New ACBL Convention Chart
Kent Burghard
as posted by the ACBL on the Compuserve Bridge Forum recently.
The chart is divided into four sections:
1) ACBL General Convention Chart
2) ACBL Convention Superchart
3) ACBL Convention Mid-Chart
4) ACBL Limited Conventions
ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART
The conventions listed below must be allowed in all ACBL
sanctioned tournament play (other than in events with an upper
restriction of 20 or fewer masterpoints and events for which the
ACBL conditions of contest state otherwise) and at club-level
events with multiple-site overall Masterpoint awards. However,
clubs have full authority to regulate conventions in games
conducted solely at their clubs. Conventions listed on the ACBL
Limited Convention chart are marked with an asterisk (*).
DEFINITIONS:
1. A suit bid is considered natural if for minors it shows 3 or
more cards in that suit and for majors it shows 4 or more card
in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if
not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one
or two doubletons).
2. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an
opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's
rebid.
ALLOWED:
OPENING BIDS:
*1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening
bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 HCP.
2. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
*a) a strong hand
b) a three suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP
3. TWO DIAMONDS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID showing one of:
a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP
b) a strong hand
c) a three suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP
4. OPENING SUIT BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating the bid
suit, another known suit, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4
distribution in the suits.
5. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at
least 5-4 distribution in the minor suits.
6. OPENING 3NT BID indicating either:
*a) a solid suit or
b) a broken minor
7. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.
RESPONSES AND REBIDS:
1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club.
2. 1NT response to a major suit opening bid, or 1S response to a
1H opening bid forcing one round; cannot guarantee game
invitational or better values.
3. 1NT response to 1H opening bid to indicate at least four
spades and at least 6 HCP.
4. TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to 3rd or 4th seat major
suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid.
*5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) to
indicate a raise or to force to game.
*6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+HCP), forcing opening bids and
after opening bids of 2C or higher. (For this classification,
by partnership agreement, weak 2 bids must be within a range
of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.)
7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's 2nd
call.
*8. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids,
trump quality and responses thereto.
*9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that have
two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP).
No conventional responses are allowed over natural notrump
bids with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range
of greater than 5 HCP.
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.
*2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES.
3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either:
a) two suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution and at
least one known suit or
b) three suit takeout.
4. JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5-4
distribution in two known suits.
*5. CUEBID of an opponent's suit which shows at least one known
suit or is strong (15+ HCP).
*6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls,
b) natural notrump opening bids (two level calls that show
a multi-suited hand must show at least one known suit),
c) opening bids of 2C or higher.
DISALLOWED:
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to
destroy the opponent's methods.
2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto.
3. Psychic controls.
4. Forcing pass systems.
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.
6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show
fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych)
CARDING:
Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on
each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard
only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are
approved. Encrypted signals are not approved.
NOTE: Sponsoring organizations may allow conventions from the
SuperChart and MidChart provided the requested conventions are
listed on the Sanction Application, approved by Management,
included in all tournament advertising, and posted at the
tournament site.
Unless all these conditions have been fulfilled, conventions
not on the ACBL General Convention Chart MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.
ACBL CONVENTION SUPERCHART
This chart applies to all NABC+ events with no upper
Masterpoint restrictions played at an NABC in which contestants
play segments (no change of opponents) of 12 or more boards.
This chart (or any part) may apply to any sectionally or
regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor's option in any
event with 12-board or longer segments provided this has been
included in tournament advertising.
Pre-alerts are required for all conventional methods not
permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of,
and suggested defenses to such methods must be made in writing.
ALLOWED:* * Unless specifically allowed,methods are disallowed * *
All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive
convention, treatment or method except that:
1. Artificial Weak Bids at the two or three level (including
those with strong adjuncts) must possess
a) a known suit or
b) one of no more than two possible suits not to include the
suit bid.
2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
a) for non-cue bids showing a single suited hand, one of no
more than two possible suits
b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
DISALLOWED:
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to
destroy the opponent's methods.
2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto.
3. Psychic controls.
4. Forcing pass systems.
5. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show
fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)
CARDING:
Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on
each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard only
right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.
Encrypted signals are not approved.
ACBL CONVENTION MID-CHART
This chart applies to:
1) all NABC+ events with no upper Masterpoint restrictions played
at an NABC.
2) all unrestricted Flight A Regionally-rated knockout events at
an NABC
3) any bracket of a bracketed KO at an NABC which contains no
team with a bracket designator (average masterpoints of the
entire team or top two players) of less than 1000
masterpoints.
This chart (or any part) may apply to any sectionally or
regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor's option provided
that this has been included in tournament advertising.
Pre-alerts are required for all conventional methods not
permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of,
and suggested defenses to such methods must be made in writing.
ALLOWED:* * Unless specifically allowed,methods are disallowed * *
1. All of the ACBL General Convention Chart
2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game forcing values.
3. Except for relay systems that show less than game forcing
values, all other constructive rebids and responses are
permitted.
4. Any call that promises 4 or more cards in a known suit.(See
item #6 in DISALLOWED below.)
5. Opening 2D showing a weak 2 bid in either major plus any
additional strong (15+ HCP) meanings.
6. A 2S or 2NT opening bid showing either minor.
7. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid.
DISALLOWED:
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to
destroy the opponent's methods.
2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto.
3. Psychic controls.
4. Forcing pass system.
5. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game
forcing.
6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show
fewer than eight HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)
CARDING:
Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on
each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard
only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are
approved. Encrypted signals are not approved.
ACBL LIMITED CONVENTIONS
(May be used in games with an upper limit of 20 or fewer MPs)
Clubs
Club management shall determine the conventions permitted in
club games with an upper limit of 20 or fewer masterpoints.
LOCAL & HIGHER EVENTS
The sponsoring organization of local and higher rated
tournaments may determine the conventions permitted in games with
an upper limit of 20 or fewer masterpoints.
OPENING BIDS
A 1C opening bid may be both artificial (says nothing about
clubs) and forcing (partner must respond at least once), but opener
must have at least 10 HCP. A negative 1D response may be used.
A 2C opening bid may be artificial and strong. It may be
balanced (a hand stronger than a traditional 2NT opening) or
unbalanced (a hand with which you would open a strong two-bid if
playing that way). Further bidding will describe the hand.
A 3NT opening bid may show a hand with a long, solid suit
(Gambling).
RESPONSES AND REBIDS
A jump shift of one or more levels (into a suit or into
notrump) may be used either to force to game or to show a raise of
partner's suit.
Any meaning may be given to the responses and rebids after an
opening bid of 1NT. Exception: if the 1NT opening has a point range
which exceeds 5 HCP, or if the 1NT opening has an agreed lower
limit of fewer than 10 HCP, responses and rebids may not be
conventional, they must be natural.
Any meaning may be given to the responses to and rebids after
an opening bid of 2C or higher. Exception: if the opening bid is a
weak two-bid with (a) an agreed point range of more than 7 HCP, (b)
an agreement that the bid suit can contain fewer than five cards,
or (c) an agreement that the hand can contain fewer than 5 HCP,
responses and rebids may not be conventional, they must be natural.
Any call may be used to ask partner or to respond to partner
about aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality with
the exceptions noted above.
COMPETITIVE AUCTIONS
Any meaning may be given to a double or a redouble.
A notrump overcall or jump overcall may be used to show a
two-suited hand (at least 5-4 distribution in the two suits). At
least one of the suits must be known. The second suit may be known
or unknown.
Any meaning may be given to the cuebid of an opponent's suit.
Any meaning may be given to calls used to defend against opponents'
conventional calls, notrump bids and opening bids of 2C or higher.
DISALLOWED
Conventions and /or agreements with a primary purpose of
destroying the opponents' methods are not allowed (e.g., a bid
telling nothing about the bidder's hand, made simply to use up
bidding space).
Agreements allowing the partnership to open the bidding at the
one level with fewer than 8 HCP are not allowed. This does not
preclude a psychic opening bid.
Psyching of artificial opening bids or conventional responses
to artificial opening bids is not allowed.
Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner
has psyched or to clarify the nature of the psych) are not allowed.
Relay systems (one player tells nothing about his own hand
while interrogating partner about his hand through a series of
conventional calls) are not allowed.
CARDING
A discard (a card played while not following suit) can convey
a message to partner. The message can pertain to the length of the
discarded suit, to the attitude toward the suit (desire to have
partner lead that suit) or to another suit (no information about
the discarded suit). A pair may decide to attribute the attitude
message (good-bad) to the cards on either a higher-to-lower basis
(a higher card is more positive than a lower card) or a
lower-to-higher basis (a low card is more positive than a higher
card).
A discard may carry more than one message, but only at each
defender's first discard of the deal. Dual-message discards are not
permitted as second or subsequent discards. Encrypted signals (the
order and /or message is based on information known to the other
defender but not yet to declarer) are not allowed at any time.
Kent Burghard Rochester, Minnesota
ACBL Board of Governors, District 14
Steve Willner
DMF...@prodigy.com (Kent Burghard) writes:
> The following is the new ACBL Convention Chart, effective 1/1/95....
Thanks very much for reposting! The new chart seems to be an
improvement in many ways. I especially like the new "Mid-Chart."
However, ...
> ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART
> 2. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an
> opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's
> rebid.
[and relay systems are disallowed.]
I suppose we should be grateful that the ACBL has finally defined
"relay system," but I don't think this is what they want. For
example, the auction:
1suit - 4NT (aces?)
any - 5NT (kings?)
is clearly disallowed. (Or have I missed something?) Of course this
prohibition will never be enforced in practice, but to my mind that's
even worse.
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
member, League for Programming Freedom; contact l...@uunet.uu.net
David Shao
Kent Burghard <DMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
Thanks for posting the new ACBL convention charts in rec.games.bridge.
I believe that this new GCC clarifies the status of
some conventions such as Rubens advances.
Example: (1C) - 1S - (P) - ?
2C is a transfer to diamonds
2D is a transfer to hearts etc.
I have had several good players make the following claim:
under the old ACBL GCC, Rubens advances were permitted by a passed
hand. Their argument: all constructive calls were permitted the
second round of bidding. But why was there then a
special passage "legalizing" Drury?
Now in the new GCC we see the clarification which I believe to have
been the ACBL's intent all along:
> RESPONSES AND REBIDS:
>7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's 2nd
> call.
Note the distinction--"starting with the opener bidder's 2nd call."
The initial pass by the Rubens advancer does NOT start his or her
side's auction, the overcall does. Also, what is permitted in
the Opening Bids section is NOT necessarily permitted in the
Competitive Bids section. For example, I've seen some systems
of overcalls which play 4C and 4D as Namyats. These calls are
permitted as an opening bid; however, it is clear that they
are NOT GCC legal as overcalls.
