Conventions allowed/Not allowed

[A2003]

ACBL director send this following message at the beginning of the tournament.

 

♥♥ Remember, only those conventions on the ACBL General Convention Chart are allowed in this ACBL game, please keep this in mind when bidding. Sorry, but this means NO multi, NO ... Wilkosz ♥♥

 

What is wilkosz? This is not in ACBL encyclopedia.

 

One player opens 2D announced as 18-19 balanced hand, the partner say 2S as transfer to 2NT, then 3NT. What convention is this?

Is this falls under general convention chart?

 

Is transfer precision method falls under ACBL general convention chart?

 

Is there any List available for all the conventions that are allowed under ACBL general convention chart? I see Not allowed as two conventions: MULTI 2D and Wilkosz.

[the hog]

Wilkosz is a Polish convention where an opening bid of 2D shows 5+/5+ in any 2 suited combination except both minors, with about 7-10 HCP. It is an excellent and elegant convention and to ban it is a joke.

 

Some players play that an opening of 2D shows a balanced 18-19 HCP hand. A number of Italian players use this.

[Elianna]

2D 18-19 balanced is commonly known as "Mexican 2D", and there are many versions of responses that I've seen. It is ACBL general chart, as you are allowed to use 1C, 1D, 2C, and 2D as any strong, artificial and forcing bid.

 

See under allowed openings #1,3, and 5: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/convchart2005.pdf

 

You are allowed to play any responses to strong artificial opening bids, which makes 2♠ --> 2NT legal. I've played that all bids are transfers over 2D, and I've played that none are. And I've heard of versions in between.

 

I'm not sure what you mean be transfer precision. If you mean transfers after the strong clubs, then yes. If you mean transfer openings, then no. If you mean something else, then check the chart (referenced above). <_<

[glen]

One player opens 2D announced as 18-19 balanced hand, the partner say 2S as transfer to 2NT, then 3NT. What convention is this? Is this falls under general convention chart?

Fred played this when a client wanted to. It is GCC. Fred has written zero articles about the convention.

Is there any List available for all the conventions that are allowed under ACBL general convention chart? I see Not allowed as two conventions:  MULTI 2D and Wilkosz.

TDs put the special notice about Multi and W since they are two conventions often played by those outside of the regular ACBL playing area who might decide to try an online ACBL tourney. Many ACBL players within the ACBL playing area have no good idea how to bid against Multi and W.

Is there any List available for all the conventions that are allowed under ACBL general convention chart?

No, since the ACBL GCC is designed not to use names of conventions, but instead descriptions of possible approaches. For example it does not say a Mexican or Fred 2♦ opening is permitted, but it does allow the bid by saying:

TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

... b ) a strong hand.

Note that 2♦ does not need to be forcing (in reply to post directly above) and responder can pass 2♦ if they judge that to be the right move.

[matmat]

here's a (not so) quick discussion of wilkosz

 

http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/weak.two/wilkosz.htm

[pigpenz]

ACBL director send this following message at the beginning of the tournament.

 

♥♥ Remember, only those conventions on the ACBL General Convention Chart are allowed in this ACBL game, please keep this in mind when bidding. Sorry, but this means NO multi, NO ... Wilkosz ♥♥

 

What is wilkosz? This is not in ACBL encyclopedia.

 

One player opens 2D announced as 18-19 balanced hand, the partner say 2S as transfer to 2NT, then 3NT. What convention is this?

Is this falls under general convention chart?

 

Is transfer precision method falls under ACBL general convention chart?

 

Is there any List available for all the conventions that are allowed under ACBL general convention chart? I see Not allowed as two conventions: MULTI 2D and Wilkosz.

was watching one your hands last night A2003

1♣ pass 1♦ (tank for several minutes) pass

1♠ pass 3♣ after tank for minute or so again

 

1♦ was alerted as 0-8hcp or impossible negative on this preciscion auction, so over 1♠ you alerted 3♣ as splinter which i guess is true, but i was curious at to what your bid is supposed to be for the impossible negative as you were as i recalled 4-4-4-1 9hcp?

 

Were the tanks cause you didnt know what to do or were they because you didnt know if partner would remember? I know you two play preciscion all the time so this would seem like something you had discussed before....so if 3♣ was a splinter does that mean you have a void or some hidden 5 cards suit since it wasnt alerted at the impossible negative bid....just curious :P

 

See so even bids get alerted there are lots of ramifications and inuendos from the bids that dont always get explained fully

[keylime]

I play a form of transfer precision, and it's GCC legal (for Mid-Chart events we play Kaplan Interchange; keep in mind that MOSCITO based methods with transfer openings are NOT permitted - just the transfer responses). The key is not understand the specific conventions played as much as understanding the specific approaches that are permitted.

