JanM

Did he say why not? For instance, what's the point of defining it as a conventional bid unless one can use conventional defenses against it? I wonder if there was confusion over whether the question was asking about conventional responses (which are allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong) and conventional defenses (which are allowed if the 1♣ bid is conventional)?

Actually, what I am trying to say is that I believe that the drafters of the GCC intended "all-purpose" to mean "catchall," not "any purpose" and that the people now charged with interpreting the GCC (the ACBL TDs I think, with the CTD as the final authority, unless the C&C Committee might be able to over-rule him) would interpret the GCC as prohibiting the use of 1♣ to show 4 hearts and 1♦ to show 4 spades.

I'm reading a book at the moment (Elizabeth Moon - VICTORY CONDITIONS) where the laws of a society make courtesy mandatory, and under those laws it's okay to lie to someone but VERY BAD to call someone a liar. One character, wanting an excuse to prevent his daughter from socializing with a young man, deliberately lied to the boy's guardian so that she would call him a liar and he would have an excuse to cut off relations with the family. And now I read this thread and we're talking about the same sort of thing.

I think that your appropriate first recourse would be to write ACBL and tell them that you had not been allowed to play your methods, despite the fact that someone at ACBL had emailed you saying you could. Of course, if you played in a club, ACBL doesn't control what is and is not allowed, but if it was in a Sectional or higher, I think they do. I suspect that if you did this, you'd eventually be told that Butch didn't understand your question and a 1♦ bid that promises 4 spades is actually not "all-purpose."

Against 1♣ 2 or more, you can play anything you want. That's the result of the fact that any methods are allowed over "conventional" opening bids and a 1♣ opening bid that doesn't promise 3+ clubs is defined as not "natural," therefore "conventional." Whether that would be a good method, I don't know. I think that against most of the "natural or balanced" 1♣ pairs I know, who play transfer responses, so that over your ambiguous 1♦ they have easy Major suit transfers available, I don't think it would be at all disruptive and I wonder if you might miss being able to bid 1♦ with just diamonds and a hand that was either too good for 2♦ (if that's weak) or had only 5 diamonds. Even though 1♦ doesn't take up any bidding space, it can often be useful to bid it to get your side into the auction, and sometimes to get your partner to lead a diamond (I deliberately put that second, because after a 2+ club, if the opponents play transfers, you're likely to be on lead. But sometimes we play in a suit that responder named first.

In ACBLand written defenses are allowed only for Mid-Chart and Super-Chart methods (in WBF events, for Brown Sticker bids). I'm fairly confident that a 1♣ opening bid that can have 2 clubs in a balanced hand as well as an unbalanced hand with clubs is GCC legal, thus you wouldn't be allowed written defenses. Ditto for 1♣ strong, artificial & forcing. If the 1♣ opening shows a specific hand (4+ hearts, weak with both Majors, etc) you are allowed written defenses. Bocchi & DuBoin toyed with canape overcalls for a year or so - they dropped them after finding that they weren't successful. I don't know any example hands, just that they stopped playing them and someone (not sure if it was one of them or not) told me it was because they hadn't worked well. But of course YMMV.

You can't, and in fact, neither can I. I try to say things like "I think" and "maybe" often, but I see that I didn't in the particular answer you quoted, for which I apologize. I may be able to speculate with a little more background knowledge than you, but all I am doing is speculating. And I'm sure that different drafters had different ideas in mind. Some of the ambiguities in the GCC no doubt arise from an attempt to leave things flexible (for example, I'm sure that's why we have the "all-purpose" clause instead of something more specific). All that I am trying to suggest is that a major purpose of the GCC was to make legal in low-level games things that players in those games would be comfortable with. Sure, some of those things (like Precision 1♦) are hard to defend against, but they are things that those players are used to dealing with. I think the context in which the GCC was drafted is relevant to understanding it.