>DEFINITIONS:
>1. A suit bid is considered natural if for minors it shows 3 or
> more cards in that suit and for majors it shows 4 or more card
> in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if
> not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one
> or two doubletons).
I would guess that the following are GCC illegal:
1) Having an agreement that on some hands in response to
a natural bid of 1C or 1D, one may have to bid 1H or 1S
on only a 3 card major.
2) Having an agreement that some hands must be opened
in a 3 card major.
3) I've heard some players say that if they don't have an
agreement they can open 1NT with a singleton
and later claim to have psyched. I think if opponents took
the trouble to fill out a recorder slip each time such
a bid was made, this practice would soon come to an end.
4) Starting a canape in a two card suit.
Example: Garozzo and Forquet playing Blue Team Club
in response to a 1H opener in their system would with
S AQ76 H K96 D 6542 C AK
plan to bid 2C first, reverse in spades the
second round of bidding, then finally show delayed
heart support.
I would guess that after three decades Blue Team Club
still isn't fully GCC legal.
>ALLOWED:
> OPENING BIDS:
>*1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening
> bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 HCP.
A distinction: apparently 1D as an artificial bid is now allowed.
But artificial RESPONSES to 1D are NOT allowed UNLESS 1D promises
15+ HCP, such as using 1H as a Herbert negative to 1D.
> RESPONSES AND REBIDS:
>*5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) to
> indicate a raise or to force to game.
One thing I would like to see clarified: are all "natural" calls
GCC legal? For example I have in several partnerships used
1m - 2H to show 4 hearts, 5+ spades, 6-9 HCP.
It's a natural call because I have 4 hearts and bid hearts.
What explicitly allows weak jump shifts in the GCC? Can I have
an agreement to weak jump shift on four carders? Does adding the
inference that I have 5+ spades make a weak 2H response on 4 hearts
GCC illegal?
> COMPETITIVE BIDS:
>1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.
>*2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES.
When a call is conventional does that mean conventional responses
are permitted? For example, in some partnerships I play
(1A) - Dbl as showing 15+ HCP, any shape (a power double).
This is conventional. Am I allowed to use Rubens advances to
advance this power double as conventional responses?
Would it have been possible to GCC legalize 4NT as a Blackwood
inquiry for the number of aces but not legalize the conventional
responses. :-)
>3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either:
> a) two suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution and at
> least one known suit or
> b) three suit takeout.
I suppose that using (1S) - Pass - (2S) - 2NT as an unspecified
two-suiter as advocated in for example Larry Cohen's To Bid or
Not to Bid (he calls it the Super-Unusual 2NT in the
Off the Proper Level chapter) is GCC illegal. Or does playing
OBAR BIDS (having the direct seat bid after opponents bid and raise
as though he were balancing) allow one to use the GCC permitted
conventional balancing calls? I would guess not.
>*6. DEFENSE TO:
> a) conventional calls,
> b) natural notrump opening bids (two level calls that show
> a multi-suited hand must show at least one known suit),
Suction-type defenses to a 1NT opening are now GCC illegal.
For example: (1NT) - ?
2C = diamonds OR hearts and spades
2D = hearts OR clubs and spades etc.
> ACBL CONVENTION SUPERCHART
>ALLOWED:* * Unless specifically allowed,methods are disallowed * *
>All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive
>convention, treatment or method except that:
>1. Artificial Weak Bids at the two or three level (including
> those with strong adjuncts) must possess
> a) a known suit or
> b) one of no more than two possible suits not to include the
> suit bid.
So even in SUPERCHART events a 2S preempt with an unspecified suit
is illegal?! Aren't these events supposed to be for the big
boys only?! That giant sucking sound is how the US teams
will perform in international competition once our experienced
world champions retire...
>2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
> a) for non-cue bids showing a single suited hand, one of no
> more than two possible suits
> b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
Is it Superchart legal to overcall in a canape style over 1m in
a possible 3 card major?
> ACBL CONVENTION MID-CHART
>ALLOWED:* * Unless specifically allowed,methods are disallowed * *
>2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game forcing values.
>4. Any call that promises 4 or more cards in a known suit.(See
> item #6 in DISALLOWED below.)
If one agrees that there should be restrictions
on allowed bidding conventions, the ACBL seems to have adopted
a sensible position that pairs can handle unfamiliar game-forcing
relay systems and simple transfer bids to a known suit
a lot easier than multi-meaning space age preempts.
David Shao
David Blizzard
>> 2. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an
>> opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's
>> rebid.
>[and relay systems are disallowed.]
>
>I suppose we should be grateful that the ACBL has finally defined
>"relay system," but I don't think this is what they want. For
>example, the auction:
> 1suit - 4NT (aces?)
> any - 5NT (kings?)
>is clearly disallowed. (Or have I missed something?) Of course this
>prohibition will never be enforced in practice, but to my mind that's
>even worse.
that forces opener to bid a specified suit so responder can clarify (or
any opening bid that forces responder to bid so).
Note that it only applies after suit openings. Otherwise they would
be disallowing Lebensohl.
David A Blizzard
David Blizzard
> 4) Starting a canape in a two card suit.
> Example: Garozzo and Forquet playing Blue Team Club
> in response to a 1H opener in their system would with
> S AQ76 H K96 D 6542 C AK
> plan to bid 2C first, reverse in spades the
> second round of bidding, then finally show delayed
> heart support.
> I would guess that after three decades Blue Team Club
> still isn't fully GCC legal.
that sequence implies less than a 3 card suit in the system than that is
true. However, if that is a 'white lie' to allow that hand to be described
than it is legal, assuming opener expects responder to have at least 3 clubs.
>>*6. DEFENSE TO:
>> a) conventional calls,
>> b) natural notrump opening bids (two level calls that show
>> a multi-suited hand must show at least one known suit),
>
>Suction-type defenses to a 1NT opening are now GCC illegal.
>For example: (1NT) - ?
> 2C = diamonds OR hearts and spades
> 2D = hearts OR clubs and spades etc.
multi-suited hand necessarily, as it maybe a one-suited hand. However, I
doubt it based on the rest of the chart. The ACBL has strongly gone against
bids that hide what kind of hand you have (no preempts showing unknown suits,
etc.). Maybe someone now needs to come up with a Suction variant that
guarantees at least one known suit.
David A Blizzard
David Blizzard
>So even in SUPERCHART events a 2S preempt with an unspecified suit
>is illegal?! Aren't these events supposed to be for the big
>boys only?! That giant sucking sound is how the US teams
>will perform in international competition once our experienced
>world champions retire...
unspecified) has that much effect in world competition. Even if it is
superior to standard methods, I would be amazed to find any world championship
matches swung by these bids.
David A Blizzard
Ken Braithwaite
Both wrong. Ace asking bids are specifically mentioned as legal.
Same with various stuff over NT openings (natural ones).
The chart says disallowed UNLESS mentioned as allowed ...
Ken Braithwaite
--
Ken Braithwaite khbr...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca
If black and white combine and blend in a thousand shades of gray
Are there then no black and white? -- Alexander Pope
David Shao
David Blizzard <dbli...@delphi.com> wrote:
>David Shao <dave...@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes:
>
>>So even in SUPERCHART events a 2S preempt with an unspecified suit
>>is illegal?!
> Somehow I doubt that this one type of bid (a preempt with suit
>unspecified) has that much effect in world competition. Even if it is
>superior to standard methods, I would be amazed to find any world championship
>matches swung by these bids.
1992 Salsomaggiore Olympiad
Quarterfinals, Israel vs. Netherlands, Board 24
Vul:None A Open Room
Dlr:West K732 West North East South
J8752 Westra Birman Leufkens Seligman
982 2S* Pass Pass Dbl
J86532 K974 Pass 3D Pass 3S
T8 AJ5 Pass 3NT All Pass
- T93 Result: -50, 11 imps to Netherlands
QT753 J64 Final score in the match: 130-121
QT in favor of the Netherlands.
Q964
AKQ64
AK
It is also possible to lose 9 card heart fits, see board 18 of the
France versus Netherlands semifinal.
Of course, not every set of boards will have a suitable hand for
such preemption. But when it rains it can sometimes pour.
Stewart-Weinstein missed bidding a nonvulnerable game and went
down in the wrong vulnerable slam in two Multi2D hands
in the first 16 boards of USA II's match against Iceland in the
quarterfinals of the 1991 World Championship in Yokohama.
Yes the Multi2D is Superchart legal, but who knows if the next
time it might be two 2S unspecified 3 level preempt hands or
some other Star Wars gadget. I'm sure Stewart-Weinstein had
agreements over a Multi2D, but it takes more than agreements, it
takes extensive experience.
David Shao
Mark Brader
> > > a) conventional calls,
> > > b) natural notrump opening bids (two level calls that show
> > > a multi-suited hand must show at least one known suit),
> > Suction-type defenses to a 1NT opening are now GCC illegal.
> > For example: (1NT) - ?
> > 2C = diamonds OR hearts and spades
> > 2D = hearts OR clubs and spades etc.
>
> Theoretically, suction may be exempted because it doesn't show a
> multi-suited hand necessarily, as it maybe a one-suited hand.
Theoretically? It seems clear that this *is* still legitimate under
the above wording, though with this trend it may be the next thing
to go. It still tells something about the hand -- it tells a suit
that you *don't* have.
However, what one may naturally want to play together with the above
bids is one that shows "either spades and diamonds or clubs and hearts"
-- a Suction-like scheme incorporating such a bid was posted to this
group a few months ago under the name TRASH. And that last-described
bid *will* be GCC-illegal come Sunday.
--
Mark Brader "Never re-invent the wheel unnecessarily;
m...@sq.com yours may have corners."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- Henry Spencer
This article is in the public domain.
David desJardins
> Well, at least in the style as played by Garozzo & Forquet. If
> that sequence implies less than a 3 card suit in the system than that is
> true. However, if that is a 'white lie' to allow that hand to be described
> than it is legal, assuming opener expects responder to have at least 3 clubs.
This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I may not agree with the ACBL's
rules, but it's disingenuous to claim, "I don't have an agreement to do
such-and-such; I just always do it when I have that hand; partner won't
use that information anyway." Suppose the auction gets competitive and
partner has to make a close decision about what to do. You are saying
that partner won't use the information that as a matter of system I'm
essentially forced to make this bid when I have that hand? As your
opponent, what am I supposed to rely on for that---your "promise" not to
use this "improper information"? That hardly seems good enough.
