[blml] natural bids and conventional bids

[richard willey]

I sent the following email to "Rulings at acbl.org" this morning.
I'm going to be most interested to see what type of response they provide.

Personally, I suspect that Flader is going to backpeddle pretty damn quick.

---------------
Dear Mr Flader:

I am writing regarding an email that you recently sent to Adam
Meyerson regarding the Convention Licensing process and the nature of
the ACBL's General Convention Chart.  Adam's email specifically dealt
with the question whether a 2S opening that promised 5+ Spades and 4+
Cards in either minor was allowable at the GCC level.  I believe that
the principles that you describe in this email represent a significant
change in the ACBL's policy.  Furthermore they deviate sharply from
standard usage in other parts of the world.  For convenince, I am
attaching a copy of your original email:

>Dear Adam,

>Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically
allowed are disallowed,
>the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by
definition, are not an offer to
>play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though
not specifically
>mentioned is allowed.
>
>A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would
be allowed
>since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S
opening which
>shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10
HCP, it would
>be allowed.
>
>Hope this answers your questions.
>
>Mike Flader

I agree with your assessment that the 2S is natural.  However, you
seem to be assuming that a bid can not be both natural and
conventional.  I would argue that

1.The 2S opening in question is natural
2.The 2S opening in question is also conventional
3.The GCC does not specifically license a preemptive 2S opening that
promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor.
4.The 2S opening in question may not be used in GCC events.

I will note in passing that the ACBL's Defensive Databased contains a
suggested Defense to "2H or 2S showing a 5+ card major and a 4+ card
minor".  Furthermore, the Defense indicates these bids are rated as "2
Boards per segment/round".
http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2g.htm

As I understand matters, the Defensive Database only applies to
methods found on the ACBL's Midchart.  I'm somewhat confused why a GCC
legal method required a suggest defense or this type of rating.

I'd very much appreciate some clarification on this topic.
Furthermore, if the philosophy that you describe in your letter
represent the official policy of the ACBL then I would very much
appreciate some form of formal correspondence that I can present to
Tournament Directors to justify my choice of methods.

Respectfully

Richard Willey