I'm pretty sure that would be GCC legal, but it sounds like a really bad method to me :P. While there are lots of people who like to open a 15-17 1NT with hands that include 5 card Majors, I don't think that they'd really want to do so if they had the alternative of opening the Major and then showing 15-17 balanced the next round, IOW if they played weak NT and 1♥-1♠-1NT showed a Strong NT with 5 hearts and 1♠...2NT showed a strong NT with 5 spades (of course the second auction is less attractive, so I might understand wanting to put 5 spades, strong NT into 1♦ although I still don't think it would work well.

I think that most of the unusual overcalls are worse than normal overcalls when employed over an opening 1♣ bid that is usually natural. They are probably better when employed over an opening 1♣ bid that is always strong. As for 1♣ bids that are in the middle (Polish Club), people can disagree - we use a CRASH variant over Strong Club but not over Polish Club. I'm pretty sure that ambiguous overcalls aren't effective over a natural or balanced 1♣, but some people disagree.

I'm not sure what question you intend to ask here - whether these methods are currently GCC legal? Mid-Chart legal? Or whether I think they should be GCC/Mid-Chart legal. Also, I'm not advocating against 1 of a minor bids showing a specific Major, what I've been advocating is complying with the rules, which include the requirement to present a complete description and defense for such a bid and get it approved. Anyway, if your question is whether these different structures would be GCC legal under my understanding of the GCC as it now exists, the answer is that although I think the first set of methods are not very good and likely not very playable, I believe that they are GCC legal as "all-purpose" bids. And although the second set is probably more playable, it is not currently GCC or Mid-Chart legal. It would be Mid-Chart legal if a defense were presented and approved. Why should the first meanings be GCC legal and the second not? I suppose because lots of people who play in low-level events play "nebulous" and multi-purpose club and diamond openings, whereas virtually none play 1m opening bids to show a specific Major. The GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. Obviously, that stifles change. Maybe it's not a good way to run the ship, but it's what we have.

I haven't gone and looked at what is currently posted, but I do think it's only fair to those of us who had to contend with this at the time to mention that what is now there is different from what was originally submitted, at least by one of the pairs. One pair did a careful job of describing "Holo Bolo" the other didn't. I also think that everyone (including the proponents of the method) agreed that "Holo Bolo" if it is used over a natural 1♣ opening bid, includes BS bids. The 2♥ bid (and identical 3♥ bid) clearly does not promise 4+ cards in a known suit, and to the best of my recollection neither do some of the 1 level overcalls.

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong. Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+. I think I just said this, but in case I didn't. My real problem with the 2+ 1♣ rules is that I don't think the question of what overcalls should be allowed ought to depend on whether an opening bid is "natural" or not. To me, it seems obvious that the line between opening bids of 1♣ that are entitled to protection from weird overcalls and opening bids of 1♣ that are not entitled to that protection should not be drawn between players who open 1♦ with 4432 shape and players who open 1♣ with 4432 shape. Virtually all of the hands that are opened 1♣ by the first set of players will also be opened 1♣ by the second set. I don't know whether the line should be drawn between the 4432 1♣ opening and a 1♣ opening that can be 4342, or whether the line should be drawn between that opening and one that can be 3352, or perhaps only between an opening that can be clubs or balanced and an opening that is never clubs (2♣ is used for long club suits in a minimum hand, as it is by some playing Polish Club), or maybe weird overcalls should be allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong, artificial and forcing. I am merely suggesting that the question that should be asked is not "is this 1♣ bid natural?" but rather "is this 1♣ bid entitled to protection from weird overcalls?" By the way, I think as time goes by we see that the overcallers will actually do the line drawing for us. I don't know very many people who want to play CRASH type bids over a 1♣ opening bid that shows clubs in a minimum opening hand at least 75% of the time. Many don't want to use such bids over a Polish club that is usually a weak NT. That's because when the opening bid is unlikely to be a strong hand, the defenders don't want to make the auction confusing for their side, and all of these bids do that.

