, is what you and others of your ilk are precisely doing

So, given I am 100% correct on the logic, I would hope that the TD can then feel empowered to look outside his comfort zone on a case by case basis to determine if a particular bid is 'natural'. As written, the rules appear to allow for this. (Your 1C example is totally dissimilar to a canapé 1H response which is absolutely a bona-fide offer to play in Hearts and is most definitely not an artificial bid).....

[Flem72]

To: Rulings@acbl.org
Sent: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:30:09 -0600
Subject: 1C-1D and 1D-1M

Having spent an hour or so pondering the mysteries of the General Conditions
and Midchart, and looking at ACBL's alertable calls pages, I have concluded
that it is General Conditions-legal to respond 1D to 1C, and 1M to 1D, with
fewer than 4 cards so long as the call is alerted as a "may be short" kind
of thing and is not part of a relay structure.

Am I correct?
,

You are correct about a 1D response to a 1C opening, but, a 1 of a major response that may be fewer than four cards is a convention and not permitted. Note that conventional responses are permitted as long as they show game going values and are not part of a relay system. 1D is allowed because it is specifically describred on the GCC.

Regards,

Mike Flader



The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify ACBL immediately by replying to the message by e-mail or fax and deleting it from your computer. The Fax number for ACBL is 662-253-3187.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2017-January-09, 09:19, said:

To: Rulings@acbl.org
Sent: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:30:09 -0600
Subject: 1C-1D and 1D-1M

Having spent an hour or so pondering the mysteries of the General Conditions
and Midchart, and looking at ACBL's alertable calls pages, I have concluded
that it is General Conditions-legal to respond 1D to 1C, and 1M to 1D, with
fewer than 4 cards so long as the call is alerted as a "may be short" kind
of thing and is not part of a relay structure.

Am I correct?
,

You are correct about a 1D response to a 1C opening, but, a 1 of a major response that may be fewer than four cards is a convention and not permitted. Note that conventional responses are permitted as long as they show game going values and are not part of a relay system. 1D is allowed because it is specifically describred on the GCC.

Regards,

Mike Flader

Of course, there are also those occasions when you can ask the same question to the same person in Memphis on different days and also get radically different answers...

[Zelandakh]

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 07:37, said:

You are, of course, taking the view that if you hold 4 card heart suit then it is natural implies that if you are not holding a 4 card heart suit then it is not natural, which is logically an incorrect assumption. If A implies B, you absolutely cannot conclude 'not A' implies 'not B', in any language. This illogic, however, is what you and others of your ilk are precisely doing

So, given I am 100% correct on the logic, I would hope that the TD can then feel empowered to look outside his comfort zone on a case by case basis to determine if a particular bid is 'natural'. As written, the rules appear to allow for this. (Your 1C example is totally dissimilar to a canapé 1H response which is absolutely a bona-fide offer to play in Hearts and is most definitely not an artificial bid).....

You will not know this but I am a maths graduate so my understanding of logic is quite ok. If A => B then not B => not A. That is a standard result and is used in a number of proofs. What you are missing is the way the GCC is constructed:-
A: Here is a list of allowed agreements.
B: Everything not in this list is not allowed.

What I am saying is that when agreement X is not an element of list A it is not allowed. What you are saying is that because X is not specifically banned on list A it is allowed. You are missing statement B from your logic and to be honest I find the logical convolutions you are going through to try and interpret the chart the way you want it to read quite laughable. I can only hope you are not equally as selective with your disclosure given that you are apparently playing a rather unusual system.

[Shugart23]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 09:52, said:

You will not know this but I am a maths graduate so my understanding of logic is quite ok. If A => B then not B => not A. That is a standard result and is used in a number of proofs. What you are missing is the way the GCC is constructed:-
A: Here is a list of allowed agreements.
B: Everything not in this list is not allowed.

What I am saying is that when agreement X is not an element of list A it is not allowed. What you are saying is that because X is not specifically banned on list A it is allowed. You are missing statement B from your logic and to be honest I find the logical convolutions you are going through to try and interpret the chart the way you want it to read quite laughable. I can only hope you are not equally as selective with your disclosure given that you are apparently playing a rather unusual system.

Partner and I do bend over backwards to pre alert,alert and give full explanations to the point of some opponents becoming irritated with the amount of info we try and give them....I think I will just agree to disagree with your definition of an unnatural call and just continue on an takes my chances....I haven't run into a TD problem yet...

