[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2025-February-11, 10:39, said:

Wait, who? Why? :-)

Probably better to restrict ourselves to why, although that is the only answer I don't know :-)

I wasn't a TD then, but to the best of my knowledge our regulations at the time didn't set any specific limits on shapes "allowed", or even say "balanced": just a general principle that to open 1NT shows desire to play in NT (which I always found uncomfortable because even holding a 4432 I desire to play in a major, not NT, if partner has fit and most strengths). But I think it was tacitly acknowledged that one could agree to open 1NT on a 5 card major and maybe even a 6 card minor, but no more. Going from that to illegal agreement is quite a stretch, I agree.

Shortly afterwards the regulations for pairs tournaments were changed to allow a precise set of shapes, including 6m322 and any 5431 but not 7m222.

[blackshoe]

"One of our Directors made an invalid ruling! We must change the rules so that the ruling was valid!"

[mycroft]

Oh dear.

Much apology.

My last was aimed at Jilly's comment about "rabid censorious administrators", and intended as a joke (people were supposed to remember who the "new admin" is) (as was this comment).

It wasn't intended to be either serious, or related to your story or ruling.

I thought I was clear and obvious. Hour 2 of "travel day" probably isn't the best time for judging subtlety, I guess.

[jillybean]

I took it in the spirit intended.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-February-11, 16:55, said:

"One of our Directors made an invalid ruling! We must change the rules so that the ruling was valid!"

But even then, does a new rule stating that "the opening of 1NT must satisfy the following requisites" (list follows) resolve the issue in future?
I would have expected you (of all people) to say no.
When I asked for guidance about whether this was intended to forbid a (special) agreement to open outside the requisites or to forbid (on some basis) actual openings outside the requisites, I was told the former - and accepted with relief, but in that case it should be worded differently.
Note that this would still authorize opening 1NT with that hand as a deviation from an agreement to follow some subset of the new regulation (my own CC says effectively "everything the RA allows").

[mycroft]

I'm glad you got it (it would have been a waste if you didn't), but I threw pescetom, for which I apologized. I could have been clearer.