Rebuilding the General Convention Chart

[jtfanclub]

Edit- redone to just do the alloweds, not the disalloweds. Should make it easier to read. The concept here is that any legal call can be described by

 

-The HCP range.

-The base meaning (A1, A2...F2), including suit/length details.

The additional meanings (L0-L11) including details, what point subrange they're applicable to, etc.

 

So if somebody asks if a call is legal, it can easily be said "Yes, it follows base meaning A5, showing 3+ card support, denying L3 and tending to deny L2". It also means any legal call can be listed with a few short stock phrases. It also makes it fairly easy for a computer to check the basic legality of a system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, that was a whole lot tougher than I thought. The result is probably too confusing. I was trying to be as general and explicit as possible. In some cases, I made sure to exclude the same things the GCC excluded without knowing why they excluded it. I also left out the carding stuff.

 

Oh well, here it is, tell me what you think and how to improve it:

 

General Convention Chart:

 

Bidding restriction period: If the person to the left of opener passes, then all calls

starting with opener's next call are unrestricted. If the person to the left of opener

does not pass, then all calls starting with the next call by the player to the right of

the opener are unrestricted.

 

Definitions:

 

Invitational+: A response which will normally go past one level higher of opener's

highest suit, even across a minimum hand (so on a 1 diamond opening, an invitational

response is one where the auction will normally go past 2 diamonds).

 

Sub-Invitational+: A response which will usually stop one level higher than opener's

bid in opener's highest suit or lower across a minimum hand. A subinvitational+ bid may

include considerably stronger hands, including game forcing ones, as long as the most

frequent result is to end in one level higher of opener's highest suit or lower.

(So for a two diamond opener promising both majors, a sub-invitational+ response is one

which will usually stop at or below 3 spades).

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal meanings of bids:

Shape meanings: Any call may, in addition to its required meaning, may promise, imply, tend to deny, or deny the following:

 

L1: Length in the suit bid, but may not tend to deny or deny length in the suit bid.

L2: Balanced

L3: An unshown 4 card major, but not promise or imply an unshown 5 card or longer major

L4: An unshown 4 card minor, but not promise or imply an unshown 5 card or longer minor

L5: Tolerence, support, and/or stoppers in a previously shown suit.

L6: Takeout: Showing tolerence and/or support for all unshown suits, and 0 or more shown suits. If there are two or fewer unshown suits, it may show a preference for a particular suit.

 

Nothing else may be shown outside of the base meaning of the call, legal meanings defined in the base meaning of the call or previous calls, and the HCP range.

 

HCP:

No opening suit bid may have fewer than 10 hcp and fewer than 5 cards in the suit bid or,

if two suits are shown, at least 9 cards total in the suits shown.

 

No opening suit bid may have fewer than 8 hcp and fewer than 6 cards in the suit bid or,

if two suits are shown,at least 9 cards total in the suits shown.

 

No opening No Trump bid may have fewer than 8 hcp.

 

No bid may include two or more non-contiguous point ranges.

 

Points may have any continuous point range, so if a bid is legal if it is 10+ hcp, it

could be 10-15, or 12-14, etc.

 

A bid may be based on support points, losing trick count, 6-4-2-1, or other easily explained counts, provided that it still fits within the required HCP range. eg. If a bid requires 10+ hcp, you can determine which 10+ hcp hands will make this bid based on another counting system, but all 9- hcp hands cannot make this bid regardless of counting system.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Bids (each bid must be placed in one category):

------------------------------------------------------------------

Suit Bids:

 

A1. Generic Strong Bids:

A bid in which all hands for the bid are at least:

Opening: 15 hcp

Overcall: 10 hcp

Response: 12 hcp or game forcing, whichever is less.

 

L0: The responses to a Generic Strong Opening are completely unrestricted.

 

A2. Two Suited Bids:

A two suited bid must include 4+ cards in each of two known suits (which may include the

suit bid), or 5+ cards in the suit bid and an unknown suit of any specified minimum length.

