rbforster

2N, forward-going. Partner will know to offer 3♥ over 2N with 5314 shape if accepting.

X then P for me. But I could be talked into a second X, certainly at better colors.

J♠ - the card you're known to hold. Declarer can still misguess the T.

Just to clarify, if the 1♣ opening showed something that wasn't GCC, then it would likely need a written defense under MidChart. If the 1♣ opening for 4+ hearts (or whatever) is an all purpose GCC opening, no written defense would be needed just as none is allowed over 1♣ 2+ (clubs or balanced).

And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says you have to play a reasonable bidding system. So with appropriate context, you can have an all purpose 1♦ mean absolutely anything - P - anything I don't want to open 1♣ whatever else has 10+ points I want to open (not 1♦) 1♦ whatever I want with 10+ points 1♥+ to taste Or if you somehow take issue with the two all purpose bids (not a real issue apparently), you can even have P - anything I don't want to open, or anything with 10-15 not in 1♦ 1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦ 1♦ 10+ anything I want 1♥+ to taste So even if you think the rule is a system catchall thing, you can't really escape the conclusion that there exists perfectly legal systems where 1♦ can mean absolutely anything. So how is that different than "1♦ can be anything with 10+" again? The rule doesn't say "... and you can't play the rest of your system so as to leave 1♦ as something we don't like off the following list".

Perhaps that's what they did say, and you just have an odd interpretation of "all purpose". I agree with Adam and his experts that the "obvious" interpretation of this rule is that 10+ points and anything you want is what's allowed. Of course that's just my opinion, but it's based on what the rules says since I have no idea about the authors' intent (and I don't have any nefarious plans for playing 1♦ to bias me). I'd bet more than a few people found some of your earlier posts here absurd at times too, so you're welcome to your opinion but don't expect it to be widely convincing.

If by legal, you mean ACBL GCC, it would only be legal over a 1x opening if: 1x was a strong (15+) opening 1x was 1N with a reasonably narrow range of HCP and generally showing a balanced hand 1x was such that 2♦ initiated a game force (maybe Fantunes very sound 1 level openings)

As long as you can play the same artificial methods over a conventional 2+ 1♣ opening that you can over a conventional Precision strong club, I think the ruling is fine. People will disagree over the "purely destructive" clause you cite, but if you want to play psychosuction against my strong club, I think I should be able to return the favor over your 2+♣. There has been some indication that maybe the more common and "natural" 2+ clubs or balanced opening should get more protection from artificial defenses than a strong club does (as seen in the incident Richard relates). But this isn't in the rules, and shouldn't be implemented ad hoc based on directors making up rules rather than following them. If the ACBL decides to protect those 2+ minor openings and decide to declare them natural, that's fine - defenses will be restricted over them (but there are likely to be other implications they won't like as much, such as allowing "natural" 2/1 bids on 2+ suits, or opening 2+ canape minor preempts, etc).

The line at the table was less optimal, perhaps as Mark suggests. A low heart was pitched from dummy at T4, all the tricks were run (eschewing the simple blacks squeeze), and eventually the Q♥ was lead and covered(!) leading to the expected 3N+2 (if not by the double dummy route). I like the Q♥ pitch at T4 myself.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sahqxdakt8xxckqjx&w=sqxxhjxxd9xxct98x&e=st8xxxhk9xdqxcaxx&s=skj9xhat8xxdjxcxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♦-1♥ 3♦-3N lead T♣[/hv] T1: T♣, K, A, x T2: x♠,x,x,A T3: x♦,Q,x,x T4: T♠,? Do you see the line for 3N+2?

And that's at least part of the problem - favoritism shouldn't be a part of the rules of the game. Methods should be legal or not independent of who's proposing them. "Allowing" someone's methods IMO should be a matter of law, not a favor to the player. Don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think this is true. I've heard of plenty of convention issues go like this: Opps - we don't like these weird methods, aren't they illegal? TD - hmm, seems weird, yessir. I say they're illegal Junior SystemsFreak - but Meckwell play these! (or insert locally respected pro player) TD - oh, well I guess they're ok then.

:):)

You keep saying that, but it's neither true nor is it what I was endorsing. My point has been merely that because of the erratic responses from the ACBL staff regarding conventions and interpreting the charts, presenting your proposal in certain ways is more likely to garner approval than others. If I wanted to lie about my methods, I wouldn't need to ask the ACBL's permission! That said however, I can't see anything at all is to be gained by asking the ACBL's permission to play an apparently legal method. If you ask at the event and the local TD doesn't like it, you can't play it (regardless of what some other official might have told you). If the local TD says it's fine, you can play it (again regardless of what some other official might have told you). So why bother asking the guys in Memphis anything? Because you're under the mistaken impression that a copy of an email from Mr. Baye will force the local TD to change his mind? Good luck with that. As we've discussed, you're forced to deal with the local TD's ruling anyway, so why bother asking anyone else? I would like to play the following system: 1♣ strong 15+ 1♦ 0+ unbal 10-14 1♥ 4+ unbal (not both majors) 10-14 1♠ 5+ unbal 10-14 1N 12-14 bal 2♣ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14 2♦ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14 It sure looks like an all-purpose 1♦ opener, doesn't it? Maybe that's because it is. ...

