Fantoni-Nunes GCC status

[DrTodd13]

What is the current thoughts on the GCC legality of their system? Even their 2♣ bid which is very much like precision I have trouble finding where that is allowed in the GCC. Everything not specifically allowed is forbidden.

[blackshoe]

Can you provide a link to their card or system notes?

 

Yes, I can use Google. I'm lazy. :rolleyes:

[DrTodd13]

Opening Summary:

 

1C = 15+ balanced (4333/4432/5m332), or 14+ value 5+C/444-1red, F1

1D = 14+ value 5+D or 444-1black, F1

1H = 14+ value 5+H (12+ if 4S), F1

1S = 14+ value 5+S (12+ if 4+H), F1

1N = 12-14, any 5422 ok except both M's, 6m ok, all 4441's (!)

2C = 10-13 value, 5C-4other unbalanced, or 6+C (5C-5S has opened 2C before)

2D = 10-13 value, 5D-4M/4+m unbalanced, or 6+D

2M = 10-13 value, 5M-4+m unbalanced, or 6+M

2N = 21-22 bal

3y/4y = pree

3N = was solid 7+crd minor nothing on side

 

From Dan's page.

[Mbodell]

Not an expert on GCC or ACBL rules but I think only parts of the system are legal. Here goes:

 

1C = 15+ balanced (4333/4432/5m332), or 14+ value 5+C/444-1red, F1

 

Allowed by 1.

 

1D = 14+ value 5+D or 444-1black, F1

 

I don't think this allowed in conjunction with above because of the F1 nature. It may be you can use both ♣ and ♦ as forcing 1 strong bids in GCC, but the wording suggests you can only use one of them like this.

 

1H = 14+ value 5+H (12+ if 4S), F1

1S = 14+ value 5+S (12+ if 4+H), F1

 

I don't think this is allowed to be F1. And if it is and the responses are at all artificial and/or conventional then the responses aren't allowed unless the opening bid guarantees 15+.

 

 

1N = 12-14, any 5422 ok except both M's, 6m ok, all 4441's (!)

 

I wish this were allowed, but I think it isn't. There is ambiguous language about how "A notrump opening ... is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." So 6322 is ok but 6331 and 4441 is not ok.

 

2C = 10-13 value, 5C-4other unbalanced, or 6+C (5C-5S has opened 2C before)

2D = 10-13 value, 5D-4M/4+m unbalanced, or 6+D

2M = 10-13 value, 5M-4+m unbalanced, or 6+M

 

These are all allowed I think. For weak 2s you can't be 5M/4m only but can be 5M/4m OR 6M in GCC and the fact that these are 10+ probably gives you more flexibility too.

 

2N = 21-22 bal

 

Allowed as long as 4441 isn't bal.

 

3y/4y = pree

3N = was solid 7+crd minor nothing on side

 

Allowed.

 

From Dan's page.

[Gerben42]

1♦♥♠ should be allowed because these are natural openings, and the ACBL can only regulate conventions.

 

The responses to 1♣ may not be allowed, the rest is similar to 2/1 GF so obviously allowed.

 

Alternative responses (www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/mosca.html) ARE allowed:

 

1♣ - ?

 

1♦ = 0 - 5 or inv. without 4M

1M = nat. 6+, can have longer m

1N = 6 - 8

2m = Natural GF

2♥ = 5♠ 4♥

2♠ (okay this one is probably not allowed but possible to adjust this): 6 - 8, 5-4 m

2N = Nat. GF

3m = 6 - 8, 6-card

[DrTodd13]

What I find odd is that the more narrowly restricted a bid's definition is, the easier it should be to devise a defense against it. Would 2♣ showing ONLY 5♣ and 4M be illegal yet add another possibility, namely 6♣, and suddenly a bid theoretically more difficult to defend against is legal?

[Finch]

1♦♥♠ should be allowed because these are natural openings, and the ACBL can only regulate conventions.

Yes, but the ACBL can prevent any conventional continuations if they want (and under the new laws they can prevent them anyway).

 

When F-N's system first became better known I noticed that the EBU regulations didn't appear to permit the forcing natural 1-level openings and we swiftly changed the wording on the basis that they can hardly be more difficult to defend against than a non-forcing natural 1-level opening.

[Mbodell]

1♦♥♠ should be allowed because these are natural openings, and the ACBL can only regulate conventions.

If they were NF they'd all be allowed. Because they are F1 I'm not so sure they stay natural and non-conventional. But I'm not an expert. Consult with ACBL officials until you get the ruling you like. :)

[Gerben42]

My problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't explicitly allow "natural" opening bids. It DOES state what natural means for an opening bid, and there is no mention of forcing or not forcing.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

The 2-bids in practice are fine, just precision 2C style for all 4 suits. A 2C precision opening (5C + 4other or 6+C) is not allowed in GCC explicitly but interpreted as coming under the umbrella.