Just to be clear: As I recall, the Dutch Pair was playing in the Open Event. I don't think that Jan was competing in that event. (Not even sure whether she plays a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ Clubs) My impression was that she was involved in this discussion because of her role with the USBF. I didn't think that she was a principal who was directly involved in the event. Actually, I was the NPC for a Bermuda Bowl team, so was involved in this discussion in that capacity. The fact that at the time I was also USBF president was irrelevant to the Systems issues, as is the fact that I do play a 2+ 1 club opening bid. The more I have discussed the issue of what defenses should be allowed over a 1♣ opening that is either natural or balanced, the more convinced I become that we shouldn't base the determination of what overcalls should be allowed on whether the opening bid is "natural" or "conventional" (if "conventional" is even the opposite of "natural"). It is reasonable for a sponsoring organization to allow highly unusual overcalls (I would include in "highly unusual" both 1♠ showing any 13 cards and 2♥ showing a weak jump overcall in either hearts or spades, as well as CRASH type bids) over some opening bids and not over others. The SO really ought to deal with this issue specifically and not by restricting overcalls of "natural" bids. I don't know what the rule should be. If highly unusual overcalls are allowed over an artificial, strong 1♣ opening, should they also be allowed over a less artificial 1♣ opening that can be either clubs or balanced and might have as many as 5 diamonds and as few as 2 clubs? I don't know. I'm fairly confident, however, that whatever rules govern overcalls of a 1♣ opening that shows 3+ clubs should also apply to a 1♣ opening that can be 2 clubs only if the hand is 4432. Whether that particular 1♣ bid is "natural" has nothing to do with it - that is a bid that fairly unsophisticated players often use and the GCC is designed to a large extent to protect the unsophisticated. Before someone else says it - yes, unsophisticated players also play Precision and certainly open 1NT, but we don't restrict overcalls over both of those bids, even in GCC events. We all recognize that some of the "rules" aren't rational, they're based on history, and we aren't going to change them. And of course, the players in the Bermuda Bowl aren't unsophisticated and maybe they aren't entitled to any protection at all. Certainly, however, they are entitled to know what methods they will face and when.

I sent email to a bunch of Los Angeles' area's better players. None of these folks are BBO forum posters (or have even read these forums as far as I know). ... Hmm three out of the four agree with my interpretation that any call is allowed. Only one (Goldsmith) agrees with Jan's interpretation. Certainly this doesn't make one interpretation "right" and it's a small sample size anyway (I'm expecting some more replies later, including from some regional level directors) but it does seem enough to contradict her point that everyone knows she is right aside from a small number of crazies who post to BBO forums. Maybe you're right and my feeling that only a very few people would actually believe that "all-purpose" means "any purpose" or "all purposes" is wrong. I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids. Obviously, 1♣ showing any hand with 16+ HCPs is artificial, so they put that word in. By the way, I neither said "crazies" nor intended that. I don't think BBOF posters are crazies, but sometimes they can get involved in questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when most people would just use the pin to attach two things together.