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1994 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
David desJardins
it illegal for me to conventionally open a weak 2S on KJT9xx/xx/xx/xxx,
to making it legal for me to conventionally open a weak 2S on
xxxx/xxx/xxx/xxx, and even a weak 2D on xxx/xxx/xxx/xxxx. (Not that I
would necessarily want to, but that's not the point.)
I certainly like the new situation (apparently no restrictions on
"natural" preempts at all) better than the old, but it's a surprising
(to me) development.
David desJardins
> Both wrong. Ace asking bids are specifically mentioned as legal.
> Same with various stuff over NT openings (natural ones).
> The chart says disallowed UNLESS mentioned as allowed ...
No, this is simply not true. Perhaps you misread it---it says in
several places that conventions not explicitly ALLOWED are not allowed,
but it never says that the DISALLOWED list is subject to exceptions for
conventions explicitly allowed, nor does it imply this.
While that might be correct, my reading is that if a convention were
both ALLOWED and DISALLOWED, that it would not be allowed; the latter
overrides the former. Otherwise there would be no point in having a
DISALLOWED list, because anything that isn't ALLOWED is not allowed
anyway, so why bother to DISALLOW it?
Ken Braithwaite
David desJardins <de...@ccr-p.ida.org> wrote:
>Ken Braithwaite <khbr...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
>> Both wrong. Ace asking bids are specifically mentioned as legal.
>> Same with various stuff over NT openings (natural ones).
>> The chart says disallowed UNLESS mentioned as allowed ...
>
>No, this is simply not true. Perhaps you misread it---it says in
>several places that conventions not explicitly ALLOWED are not allowed,
>but it never says that the DISALLOWED list is subject to exceptions for
>conventions explicitly allowed, nor does it imply this.
The context of the discussion was (I think)the GCC, and for that it
is self evident.
The first disallowed item is bids whose primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents methods. That is *precisely* why I open 4C as a preempt,
why I open 4S as a preempt, why I do anything as a preempt.
It is also the case that I can play *anything* over your strong club,
even "wonder bids" -- I have <2 or >5. Thats destructive. I can play
1s as an artifical game force over your big club if i want! Thats not
destructive and its pretty weird but its a defence to your convention.
But more to the point, read the preamble to the Supercahart section:
"*unless specifically allowed...". This quite clearly implies the
allowed list overrides prohibitions.
David Shao
realization that the ACBL has just made GCC illegal
Mike Lawrence's recommendations on how to use the cuebid as
advancer (partner of an overcaller) in his book
The Complete Book of Overcalls.
The old GCC Competitive Auctions section had the line:
*Cuebid of an opponent's suit
Note the above was even allowed in the Limited Conventions chart
which stated "Any meaning may be given to the cuebid of an
opponent's suit."
The new GCC Competitive Auctions section has the line:
*5. Cuebid of an opponent's suit which shows at least one
known suit or is strong (15+ HCP).
Ironically, the Bulletin on page 91 claims that no changes have been
made in the Limited Conventions Chart. It appears that if one
plays in an ACBL event restricted to those with 20 or fewer MPs,
you have more freedom to define a cuebid than if you played in
a GCC event.
Now if in an auction such as (1A) - 1B - (P) - ? you play 2A as
showing a limit raise+ in B, you will have no problems with the
new GCC. However, Mike Lawrence recommends that a cuebid can
show EITHER a limit raise or better OR good hands with no clear
direction. The ACBL appears to have chosen to require
in this sequence a "strong" hand to contain 15 or
more HCP.
I guess Lawrence is going to have to issue a new edition of his
classic book, because in Chapter Eleven "The Many Faces of the Cue Bid"
on the first page of the chapter he gives the following recommendations:
(1C) - 1S - (P) - 2C with Q2 AKJ7 KJT4 862
(1S) - 2C - (P) - 2S with J87 KQ4 AT965 Q3
William Root and Richard Pavlicek better issue a new edition of their
book Modern Bridge Conventions because in the Eastern Cuebid section
they advocate after an overcall by opponents using a cuebid to
show "13 to 16 points (or more), a stopper in the enemy suit,
and a balanced hand." They give as an example:
1S - (2C) - 3C with A5 KJ7 KJ98 Q843.
[Quibblers will note that this is possibly permitted if the
line "*6. DEFENSE TO: c) opening bids of 2C or higher" is
stretched to include an overcall of 2C or higher. First, an opening
bid is not an overcall, second, Root and Pavlicek's example can no
doubt be modified to make the overcall be at the one level.]
In addition, it now appears that in the auction
(1A) - Dbl - (P) - 2A
the 2A call must promise either a known suit or 15+ HCP.
Root and Pavlicek should consider rewriting their Takeout Doubles
section because they have GCC illegal sequences. They recommend:
(1C) - Dbl - (P) - 2C with AJ985 A54 K3 976
David Shao
Donald A. Varvel
1. The Wilcosz 2D opening that has been used by Polish international
teams (6-10 points, 2-suiter including a major) picks up about
3 IMPs on average every time it's used. It has now been made
illegal in nearly all international competition.
2. Martel claims to have beaten the Polish team at Albuquerque largely
because of disruptive methods used over the Polish 1C opening.
Using 2S to show something like x QJTxxxx xxx xx would not be much
of a problem. Using it to show xx Qxxxx xxx xxx gets us more into the
realm of a fert. Where do you draw the line?
--
-- Don Varvel (var...@cs.utexas.edu)
"Excellent. Many mainlanders will suffer. You have done well."
timothy m wright
It seems to me that the ACBL has just put Romex, formerly a GCC system,
into what is at least the temporarily nebulous realm of the Mid-Chart:
The Romex 1NT opening is now disallowed on the GCC but allowed (since it
promises 15+ HCP) on the Mid-Chart.
Am I missing something here?
tim wright t...@theory.lcs.mit.edu
MIT doesn't even know I exist: blame me, not them.
"Memo to myself: do the dumb things I gotta do" TMBG, Puppet Head.
Donald A. Varvel
David Blizzard <dbli...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Steve Willner <wil...@cfa183.harvard.edu> writes:
>>> 2. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an
>>> opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's
>>> rebid.
>>[and relay systems are disallowed.]
>>I suppose we should be grateful that the ACBL has finally defined
>>"relay system," but I don't think this is what they want. For
>>example, the auction:
>> 1suit - 4NT (aces?)
>> any - 5NT (kings?)
>>is clearly disallowed. (Or have I missed something?) Of course this
>>prohibition will never be enforced in practice, but to my mind that's
>>even worse.
> 4NT is not a relay, it is an asking bid. A relay would be any bid
>that forces opener to bid a specified suit so responder can clarify (or
>any opening bid that forces responder to bid so).
No, that's a reply to a relay. Actually, that's something that doesn't
exist. The ACBL used to use definitions like that but seems to be
getting away from it.
ALL RELAYS ARE ASKING BIDS. Trying to decide whether a single bid is
an asking bid or a relay is like trying to decide if a single number
is random (or, for that matter, contemplating the sound of one hand
clapping).
For that reason, the ACBL rule either is vacuous or outlaws Blackwood.
Let's assume that over 4NT, opener shows whatever (aces or keycards).
Responder then bids the next step (excluding the original suit) asking
for the Q. Over the response, responder bids the next step asking for
kings. We now have a relay sequence. Each of responder's bids is an
asking bid, but the cheapest step is always defined as the most common
ask.
Alternatively, assume the opening bid is 1S and the response is 2C,
game forcing and asking for clarification of the opening bid. Opener
bids, say, 2D, showing an unbalanced minimum. Responder bids 2H,
asking for shortness, and in fact will nearly always bid 2H or sign off
by bidding game. I have no doubt that we are now in the kind of auction
the ACBL is trying to exclude as a relay auction starting with
responder's first bid. ALL THAT DISTINGUISHES IT FROM THE BLACKWOOD
AUCTION IS THE LEVEL OF THE FIRST RESPONSE.
Julian D Lighton
timothy m wright <t...@theory.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>It seems to me that the ACBL has just put Romex, formerly a GCC system,
>into what is at least the temporarily nebulous realm of the Mid-Chart:
>The Romex 1NT opening is now disallowed on the GCC but allowed (since it
>promises 15+ HCP) on the Mid-Chart.
>
>Am I missing something here?
No, you're not. Romex is now illegal. (as is the thing I play in one of
my regular partnerships) I don't suppose anybody has any idea why the
ACBL, in their infinite wisdom, decided to remove strong, artificial,
and forcing 1NTs from the GCC?
Also, I'd like to know if they made any announcements about these new charts
before the posting on Compuserve and the December Bulletin? It really
sucks to have to change your system on only a few days' notice. :(
--
Julian Lighton jl...@omu.fac.cs.cmu.edu
"Stomp the wombat"
David Shao
David Shao <dave...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
In an earlier posting I expressed concern about the following revised
line in the new ACBL General Conventions Chart:
>The new GCC Competitive Bids section has the line:
> *5. Cuebid of an opponent's suit which shows at least one
> known suit or is strong (15+ HCP).
I expressed concern that this restriction would apply to sequences
such as
(1A) - 1B - (P) - 2A and
(1A) - Dbl - (P) - 2A.
I called the ACBL's Membership Assistance Department line and received
a very prompt reply to my question. I was in error in assuming that
the section Competitive Bids applies to the two sequences above.
The new line apparently refers only to when your side enters the
auction using a cuebid, not in responding after your side has
entered the auction.
>Ironically, the Bulletin on page 91 claims that no changes have been
>made in the Limited Conventions Chart. It appears that if one
>plays in an ACBL event restricted to those with 20 or fewer MPs,
>you have more freedom to define a cuebid than if you played in
>a GCC event.
Rereading the version of the new GCC published in the January 1995
Bulletin, I was surprised to read the following in the Responses and
Rebids section printed on page 92:
2. ...1H response to a 1D opening bid forcing one round;
cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.
3. 1NT response to 1D opening bid to indicate at least four spades
and at least 6 HCP.
Had the ACBL finally fulfilled Don Varvel's dream of legalizing
Roman Club? I think not, this was a typo that had substituted
1H for 1S, 1D for 1H in sentence 2 and 1D for 1H in sentence 3.
David Shao
Andrew Greenberg
my view, such analysis is largely wasted time. Any critical reading of
the chart can see that it was not carefully or critically drafted: It's
use of conjunctions and disjunctions are often ambiguous, it's use of
rules allowing, then disallowing, are simply a disaster.