 

A3. Standard Bids:

A bid which promises at least 4 cards in the suit bid. A response may have only 3 cards in the suit if the hand is also at least invitational+ in strength.

 

A4. Generic Minor Suit Openings:

A minor suit opening may promise any minimum length in the suit, provided that:

-it promises 10+ hcp.

-if it has 5+ cards in a major, it must also have either 5+ cards in the suit bid or 18+ hcp.

 

Note that it does NOT have unrestricted responses like Generic Strong bids.

 

A5. Support showing responses:

A response may show one of the following-

3+ cards in (one of) partner's shown suits, or

8+ total cards in (one of) partner's shown suits, or

If natural, a desire to play at the level and strain bid, unless partner has a very unusual hand.

 

L7: A support showing response may show shortness in a bid or unbid suit, including the suit just bid.

 

A6. Inquiry responses:

The following responses to these openings are legal provided they are sub-invitational+ and

do not promise length in the suit bid:

1 heart and 1 spade: 1 No-Trump

One No-Trump: Two Clubs

Two Clubs: Two Diamonds or Two No-Trump

Two Diamonds, Two Hearts, or Two Spades: Two No Trump.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal No-Trump Bids outside of competition (if the opponent has not bid).

 

B1-B2 & B5-B6: A No Trump bid may show the same Generic Strong or Two-Suited bids as suit bids.

It may also be support showing or an Inquiry as listed in the respective Ax bids.

 

B3: Standard bids:

 

A bid of No-Trump which shows a hand with at least 2 cards in every unshown suit, or at least 3 cards

in each of three unshown or shown suits.It may not have a specified short suit. No more than 10% of hands

opened or responded with the Standard No-Trump may include an unshown 6 card suit, singleton or void.

 

L0: The responses to a standard No Trump opening where all hands include at least

10 hcp and the range of hcp is no more than 5 is unrestricted.

 

B4: To play.

A bid of NT as an offer to play there vs. a minimum hand is legal, and need not promise a balanced hand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Doubles, Redoubles, Cue Bids, and No-Trumps in Competition.

 

Doubles, Redoubles, the bid of a suit that an opponent has already bid or shown (a cue bid),

and a bid of No-Trump when the opponents have made a call other than pass have few restrictions.

They may include:

 

-Any point range, including dual point ranges, provided that there is a common meaning which fits all

possible point counts.

L8 -Any number of known suits, shown or unshown.

L9 -Unknown suits provided that there is at least one known suit.

L10 -To play, in the case of double and redouble.

-Any of the meanings legal for a suit or No Trump bid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Special overcalls:

The overcall or double of a Generic Strong Bid, or the bid of double or the next higher club bid

over a No Trump, may have any of the meanings that a double or cue bid can have,

L11: and can also have the

meaning of an unknown suit even if there is no known suit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passes:

 

E1. Weak:

A pass can be used to show a hand likely to be weak, which must include 0+ hcp. It may include

the occassional strong hands as part of the range or as a separate range as a 'trap', but a majority

of the time it must include hands too weak to bid.

 

E2: To Play:

A pass may show a wish to play at the current level and strain.

 

E3: Pass in Competition:

An opponent's forcing call or bid higher than 2NT may be passed to wait, or may force partner to bid.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legacy Bids:

 

F1: "Roman" bids: An opening two diamond bid may include three unknown suits, provided

all hands included are at least 10 hcp.

 

F2: "Short diamond" bids: An opening two diamond bid may promise shortness in diamonds,

provided all hands included are at least 10 hcp.

Edited July 5, 2007 by jtfanclub

[Double !]

You put so much work into this post: you are to be commended.

You mentioned that you omitted regulations regarding opening leads. How about the following for starters.

 

Any opening lead, by partnership agreement, may tend to either guarantee or deny possession of the card led, but not both as that would constitute a dual meaning which might also contain additional meanings known only to the partnership. In addition, the lead must indicate possession of at least one specific, known card.

 

DHL

[helene_t]

Agree with Don, but I can put it simpler: it's illegal to lead a void.