I honestly can't answer all of the "how did this happen" question. I can answer some of your questions: Chip was, at the time, on the C&C Committee and also on the Subcommittee charged with approving conventions. Therefore he did in fact know that these bids had not been approved. I suspect, but don't know, that the Conditions of Contest said only that Mid-Chart methods were allowed. The C&C committee is "coordinated" by someone from ACBL management - that has usually been a person who had directing experience, but I don't know whether it always has been. As I said, I don't recall who the person was at that time. You are correct. People do sometimes get things wrong. In the case of ACBL, people got more things wrong 10 years ago than they do now and even more 20+ years ago. I first became involved with "administration" about 40 years ago because of the bad treatment women received then (no childcare, no Team Trials, I've forgotten the rest of the things that the now-defunct Forum for Women in Bridge dealt with). All we can do is try to help improve matters. Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "dreadfully mismanaged." ACBL "manages" a lot of things. In my experience, much of what they do is very well managed - when I show up to play at a tournament, there's a place to buy entries, a place to play, cards to play with, directors to supervise the game. Time schedules are usually adhered to. There are committees to review Director rulings when a player disagrees with one. There are even reviewers to review the committees :unsure: Of course there are problems. I used to have trouble finding things on the ACBL website, but that's probably because my idea of how to organize things was different from whoever designed the site (and perhaps also the things I am most interested in aren't those that the majority of members care about). This particular incident resulted from some error somewhere (I don't know how it happened). Similarly, the confusion over whether a 1♣ opening bid that could be 2 clubs is "artificial" or not caused inconsistent rulings for a while. But both of those problems have been addressed - the Mid-Chart is now clear (I think) both on the point that transfer 1 bids aren't allowed (except a 1♥ bid showing 5+ spades) and on the point that a 1m bid is "natural" only if it shows 3+ cards in the suit named. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say that ACBL's current re-shuffle of personnel assignments in any way excused things that happened in the past. What I was trying to say was that current communication about C&C might be less good than it should be (and even less good than it has been recently) because there doesn't seem to be a management person assigned to that job yet, since Rick Beye's responsibilities have changed. But I should mention that recent changes in personnel have, I think, improved some things, notably information at NABC's about where to go for different events.