Worst of all, the definition of relay is hopelessly ambiguous. [So what
else is new.] Fundamentally, relay remains defined with the precision of
the legal definition of obscenity -- we know it when we see it. I have
seen zillions of bright young players play relayish methods, justifying
each call by explaining them away as asking bids. Frankly, I think
ACBL's allergy to relay is not well enough defined for them to be more
precise, and this may be better for all concrned. Clearly, Ultimate is
not allowed, Regress-like bids are not allowed, and you can probably get
away with most anything in practice, if you use the magic words "asking
bids."
I wish they would take more time to do these better. It remains a mire,
not much better than the good old "conventions list" approach. Only now,
you don't have to refer to as many words. That's an improvement. But it
would be nice if those words were more carefully chosen.
The ACBL should draft these things carefully.
Donald A. Varvel
David Shao <dave...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
Number 3 confuses me greatly. I have no idea what they're talking
about. It may well be a typo, with 1H intended in place of 1D. I
thought perhaps they had *intended* to legalize Big Diamond systems,
although that is taken care of separately (1 under openings and 6
under responses). With that in mind, it looks like both 2 and 3
are indeed misprints.
The new rules have specifically *outlawed* Roman, since you can't
open 3-card majors. Further, Vienna and Arno (Little Roman) have
been swept away with Romex. In addition, by saying that artificial
responses are allowed only over *strong* artificial openers (15+),
they have removed many of the gadgets previously arguably legal in
Polish-style systems, and prevented Roman-style systems from using
a negative 1H response to a forcing (but not necessarily strong)
1D opening. (That is, assuming #3 above is a typo).
These rules seem to me to be a *major* blow to Vienna/Roman/Polish
style systems.
On the other hand, big diamond systems are now explicitly legal.
Many club systems use 1C as the artificial strong opener and 1D as
a nebulous opening usually either balanced or minor-oriented. On
a basis of frequency that's backwards. System builders have a whole
new playground, if these rules aren't immediately revised to remove
that possibility.
Donald A. Varvel
Julian D Lighton <jl...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>In article <TIM.94De...@moa.lcs.mit.edu>,
>timothy m wright <t...@theory.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
TW>>It seems to me that the ACBL has just put Romex, formerly a GCC system,
>>into what is at least the temporarily nebulous realm of the Mid-Chart:
>>The Romex 1NT opening is now disallowed on the GCC but allowed (since it
>>promises 15+ HCP) on the Mid-Chart.
TW>>Am I missing something here?
JL>No, you're not. Romex is now illegal. (as is the thing I play in one of
>my regular partnerships) I don't suppose anybody has any idea why the
>ACBL, in their infinite wisdom, decided to remove strong, artificial,
>and forcing 1NTs from the GCC?
I see it as a political move to reduce complaints about Mid-Chart being
allowed in competitions that were previously GCC. Romex has the
reputation of being extremely complicated. (It is, of course, but only
in *constructive* auctions, and there's no reason anyone should care
about that. Romex is actually a pretty easy system to defend against.
Bid a lot, and take your lumps when constructive bidding gets your
opponents to a better contract than the field. You may get your own
back when the Romex pair opens a little heavier than the field and you
get in the first blow.) "Yes, you now have to contend with this other
stuff in Mid-Chart events, but we made Romex and some other unfamiliar
systems illegal in GCC events. That should be plenty."
Vienna, a system that has been used in England continuously since at
least the 1940's, is now not GCC. Not that it matters to anyone but
me, but Arno (Little Roman) is now explicitly disallowed under the GCC.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Big Diamond systems are now
explicitly *legal*. Heh, heh. (Is there an emoticon for an evil grin?)
Julian D Lighton
David Shao <dave...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>>The new GCC Competitive Bids section has the line:
>> *5. Cuebid of an opponent's suit which shows at least one
>> known suit or is strong (15+ HCP).
>
> (1A) - 1B - (P) - 2A and
> (1A) - Dbl - (P) - 2A.
>
>I called the ACBL's Membership Assistance Department line and received
>a very prompt reply to my question. I was in error in assuming that
>the section Competitive Bids applies to the two sequences above.
>The new line apparently refers only to when your side enters the
>auction using a cuebid, not in responding after your side has
>entered the auction.
>
things like cue-bids to ask partner for a stopper, cuebids that show
values but not neccesarily support for partner's suit, and the like.
(I'm pretty sure that cue-bids that promise support are still fine.)
If the cue-bids happen after opener's second call you're fine. I suspect
that they just failed to think about the sorts of uses people
have for cue-bids, and are telling people that the bids are legal
until the spring nationals when they can fix it. (Also, I hope,
they can be convinced to reconsider strong forcing 1NTs at the same
time.)
alan d frank
>> ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART
>> 2. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an
>> opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's
>> rebid.
>[and relay systems are disallowed.]
>I suppose we should be grateful that the ACBL has finally defined
>"relay system," but I don't think this is what they want. For
>example, the auction:
> 1suit - 4NT (aces?)
> any - 5NT (kings?)
>is clearly disallowed. (Or have I missed something?)
I don't think that 4NT and 5NT are relays. A relay is generally a
minimum bid, especially the second relay. These bids aren't minimum.
Also, even if they were relays, I don't think that makes it a relay
system--the bids are merely a minor part of the system, rather than
central to it.
alan d frank
openings, as it reads "_generally_ no singleton or void." Certainly
there's some room for judgment there, but I'm glad I don't have to worry
so much about a director call when I overcall 1H with 1NT holding
Qxxx AQxx KQJx K.
Michael James Stewart
: (Is there an emoticon for an evil grin?)
Sure. }:>
--
Mike Stewart ||| Primary: mste...@whale.st.usm.edu
Graduate Polymer Chemist ||| Secondary: mjs...@usmps550.psrc.usm.edu
Univ. of Southern Mississippi ||| Tertiary: m...@rs320h.psrc.usm.edu
GS d--@ H-- s+: g+ a- w+@ v+ C++ UA+ N++ t++ j++ b++@ e+++ u** y+++ n----
Jeff Goldsmith
>Much has been written here about fine line constructions of the GCC. In
>my view, such analysis is largely wasted time. Any critical reading of
>the chart can see that it was not carefully or critically drafted: It's
>use of conjunctions and disjunctions are often ambiguous, it's use of
>rules allowing, then disallowing, are simply a disaster.
I agree with you very strongly. The amusing part is that it's a huge
improvement over their previous effort, too.
>The ACBL should draft these things carefully.
Yeah. Why is it so difficult? What they really ought to do is
carefully draft someone with a clue to write the next one. Chip?
--Jeff
--
Oseh shalom bimromov hoo ya'aseh shalom
alenu v'al kohl-yisrael; v'imru, amen.
Jeff Goldsmith
>In article <3e42o1$k...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>David Shao <dave...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Rereading the version of the new GCC published in the January 1995
>>Bulletin, I was surprised to read the following in the Responses and
>>Rebids section printed on page 92:
>> 2. ...1H response to a 1D opening bid forcing one round;
>> cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.
>> 3. 1NT response to 1D opening bid to indicate at least four spades
>> and at least 6 HCP.
>>Had the ACBL finally fulfilled Don Varvel's dream of legalizing
>>Roman Club? I think not, this was a typo that had substituted
>>1H for 1S, 1D for 1H in sentence 2 and 1D for 1H in sentence 3.
>Number 3 confuses me greatly. I have no idea what they're talking
>about. It may well be a typo, with 1H intended in place of 1D. I
>thought perhaps they had *intended* to legalize Big Diamond systems,
>although that is taken care of separately (1 under openings and 6
>under responses). With that in mind, it looks like both 2 and 3
>are indeed misprints.
Yeah, I think it was a typo, intended to allow 1H-1S to be a forcing
NT, and 1H-1NT to show four spades.
>On the other hand, big diamond systems are now explicitly legal.
>Many club systems use 1C as the artificial strong opener and 1D as
>a nebulous opening usually either balanced or minor-oriented. On
>a basis of frequency that's backwards. System builders have a whole
>new playground, if these rules aren't immediately revised to remove
>that possibility.
As I understand it, the 1D GP opening was devised to allow the mini-
notrumpers to open 1C with 16-18 and 1D with 13-15, which they were
pretty much doing anyway. :) What will come of that rule now remains
to be seen.
Jeff Goldsmith
too, under GCC rules.
And the rule about defenses to notrump opening bids is borderline
bizarre. It seems as if one can play CRASH or Suction against 2NT
openings, but not 1NT openings. Is a Woolsey double a "call at the
two-level?" What on earth do they mean by that phrase? One would
think that a double of 1NT is a call at the one-level, but the only
call at the two-level other than a bid or a pass is a double of a
2NT opening bid. If someone wants to mess around over natural 2NT
opening bids, who is the ACBL to care? Be serious.
It'd be nice if they got the hierarchy of "ands" and "ors" right,
too. A couple of "rules" are not unambiguously parsable. Yep,
they blew it again. But it's a major improvement over last time! :)
Ken Braithwaite
Steve Willner <wil...@cfa183.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <D1KA7...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>khbr...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Ken Braithwaite) writes:
>> The chart says disallowed UNLESS mentioned as allowed ...
>
When I wrote that I gave the reference. I quote ftom the superchart
preamble: "*Unless allowed methods are disallowed*". That is what
heads the allowed section.
>
>This is in fact a key question: which takes precedence when a given
>convention is both allowed and disallowed? (And if "allowed" takes
>precedence, as Mr. Braithwaite seems to think, what is the point of
>having a "disallowed" list at all? Anything not on either list is
>disallowed, so a list of specific "disallowed" conventions, among the
>universe of all possible disallowed conventions, doesn't seem to have a
>purpose.)
I dont know know WHY they do what they do. But its not just what
I seem to think. I did quote the damn thing didnt I?
OK I will speculate: the most specific description governs. As an example
non game forcing relay systems are illegal, but anything is allowed over
NT. I contend the ACBL will rule that the allowed provision is what is
applicable here. This is not just common sense, it is the usual way to
read "legal" documents.
Adam Beneschan
Hmmmm . . .
I'm responding blindly here, since I haven't received the January
Bulletin yet, haven't seen the new GCC, and probably haven't seen all
the r.g.b. articles in this thread (my news comes about 7-10 days
late).
However, I can't believe that this interpretation was intended by the
stated item (5). Read that way, it would seem to prohibit auctions
such as:
1D 1H 1S pass
2C pass 3D pass
3H(1) (1) Please bid notrump if you have a stopper
The 3H bid doesn't show any suit, and this auction doesn't promise 15
HCP. I cannot believe that ACBL intends to ban such uses of cue-bids,
or Mama-Papa auctions like
1C 1H 2S(1) pass (1) Strong, 19+
3H(2) (2) First-round control
I suspect that item (5) is intended to apply only to a DIRECT cuebid,
such as a strong takeout or a Michaels cue. (Those would be allowed,
but a cue-bid showing an UNSPECIFIED 2-suiter wouldn't.) I'll admit I
don't know why they wouldn't have made this clear in the GCC, but most
of us would agree that the GCC has not been an example of linguistic
precision in the past.