 

No, seriously: I think your clarifications of the GCC look good. I doubt that it's a realistic political ambition to reach ACBL but your document may serve as a reference for BBO TDs who want to set up GCC tourneys.

[Fluffy]

it's illegal to lead a void.

I heard there is a book that says you should lead partner's level 2 overcall with anything, even a void :)

[gwnn]

In addition, the lead must indicate possession of at least one specific, known card.

 

DHL

, ... and 12 unspecific, unknown other cards.

[Cascade]

My head hurts.

 

I found it hard to decide what all of this meant and I am not sure it is correct.

 

Weak two-suited openings 5Maj + 4+min would seem to be legal ...

 

They :

 

deny balanced (L2)

deny four-cards in the other major (L3)

show a two-suiter one suit (the Major) is known (A2)

 

On the other hand :

 

Opening suit bids seem to require 10 hcp. Is this just at the one-level? If not it seems almost all pre-empts are not allowed.

 

Maybe I am confused.

[skjaeran]

A1. Generic Strong Bids:

A bid in which all hands for the bid are at least:

Opening: 15 hcp

Overcall: 10 hcp

Response: 12 hcp or game forcing, whichever is less.

 

From the WBF System Policy:

Strong = high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand

 

I don't know why the definition of a strong hand should be different in ACBL from the WBF.

[pbleighton]

My suggestion for the GCC is to allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit. This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Weak two-suited openings 5Maj + 4+min would seem to be legal ...

Don't have to bother.

 

A2. Two Suited Bids:

A two suited bid must include 4+ cards in each of two known suits (which may include the

suit bid), or 5+ cards in the suit bid and an unknown suit of any specified minimum length.

+

No opening suit bid may have fewer than 8 hcp and fewer than 6 cards in the suit bid or, if two suits are shown,at least 9 cards total in the suits shown.

 

You can't have it be Unknown Major + Unknown Minor...can't have an unknown

suit without a known suit. But you can have 2 hearts be 5+ hearts and 4+ minor with any count.

 

Skaeran- I don't know either. But the 15+ hcp as a 'strong club' is in the GCC as written, and they actually have 16+ for Forcing NT, which I changed to 15 for consistency. In Midchart, they define strong hands as 15+. So I just took that information from the existing charts without asking why.

 

Cascade- As written, you could define 2 hearts as showing:

10+ hcp, 4+ hearts, or

8-9 hcp, 5+ hearts, or

7- hcp, 6+ hearts.

 

Why? Well, the 5+ part is already in the ACBL rules, depending on how you read them. It's not entirely clear if that's what they meant. Since I think the people who play GCC's biggest complaint is undisciplined weak twos (because they seem to get wildly varying results), and because I wanted to require a six card suit for one bids below 8 hcp, I decided to make that a universal requirement. Maybe it was a bad idea, but it was a shot for consistency.

 

For overcalls and responses, 4+ cards in the suit is always legal regardless of count.

[david_c]

No, seriously: I think your clarifications of the GCC look good. I doubt that it's a realistic political ambition to reach ACBL but your document may serve as a reference for BBO TDs who want to set up GCC tourneys.

But this isn't the same as the GCC - for example he is disallowing 5-card pre-empts.

[jtfanclub]

No, seriously: I think your clarifications of the GCC look good. I doubt that it's a realistic political ambition to reach ACBL but your document may serve as a reference for BBO TDs who want to set up GCC tourneys.

But this isn't the same as the GCC - for example he is disallowing 5-card pre-empts.

And I'm effectively allowing Drury in all 4 seats, for example.

 

This was a test for me, to see if I could make a consistent system that would serve the same purposes as GCC, and what it would look like. It is possible, though longer and tougher than I thought, but I could never do this to exactly mimic GCC. For one thing, GCC is so fuzzy in some areas that it means completely different things to different people.

[awm]

I'm not convinced this is really simpler than the General Chart -- in fact it seems somewhat hard to parse. It's also not the same as the general chart -- there are a number of things that the GCC definitely allows and this set of rules does not.