I don't know where to start! I've spent all of my spare time the last 3 days dealing with people spamming the USBF website (want to buy viagra kind of people), and now I come back here and this thread seems to have branched off in several different directions and I feel as if I should respond to a lot of the posts, but if I start quoting and answering it'll take forever. So I'll try to say a few things and hopefully will answer at least the legitimate questions. 1. C&C Committee Frances asked how the committee is selected and Fred answered quite accurately - ACBL committees are appointed by the ACBL President(s) subject to approval by the ACBL Board. As far as I know, members of all ACBL committees serve multi-year terms and the terms are staggered, so each new ACBL President appoints only one third (usually) of the committee. I don't know whether all committees are the same as the one I happen to know about (Hall of Fame), but on that committee, members serve 3 year terms and can serve only 2 consecutive terms. I suspect the other committees are the same. The requirement for Board approval of the President's appointments is pretty new (came in within the last 5 years I'm sure), and arose after one President ignored recommendations by several committees and arguably used the committee appointments for the President's private purposes. There are not a large number of people asking to serve on the various ACBL committees, particularly C&C which has the biggest job and meets for two mornings at every NABC (other committees only meet for one morning), in addition to working between meetings. Mostly the existing members or sometimes Board members try to recruit people to serve. C&C has a very wide-ranging area of responsibility - the Convention Charts are only a small part of Competitions & Conventions. I know that for several years much of their time was taken up with working out the format for the major KO events. Hmmm - maybe I could start a thread on whether it makes sense to take a whole day to cut a field of 68 to 64 (or whatever the number is where there's a ridiculously small cut the first day). Silly as that seems when it happens, the current format is almost certainly the best resolution of the conflicting desires not to have 3-way matches and not to have the first day cut too severe. 2. Convention Charts Please note the name - ACBL Convention Charts and General Convention chart. The Mid-Chart and Super-Chart don't have "Convention" in their names (maybe because it sounds funny) but they also regulate only conventions, not natural bids. That's why you don't find anything in any of the charts specifically allowing a 1♠ opening bid or overcall that shows 4+ spades - that is not a convention and isn't regulated by the convention charts. Until a year ago, it couldn't have been so regulated and at the moment ACBL has not chosen to take advantage of the new authority granted in the Laws to regulate natural bids. Although I agree that the GCC is not a wonder of clarity, perhaps you can agree that this doesn't seem to be causing much difficulty. People pretty much know what can be played in GCC events. Sure, strong, artificial & forcing 1♣ bids should have their own separate "allowed" sentence, instead of being lumped in with "all-purpose" 1m opening bids, but no one is claiming that Precision isn't allowed under the GCC. Sure, I agree (strongly as a matter of fact) with Richard's argument that what overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening should not be dependent on whether the bid shows 3+ clubs, but rather on whether the bid is really "artificial." But although some of the people who like to play CRASH and even more exotic things over a strong club also think they should use their gadget over 1♣ either clubs or balanced, most sensibly don't, and even the ones who do probably wouldn't use the gadgets in a club game against someone who opens 1♣ with 2 clubs only when 4432, so there's no serious harm being done. Yes, it would be better to clarify "all-purpose," but outside of a few BBO forum posters, I think everyone really does know what this means (and it isn't 1♣ shows 4+ hearts). The Mid-Chart, on the other hand, was causing problems. When it was first drafted, the drafters decided that they should list the sort of bids that would be allowed and then provide that specific bids would be allowed only after their proponents had provided a description of the bid and a recommended defense that had been approved by the Convention & Defense Approval Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the requirement for approval of the description and defense wasn't very clearly stated, nor was there a good procedure for communicating with people who wanted to use different methods when those methods were in fact Mid-Chart legal because a defense had been approved. So a few years ago, the C&C Committee decided that the Mid-Chart needed to be re-written to make it clearer. That has now been done. While the Committee (or a Subcommittee, probably) was re-writing the Mid-Chart, they also considered whether some bids should be allowed in (essentially) KOs and others in pair games (and Board a Match), where rounds are shorter. They carefully reviewed the bids that had already been approved and provided that some of them would be allowed in events with 2 board rounds and some would only be allowed in events with 6 board rounds or 12 board rounds. (By the way, someone asked why Multi is in the 6 board round category - I think that was discussed at some length immediately after the Reisinger, but I believe the primary reason was because of the time pressure involved in 2 board rounds. Also of course, Multi is really tough to defend against - the only reason it's allowed at all is because it's been around so long). Instead of having a list of the kinds of bids that would be allowed if there was an approved description and defense, the Mid-Chart now lists those bids for which there is an approved description and defense. It will have to be updated regularly (maybe the bad formatting in item number 5, which contains the description of items 6-20, will also be fixed sometime). No, I see I'm wrong; additional approved bids will be listed in the defense database before being added to the Mid-Chart list. I suppose that makes sense as a practical matter (the Convention Charts are printed on paper as well as posted on the ACBL website), but hopefully there will be frequent updates of the Mid-Chart so people won't have to look two places to know what is allowed. Whether the C&C Committee will decide that the flaws in the GCC merit re-writing it I don't know. That may depend on the other things on their plate. I suspect that most of the complainers here would rather see more prompt action on requests for convention approval than a re-write of the GCC and those things are clearly related - there are only so many hours in every day. One other thing about C&C has to do with comments (fair ones) that emails to C&C don't get answered very promptly, or apparently in one case mentioned earlier, as politely as they should. I believe that ACBL is in the process of some reorganization and it may not be clear at the moment who is responsible for dealing with C&C emails. Rick Beye isn't any more. I'd be surprised if Butch Campbell was Rick's permanent replacement in this position (I have absolutely no inside information here - I'm just guessing based on the other things that Butch does). I do have "inside information" that no requests for convention approval have been forwarded to the Subcommittee responsible for that in several months. C&C, like all ACBL committees, should have Minutes and those Minutes should be posted on the ACBL website. My guess is that the reason they are not is that no one has managed to prepare Minutes for several meetings. Perhaps it's because they haven't gotten posted. Hopefully that state of affairs will change. However, I also note that the Hall of Fame Committee members aren't even listed on the website :), so there's actually more information about C&C than HoF. Or at least a little more - the 2009 C&C Committee isn't listed yet. You'll notice that Minutes are posted for the Laws Commission. Much as I'd like to give my husband the credit for that, it really belongs to Gary Blaiss, who's the ACBL staff support for that committee and does an outstanding job preparing Minutes. 2. The Australians and Jan & Chip Someone asked why I had complained to the Director. Well, I'm a big believer that summoning the Director shouldn't be viewed as a "complaint." Also, I believe that it was actually Chip who first called the Director. He did so because he knew that transfer 1 bids were not supposed to be legal in Mid-Chart events. I didn't participate very much in any of the discussion, but as far as I recall, the opponents said they'd been told they could play the transfer 1 bids and pointed to the line in the Mid-Chart that said bids showing 4+ cards in a known suit were allowed; Chip explained that there also had to be an approved description & defense and suggested to the Director that he consult the ACBL management person who at that time was in charge of Conventions (I honestly don't remember who it was). The Director did so and was told that the method was not legal. He therefore told the players that it was not legal. How a defense was posted on the website I do not know & neither does Chip. I do not recall that the opponents had a defense from the website, but I certainly have no recollection that they didn't either. If Josh says they did, I'm sure he's right. I'm also confident that the Director's ruling was correct and was made after careful investigation. Richard may be right that the fact that a defense had been posted on the ACBL website gave the players grounds for a lawsuit (I don't think so but maybe), but it did not give them the right to play the bids. I called the Director (and I am willing to have this call classified as a "complaint") when I heard the pair tell their next round opponents that 1♦ showed 4+ hearts and 1♥ showed 4+ spades. I remember that part of the whole thing much more than anything else because I was shocked and unhappy that anyone would deliberately disobey the Director's clear ruling. By the way, many of the posts complaining about the C&C committee say things like that they are acting in their own best interest and not in the interest of bridge. I suspect that Chip & I were, even back then, far better able to deal with a transfer opening bid than the other pairs in our section. So it would actually have been in our best interest to let the opponents play their transfer bids, we wouldn't be bothered and every time someone else in our section had a problem with them we'd get a matchpoint. It would certainly have been in our best interest, after we had prevented the opponents from playing transfers at our table, to ignore the fact that they were continuing to play them at the next table. But we're bad guys and out to promote our own best interest, not that of bridge, so of course we did all of this for nefarious reasons. Finally, JoshS (amazing that this forum has more Josh's posting than Jan's :)) commented: I'm sure you really know why - because Precision 1♦ and short 1♣ have been played by "mainstream" players for years, long before any of these Convention Charts were even thought of, and the drafters of the Convention Charts weren't trying to rock the boat or ban things that were commonly played. Exactly the same reason why Multi 2♦ is not classified as a Brown Sticker bid by the WBF. I could quote you "much harder to defend and much more pernicious" about that too, but by the time the Systems Regulations were being written, it was so common that the regulators really couldn't bar it.

