Board to consider ACBL GCC change -- 1NT

[kenrexford]

I thought that this was interesting. The current GCC allows fairly liberal defenses to a 1NT opening. However, a call above 2♣ must feature at least one known suit. I never liked this rule, for one simple example. I had a debate about whether 1NT-2NT was better used as showing weak with minors or as strong with majors. I thought "either one" was a good resolution of the debate, but that was not allowed.

 

Now, if the BOD approves it, any defense at all is allowed, which means lifting that condition.

 

You can contact your BOD person to endorse or object, if you want.

[jtfanclub]

Now, if the BOD approves it, any defense at all is allowed, which means lifting that condition.

I wish we could have a rule that if you can explain all the hands described by the bid in 12 words or less, you can use it. B)

 

Maybe I should try 2♦ Lebensohl over 1NT. At least it'll be good for a laugh.

 

1NT-2♦-2♥-Pass is weak

1NT-2♥ is invitational with 5+

1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT is strong invite with (1 or 2) unknown 4 card major(s).

1NT-3♥ is GF with 5♥ and <4♠

1NT-2♦-2♥-3♥ is GF with 5♥ and 4+ ♠

1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT is GF with 4-4 in the majors.

 

Or something like that.

[mike777]

I thought that this was interesting.  The current GCC allows fairly liberal defenses to a 1NT opening.  However, a call above 2♣ must feature at least one known suit.  I never liked this rule, for one simple example.  I had a debate about whether 1NT-2NT was better used as showing weak with minors or as strong with majors.  I thought "either one" was a good resolution of the debate, but that was not allowed.

 

Now, if the BOD approves it, any defense at all is allowed, which means lifting that condition.

 

You can contact your BOD person to endorse or object, if you want.

This must be the most changed rule in the history of bridge. It seems they change this rule every month over the past decades.....I know it cannot be that often but it seems so.

 

If you do not like the present rule..just wait they will change it again. :)

 

This was all about "Suction" for those that remember 25 or 30 years ago.

[pclayton]

Its about time.

 

Defenses like Woolsey are very widely played and they should be GCC.

[han]

Agree with Phil. The ACBL bulletin had a feature where leading players, theoreticians and Mel Colchamiro said what they prefer to play over 1NT. Many of the methods were not GCC legal.

[awm]

Curiously, the west coast districts all allow any defense to notrump on the general chart. That's right, these rules vary from district to district!

 

The really funny thing is, the last time this vote came up I believe our Los Angeles representative voted against it, despite the fact that rules in our district already allow any defense to notrump.

[skjaeran]

In Norway any defence is allowed over 1NT and artificial strong openings.

 

Over 1NT I often play:

2♣=♦ OR both majors

2♥=♥ OR 4♠ + longer minor (5-5 is possible)

2♥=4♥ + longer minor (5-5 is possible)

2♠=natural

2NT=strong 2-suiter, almost GF

[SteelWheel]

This must be the most changed rule in the history of bridge. It seems they change this rule every month over the past decades.....I know it cannot be that often but it seems so.

 

If you do not like the present rule..just wait they will change it again. smile.gif

 

This was all about "Suction" for those that remember 25 or 30 years ago.

 

I don't know about 25-30 years ago--I do know that about 8 or 10 years ago, there was another brief period during which Suction and several other popular defenses to 1NT openings (HELLO, Jump-ball, etc.) were illegal. The hue and outcry from the masses was so great that this was reversed rather quickly. I remember being at the Board of Governors meeting where the vote was taken urging the re-legalization of these gadgets.

 

The ACBL bulletin had a feature where leading players, theoreticians and Mel Colchamiro said what they prefer to play over 1NT.

 

So for the purposes of this discussion, there are three distinct classes, then? 1. Leading players 2. Theoreticians 3. Mel Colchamiro :rolleyes:

 

I don't know if this turn of phrase was done on purpose--but if so, I loved it. Even if not, it gave me quite a chuckle.

[Guest Jlall]

2D+ being bid without a known suit (ie 2D one major) is very hard for your average player to defend against. I'm not surprised it has been barred from GCC events. The other side of the coin is that it is a very good bid for constructive bidding purposes, so maybe people should be allowed to play it even in GCC. No strong feelings really

[jdonn]

I think this change is long overdue. I once overcalled 2♦ showing one major, it was not allowed but I didn't know it at the time. The opponents doubled and had a misunderstanding based on what the double showed (the doubler thought he showed diamonds, his partner thought it was stayman). They called the director who noted our convention was illegal. However I asked the opponents, in all honesty, what the double would have meant if I had overcalled 2♣ showing a single suit, and they admitted they would have had the exact same misunderstanding! I still think that even though legally some sort of ruling or adjustment should have gone against us, our 'illegal' convention wasn't the cause of what happened.

[mycroft]

1) The last change to this one was pre 2001, as this story happened:

 

- The west coast, particularly California, hated the change, and made their tournaments "GCC + any defence to 1NT". Because the Anaheim NABC was in, well, Anaheim, CA, there was made a special exemption, mentioned in *every daily bulletin*, that events normally GCC were "GCC + any defence to 1NT".

- Of course, the next NABC was in Toronto, and I attended. There were several instances of people who had been at Anaheim and were at Toronto and thought that the rule had been changed, instead of an exception being made.