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 09:52, said:

You will not know this but I am a maths graduate so my understanding of logic is quite ok. If A => B then not B => not A. That is a standard result and is used in a number of proofs. What you are missing is the way the GCC is constructed:-
A: Here is a list of allowed agreements.
B: Everything not in this list is not allowed.

And what you are missing is that the GCC is extremely poorly written.

Based on your logic, I am not permitted to use a 1NT opening to show a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP because there is nothing in the GCC that allows this.

Might be better to just wait for the new version of the charts rather than trying to guess what the piece of crap that we currently suffer under is supposed to mean...

Or just ask Mike Flader again and go with whatever interpretation gets two votes...

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 03:02, said:

no, American 'if' doesn't mean 'if and only if'.....the example I gave before was "If I drive down main street, I can get to the movie on time' doesn't imply that if I don't drive down main street I won't get to the movie on time. Nor does it imply that if I got to the movie on time, I must have driven down main street. (We only can conclude that if I didn't get to the movie on time, then I didn't drive down main street)

You're right, it doesn't always mean "if and only if". Context generally makes it clear what the intended meaning is. And I maintain that in the context of the GCC, where it's in a Definitions section, it's clearly exclusive.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 10:22, said:

Based on your logic, I am not permitted to use a 1NT opening to show a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP because there is nothing in the GCC that allows this.

There's an implicit understanding that all natural calls are allowed, because when the GCC was written, RAs were not allowed to regulate natural calls, so there was no need to mention this explicitly. They only needed to define what they considered conventional, which then specifies the scope of the regulation.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 10:22, said:

Based on your logic, I am not permitted to use a 1NT opening to show a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP because there is nothing in the GCC that allows this.

I believe someone already mentioned "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons)". To which natural 15-17hcp 1NT opening are you referring to that is not covered by this?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 10:42, said:

To which natural 15-17hcp 1NT opening are you referring to that is not covered by this?

I think he's referring to the fact that the GCC never actually says that natural NT openings are allowed.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-09, 10:42, said:

I believe someone already mentioned "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons)". To which natural 15-17hcp 1NT opening are you referring to that is not covered by this?

Where does the GCC say that natural bids are allowed?

As Barry has pointed out, the authors of the GCC didn't modify it to bring it into compliance with the 2008 version of the Laws

[Zelandakh]

If you want to lawyer, I think you would be better off taking the Ken Rexford route and pointing at the auction 1M - (P) - 2M, which is also not allowed under such a reading of the chart.

[mycroft]

Lamford, if you build a system such that for a particular kind of hand, you have no bid for it, and that your lie options are X, Y, and Z; and having an agreement to bid Z with this hand is illegal, but you will still do it with "certain hands that make sense to partner", then you do in fact have an agreement that Z could show this hand; you do in fact have an illegal (implicit) agreement; and you have the choice of not bidding Z with this, changing your system so you don't have a hole that needs to be filled with an illegal agreement, or finding another game.

Apologies for this example, but F-N's system by default *requires* all 12-14 4441s to be opened 1NT. On the rare times they played GCC, they changed their system throwing these hands into their oddball 1♣ call. I'm sure it made bidding a lot harder, because they had to play an inferior system, but if they hadn't done that, they would have been in violation.

Yes, all systems have holes that you have to lie with. Yes, all systems have lies that are "reasonable with..." that lead to implicit understandings about which hole hands lie which way. But you can't say "it's not me, it's the system's fault" - you wrote the system, and you brought the system to the game. No different from "I have a cool 4-4-2 system, but occasionally it just works out that the only way to play it is for the lead striker to be behind all the opposition's defenders. It's no fair that you call us offside, because that's how the system has to work."

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-09, 09:27, said:

Of course, there are also those occasions when you can ask the same question to the same person in Memphis on different days and also get radically different answers...

Who would one call in Memphis to get an answer to this kind of question?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-09, 19:27, said:

Who would one call in Memphis to get an answer to this kind of question?

AFAIK, there's nothing more "official" than writing to rulings@acbl.org. The basic problem is that there's no one truly responsible for the definitive interpretation of the regulations.

[blackshoe]

I would think that responsibility falls on the C&C Committee. I'm probably wrong.