 

In addition, this sort of rule set doesn't really encourage disclosure. For example, five-card preempts are really quite common at 3rd seat favorable even among relatively sound preempters. These rules don't allow them. It seems easy to say "well, our agremeent is six cards and he just psyched" -- the point is that regulations should encourage people to disclose relatively common psychs rather than either disallowing such disclosure because it amounts to an illegal agreement or trying to regulate people's actual bids (not just agreements) to prevent this type of call.

 

If I were writing a replacement for the general chart, I think the first few lines would be:

 

Any bid at the two-level or above which promises five or more cards in the suit named is allowed. Any bid at the one-level which promises four or more cards in the suit named and 8 or more hcp is allowed.

[pbleighton]

And I'm effectively allowing Drury in all 4 seats, for example.

 

This was a test for me, to see if I could make a consistent system that would serve the same purposes as GCC, and what it would look like. It is possible, though longer and tougher than I thought, but I could never do this to exactly mimic GCC. For one thing, GCC is so fuzzy in some areas that it means completely different things to different people.

 

Why do you want to disallow 5 card weak twos?

 

I believe the ACBL doesn't have the authority to do this, BTW: see the (pretty much forced) repeal of the Bergen Rule.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Why do you want to disallow 5 card weak twos?

 

I believe the ACBL doesn't have the authority to do this, BTW: see the (pretty much forced) repeal of the Bergen Rule.

 

Peter

Hmmm....

 

Well, I was trying to not differentiate between levels- any call that's legal as a 1 club opener is also legal as a 1 diamond, two club, two diamond, three club etc. opener. There is actual logic to this: if I make a 'weak 1 bid' opener, it's as easy to understand as the 'weak 2 bid', and as easy to defend...I just use whatever defense I have for the 'weak 2 bid'. Because 'easy to understand' and 'easy to defend without prior discussion' are my two primary criteria for allowing bids into GCC, level really shouldn't matter.

 

What if I changed it...the short club/diamond bids remain requiring 10+ hcp, as listed (and as listed on the GCC). Bids containing 4 cards in the suit bid or 4/4 in two shown suits for two-suited bids are legal as low as 8 hcp. Bids which contain 5 cards in the suit bid or at least 9 cards in two shown suits for two-suited bids are legal at any strength.

 

Would that make sense/be more acceptable? Or would make the 1 bids too shaky? Or perhaps there should be a range rule...a bid may not both include hands with fewer than 8 hcp and more than 15 hcp unless the bids under 8 hcp also promise a 6 card suit (or 9 cards in two shown suits)?

 

I know this isn't the greatest of forums to ask the questions, since people who write here are going to tend to be biased in favor of as much freedom as possible.

[david_c]

Well, I was trying to not differentiate between levels- any call that's legal as a 1 club opener is also legal as a 1 diamond, two club, two diamond, three club etc. opener.

This doesn't seem important to me. I think you could afford to have completely separate rules for each opening bid if you wanted to (though it is more normal to group certain bids together, for example 1♥ with 1♠). Always remember that when you're writing system regulations, the question you're trying to answer is "is my bid allowed?". People don't want to learn all the regs, they just want to be able to tell whether they can play their particular convention. If someone wants to find out whether their 2♥ bid is allowed, it makes no difference to them what the rules for 1♥ are.

 

It seems to me that the most common fault is trying to make the regulations too short, believing that this will make them simple. In reality you can afford to have as much detail as you like, if you feel this is the best way to express what things should be allowed, provided that the detail is clear. The EBU system regs run to almost thirty pages and we don't seem to have big problems deciding which things are allowed like you do in the ACBL.

 

I know this isn't the greatest of forums to ask the questions, since people who write here are going to tend to be biased in favor of as much freedom as possible.

Oh, no, there are plenty of us who are not like that.

[pbleighton]

Well, I was trying to not differentiate between levels- any call that's legal as a 1 club opener is also legal as a 1 diamond, two club, two diamond, three club etc. opener. There is actual logic to this: if I make a 'weak 1 bid' opener, it's as easy to understand as the 'weak 2 bid', and as easy to defend...I just use whatever defense I have for the 'weak 2 bid'. Because 'easy to understand' and 'easy to defend without prior discussion' are my two primary criteria for allowing bids into GCC, level really shouldn't matter.

