akhare

On the contrary, I would argue that the people on this forum are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether they can pin their systems together using the 1♣/1♦ bids. However, apparently, doing so requires them to somehow "divine" the intent of the drafters, which no one really seems to know either. If the "intent" was for those bids to allow filling of (valid) systemic holes, I don't really see how 1♣/1♦ showing 5+ cards in a major can be disallowed (in context of a system that promised exactly 4 cards in a major in a 1M opening) (see Adam's example). Similarly, I can't see how 1♣/1♦ showing exactly 4 cards in a major can be disallowed either, in the context of a 5 card major system.

Along those lines, it would be interesting to know where the system of record for approved conventions actually resides. Obviously, it's not the website, but it *must* be written down somewhere...

For what it's worth, I would like to voice my vociferous objection to such an idea. To me, it would be proverberial last straw and cause me quit the ACBL permanently. Rewording the GCC so that it's more clear is one thing, making it a straitjacket is another (unless they put in a flight "C" restrictions only clause or something like that). BTW, my objection stems from the fact that the GCC is the de facto standard for a lot of events. If this means that we'll have a lot of events that are NOT subject to the GCC, I would certainly be open to the idea.

It would be interesting to know how you deal with the hands with 3 card ♥ support. Also, how do you sort out the relative lengths of suits in comp (or does it matter)? Say after 1♥ - (1♠) - X - (P) - 2♣ = 4/5 either way in ♥/♣?

Wow -- and here's the Midchart from May 2001 for the record. It seems that the item in bold would have clearly allowed the methods they were playing back then. ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * * All of the ACBL General Convention Chart. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values. Except for relay systems that show less than game-forcing values and conventional calls that are prohibited by #9 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart (However, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP.) , all other constructive rebids and responses are permitted. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit. (See items #6 and #8 in DISALLOWED below.) Opening 2 showing a weak two-bid in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s). A 2 or 2NT opening bid showing an unspecified minor or both minors. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. Notrump overcall as a two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution. Defense to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls. Any opening bid at the three level or higher showing an undisclosed solid suit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISALLOWED Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods. Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.) Forcing pass systems. Relay (tell me more) systems except those that are game forcing. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of these methods. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened). ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed * *

Dealer.exe is either a good cure for "intuition" (or an affirmation of it): Here are the probabilities of finding a 8 card fit after the described 2D opening: Multiply numbers by 100 to get %: spade fit: 0.109975 heart fit: 0.131997 diamond_fit: 0.720488 club fit: 0.202772 heart fit with 3 diamonds: 0.0342662 spade fit with 3 diamonds: 0.0412182 Seems that worrying about the hands with 3 diamonds and a 8 card major fit with responder isn't a winning proposition (or an error in the script). =============================== dshow = hcp(north) >= 11 and hcp(north) <= 15 and shape(north, xx6x + xx7x + xx54 - 4x6x - x4x6 - 4xx7 - x4x7 - any 5440) fit = spades(north)+spades(south) >= 8 heart_fit = hearts(north)+hearts(south) >= 8 diamond_fit=diamonds(north)+diamonds(south) >=8 heart_7_fit=hearts(north)+hearts(south) >=7 spade_7_fit=hearts(north)+hearts(south) >=7 club_fit=clubs(north)+clubs(south) >=8 heart_fit_3d = hearts(north)+hearts(south) >= 8 && diamonds(south) >=3 spade_fit_3d = spades(north)+hearts(south) >= 8 && diamonds(south) >=3 condition dshow action frequency "points" (hcp(north), 11, 15), average "spade fit" fit, average "heart fit" heart_fit, average "diamond_fit" diamond_fit, average "club fit" club_fit, average "heart fit with 3 diamonds" heart_fit_3d, average "spade fit with 3 diamonds" spade_fit_3d

I really like Adam's version -- direct link for those who don't want to dig through the thread: Adam's version Anyway, this is all stuff of dreams. As Richard and many others on the thread will attest, all this is much ado about nothing. A year from now, all this will have fallen on deaf (ACBL) ears and the GCC will continue to be status quo ante. And then we will have another excuse to kick start this again (and go for each other's jugular while we are at it) :)...

Seems that in your pard's proposed structure, 2N could be better suited as a puppet to 3♣. Over 3♣: P: To play 3♦: ?? 3♥/3♠: GF bids with 6+ 3N: ?? This freeS up the direct 3♥/3♠/3N for other purposes and allows two ways to raise to 3♦. Also, I think that the 5-5 minor hand should be opened 2♣ and that 2M should be NF...

Agree -- methods based on (symmetric) relays are easier to remember because they follow a template...

Out of curiosity, do you by extension express similar equivocation about any opening bid that promises 2+ cards in the suit or a balanced hand? And if not, why not? For instance, it's perfectly logical to apply to same argument to 1♥/1♠ opening showing 2+ or a balanced hand (however ridiculous that system might be)... EDIT: Considering that it's unclear whether the convention charts allow such a 1♥/1♠ opening, the question may be moot.