 

For example, I'm allowed to play artificial and conventional responses to my forcing club, because it promises 15+ HCP. I can also do this over my 2♣ and higher bids as well (I play transfers over 2♣, natural with six+ clubs). I'm also allowed all constructive calls starting with opener's rebid; this stipulation allows me to play the response scheme over 1M-2♣* (artificial G/F)-rebid that we borrowed from von Armin/Auken (thanks Helene for correcting me!). I am NOT allowed to play a relay system (this is not defined clearly; I tend to be of the view that if you have five or more bids that are asking or unilateral in nature you might run afoul - I use Kokish Relays as an example) nor am I allowed to play 1NT as an absolute game-force response to 1 of a major openings (if you add some other elements that have weak or invite connotations, then it's OK - as long as it does not promise g/f, you're kosher). I'm also not allowed to have bids that are designed primarily to destroy the opponents methods (i.e. the 1S overcall on any 13 cards over a forcing club).

 

However, the GCC is also specific about what can not be played (there's a disclaimer that if it is not listed it is not permitted). Thusly Multi, MOSCITO, Wilkosz, Muiderburg, and others are NOT allowed for the GCC (everyone that's European or Asian or Australian, sigh together.....let's move on). The GCC governs what is permitted in tourney play that offers pigmented points (sectionals and up), but each club is permitted to bar or allow whichever convention they see fit (there is no language about barring/permitting psyches outside of Law 40; this is an area of contention with many).

 

For the most part, the GCC does an adequate job in defining a playing field that is both fair and relatively equal. However, even the good directors will sometimes get it wrong with regards to this: I had 2 TD's in a regional rated game at the Houston 2002 NABC rule on both sides of the fence about the Multi. If anything, the resistance is most at the club level with regards to convention monitoring: I've played in 2 clubs where psyches were barred, and where non destructive bids were only permitted (inference being offshape t/o dbls, minimum t/o dbls, and more were NOT allowed). At the sectional level tho, I enjoyed being able to play the 1NT t/o and the modified Overcall Structure and seeing them squirm...

 

Me thinks the reason why they harp so much on Multi and Wilkosz is the fact that these two items outside of the U.S. are so common that they themselves are considered ironically enough, "standard".

[awm]

In response to Keylime's post, as far as I can tell:

 

(1) A 1NT response to 1M which shows game-forcing values is allowed on the general chart. See #3 under allowed responses: conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. As I understand it there is a prohibition against a 1NT response which is forcing but shows invitational or better values; in other words the forcing 1NT has to be either game-forcing, or include some less-than-invite options. I think this restriction is somewhat silly and probably a holdover from attempts to forbid the "breakthrough" system involved in a cheating scandal some years ago.

 

(2) Muiderberg, which as I understand it is an opening 2M bid showing a weak hand with 5 cards in the bid major, as well as a four-card or longer minor. This is a natural bid (ACBL defines as natural a bid which shows four or more cards in the major suit bid, #1 under definitions) and therefore allowed. Strangely the General Chart does not explicitly indicate that natural opening bids are allowed, but simple logic and the Laws imply that natural bids should be fine unless specifically disallowed. Conventional responses to Muiderberg are also allowed, since this is a two-level or higher opening which promises five or more cards in the bid suit (#7 under allowed responses).

 

(3) The prohibition of "relay systems" is quite unclear. As far as I can tell the "rules on the ground" are that this prohibition will never be enforced. I've played against plenty of people who use 2♣ response to 1M as "artificial, game forcing, and start of relays" and this is always considered okay. Of course, it's somewhat difficult to play a non-game-forcing relay system on the general chart anyway because artificial responses to one-level opening bids that do not guarantee game-force values are mostly disallowed.

[hrothgar]

(2) Muiderberg, which as I understand it is an opening 2M bid showing a weak hand with 5 cards in the bid major, as well as a four-card or longer minor. This is a natural bid (ACBL defines as natural a bid which shows four or more cards in the major suit bid, #1 under definitions) and therefore allowed. Strangely the General Chart does not explicitly indicate that natural opening bids are allowed, but simple logic and the Laws imply that natural bids should be fine unless specifically disallowed. Conventional responses to Muiderberg are also allowed, since this is a two-level or higher opening which promises five or more cards in the bid suit (#7 under allowed responses).

The ACBL's Convention Charts specifically states the following:

 

"Unless Specifically Allowed, Methods are Disallowed". The ACBL never actually defines the word "methods", however, conventions are understood to be "methods".

 

1. A Muiderberg 2M opening is natural, however, it is also a conventional bid.

2. Muiderberg 2M opening is not specifically allowed by the GCC

3. Players are not allowed to use Muiderberg 2M openings in GCC events.

 

Please feel free to contact Memphis if you don't believe me...