 

If you are trying to not differentiate between levels, why would you disallow opening with 5 cards at the two level? I don't understand.

 

For simplicity of what is allowed, why not allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit? This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses.

 

Peter

[TimG]

My primary problem with the GCC is the "pet methods" that are allowed. Flannery is an example. While playing 2D to show the majors is allowed, 2C to show the red suits is not. (At least this is the way it was for quite some time -- it may have changed since I last took a careful look at the GCC.) 1C can be used as an all purpose (forcing) opening bid, but 1H cannot. Or, maybe it is the 1D response to 1C that can be used as an artificial negative, but a 1S response to 1H cannot be similarly employed.

 

I have not read carefully OP's attempt at generalizing, but I get the impression that his approach would eliminate such inconsistencies. And, I think that is a good thing.

[david_c]

For simplicity of what is allowed, why not allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit? This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses.

Simplicity is a good thing, but it's not as important as making sure you allow the right methods.

 

In this case, IMO the right point to start is to have a discussion about whether assumed-fit pre-empts and suchlike should be allowed. If we think they should be allowed, then maybe the suggestion might work. If we decide they should not be allowed, then some modification will be needed. Only if it is a very close decision should we let the potential simplicity of the regulations affect which methods we want to allow.

 

Personally I don't think that assumed-fit pre-empts should be allowed on the GCC. But I don't mind if you disagree - the point is that we need to decide this first, and then work out how to write regulations to achieve it. It is perfectly possible to write clear regulations that don't allow assumed-fit pre-empts; for what it's worth I would like to allow any 2-of-a-suit opening which:

 

(i) Shows 5 or more cards in that suit; or

(ii) Shows 4 or more cards in that suit and constructive values. [by "constructive" I mean basically an opening hand - I'd use the same definition as for artificial 1m bids, whatever we decide that should be.]

 

[Edit: obviously this list is not exclusive.]

[jtfanclub]

If you are trying to not differentiate between levels, why would you disallow opening with 5 cards at the two level? I don't understand.

It has nothing to do with level. The ACBL thinks that opening weak (defined as 7- hcp) balanced hands should be illegal. For the ACBL, they're illegal at the 1 level because all 7- hands are illegal. At the 2 level, they're illegal because 4 card suit openings are illegal. Since I'm trying to remove the artificial split between 1 level and 2 level bids, I decided to combine them- you cannot open 7- balanced hands at any level. I probably overdefined 'balanced' in the process.

 

For simplicity of what is allowed, why not allow all bids which show at least 4 cards in a known suit? This would include opening bids at all levels, and responses.

 

I don't care about simplicity. I want rules where

1. it's easy to determine if a bid is legal.

2. it's easy to understand all legal bids, including secondary meanings.

3. it's easy to defend against an unexpected bid without prior discussion.

4. as a subset to the above, it's easy to create defenses against a class of bids, such that if a bid is described as being a type N bid, then you can default to using your defenses against a type N bid without discussion. I'm trying to design the system so you can explain a call 'it's an artifical support response type bid showing...' and your opponents can trot out their artificial support response defenses.

 

Where do MOSCITO and other "diabolical" systems fail?

 

The ACBL considers them extremely difficult to defend against without prior discussion- not the openings, but the responses. I agree with them. It also makes keeping track of auctions rather horrible...you get auctions with transfer openers and transfer responses where a player kinda implies support for partner's suit but not really and later kinda denies it...

 

For example, with ordinary transfers, the definition of the accept is defined by the superaccept, however since nobody includes the information about the superaccept in the description of the accept, you don't really get an accurate description of the bid. When you have a MOSCITO type system where you frequently refuse the transfer, and sometimes refuse the transfer even with support, the accurate, full description of a bid and what it implies and tends to deny would fill a book. Not that natural systems are necessarily simpler, but the unfamiliar parts are far more easy to understand.