This is a little different, but the most see-saw match I ever saw was the 1985 US Team Trials Final. After 46 boards, Chip's team was up "about 100." After 96 boards, they were down 35. After 128, they had won by "a little."

Ah, that - sorry I didn't understand your reference. I may be remembering wrong, but I think that: The structure the Dutch were playing over any 1 club opening wasn't anything as benign as canape overcalls. I don't remember the whole thing, and haven't seen it recently, presumably because it really doesn't work well when the opening bid can be essentially natural, but I know it included jump overcalls that might or might not have length in the suit named and simple overcalls that showed extremely varied hand patterns and values. The bids were clearly brown sticker, and the argument about whether there were too many of them had to do with counting - if you play a method where 1♦ shows either diamonds or hearts or clubs (I'm just making this up) and 1♥ shows either spades or diamonds or hearts and 1♠ shows either spades or clubs or diamonds, all of them with less than 8 HCPs, are you using one BS method or 3? One of the 2 pairs playing the method had described the method as one BS bid (and 2♥ or 3♥ showing length in either hearts or spades as a second BS bid) and therefore claimed that their opponents didn't have seating rights under the rule about 3 or more BS bids. Their teammates had described the same thing as multiple bids. I think that this was a situation where our position (you're playing more than 2 BS bids) was clearly correct. The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear. That was relevant to whether the Dutch methods were allowed in the Round Robin. For Shanghai, the ruling was that such a 1♣ bid was to be treated as natural, so BS methods were not allowed over it in the Round Robin. I believe that ruling has subsequently been changed for WBF events.