Absolutely -- and if a 13 cards 1♠ overcall is deemed legal over a strong 1♣ opening, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed over 1♣/1♦ = 2+. Note that I do think that the 13 cards 1♠ overcall should fall under the "purely destructive" methods category and that it should therefore be disallowed, but if it's ruled kosher, everyone should be allowed to unleash it with equal panache against either variety of 1♣...

The thing you got to wonder though, is why 1♦ showing 4♠ is any more conventional than 1♣/1♦ showing 2+. If that's the case, it should be an equal level playing field for all, i.e., ban all conventional treatments over 1♣/1♦ showing 2+, including "inverted minors".

5D -- 3N makes it too easy to find a 4M / 5♣ fit. Besides, 9 card suits are called trump :)...

Edit: Deleted previous comment Under this interpretation, why is 1♣/1♦ showing 2+ legal? It isn't "all-purpose" because it specificially promises 2+ cards in a given suit and isn't natural either because it doesn't show 3+ cards in the opened suit.

Well, I don't know what the intent of the original 1♦ = ♠ poster was, but to me, it would be worthwhile to play a system in which 1♦ showed exactly 4♠. Basically, it would be part of a system where: 1C: 15+ 1♦: 10-14, exactly 4♠ 1♥: 4+, unbalanced 1♠: 5+ 1N: Some range 2♣/2♦: Natural, 5+ Granted, it might sound ludicrous, but surely it has some merits as an experimental system?

I am sure that Richard has a few choice words to say in this regard, unless years of trying to get Moscito defences approved have worn him out :)...

I can't speak for the high and mighty C&C folks, but if they are indeed reading this forum, a better approach might be to simply reply to a posting and logically explain why their ruling makes sense. To me, it makes more sense than bearing silent grudges (as implied by your post)...

I second that -- until there's transparency about why some non-mainstream methods are deemed kosher and others are not, suspicions about the ulterior motives of the powers that be will remain. The above statement seems to be emblematic of the problem. One way of interepreting it might that C&C members can rule a particular method illegal based on their personal prejudices regardless of its legal merits.

Take 2 -- no longer resembles canape, but: 1♣: 15+ any 1♦: 10-14, 4♠, could be 4432, 4441, or 4♠ longer minor 1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced 1♠: 9-14, 5+ balanced or unbalanced 1N: 12-14, balanced, could be 5M332 2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣ OR 5+♣, 4+♦ 2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦, 4 card side suit possible 2♥/2♠: Preempts

Your points are valid -- 2m openings can have a 4 card major. The real goal was to try and come up with a Moscito like system that could be played under ACBL regulations. The thought was that the loss of the weak two openings would be offset by the frequent light one level openings (technically you are losing only the 5-8 range that can preempt). The canape was an attempt to design a solution that would make it easier to sort out the relative lengths of suits in competition after a 4 card major opening. Perhaps there's a better way to approach that problem?

Here's a strawman for something I had in mind (inspired by KL Precision, Ultra Club etc.). Your feeback will be appreciated. The only real requirement is that it be GCC or MidChart legal (sigh). 1♣: 15+ any 1♦: 9-14, 4♦5♣ OR any 4441 OR 5-5 in the minors 1♥: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced, either 4 with longer minor or 6+♥ or 5+♥, 4♠ 1♠: 9-14, 4+ unbalanced, either 4 with longer minor or 6+♠ or 5+♠4+♥ (no major suit canape) 1N: 12-14, balanced, including 5M332 2♣: 10-14, 6+ ♣ 2♦: 10-14, 6+ ♦ 2♥: 10-14, 5♥, 4+ minor 2♠: 10-14, 5♠, 4+ minor The responses over 1♣, 2♣ are pretty well defined (symmetric relay, etc). Over 1M: 1N: Forcing -> either sign off or GF 2♣: 2+ with invite values, doesn't promise rebid 2♦: NF, possibly invite for ♥? 2♥: NF, possibly invite for ♠? 2M: Possibly bad raise? Comments?

I have no problems bidding 1♥ on this hand. Good suit, length in their suit, opening hand...

How do you make a credible, memorable film about a 12-year old boy, a 12-year old girl (a vampire) and an amazing friendship that evolves amid alternating scenes of throat slitting gruesomeness and heart warming tenderness? Not sure even Chuck Norris could pull this off. Somehow, Tomas Alfredson & Co. manage to, imo. Filmed in Swedish. With subtitles. Some scenes are violent, bloody and disturbing. I too really liked the film, but thought the vampire's gender (if there's any such thing) was ambiguous. As I recall, there were pointed references to the ambiguity in the dialog ("Would you still like me if I weren't a girl" or something like that) and in the screenplay as well...

> (7) Maybe after a transfer response to 1♣, accepting the transfer can be relay? Or is this crazy? Is it possible to play transfer responses in ACBL land unless 1♣ is 15+? It could work as long as 1♦ / 1♥ is invite+ (with some weak adjunct of course). I am guessing you probably don't want to use 1♠ as a relay (probably puppet to 1N?)

WinSupersite has an extensive review: http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/Default.asp From personal experience, I think it will likely be very popular. Laptop users will rejoice at the enhanced battery life and it's seems more responsive in general (vis-a-vis Vista). And not to mention, they fixed the UAC ("Do you really want the program to do this?") prompts.