 

david_c: The reasons for making all levels of bids with the same rules has nothing to do with shortness. I agree that longer regs aren't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Let me turn it up-side down. Outside of the dangerous area of 'familiarity', why should weak 2s be allowed but weak 1s banned? What possible reason is there to ban weak 1s? I can't think of any. I can't imagine anybody actually wanting to play weak 1s, but that's no reason to ban it. Besides, people played for half a century where 1 bids were weaker than 2 bids and only one person died as a result.

[david_c]

Let me turn it up-side down.  Outside of the dangerous area of 'familiarity', why should weak 2s be allowed but weak 1s banned?  What possible reason is there to ban weak 1s?

I think you're right - the only reason is familiarity. An interesting question is whether a lack of familiarity is a legitimate reason for banning a particular method. I think it is: it makes the method more difficult to defend against, and being difficult to defend against is why things get disallowed.

[skjaeran]

Let me turn it up-side down.  Outside of the dangerous area of 'familiarity', why should weak 2s be allowed but weak 1s banned?  What possible reason is there to ban weak 1s?

 

The same goes for transfer openings. Why should a 1♠ opening showing some minimum number of hcp and 5+♠'s be allowed and a 1♥ (or 1m) opening showing the same be disallowed? Except for it being unfamiliar, there's no logic at all implying that is should be disallowed, since the opponents have more available bidding space and is better placed to defend a lower opening.

[pbleighton]

don't care about simplicity. I want rules where

1. it's easy to determine if a bid is legal.

2. it's easy to understand all legal bids, including secondary meanings.

3. it's easy to defend against an unexpected bid without prior discussion.

4. as a subset to the above, it's easy to create defenses against a class of bids, such that if a bid is described as being a type N bid, then you can default to using your defenses against a type N bid without discussion. I'm trying to design the system so you can explain a call 'it's an artifical support response type bid showing...' and your opponents can trot out their artificial support response defenses.

 

The why don't you mandate 5 card majors, 3 card minors, 15-17 NT, 11 hcp minimum on 1 bids, 2C= strong and artificial, weak 2s = 6-10 6+ cards, and no canape bids?

 

That would emilinate 4 card majors, strong club systems, weak/mini NT. It would be simple, and easy to defend against.

 

How about it?

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

The same goes for transfer openings. Why should a 1♠ opening showing some minimum number of hcp and 5+♠'s be allowed and a 1♥ (or 1m) opening showing the same be disallowed?

1. Because people are familiar with weak bids, and have a defense already built for it. Transfer openings do not have even that level of familiarity.

 

2. Because the ACBL has effectively banned transfer openings from its MIDCHART competitions. Asking why I banned them from the GENERAL chart is an exercise in futility. They think it's too complicated even for relatively high competitions, and regardless of whether I agree with them, that's good enough for me. As far as I know, nothing that is banned in MIDCHART is allowed in my GENERAL concept.

 

3. Because Transfer openings generally use Symmetric Relay systems, and Symmetric Relay has been banned for GCC by the ACBL.

[jtfanclub]

The why don't you mandate.....

Good to see that in spite of having posted four times to this thread already, you have either completely missed the point or deliberately ignored it.

 

Yes, I get the picture that you want all four card blah blah blah. Thank you for sharing. The ACBL doesn't. Deal with them, not with me.

[pbleighton]

Good to see that in spite of having posted four times to this thread already, you have either completely missed the point or deliberately ignored it.

 

Yes, I get the picture that you want all four card blah blah blah. Thank you for sharing. The ACBL doesn't. Deal with them, not with me.

 

No, I think you are the one missing the point. You spend a lot of time coming up with a version ofthe GCC which is MORE restrictive than the present GCC (no 5 card weak two bids? - they are NOT allowed to do this), in the name of making GCC event restricted to methods which are easy to defend, and easy to determine their legality. I made a simple suggestion: Standard American or 2/1. If you polled ACBL members who favored further system restrictions, this is exactly what 9 out of 10 of them want.

 

So why not do it?

 

You are missing the point of your own thread.

 

Peter