My apologies if my ignorance regarding the new GCC has led me to say
something stupid. (Not that that's ever stopped me before . . .)
-- Adam
Ken Braithwaite
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote:
>ad...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>
>What's really amusing about the Cue-bid rule is that Michaels is
>legal in GCC, but it's not legal in Superchart!
>
>The superchart says "[cue bids] must promise length or shortness
>in the suit bid," and Michaels does not do that.
>
>It'll take a revision or two to get some of the more obvious bugs
>worked out of this one.
> --Jeff
>--
What is even more amusing is the way people seem to deliberately
misread the chart. Read it again.
>Oseh shalom bimromov hoo ya'aseh shalom
>alenu v'al kohl-yisrael; v'imru, amen.
Jeff Goldsmith
>I suspect that item (5) is intended to apply only to a DIRECT cuebid,
>such as a strong takeout or a Michaels cue. (Those would be allowed,
>but a cue-bid showing an UNSPECIFIED 2-suiter wouldn't.) I'll admit I
>don't know why they wouldn't have made this clear in the GCC, but most
>of us would agree that the GCC has not been an example of linguistic
>precision in the past.
What's really amusing about the Cue-bid rule is that Michaels is
legal in GCC, but it's not legal in Superchart!
The superchart says "[cue bids] must promise length or shortness
in the suit bid," and Michaels does not do that.
It'll take a revision or two to get some of the more obvious bugs
worked out of this one.
--Jeff
--
David desJardins
> What's really amusing about the Cue-bid rule is that Michaels is
> legal in GCC, but it's not legal in Superchart!
The Superchart specifically allows everything on the Mid-chart, plus
some additional stuff. It's written in a slightly ambiguous way, but
it's clear what is meant. (I don't think they even would have needed a
bridge expert to proofread this. Just a professional technical writer
to point out linguistic ambiguities. But poor writers rarely realize
that they are poor writers.)
Steve Willner
khbr...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Ken Braithwaite) writes:
> The chart says disallowed UNLESS mentioned as allowed ...
Where does it say that? I can't find it anywhere.
This is in fact a key question: which takes precedence when a given
convention is both allowed and disallowed? (And if "allowed" takes
precedence, as Mr. Braithwaite seems to think, what is the point of
having a "disallowed" list at all? Anything not on either list is
disallowed, so a list of specific "disallowed" conventions, among the
universe of all possible disallowed conventions, doesn't seem to have a
purpose.)
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
member, League for Programming Freedom; contact l...@uunet.uu.net
Erik B. Flom
>wer...@gate.net (Andrew Greenberg) writes:
>
>>Much has been written here about fine line constructions of the GCC. In
>>my view, such analysis is largely wasted time. Any critical reading of
>>the chart can see that it was not carefully or critically drafted: It's
>>use of conjunctions and disjunctions are often ambiguous, it's use of
>>rules allowing, then disallowing, are simply a disaster.
>
>I agree with you very strongly. The amusing part is that it's a huge
>improvement over their previous effort, too.
>
>>The ACBL should draft these things carefully.
>
>Yeah. Why is it so difficult? What they really ought to do is
>carefully draft someone with a clue to write the next one. Chip?
Perhaps the question that comes to mind ought not to be who wrote the
new GCC, but the process by which it came about. I can't seem to find
my materials right now, but there was a group that formed because a
group of players thought the ACBL was run in too closed a fashion and
was more interested in providing perks to leaders than services to
members. Perhaps more openness in regulatory function ought to be
advocated as well.
From what I can tell the convention charts were not crafted in a
process which soliticited comments and ideas. The commentary that
is running around Usenet certainly indicates that the ACBL has not
communicated effectively about what it is doing and why. I could
imagine a process perhaps like the following:
1) Draft a list of policies that a convention chart system ought
to embody.
2) Solicit comments.
3) Finalize policy.
4) Select an individual or committee to draft convention charts to
embody the policies settled on.
5) Solicit comments.
6) Finalize the charts.
Yes, the policy statements might be like "Allow precision, but
ban Romex", but shouldn't the membership be notified of the ACBL's
policies?
The major downside I could see is that there are going to be some
semi-public fights about things, which might create some bad feeling.
If most ACBL members are mature enough to lose an argument and not
harbor bad feelings afterwards this downside should be minimal.
I am sure that most of the reporting could be done in one page of
fine print in the ACBL Bulletin. With enough lead time one might
be able to see editorials in The Bridge World, or Bridge Today to
provide some independent reporting on the effects or desirability
of the possible changes.
The biggest benefit would be that logical fallacies would be
caught, and vauge wording clarified. Well, no, I suppose that
the biggest benefit would be that the membership could have
confidence that if something was broken it would be fixed.
Erik Flom
P.S. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for openness from the ACBL.
Adam Beneschan
>
>>DEFINITIONS:
>>1. A suit bid is considered natural if for minors it shows 3 or
>> more cards in that suit and for majors it shows 4 or more card
>> in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if
>> not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one
>> or two doubletons).
[stuff deleted]
>> RESPONSES AND REBIDS:
>
>>*5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) to
>> indicate a raise or to force to game.
>
>One thing I would like to see clarified: are all "natural" calls
>GCC legal?
"Natural" calls are not conventions and are therefore not regulated by
the GCC. The Laws give sponsoring organizations (e.g. ACBL) the right
to regulate conventions but not natural calls or treatments (although
I think they do have the right to regulate the minimum strength of an
opening 1-bid).
>For example I have in several partnerships used
> 1m - 2H to show 4 hearts, 5+ spades, 6-9 HCP.
>It's a natural call because I have 4 hearts and bid hearts.
>What explicitly allows weak jump shifts in the GCC?
Nothing. It's not a convention.
>Can I have an agreement to weak jump shift on four carders?
Yes. As above, it's not a convention.
>Does adding the
>inference that I have 5+ spades make a weak 2H response on 4 hearts
>GCC illegal?
Yes (unless there's some other item that allows this convention).
Despite the text quoted under "DEFINITIONS", I don't think your use of
2H qualifies as a "natural" call, because it conveys positive
information about a suit other than hearts. As far as I know, the
definition of "convention" in the Laws includes your 2H bid, just as
it would include 2H Flannery (2H=5 hearts, 4 spades, 11-15 HCP). I
seriously doubt that the ACBL intends to call 2H Flannery a "natural"
call, although the sloppy wording of item (1) above may lead one to
believe that.
(Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to see the new GCC in its
entirety, so there may be something I'm missing.)
-- Adam
David Shao
In the Competitive Bids section there are the lines:
"1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.
2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES."
If a call is "conventional", is any response structure GCC legal?
Or must a response structure be subject to the restrictions of
the Responses and Rebids section?
a) Advancing a conventional double.
In several partnerships we play
(1A) - Dbl to show a hand with 15+ HCP, any shape,
but usually a balanced hand that would have overcalled 1NT
in a standard system
(this power double is part of the Overcall Structure).
i) Is it GCC legal to use transfer responses to this
power double where a bid
is a transfer to the next higher suit?
ii) Is it GCC legal to have an artificial runout system
if the power double is redoubled
by the opponents for business?
b) Advancing a conventional 1NT overcall.
In the same partnerships we play (1A) - 1NT to show
a 5-15 point takeout for the three unbid suits.
i) Is it GCC legal to use transfer responses to 1NT for takeout?
ii) Is it GCC legal to have an artificial runout system
if 1NT is doubled for business?
9) Does "pre-balancing" in direct seat fall under the
balancing regulations?
The new GCC has in the Competitive Bids section the line:
"1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS."
Larry Cohen in Chapter V Off the Proper Level in his book
To Bid or Not to Bid discusses the "Super" Unusual 2NT
convention where the sequence
(1S) - P - (2S) - 2NT
shows an unspecified two-suited hand.
Clearly this agreement would not qualify as being a
GCC legal one under the line:
"3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either:
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution
and at least one known suit or
b) three-suited takeout".
On the other hand, Larry Cohen advocates bidding in direct seat
after the opponents bid and raise as though one were in
balancing seat (OBAR BIDS).
If one's side uses this OBAR BIDS philosophy, is this
Super Unusual 2NT convention GCC legal?
10) Is any interference system over a strong artificial 1C opening
GCC legal regardless of whether its primary purpose is
to destroy the opponents' methods?
Is this the only case where the injunction against primarily
destructive methods does not apply?
Would any of the following defenses be GCC illegal:
a) Indiscriminant use of CRASH on almost all hands with at least
4-4 distribution at favorable vulnerability.
b) "Wonder" bids where a suit bid shows either more than four
or less than three cards in that suit.
c) "Automatic" 1S overcall at favorable vulnerability almost
regardless of one's holding in spades.
David Shao
David Grabiner
> It looks as if Lebensohl after doubles of weak 2s is now illegal,
> too, under GCC rules.
Defenses to opening bids of 2C or higher are legal, and Lebensohl seems
to be part of such a defense.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Christopher Monsour
>It looks as if Lebensohl after doubles of weak 2s is now illegal,
>too, under GCC rules.
Hmm, maybe next time they should write a new GCC and THEN print the new
convention cards.
`But director, there's a box for it on the convention card--what do you
mean I can't use it?'
--Christopher J. Monsour
John Hoffman
> It looks as if Lebensohl after doubles of weak 2s is now illegal,
> too, under GCC rules.
Under "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART" (as posted by Kent Burghard), I see
the following, which appears to allow any (non-destructive)
competitive methods after the opponents' opening bid of 2C or higher.
Can you please explain what passage causes Lebensohl after doubles
to be illegal?
ALLOWED:
...
COMPETITIVE BIDS:
...
*6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls,
b) natural notrump opening bids (two level calls that show
a multi-suited hand must show at least one known suit),
c) opening bids of 2C or higher.
--
John Hoffman (408) 379-7000 | Keep your eyes on the road
HaL Computer Systems, Inc. | and your hands upon the wheel.
1315 Dell Avenue | -- Jim Morrison
Kent Burghard
>And the rule about defenses to notrump opening bids is borderline
>bizarre. It seems as if one can play CRASH or Suction against 2NT
>openings, but not 1NT openings.
There was some discussion of the status of Suction (bid of a suit
after the opponents open 1NT shows either: a single suit, the one
above the one actually bid; or two suits, usually the two above the
single suit) earlier in this thread. I read a post from Bobby Goldman
on the Imagination network last night. I am fairly sure that Bobby
was on the convention committee who came up with the changes
to the GCC. Bobby confirmed that Suction was no longer permitted
and said that the reason was that it caused too much confusion
for the opponents.