I bet your partner noticed! It didn't look as if this particular system would be difficult, except perhaps for those who can't deal with anything unfamiliar.

And the first Bermuda Bowl, which was held in 1950, was won by the US, with Great Britain second and Sweden/Iceland third - note that this answer was not included in the 5 offered. Chip kept saying that was what he wanted to answer, so he's claiming that he got 6 right, instead of the actual 5; he also pointed out to me that he got all of the ones that occurred during his lifetime right ;)

I don't think I've ever contended that I was neutral. I do try to see both sides of issues, and sometimes (shock) I even change my mind, but no, I'm not neutral, and yes, when I have opinions I often argue for them - that's probably a downside of being a lawyer. However, the short club incident is a good example of how I think people should behave. For those of you who don't want to search for the discussion, I play that a 1♣ opening bid is either natural or a balanced hand too good for 1NT (12-14) and not good enough for 2NT. I pre-alert it and announce it when it's opened. A few years ago, I or my partner opened 1♣ and our opponent bid something (I've forgotten what) which showed "any hand." I didn't think that was allowed. I called the Director. The Director first ruled one way then consulted and ruled the other way then changed back again. I don't even remember what the "final" ruling was. Eventually, the matter was discussed extensively and the powers that be ruled that since an opening 1♣ that can have 2 clubs is artificial, any methods are allowed against it. I happen to think that is the wrong ruling, but I haven't responded to it by mis-describing my 1♣ opening, or failing to pre-alert, or any of the other things I could probably do to prevent the very few people who want to play silly methods against it from doing so. In fact, I haven't even raised the "wrong" ruling on this matter every time some thread pops up here where it might be relevant.

Although I don't know the pair against whom we played in the incident Richard and I are discussing, I do know that it wasn't Marston & Burgess. I'm also fairly confident that Moscito has always been allowed in the major team games (Superchart events) and not in any other NABC events.

This brings to mind something that's always bothered me about the Superchart. That chart's second paragraph says That says, to me, that any method that's not on the GCC requires both a written description and a written proposed defense, even if it's a Mid-Chart method for which the Mid-Chart does not require a written defense. That's never made any sense to me, but it is what the words say. Yet you say, Jan, that it such defenses aren't required — and the way you've said it implies "even if such defenses are required under the MidChart". I don't play in Superchart events, so obviously your experience is greater than mine, but now I'm even more confused than I was. ;) I think your reading of the Superchart is better than mine, and written recommended defenses are supposed to be provided for non-GCC methods. MY sense that they weren't probably came from the fact that I'm so often asked for a defense to use against things :). In fact, now that I think about it, when I've been kibitzing or Vugraph operating at Vanderbilt & Spingold matches, people have supplied written defenses - usually to Midchart bids, but probably also to Superchart ones. Of course, very often at that level, people have their own defenses, so don't use the ones that the pair playing the method gives them. Certainly I've never seen anyone request a defense for something for which the Midchart doesn't require one - I suspect that overly broad language remains because no one has raised the question. In USBF events, which are the only US events with advance System disclosure, we require recommended defenses for most "unusual" methods (we've tried to define what those methods are). A description of the method and a recommended defense has to be submitted at least 4 weeks in advance of the event and is available on the website for all participants to review, so that they can decide whether to use the recommended defense or their own. There's no official review of the defenses unless someone complains.