They'll confirm what I just said

 

(Actually, they'll probably get it wrong once or twice, but eventually you'll get someone who actually understands the regulatory structure)

[keylime]

Adam, if memory serves (someone correct me if wrong), I think the wording is something like "forcing 1NT response blah blah blah, can not guarantee game invite or better values" or something similar to such. Maybe my apostrophe wasn't clear or exact enough about the either/or.

[paulg]

Another example of a natural but conventional bid is the 2♥ opener showing 4+ hearts, 4+ spades and 3-8 HCP.

 

This is not permitted on GCC. It is permitted at Mid Chart subject to the Defense Database (that forces you to play at least nine cards in the two suits).

 

p

[pigpenz]

Another example of a natural but conventional bid is the 2♥ opener showing 4+ hearts, 4+ spades and 3-8 HCP.

 

This is not permitted on GCC. It is permitted at Mid Chart subject to the Defense Database (that forces you to play at least nine cards in the two suits).

 

p

are there limits on the min amount of hcp you can have similar to the old 5-5 rule

[keylime]

I think they dropped the 5 and 5 rule and instead allow you to play what you'd like IF it falls into a 7 HCP range and promises 5 cards in the bid suit. It falls under the paragraph about artificial and conventional calls after 15+ hcp openings and bids of 2♣ or higher.

[A2003]

was watching one your hands last night A2003

1♣ pass 1♦ (tank for several minutes) pass

1♠ pass 3♣ after tank for minute or so again

 

Were the tanks cause you didnt know what to do or were they because you didnt know if partner would remember? I know you two play preciscion all the time so this would seem like something you had discussed before....so if 3♣ was a splinter does that mean you have a void or some hidden 5 cards suit since it wasnt alerted at the impossible negative bid....just curious :)

 

See so even bids get alerted there are lots of ramifications and inuendos from the bids that dont always get explained fully.

Answer to curious question:

1st tank is due to typing long lines, correcting spelling and adding spaces, then comparing the hand with the description of what I wrote in the alert box.

I typed 0-7 or impossible negative 8+4441

2nd tank, forgot what I should bid after that took while to figure that.

Because I know I was late in bidding 1st time.

About comment: you didn’t know if partner would remember

Don't care about partner, First I am concerned of my problem in describing my hand well.

For us this hand impossible negative came after 9 months, may be partnership bidding table.

There is no hidden 5 card suit, IF 5 more cards and positive response we bid that suit.

 

How many words can be typed in the alert box?

[glen]

How many words can be typed in the alert box?

One letter words quite a number, but four letter words you are more restricted.

[pigpenz]

There is no hidden 5 card suit, IF 5 more cards and positive response we bid that suit.

 

How many words can be typed in the alert box?

yes I understand that, but what I am saying is that you have two alerts. You sort of give your information but not really. You are only giving part of the information. If you alerted as possibly being impossible negative then why dont you make the impossible negative bid that specifically says 4441 hand. If you are going to alert 3♣ as a splinter that may be correct but you also have to have a five card suit somehwere unless you know that 3♣ is really your impossible negative hand.

 

Now you used to use the Full Disclosure con card, thats what it is for is to save you typing so you can explain your bids!!! ;)

 

Probably playing what you do it would be a good idea as I expcet you get asked alot of questions and in the process of making what it would help you understand your system. Opps could have asked you alot of questions, like if 3♣ is splinter then what is 4♣...do you play mini or maxi splinters? Opps would be entitled that information I assume!

 

so getting back to the original post whe you play a system or conventions you also carry the responsibilty to understand what you are playing and being able to explain and even possibly suggest a defense to it. So if you run into some people what are playing 2♦ Mexican you should abe able to ask them what their bids are/or suggest a defense to it. We have asked this question before when opps come to the table dont pre announce what theyare playing it puts the opps at a disadvantage. So when that 2♦ bid gets sprung on you, you should be able to ask for a standard defense to it if it is a legal convention that can be used in the ACBL GCC.

[hrothgar]

so getting back to the original post whe you play a system or conventions you also carry the responsibilty to understand what you are playing and being able to explain and even possibly suggest a defense to it. So if you run into some people what are playing 2♦ Mexican you should abe able to ask them what their bids are/or suggest a defense to it. We have asked this question before when opps come to the table dont pre announce what theyare playing it puts the opps at a disadvantage. So when that 2♦ bid gets sprung on you, you should be able to ask for a standard defense to it if it is a legal convention that can be used in the ACBL GCC.

Actually, you're expected to be able to defend against GCC legal conventions...

[pbleighton]

"Actually, you're expected to be able to defend against GCC legal conventions... "

 

He's thinking of the Mid Chart...

 

Peter

[mike777]

Interesting editorial in this month's BW on the difference between artificial conventions and unfamiliar conventions, full disclosure in a timely matter and what the penalties might be.

 

In any event please please try and never take 2+minutes to make a bid in an online ACBL game. ty.

btw I am one of those that play that 2D toy.