Sigh.
-
KENT BURGHARD DMF...@prodigy.com
Rochester, Minnesota - ACBL Board of Govenors
Mark Brader
> And the rule about defenses to notrump opening bids is borderline
> the one-level ...
There is a separate item allowing "conventional doubles and redoubles".
I take it that someone got carried away in correcting the informal use
of "bid" to the proper "call", and in the section on defenses to no trump,
wrote "call" where "bid" was really meant.
--
Mark Brader | "Many 'business-oriented' packagings of these [UNIXes]
m...@sq.com | ... omit the games section. Those responsible will
SoftQuad Inc. | doubtless be reincarnated as worker insects of some sort."
Toronto | -- "J. E. Lapin"
This article is in the public domain.
Jeff Goldsmith
guys responsible for the new GCC, Midchart, and Superchart. He
says that what wass printed in the Bulletin was rushed out so
that folks could be prepared for the Spring Nationals. As a
result, expect some improvements and changes sooner rather than
later.
He also said that the discussions going on here are, in fact,
read by at least one member of the committee.
Jeff Goldsmith
>What is even more amusing is the way people seem to deliberately
>misread the chart. Read it again.
OK, and I'll transcribe it, too, to wit:
"2. Defenses over opponents' natural suit bids must promise ...
b) for cuebids, either length or shortness in the suit bid."
Ignoring the obviously silly ambiguity in the wording, this seems
to say that 1H-(2H) must promise >2 or promise <3 cards in hearts. Michaels
cue bids don't say anything about hearts. Nearly no cue bids do.
The GCC expressly allows any cue bid that promises at least one known
suit, but why make a general rule that won't cover the most common
specific cases? It just seems a little odd. I think what they really
meant was "cuebids must promise length or promise shortness in one
known suit, or promise 15+ HCP." (The last part ought to say, a strong
hand, IMO.)
--Jeff
Jeff Goldsmith
Lots of good questions. I'm pretty sure of the answers to a few
of them.
> 4) Does the GCC only regulate natural bids that initiate a side's
> entry into the auction such as opening bids or overcalls?
> Does adding an extra inference about what hands cannot be held
> ever make a certain agreement GCC illegal?
Yes. Adding an extra inference will often make an agreement a
convention. It is then regulatable.
> a) In several partnerships we would like to play
> Responder's Reverse Flannery:
> 1m - (P) - 2H as showing 4 hearts, 5+ spades, and 6-9 HCP.
> Presumably 2H is a natural bid--responder must have 4 hearts.
> I also assume that if there were no inference of 5+ spades,
> the 2H response would be, although possibly unsound,
> perfectly GCC legal (and alertable).
> Or can a jump bid without an indication of potential support
> be natural if the suit is not five cards or longer?
That's not ok. Artificial jump shifts must be either raises or
game forces. (Heh, heh, I've even taken advantage of this ambiguous
wording, making up jump shifts that sometimes are raises and sometimes
are non-raise game forces; opener relays to find out. I suspect this is
not intended to be legal, but, hey, that's what it *says*....)
> b) Can one agree to open a weak two bid 2M only with hands that
> have 5 in M, 4+ in some minor, whatever range of HCP is
> GCC legal to have artificial responses?
> Presumably without the 4+ in a minor inference,
> this would be an ordinary weak two.
This is a little grey---you could, I suppose, have the agreement
that you only open a weak two if you have a singleton. I don't
see why the GCC (or the ACBL) would or could regulate that. This
particular twist seems to be about the same. On the surface, it
sounds illegal, but...maybe the big twist is that if you were
going to fail to open your weak two most of the time when the
minor was bad if only four cards, or even most of the time when
it's only four cards, then suddenly, your two-bid suggests 5-5
shape. Now we are not at all close to legal. And what about
Bailey twos? They promise 8-11 HCP, 5-6 cards in the bid suit,
2-3 in all unbid majors, and no strange shapes. (Plus a couple
modest minor other things.) Are *those* inferences enough to
make the 2-bid a convention? The answer here is going to be
real tough to pin down. Someone will eventually work out, "gee,
my opening two bids imply no side 9-card suit. Does that make
them conventional?" I'll recant: this isn't just a little grey;
it seems to be a vicious morass.
--Jeff
Jeff Goldsmith
>10) Is any interference system over a strong artificial 1C opening
> GCC legal regardless of whether its primary purpose is
> to destroy the opponents' methods?
I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to regulate defenses
to conventions, but I'm not sure about that. In any case, their
deciding to do so would worry me a bit. If some convention is
better than natural methods unless the opponents can use some
given defense, in which case it is worse, then preventing the
use of the defense isn't doing what convention regulations are
meant to do, but rather is distorting the game severely, making
someone's preferred methods superior for no good reason. Taken
to the extreme---imagine if, when I opened a strong club, you were
not allowed to bid anything in the direct overcall seat. Wouldn't
everyone feel forced to use a strong club? I know I would.
--Jeff
David Shao
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote:
>He also said that the discussions going on here are, in fact,
>read by at least one member of the committee.
Really? In that case, I'd like to post parts of a letter(s) I have
been composing to the ACBL about the new GCC.
In what follows I have a mixture of questions and personal
interpretations about the new ACBL General Convention Chart which
may or may not be correct. I would greatly appreciate having the
questions answered and the wrong interpretations corrected. The
letter is long and some of the questions complex; however,
I feel the answers would be of interest not only to me but also to
a wider audience. In particular, I would like to ask permission to
post the answers on an electronic newsgroup, the Internet USENET
newsgroup rec.games.bridge, which is read by bridge players
worldwide. I would also be interested in permission to possibly
store the answers in a Frequently Asked Questions file for readers
of the newsgroup to access.
I realize it will be a formidable task to answer all of the
questions; however, I believe there is a tremendous amount of
confusion in the ACBL membership about what is and isn't legal in
the GCC. I would be very happy if this letter could initiate an
article or series of articles in the Bulletin, and I would be
delighted to have any of my correspondence used to contribute to
these articles.
1) Natural bids--high tightly are the definitions to be enforced?
The new GCC defines natural bids of both suits and notrump.
Presumably agreements where one often systematically opens
certain hands 1NT with a singleton or 1M with a 3 card major
are illegal.
But is this still true if one would only very rarely do this?
a) Opening 1NT with a singleton
In the new GCC, there is the definition
"A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced
(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two
doubletons)."
Does the word "generally" imply that "sometimes" opening 1NT
with a singleton is permissible?
Can there be an agreement to open a class of hands that have
a singleton with 1NT?
i) In KS Updated, Edgar Kaplan notes at the beginning of
section A that 1NT (12-14)
"has been known on specifically 1-4-4-4 pattern, with
spade honor, because of rebidding problems, but 1H is
usually preferable if the hearts are decent."
Since it is in print, does this constitute an illegal
agreement if one would always open some of these hands 1NT?
This bidding system's construction causes the problem--
1D - 1S; 1NT would show a balanced hand, 15-17 HCP while
1D - 1S; 2C is an artificial forcing bid.
ii) In his book Matchpoints, Kit Woolsey in the section
Loading the Dice suggests opening a 15-17 1NT bid with either
S KT53 H AQT8 D KJ92 C K or
S K H KT53 D AQT8 C KJ92.
Opening 1NT on these types of hands is not a matter of system
but judgment.
Is it considered to be a psych if one opens either of these
hands 1NT, is it simply GCC illegal, or is one allowed to
use one's judgment as long as one doesn't open 1NT with a
singleton "too often"?
Would opening 1NT with a singleton once every two sessions be
considered "too often"?
What would be a maximum frequency?
Would this frequency differ if one were playing a
miniNT 10-12 where presumably there would be more chances
to make such an opening?
b) Overcalling 1NT with a singleton.
Do guidelines similar to a) apply to overcalling 1NT or can
overcalling notrump with a singleton be made on a wider class
of hands since there may be fewer reasonable options?
c) Opening 1M on a 3 card major
In Edgar Kaplan's description of the Roman Club in his book
The Complete Italian System of Winning Bridge, he writes that
the system constrains one to open 1H holding
S x H Qxx D Ax C AKQTxxx
since natural club bids are not available.
Omar Sharif in his How to Play the Blue Team Club, Chapter 3
The Opening Bid of One Notrump, writes that if one plays 1NT
as strictly being 16-17 balanced, one has to open 1H on a
hand such as S A63 H KQ3 D 93 C AJ763.
My interpretation of the GCC is that any such agreements to
open 1M on a 3 card major are illegal.
d) Responding 1M on a 3 card major
i) In one partnership we had difficulties trying to construct
a GCC legal response structure after an opening bid of 1D
with constraints that left certain hands with a 3-3-2-5
distribution just above the 1NT 6-9 HCP strength unbiddable.
When I pointed this out to my partner he suggested
responding in a 3 card major.
ii) I have read that Eric Rodwell invented the support double
partly because he liked to respond in a 3 card major
(I believe playing Precision with a nebulous 1D opener)
and didn't want to play in a 3-3 fit after competition.
Are any of these or other 3 card major responses GCC legal?
e) Responding on a two card minor
Systems using canape principles seem to generate certain
hand patterns where shorter than normal suits must be bid.
Garozzo and Forquet in their book The Italian Blue Team
Bridge Book cite a hand from world championship play where
responder after a 1H opening bid holding
S AQ76 H K96 D 6542 C AK
responded 2C, reversed in spades, and later showed delayed
support in hearts.
Is it GCC legal to use one's judgment to estimate that a
strong two card suit is equivalent to a three card suit,
a strong three card suit to a four card suit, etc.?
I realize that loosening the regulations on responding with
two card minors would open the door to some who would like to
use 1S - 2C as a general game-forcing inquiry not necessarily
showing a club suit.
David Shao
alan d frank
>wer...@gate.net (Andrew Greenberg) writes:
>>Much has been written here about fine line constructions of the GCC. In
>>my view, such analysis is largely wasted time. Any critical reading of
>>the chart can see that it was not carefully or critically drafted: It's
>>use of conjunctions and disjunctions are often ambiguous, it's use of
>>rules allowing, then disallowing, are simply a disaster.
>I agree with you very strongly. The amusing part is that it's a huge
>improvement over their previous effort, too.
>>The ACBL should draft these things carefully.
>Yeah. Why is it so difficult? What they really ought to do is
>carefully draft someone with a clue to write the next one. Chip?
How about just posting proposed new rules to r.g.b and reading the
responses. This type of approach has been known to work in other domains.