You've included a lot of bids, some clearly legal, some clearly not, and some where it is difficult to decide. I've already said that I'm not trying to defend the GCC, except to suggest that it is harder than you think to write language that does not need to be interpreted, so I'm not going to apologize for the unclear things, but you have created an ENORMOUS straw man by suggesting that all or even a substantial subset of the things you list are ambiguous. First and foremost, the ACBL is only allowed to regulate "conventional" (or "artificial" if you prefer) bids. Natural bids are allowed by the laws. Hence the first section of the GCC which defines "natural." Any bid that qualifies under that section is allowed because it isn't a "convention" thus isn't governed by the convention charts. Now, for your specific laundry list: Allowed because these bids are not conventional. Of course you knew that. Allowed because the definitions section says that a 1 of a minor bid that shows 3 cards is natural, thus these bids are not conventional and not subject to regulation by the Convention Charts. I suspect you knew that. Allowed because the 1♣ bid is an "all=purpose bid" specifically allowed. All-purpose may not be crystal clear, but it clearly covers this. Allowed because the 1♣ comes under the "all-purpose" section (it really shouldn't of course, there should be a separate section specifically allowing a strong, artificial 1♣ or 1♦ but the drafters of the GCC didn't do that, probably because they thought that everyone would understand that the strong, artificial bids were included) and the 1♦ is not conventional. Allowed because both 1m bids come under the "all-purpose" section. Ditto to my comment above The first of your examples that aren't easy. I suspect these 1♦s fall within the intended meaning of the "all-purpose" clause, but I'm not sure. If I wanted to play this in a GCC event, I would ask. As could my answers - the GCC does not distinguish between 1♣ and 1♦ Allowed because 1♣ is "all-purpose" and 1♦ is natural. I admit that putting the 4441 with a stiff club into 1♣ makes this feel different from other "all-purpose" club bids, but I can't see a relevant distinction between this and the Precision diamond that includes 4414. I suspect these would be disallowed because the 1m openings would not fall within the "all-purpose" clause, but again if I wanted to play them, I'd ask. Disallowed. These 1m bids are clearly conventional and not all-purpose. Allowed - these are not conventional. The first is clearly legal - these aren't conventional bids. The second isn't so clear, but I think these aren't conventional either. This is routinely allowed in Midchart events and isn't specifically listed under "allowed" on the Midchart, so that confirms my belief. I think this is allowed because the 1♣ bid is within "all-purpose" and the 1♦ is not conventional, but I can see that others might disagree and thing the 1♣ is conventional. I know that this is routinely allowed in Midchart events and is not included in the list of specifically allowed bids on the Midchart, which confirms my belief that it is GCC legal.

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as." Yes, what hands you open with this "all-purpose" bid will depend on the rest of your system, but that's sort of the point I think. You aren't allowed to design a system around 1♣ and 1♦ bids that show (for instance) 4+ cards in the corresponding Major, but if the way you have defined other bids means that your opening 1♦ bid will always have exactly 4 spades, that is probably okay. The charts aren't great, but it is very hard to write system rules in a clear and simple manner. I tried, in a very simple context (everything allowed, just trying to define what needed defenses) and failed badly the first time and I still don't think I have it right, so I have more sympathy than some with the drafters of the ACBL Convention Charts. I'm going to make a wild guess here :P. I'll bet that the person who responded to your first question didn't realize that you were saying 2♠ showed exactly 5 spades in an unbalanced hand, but thought you meant 5+ spades, which of course is what many many people play. If I'm right, the responses you think are conflicting really aren't. I happen to agree with you that a weak 2M bid showing 5 cards in the Major and 4+ in a second suit should be GCC legal - I don't see how it's any more difficult to defend against than a "normal" weak 2M bid, but I can tell from the fact that that method is listed under Midchart bids that those who interpret the Convention Charts disagree. And I can easily see how someone who had to deal with a lot of requests could misread "5 spades in an unbalanced hand" as "5+ spades in an unbalanced hand."