[the hog]

"So if you run into some people what are playing 2D Mexican you should abe able to ask them what their bids are/or suggest a defense to it. We have asked this question before when opps come to the table dont pre announce what theyare playing it puts the opps at a disadvantage. So when that 2D bid gets sprung on you, you should be able to ask for a standard defense to it if it is a legal convention that can be used in the ACBL GCC. "

 

Why pigpenz? I have never seen the logic behind this comment. Why should I have to suggest a defence to my opponents? They should be prepared with meta defences if they are taking their bridge seriously.

 

This distinction with GCC and mid chart is so arbitrary anyway - what is familiar in one country may well not be familiar in another. The Polish 2D opening is a case in point; everyone knows it and most play it in Poland. Ask for a defence and they laugh at you, but short C or short D is not familiar....Where and how do you draw the distinction? And you can't say "What is common in the US", after all this is an international game?

[pigpenz]

"So if you run into some people what are playing 2D Mexican you should abe able to ask them what their bids are/or suggest a defense to it. We have asked this question before when opps come to the table dont pre announce what theyare playing it puts the opps at a disadvantage. So when that 2D bid gets sprung on you, you should be able to ask for a standard defense to it if it is a legal convention that can be used in the ACBL GCC. "

 

Why pigpenz? I have never seen the logic behind this comment. Why should I have to suggest a defence to my opponents? They should be prepared with meta defences if they are taking their bridge seriously.

 

This distinction with GCC and mid chart is so arbitrary anyway - what is familiar in one country may well not be familiar in another. The Polish 2D opening is a case in point; everyone knows it and most play it in Poland. Ask for a defence and they laugh at you, but short C or short D is not familiar....Where and how do you draw the distinction? And you can't say "What is common in the US", after all this is an international game?

i think usually in KO's or national events I always thought that if you are using unusual methods that is why you have to post your methods before the event.

[blackshoe]

Mexican 2D is GCC legal. There is no obligation on the user of a GCC legal convention to teach an opponent how to defend against it - that's their problem.

 

The GCC does not say that "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table." That admonition is in the alert regulation, specifically the section about pre-alerts in regard to systems with which opponents may be unfamiliar. It applies whatever conventions are allowed. I would think one should pre-alert Mexican 2D, since it's pretty rare IME, but that doesn't mean you should have to provide a defense to it.

 

In the actual case at the start of this thread (possible impossible negative response to Precision 1C, followed by a jump after opener's 1M rebid) "splinter" is inadequate disclosure regardless of the agreement ("explaining" by naming a convention is never adequate disclosure). The bid should have been explained as "4=4=4=1, 8+ HCP" if it was the impossible negative, short in clubs, or 5-7 HCP (or whatever the agreed range), 4 trumps, singleton or void in clubs" if that's what it meant. Yes, I know the impossible negative possibility was already disclosed. Tough. Tell 'em again.

[glen]

A few months ago we were playing f2f against an online expert. I opened 1NT showing 14-17 and he wanted our suggested defense to this strange approach before continuing. I provided this:

 

Pass: 11+

Double: 0-10, flat hand

Suit bid: Shows longest suit is the suit immediately below this

 

For some reason he did not adopt this.

[blackshoe]

"Relay systems are disallowed." (Number 5 under "Disallowed" on the GCC).

 

"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."

 

"Relay: an artificial, nondescriptive bid that asks partner for a description." - The Bridge World Glossary

 

If the opening bid is 1X, and responder's first bid is a relay, and so is his second, that's a relay system. If the responder's first bid is a relay, and his second bid is not, that's not a relay system. If the responder's first bid is not a relay, they aren't playing a relay system.

 

IMO, this should not apply if the opening bid is a forcing 1C, but the regulation doesn't actually say that.

 

Ron Klinger's "Power" system is not GCC legal because the 2C relay response to 1M is not game forcing. The 2D bid is game forcing, but the follow on, iirc, is also a relay, so this qualifies as a relay system, and GCC illegal under Disallowed #5.

 

The above is my opinion, not in any way "official", but I'm pretty sure I'm right. ;)

[DrTodd13]

Describe to me how or why "invitational or better" is not a "descriptive" bid. One might say that a bid showing any shape and 0+ points would be non-descriptive but as long as the bid describes any point count then isn't that saying something about the hand, therefore, descriptive, therefore not illegal. Note that if the bid means 0+ any shape then all other bids would have to be undefined. If some other bid were defined then the relay bid would simply mean "all hands that don't qualify for this other bid." That in and of itself is a description of your hand so since nobody would ever have such a ridiculous bid defined then I posit that this regulation actually does not ban anything. It will be interpreted to ban whatever they want to ban but reasoning about it with pure logic one can make an argument that it doesn't ban anything that anybody would actually use. So, please ACBL define the word "descriptive" for me.