Jeff Goldsmith
>Jeff Goldsmith writes:
>>And the rule about defenses to notrump opening bids is borderline
>>bizarre. It seems as if one can play CRASH or Suction against 2NT
>>openings, but not 1NT openings.
>There was some discussion of the status of Suction (bid of a suit
>after the opponents open 1NT shows either: a single suit, the one
>above the one actually bid; or two suits, usually the two above the
>single suit) earlier in this thread. I read a post from Bobby Goldman
>on the Imagination network last night. I am fairly sure that Bobby
>was on the convention committee who came up with the changes
>to the GCC. Bobby confirmed that Suction was no longer permitted
>and said that the reason was that it caused too much confusion
>for the opponents.
Bobby Goldman is on the committee.
That Suction would be banned in GCC events seems a little strange;
it's not particularly hard to defend against. I do know of an
interesting incident when a very experienced player realized that
he didn't know how to defend against Suction (amazingly, he
claimed not to have seen it before, which I suspect was horsepuckey)
and pretty much prevented a normal score from occurring on the board.
If I were the director, I'd just award average+ to the non-offending
side, zero to the screamer, and tell him if he ever did that again,
he'd talk to a C&E committee. (Sorry, I can't figure out how to relate
the story without excessive use of profanity :))
--Jeff
Jeff Goldsmith
More feeble attempts by me to shorten your letter :)
> 4) Does the GCC only regulate natural bids that initiate a side's
> entry into the auction such as opening bids or overcalls?
> Does adding an extra inference about what hands cannot be held
> ever make a certain agreement GCC illegal?
The ACBL is not allowed to regulate any natural bids other than
opening 1-bids with fewer than 8 HCP. They can regulate conventions,
though, so if they decide that you can't play any conventions over a
9-11 1NT opening (they have) then that effectively hamstrings a method.
(We found an exception. In third seat, white on red, we just simply
alert and open weak twos on anything we feel like. No conventional
responses. No forcing bids. No SOS redoubles. Regulate all you
want, ACBL.)
> Using these calls as Namyats for an opening bid is legal
> according to the line:
> "7. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit."
> Do they remain legal if an opponent has beaten your side to
> opening the bidding?
I got a written reply to that one. The answer is, "no, Namyats
overcalls are not legal."
--Jeff
David Shao
when one is advancing (responding to) partner's overcall?
Is this true regardless of whether the partner of the
opening bidder bids or passes?
a) Example: Jacoby 2NT extended to apply to advancing an overcall.
In their pamphlet "The Overcall Structure", Don Spaulding and
John Twineham advocate using (1A) - 1B - (P ) - 2NT to show
a good hand with 4+ card support.
I assume this is GCC legal because of the line in the Responses
and Rebid section:
"*5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) to
indicate a raise or to force to game."
Example: After the sequence (1C) - 1S - (P) - ?
2D is a transfer to hearts,
2H is a "cuebid" supporting spades, etc.
I have been told by some knowledgable good players that
under the old GCC, Rubens Advances were legal if they were made
by a passed hand. In justification they cited the line in the
Responses and Rebids section which said,
"All constructive calls made during the second and subsequent
rounds of bidding".
I argued that this could not be the case because why else would
there be a special line in effect legalizing Drury:
"2C or 2D response to 3rd or 4th seat major seat opener
asking the quality of opening bid".
The new GCC has replaced this line with
"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the
opening bidder's second call."
I interpret the new revised line to clarify that a pass
is not considered to have been the first round of bidding
in a constructive auction.
c) Can any constructive conventional meaning be assigned
to notrump calls in advancing an overcall?
Example: 1NT as Lebensohl, a relay to 2C.
Don Spaulding and John Twineham in their pamphlet,
"The Overcall Structure", advocate using
(1A) - 1B - (P) - 1NT
as a request for overcaller to rebid 2C unless he has an
additional feature to show.
In the auction
(1C) - 1D - (P) - ?
the advancer would therefore have the option of bidding a
non-forcing weak 1H or 1S, or using Lebensohl then rebidding
2H or 2S to show a mildly invitational hand.
(A direct 2H or 2S advance would be preemptive in that major,
a 2C cuebid would be a very strong nonfit or semifit
game try with a good 15 or more points.)
1NT forcing over a 1D opening bid is not permitted in the
Responses and Rebids section, but is 1NT Lebensohl permitted
in this advancing sequence?
If not, would 1NT Lebensohl be permitted
if the overcall had been 1H or 1S?
d) Can any constructive conventional meaning be assigned to a
cuebid in advancing an overcall?
3) Artificial responses to an opening one bid in a suit
Possible misprint in the January 1995 Bulletin?
In the Responses and Rebids section of the new GCC
there are the lines:
"...1H response to a 1D opening bid forcing one round..."
and
"1NT response to 1D opening bid to indicate at least
four spades and at least 6 HCP."
In the old GCC I believe those lines used to be:
"...1S response to a 1H opening bid forcing one round..."
and
"1NT response to a 1H opening bid to indicate at least
four spades and at least 6 HCP."
David Shao
David Shao
4) Does the GCC only regulate natural bids that initiate a side's
entry into the auction such as opening bids or overcalls?
Does adding an extra inference about what hands cannot be held
ever make a certain agreement GCC illegal?
Responder's Reverse Flannery:
1m - (P) - 2H as showing 4 hearts, 5+ spades, and 6-9 HCP.
Presumably 2H is a natural bid--responder must have 4 hearts.
I also assume that if there were no inference of 5+ spades,
the 2H response would be, although possibly unsound,
perfectly GCC legal (and alertable).
Or can a jump bid without an indication of potential support
be natural if the suit is not five cards or longer?
have 5 in M, 4+ in some minor, whatever range of HCP is
GCC legal to have artificial responses?
Presumably without the 4+ in a minor inference,
this would be an ordinary weak two.
5) Is it a general principle of the GCC that any legal opening bid
can also be used as an overcall over an opponent's opening bid?
For example, in The Overcall Structure pamphlet,
Don Spaulding and John Twineham advocate using
(1C,1D or 1S) - 4C as showing a "good" 4H bid and
(1C,1D or 1H) - 4D as showing a "good" 4S bid.
Using these calls as Namyats for an opening bid is legal
according to the line:
"7. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit."
Do they remain legal if an opponent has beaten your side to
opening the bidding?
6) Cuebids
In the old GCC,
in the Competitive Auctions section there was the line:
"*Cuebid of an opponent's suit".
In the new GCC,
in the Competitive Bids section there is the line:
"*CUEBID of an opponent's suit which shows at least
one known suit or is strong (15+ HCP)".
a) In the January 1995 Bulletin on page 91 it is stated
"There has been no change in the ACBL
Limited Conventions Chart..."
Presumably this line about cuebids was in fact changed.
b) Last Friday, December 30, 1994, I called the ACBL MAD line
and received a very prompt and helpful reply
about the following question:
I had thought that the auctions
(1A) - 1B - (P) - 2A and
(1A) - Takeout Dbl - (P) - 2A
were cuebidding auctions covered in the above line in the
Competitive Bids section of the new GCC.
However, I was told that the line was not intended to cover these
sequences, it concerned entering the auction with a cuebid.
So in the above two sequences can any constructive meaning be
assigned to the cuebid 2A?
Can any constructive meaning be assigned to a cuebid, either a
lowest level one or a jump one, after one's side has already
entered the bidding?
7) If opponents overcall at the one level our opening bid in a suit,
is any constructive agreement about coping with the
interference GCC legal?
Or is the opening side still restricted to what is permitted
in the Responses and Rebids section?
In particular:
a) Would using bids as a transfer to another suit be GCC legal?
b) Is it GCC legal to assign to a 1NT call any conventional meaning
whose purpose is not primarily to destroy opponents' methods?
Example: In some partnerships, we would like to use 1NT as the
equivalent of a weaker strength negative double in the sequence
1A - (1B) - ?
showing at least 4-4 in the unbid suits with 6-9 HCP.
Is 1NT as a weak negative double permitted only if the
opening bid were 1M, but not if the opening bid were 1m?
c) Is it GCC legal to assign to a cuebid any conventional meaning
whose purpose is not primarily to destroy opponents' methods?
David Shao
Ken Braithwaite
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@gg.caltech.edu> wrote:
>khbr...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Ken Braithwaite) writes:
>
>>What is even more amusing is the way people seem to deliberately
>>misread the chart. Read it again.
>
>OK, and I'll transcribe it, too, to wit:
>
>"2. Defenses over opponents' natural suit bids must promise ...
> b) for cuebids, either length or shortness in the suit bid."
>
and is part of a clause saying anything in midchart PLUS anything
else "except that:"
That is the second "except that" clause. I t restricts only the
non - midchart methods you may want.
>Ignoring the obviously silly ambiguity in the wording, this seems
>to say that 1H-(2H) must promise >2 or promise <3 cards in hearts. Michaels
Michaels is midchart and GCC legal.
The chart may indeed be foolish, but it is not foolish in the way
you suggest.
If I say "any word in english is allowed plus any word you want as long
as it contains no double o" I am not saying you cannot use the word
pontoon, am I?
>
> --Jeff
Christopher Monsour
I agree with the spirit of that last remark, but it is rather puzzling that
the chart defines `relay system' but not `strong hand'. Can I play
multi-2D in a GCC event if I claim to consider any hand with a decent
six card major `strong'?
Some of the HCP requirements seem silly. Like requiring the spade-showing
1NT response to 1H to promise at least 6 HCP. What is the purpose of
this? Are they just trying to annoy players whose usual 1/1 suit reponses
tend to promise 5 or more HCP? Am I going to be in trouble if I respond
1NT to 1H with KQxxx xx xxxxx x ? Or can I tell them that in my judgment
the hand was worth 6 HCP? Can one do this with any 5 HCP hand, claiming to
consider having the spades to be worth one point?
At any rate, what problem would it pose for the opponents the GCC is trying
to protect if the 1NT response could contain hands weaker than 6 HCP. It's
certainly *much* easier to deal with than a weak jump shift to 2S.
--Christopher J. Monsour
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
In article <3ecu83$1...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, je...@gg.caltech.edu (Jeff Goldsmith) writes:
>I just talked to someone on the ACBL competition committee, the
>guys responsible for the new GCC, Midchart, and Superchart. He
>says that what wass printed in the Bulletin was rushed out so
>that folks could be prepared for the Spring Nationals. As a
>result, expect some improvements and changes sooner rather than
>later.
This may be an obvious question but _WHY_ was there a rush to get the new GCC
(Midchart, Superchart) into the bulletin? I agree that the old charts had
their problems but they weren't so bad either that they had to be replaced as
soon as possible.