 

When this went out (I believe 1998, I could Wayback it if necessary - it went out with the Kaplan Interchange), there were several yearly attempts to bring either or both back, all of which were defeated. A little while later, (2001, I believe), we went from "Announce non-15-18 NTs" to "Announce all NT ranges", and we have had yearly "go back to the old, bad ways" petitions since.

 

It really hasn't changed "every year". In fact, the GCC is due for an overhaul (but with the new Laws coming in, I dread the overhaul).

 

Michael.

[cherdano]

I am holding my breath for Kaplan inversion being allowed B)

[keylime]

I'd like to see just a few things added to the GCC.

 

1. Transfers over 1♣, regardless of the strength of 1♣. I think the world can handle that.

2. 2 suited preempts, if both suits are known or a specific combination of 2 suiters possible.

3. I don't know if the Multi would be too much of a shift to assimilate, but I do think that defenses against 1NT should be gradually unrestricted.

4. I'd like delayed alerts to start at 4NT and not 3NT - for the sake of disclosure (I do understand the rationale behind it currently).

5. Lastly, Kaplan Interchange would be greatly appreciated here.

[jtfanclub]

2. 2 suited preempts, if both suits are known or a specific combination of 2 suiters possible.

 

I think all 2 suited pre-empts in which the state of the suit bid is known should be legal. In other words, 2♥ would be legal if it showed hearts and another, or if it showed two suits neither of which can be hearts.

 

There are lots of other things that should be legalized, but I'm not sure I like "anything" allowed over 1NT. I don't mind anything that can be quickly and easily explained for a given bid.

[TylerE]

I'd like to see transfers legal, period. That is, any bid that transfers to either the next, or the next but one suit, and shows equivilant to a legal natural bid.

 

That is to say, transfers over, say, a forcing 1♣ could be on a zero count, but 5+ over a natural/prepertory 1♣

 

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

[foo]

I'd like to see transfers legal, period. That is, any bid that transfers to either the next, or the next but one suit, and shows equivilant to a legal natural bid.

 

That is to say, transfers over, say, a forcing 1♣ could be on a zero count, but 5+ over a natural/prepertory 1♣

 

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

I have never understood the logic behind banning transfers in any bidding situation. On bridge grounds, there simply is no reason to advocate banning them.

 

 

As far as the change in NT defense regulations that started this thread, that is also overdue IMHO.

 

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

[pclayton]

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

Transfer preempts are midchart legal although they aren't the most intelligent call ever devised.

[hrothgar]

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

Transfer preempts are midchart legal although they aren't the most intelligent call ever devised.

And transfer openings at the one level are inherently "destructive"

[Elianna]

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

Transfer preempts are midchart legal although they aren't the most intelligent call ever devised.

Oh, but they're much better when they could show either the suit you bid or the suit you're transferring to. :D

 

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

 

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example?

[foo]

Also this would allow things like transfer preempts.

Transfer preempts are midchart legal although they aren't the most intelligent call ever devised.

And transfer openings at the one level are inherently "destructive"

Bah Humbug. Transfer openings are less "destructive" than "natural" openings are. They use less space and are easier to defend against.

 

Unless or until pass is a transfer to 1C and 1S is a fert, the ACBL C&CC's position on this makes no sense.

[foo]

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

 

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example?

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

 

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

[pclayton]

The important issue there is that defenders have an ethical obligation to see to it that the other side has access to truly adequate defenses vs their methods.

 

If the opps haven't looked up/discussed defenses to NT overcalls, that's not my responsibility unless it's made to be by the regulating authority (for example, certain ACBL midchart conventions). Why should I have to tell them a defense to all natural bidding over their NT, for example?

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

 

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

Ethics doesn't enter into it. If its a defensive convention listed as Midchart, then you have to provide a defense. Otherwise you don't.

 

Matt and I will have at least 4 pre-alerts in SF and I'm only bringing a defense for one.

[blackshoe]

I never said users have to hand out defenses. Especially to common conventions. But if you are using something not well known or not reasonably expected to be well known (and "natural" certainly should be), you have an ethical obligation to make sure there is a good defense available.

 

The average player does not know Raptor or Suction or ... vs NT. Unfamiliarity should not be the reason those conventions score well. Using them more skillfully than the opponents use the reasonable defenses to them should be.

I agree with your second paragraph. I disagree with your first. Your ethical obligation is to inform your opponents of the meanings of calls in your system in sufficient time (as specified by the SO) for them to devise their own defenses. For many players the method will be reference to authority, or "by guess and by God" rather than rational thought, but that's their choice. :(

[kenrexford]

Well, so much for that. It was defeated 6-18-1. Not sure why someone abstained...

[JanM]

I think that the motion was defeated because a substantial majority of the ACBL BoD thought that things like this should go through the Conventions & Competitions Committee, where they can be fully discussed and combined with other changes, not decided without any serious discussion as a result of a motion before the Board because one particular Board member is in favor of his or her pet convention being allowed. The ACBL Board appoints several committees, on which players serve with no compensation and little thanks. If it starts ignoring those committees and just regulating based on what one Board member wants and can persuade others to agree to, very few players will accept appointment to these committees and they will become useless.

So if you really want change in what is and is not GCC legal, the place to go is the C&C committee, which can consider your request along with everyone else's.