Rules are important for any game. It's not surprising that people get unhappy when the rules of the game are changed from what they expected, in the middle of the game and to their detriment. This whole discussion is a direct consequence of the ACBL not stating the rules clearly. The rest of this arguing is largely an academic exercise and a waste of time. In the future I'll try not to take as much offense when I'm accused of cheating and lying.

You are? The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

You're playing 1♣ the same as a precision 1♦ (2+♦) which clearly has been allowed as "all purpose" and not because it promises 2 diamonds (being the suit opened). I don't think anyone here knows exactly why this is allowed and other things (like promising spades) are not, but your 1♣ should be fine in any case. Perhaps a better example might be having 1♦ to promise 4+♣s. I think this might be an interesting test case for the officials since a) it doesn't involve majors, so it probably won't trip the "1 or 2-under openings in the majors should be banned" circuit, and b) it's clearly not an efficient transfer opening, but rather some sort of weird minor catchall. And yet, I can't possibly see how you can consistently rule that 1♦ promising 4+ in one suit (♣) should be treated any differently than in another suit(♠). This might be part of a system like this: 1♣ strong 15+ 1♦ 4+ ♣ unbal, 10-14. not 4441, equal or longer diamonds ok, but only shorter majors 1M 5+ 10-14 "standard" 1N 12-14 bal "standard" 2♣ 10-14 any 4441 2♦ 5+♦ 10-14

Do you actually read posts before you reply to them? It's a useful habit. Please show me where I said the director is always right. Or even where I said it matters if the director is right or not. Let me help you out. I have in fact implied the exact opposite. What I said is you have to do what the director says regardless of whether or not he is right. I read what you said, but we're disagreeing over the semantics over what it means to be "illegal". I was referring to illegal in the sense that 1) the laws actually forbid something, while you seem to have meant it as 2) you can't play it here because the TD just said not to (regardless of the merit of his ruling) This is what I read: As in my example above (2♣ majors), the bid is manifestly legal in the 1st sense but can always be ruled illegal in the 2nd sense by some incompetent TD. Obviously you have to put up with/appeal the bad ruling, but my position is that you should not take a bad ruling as making something illegal in the 1st sense. In particular, continuing to play the convention in other events (under different TDs) or asking for further official opinions would still be ethical as long as you had a reasonable view that it was still legal in the 1st sense. You appear to think this is tantamount to cheating. I disagree.

I'm not willing to take Josh's view that "the director is always right". Suppose in a regular ACBL event your opponents complain when you open 2♣ for the majors (5/4+ 10-15 pts), and isn't that illegal? They call the TD and the TD agrees with them. Maybe you have to abide by the TDs ruling until you appeal, but I don't think anyone would go so as to say "the TD was right". Mr. Baye can jump up and down and say 2♣ for the majors isn't sanctioned under the GCC and he's still wrong and I'm still going to (try to) play it in my local club. If I can't convince the local TD while pointing at the specific part of the GCC that allows this, I guess I'll have to deal with the consequences. But they still won't be right since (at least that part of) the laws is clear. Furthermore, the "TD is always right" is a flawed premise anyway - directors are often inconsistent and what are we supposed to make of that? I try to play 1♦ as 4+♠, the opps call the director, and the TD says "sorry that's illegal". I stop playing it. My friends in another section are playing the same thing, get the same director call, and are told it is legal. When we meet in the second session of that event, will it be legal for them to play that system against me but illegal for me to play it against them? I hope even Josh will admit that no one has done anything wrong here and yet the outcome is just ridiculous. But if you try to play canape weak twos (or rather ask Mr Baye about them), you'll find that the standards for "natural and legal" change for no good reason. There is nothing written in the rules about opening bids that distinguishes between natural 1 level openings and natural 2 level openings (aside from certain conventional followups), and yet as you say canape 1 level bids are historically allowed but canape (unbalanced) weak twos are going to be claimed to be conventional and not allowed. Personally I think this is wrong and unless they are willing to ban canape altogether they should allow canape weak twos, but I'm willing to bet any requests to the ACBL officials to sanction "2♠ 4+♠ and a longer side suit" are going to get struck down as conventional.