Why not publish a draft, have the discussions that we are having on r.g.b.
right now, improve the draft and have a few iterations of that until
everybody agrees that the document is a reasonable compromise? At least
this saves everybody the trouble of changing (and learning) systems so
that they are allowed by the GCC again, followed by another round of
system changes after the spring and/or summer NABC.
>He also said that the discussions going on here are, in fact,
>read by at least one member of the committee.
Ok, here are my questions (excluding those that have already been asked
by others).
1) RESPONSES AND REBIDS:
7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's 2nd
call.
Why doesn't this include responders first response, like it is done in
Europe? Any response that promises invitational or better values is
allowed here, including "relays". As far as I know, this has never
caused problems, however conventional the response is. (Think about it,
can you come up with a sequence where LHO opens and RHO promises at
least invitational values, where you need a special defence?)
2) On which paragraph in the Laws is,
DISALLOWED
2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto.
based? Yes, I know that Law 40 allows the ACBL to regulate the use of
conventions but it does _NOT_ allow them to define on which hands one
can or cannot use a convention and hence to define that a bid is a
psyche.
3) ACBL CONVENTION SUPERCHART. ALLOWED:
2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
Zillions of players use 1A-3A for a hand with a solid suit and asking
for a stopper. The bid doesn't really promise length or shortness in
the suit bid (after 1H-3H, A/xxxx/A/AKQJxxx certainly qualifies), so is
this suddenly illegal. What about all other cuebids of the opponents'
suit(s), when trying to find the best game.
4) ACBL CONVENTION MID-CHART
This chart applies to:
3) any bracket of a bracketed KO at an NABC which contains no
team with a bracket designator (average masterpoints of the
entire team or top two players) of less than 1000 masterpoints.
I don't like this at all. Suppose a team where all players have 5000
mp's enters a knock-out. They all play midchart systems since it is
unlikely that the lowest team in their bracket will ever have less than
1000 points. However, due to a snowstorm and airline strike, suddenly
only 16 teams show up and the lowest team has less than 1000 points.
Does this mean that this team has to discuss a new system 5 minutes
before game time? How about a team with 1100 points, if they want
to use midchart conventions, this rule forces them to prepare two
systems since it is approximately equally likely that they end up in
a bracket where midchart is allowed or not? How about a team with 950
points, lowest in its bracket but consisting of 2 pairs of Juniors training
for the next Worldchampionships? Can they ask for for 50 virtual point
to be added to their balance?
In short, I think that it should be known well in advance to the players
if their system will be allowed or not. This is not the case for US-style
knock-outs where the brackets are determined 5 minutes before game time.
5) Pre-alerts are required for all conventional methods not
permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of,
and suggested defenses to such methods must be made in writing.
This is a good idea but there should be some minimum requirements for
the suggested defences. Most of the suggested defences that I have
seen in my life, only dealt with the bids directly over the bid and
perhaps after the first response but never with bidding in the 6th
or 8th position. For example after:
2 D (Multi) - Pass - 2 H - Pass
Pass - ???
Which is something that one has to discuss in order to succesfully
defend against the Multi.
Or am I entitled to redress in case I happen to hold a hand not covered
by the suggested defence?
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: he...@desy.de
University of Oxford WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html
DESY-F01 Phone: +49.40.89983133
Notkestrasse 85 Fax: +49.40.89983092
Hamburg, D22603, Germany Home: +49.40.3898954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
Steve Altus
>
>>>So even in SUPERCHART events a 2S preempt with an unspecified suit
>>>is illegal?! Aren't these events supposed to be for the big
>>>boys only?! That giant sucking sound is how the US teams
>>>will perform in international competition once our experienced
>>>world champions retire...
Note first that 2S showing an unspecified preempt is not allowed
in such international competitions as the round-robin portion of
the Rosenblum and McConnell Cups.
The stated reason for such a convention to be disallowed is not that
it is so difficult to defense, but that it is simply RANDOM. It replaces
bridge with dice rolls. Note that regulation of all competitions is
done for either the safety of the competitors (not likely to be relevant
in bridge) or to assure a fair contest between the competitors. Randomizing
elements are a part of many competitions (e.g. the hail-mary pass which
Colorado used to beat Michigan in football this year), but are generally
minimized by the rules.
Varis Carey and I play 2S showing an undisciplined preempt in any suit,
and if it's allowed we will play it in Indonesia (unless our NPC strongly
disapproves). I must admit that, although we have gained a large
advantage from our 3-bids knowing that they show good hands, the boards on
which we've actually opened 2S have been pretty random. In Cincinnati,
for example, in the LM Open Pairs Woolsey-Manfield got to game in their
5-2 fit after I opened 2S, and it just happened to be their best spot, and
one they'd have been unlikely to reach on most other auctions. Even our
well-publicized gain in the semifinals of the junior trials was covering
our teammates' disaster after a simple 3C opening at the other table.
It's funny, the old ACBL GCC/Superchart system was ridiculous; not only
did it exclude things from GCC which belonged there, but it allowed all
sorts of things in NABC pair games and short-match team games (i.e. Swiss
Teams) which had NO business being allowed. IMO, 2S showing an unspecified
preempt is one of the latter. I can see an argument for allowing it in the
NEW superchart, and in fact it probably should be, but it's certainly not the
sort of thing which will destroy the US's international bridge program.
--SA
--
"Why don't you just like, hit me again and finish me off."
Ken Braithwaite
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford) <he...@vxdesy.desy.de> wrote:
>
>2) On which paragraph in the Laws is,
>
> DISALLOWED
> 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
> responses thereto.
>
> based? Yes, I know that Law 40 allows the ACBL to regulate the use of
> conventions but it does _NOT_ allow them to define on which hands one
> can or cannot use a convention and hence to define that a bid is a
> psyche.
Well I *do* think they can define a psyche. The laws refer to a psychic
bid and in a way impinging upon the right of the ACBL to regulate.
It does take a stretch though to intrepret Law 40 as allowing the ACBL
to ban the psyching of artificial openings or responses to them. Law 40C
might be applicable except that law 40A clearly permits psyches of such bids.
>
>3) ACBL CONVENTION SUPERCHART. ALLOWED:
> 2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
> b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
>
> Zillions of players use 1A-3A for a hand with a solid suit and asking
> for a stopper. The bid doesn't really promise length or shortness in
> the suit bid (after 1H-3H, A/xxxx/A/AKQJxxx certainly qualifies), so is
> this suddenly illegal. What about all other cuebids of the opponents'
> suit(s), when trying to find the best game.
In the Limited CC, it says "any meaning may be given to a cue bid of the
opponent's suit". The LCC is all Superchart legal.
Hence 1A 3A is legal for any meaning.
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Ken Braithwaite writes:
>Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>>2) On which paragraph in the Laws is,
>> DISALLOWED
>> 2. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional
>> responses thereto.
>> based? Yes, I know that Law 40 allows the ACBL to regulate the use of
>> conventions but it does _NOT_ allow them to define on which hands one
>> can or cannot use a convention and hence to define that a bid is a
>> psyche.
>Well I *do* think they can define a psyche. The laws refer to a psychic
>bid and in a way impinging upon the right of the ACBL to regulate.
>It does take a stretch though to intrepret Law 40 as allowing the ACBL
>to ban the psyching of artificial openings or responses to them. Law 40C
>might be applicable except that law 40A clearly permits psyches of such bids.
That is exactly what I mean. We have had this discussion before and
came to the conclusion that Law 40A explicitly allows psyching of artificial
opening bids. In fact, this problem is mentioned in Grattan Endicot's book
on the Laws and he states that several members of the WBF Law Committee
think that a ban on psyches of artificial bids is not allowed by the Laws
(but that nobody, for the time being, decided to challenge the ACBL (and
a few other NBCO)'s ban on psyches).
Anyway, I'm still curious to know why the ACBL thinks that the Laws allow
them to forbid psyches of certain classes of bids.
>>3) ACBL CONVENTION SUPERCHART. ALLOWED:
>> 2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
>> b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
>> Zillions of players use 1A-3A for a hand with a solid suit and asking
>> for a stopper. The bid doesn't really promise length or shortness in
>> the suit bid (after 1H-3H, A/xxxx/A/AKQJxxx certainly qualifies), so is
>> this suddenly illegal. What about all other cuebids of the opponents'
>> suit(s), when trying to find the best game.
>In the Limited CC, it says "any meaning may be given to a cue bid of the
>opponent's suit". The LCC is all Superchart legal.
>Hence 1A 3A is legal for any meaning.
Agreed, but why has this rule been included in the Superchart? It is
a contradiction with another rule and likely to confuse anybody who hasn't
brought his lawyer to read the conditions of contest :-)
Henk.
Adam Beneschan
>ad...@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>
>>I suspect that item (5) is intended to apply only to a DIRECT cuebid,
>>such as a strong takeout or a Michaels cue. (Those would be allowed,
>>but a cue-bid showing an UNSPECIFIED 2-suiter wouldn't.) I'll admit I
>>don't know why they wouldn't have made this clear in the GCC, but most
>>of us would agree that the GCC has not been an example of linguistic
>>precision in the past.
>
>What's really amusing about the Cue-bid rule is that Michaels is
>legal in GCC, but it's not legal in Superchart!
>
>The superchart says "[cue bids] must promise length or shortness
>in the suit bid," and Michaels does not do that.
>
>It'll take a revision or two to get some of the more obvious bugs
>worked out of this one.
> --Jeff
That was my impression upon first reading the Superchart. However, on
reading it more closely, I decided that the language, while somewhat
confusing, does allow for Michaels. It says:
ALLOWED: ...All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive
convention, treatment or method except that:
...2. Defenses over opponent's natural suit bids must promise
...b) for cue bids, either length or shortness in the suit bid
I believe that 2(b) applies only to cue-bids that aren't already
allowed on the Mid-Chart; anything that's on the Mid-Chart (including
Michaels) is specifically allowed by the first sentence quoted above.
My question is: did the ACBL intended to ban a cue-bid to show a
two-suiter that could be any two suits other than the opening bidder's
suit? I.e.: (1C) 2C to show a spade-heart, spade-diamond, or
heart-diamond two-suiter. This convention is clearly not allowed on
the GCC or Mid-Chart. It appears that it isn't allowed on the
Superchart either (although it shows length in two DIFFERENT suits, it
doesn't exactly promise shortness in opener's suit, since you could be
5-5-3-0 with 3 cards in opener's suit). I'm curious whether ACBL
intentionally wanted to ban this type of convention, or whether they
just got sloppy. I'm guessing the latter.
-- Adam