If it is an illegal bid, I would agree it would be unsportsmanlike to try to trick someone into sanctioning it. The problem here is that it is unclear what exactly is allowed (or not) under the GCC's "all purpose 1m opening" clause. I am of the opinion that it means you can play it as anything you want. Mr. Baye is of the opinion that anything that smells like a transfer is illegal. See this is the problem. No one is ever going to ban the Precision 1♦ because too many people like it and already play it. However, it's not at all clear that Mr. Baye has a consistent interpretation of the "all purpose" clause that both allows Precision (which everyone agrees is ok) but which disallows the various bids he says are illegal, and probably many other things besides. So it's impossible to tell if Mr. Baye is enforcing the law, or just making bias rulings against new systems that are inconsistent with what is already allowed. When the rules are unclear, you're going to have these problems - people can have reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't legal to play, which makes it hard on everyone to know what is/isn't allowed. I mean you could probably get the ACBL people to approve an all purpose 1♦ that shows 1 4cM, or 1 5cM or any 3-suited hand, or a whole bunch of random stuff that's already part of existing legal systems, so why exactly is 4+ spades specifically a problem and these others aren't? Basically yes, but they won't admit to what standard they're using so it's hard to see that that's what's going on. Notice how all the rulings that come back from the ACBL regarding legality are of the form "it's (il)legal", not "this is why it is (il)legal". I have a strong feeling that this is because the why is based on what they personally want to allow, in contrast to what the written rules allow.

You're entitled to your opinion. Well since there's no definition of "all purpose" given, why is it cheating to present your methods in a way that emphasizes the "all-purpose" nature? No, my proposal shows 4♠, not 4+♠, so the original response (which isn't necessarily authoritative anyway) isn't applicable. In particular, it might include balanced hands below 12 hcp that your partnership agrees to open. Not at all. My statement was completely accurate. Sure I could have described it in a way more likely to get rejected, but I don't see where in the laws that's required. As a general alternative to these sorts of (IMO) unreasonable interpretations of the "all purpose opening", you can always throw in an odd relatively rare hand type to avoid the likely (if unjustified) objections. For example, for the 1♦ in question, add a shape without spades, such as 1=4=4=4, so 1♦ is 4♠/5X+ unbal or any 4441 (and hence only promises 1+ spades).

Ah, you just didn't ask nicely enough. A more favorable response might have been had from saying: "We want to use the following opening bids in our strong club system: 1♣ artificial 15+ 1♥ 4+♥ 10-14 pts. longer minor ok but not 4=4 majors 1♠ 5+♠ 10-14 pts, "standard" 1N 12-14 balanced, 5M332 ok 2♣ 5+♣ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM 2♦ 5+♦ 10-14, longest suit, no 4cM 2N 5/5 minors 10-14 Can we use a 1♦ opening as an all-purpose opening for all other hands with 10-14 points? Thanks!" :)

Agreed.

Sure, but actually I think one big aspect of this discussion that hasn't come up much is the defense your opponents are playing. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that at NV, it was good to play the cheapest 3 point range against which your opponents don't play a penalty double. I'm also in JLOL's boat when he said opening weak NT was big money against the many under-prepared players out there. I'm not sure there's a system hole there really, although I agree anything more than 3 point ranges comes at a price you'd rather not pay. But what's wrong with this precision base (1♣ 16+)? 10-12 1NT 13-15 1♦ 16-18 1♣-1♦-1N (16+ club, negative diamond) 19-21 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1N (1♥ Kokish or strong, 1♠ forced or 2nd neg) 22-23 1♣-1♦-2N etc It seems to me that the main constraint on how weak you want to play your lowest NT range is where you want the low end of your strong club to start. There are plenty of ways to bid 2N once you're playing a strong club (1C-1D-2N, open 2N, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2N), so if you don't mind having these start around 21+ you can open all the way down to a 9-11 1NT (reducing the ranges above by 1 point) without any significant difficulties.

It's not a support double, if that's what you're asking. A simple rule for support doubles is that they only apply when your partner shows a major at the 1 level that might have 4 or might have 5+ cards. So when your double shows exactly 4 (since 1♠ shows 5+), there's no longer a need for support doubles - just bid support with 4 cards as opener and do something else with 3. I think this is one of those "extras - do something" competitive doubles, but perhaps others have a more precise definition to offer.

Luckily for those US-based would-be 2♣ psychers, no one in the ACBL can seem to agree on the standards for what 2♣ should promise. So while you can't do it with zero points, you can do it with long 1-suiters and maybe 15 points, like AQJxxxxx A Ax xx 1 trick from game, 3 defensive tricks, wtp? Most experts don't handle this hand using a strong 2♣, but there are plenty of non-experts who do under their own simple rules and directors have regularly ruled that this type of hand is not a psych (much to some players annoyance, but that's how it is).