 

Harry Falk, a major ACBL director, allowed me to play the forcing 1-level openings with standard type responses in a GCC event, and we packaged the 4441's into the 2m openings since that was clearly a no-no. In fact, I seem to recall earlier incarnations of F-N used 2m for the 4441's.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[rbforster]

There's nothing that precludes natural bids from being forcing or non-forcing. The 1♦♥♠ openings under F-N are natural and forcing (4+/5+/5+) and these are fine.

 

1N = 12-14, any 5422 ok except both M's, 6m ok, all 4441's (!)

Some people might take issue with opening all the 4441's in the 12-14 1NT (about 10% of your 1NT openers will have a singleton).

 

The continuations from the original F-N system are often artificial and weak (usually first step in response to a forcing opening), and unless this happens to be a 1♦ or 1NT response, these won't be GCC.

[Gerben42]

Some people might take issue with opening all the 4441's in the 12-14 1NT (about 10% of your 1NT openers will have a singleton).

 

If you lower the standard for the 1-level to rule-of-22 as in my version, you can just pass the 4441 hands and nothing bad will happen to you other than getting some weird looks when this hand becomes dummy... If desired I can publish a GCC-version of my F-N system.

[DrTodd13]

That would be great. Thanks! And give the answer to that other thread you started about the hand that got away.

[Gerben42]

I put a GCC-legal variation online:

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/fantunesgcc.pdf

 

I think that'll work, although I'm not really happy with the GCC straight-jacket. Since I've updated the "simple" version, feel free to take conventions from the full version like Gazilli and Condensed Transfers. If you want to make a "full" GCC version, that's fine as long as you send it to me when you're done :) I can provide the .tex-file for the simple version if needed.

 

4441 hands are a problem and are usually passed up to 13 HCP. If this is a problem, you might get away with opening 1♦ and passing any weak response, and going down if partner forces to game... I heard opening 1NT and say you used "judgement" is not a legal practice?

[blackshoe]

I heard opening 1NT and say you used "judgement" is not a legal practice [in the ACBL]?

That is incorrect. Mostly. The ACBLScore Tech Files say

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.  What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands.

 

Repeated openings with a singleton by any player will tend to create this implicit and illegal agreement with his partner, and he may be proscribed from the practice if his reputation precedes him.  Also forbidden is any set of agreements which force opening NT without a balanced hand, as mentioned in (1) above.

 

The reference is to a previous comment, not repeated here, which basically says that if your other agreements make it necessary to open a purportedly natural 1NT with an unbalanced hand, the entire set of agreements is illegal.

[rbforster]

Remember too when considering the off-shape 1NT issue, that the vast majority of ACBL experts will open a strong 2NT (20-21) with singletons and/or other semibalanced shapes. This only goes double for 22-24 4441's where typical strong 2♣ methods have no good ways of showing these hands and 2♣...2N may be the best description (and hence technically constitute an illegal agreement except that it comes up so rarely and in practice no one cares). I think it's a pretty clear double standard that "everyone knows you can open 2N with a singleton sometimes" but that critics will hassle those trying to include 4441's or 5431's routinely in their 1NT openings.

 

If I were asked/hassled about this 4441 issue, I'd add a scattered 10 HCP to the hand and ask some experts (or the critic) if they'd bid 2N or 2♣...2N with it. If that's the expert treatment, it must be ok right?

[Gerben42]

The whole problem with the 4441 issue is this: these hands do usually not come up more than once in a session or even a tournament.

 

Also I think that not much is "lost" when you just pass these hands. Maybe it would be good if a lot of people try the "pass" on such hands and see how they fare.

[samuelgl]

hi, all, does anyone give me a link of GCC? Thanks.

[inquiry]

hi, all, does anyone give me a link of GCC? Thanks.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/units...vChart12_03.pdf is a link to the GCC... note, you will need adobe reader to read this.

[jtfanclub]

hi, all, does anyone give me a link of GCC?  Thanks.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/units...vChart12_03.pdf is a link to the GCC... note, you will need adobe reader to read this.

HTML: http://www.d21acbl.com/References/Conventi...Conventions.htm

[blackshoe]

hi, all, does anyone give me a link of GCC?  Thanks.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/units...vChart12_03.pdf is a link to the GCC... note, you will need adobe reader to read this.

That particular version of the ACBL convention charts has been superseded at least once. I think the latest version is here.

 

Edit: actually, the latest version is in the minutes of the Detroit BoD meeting, but it doesn't go into effect (and is not, I'm told "ready for publication" yet) until July. I forget the exact date.

Edited May 28, 2008 by blackshoe

[samuelgl]

Thanks to inquiry, jtfanclub and blackshoe. Thanks agian.

[Gerben42]

In the USBF trials I saw a player opening 1NT with a singleton. No director was called. Are they using different rules?

[helene_t]

In the USBF trials I saw a player opening 1NT with a singleton. No director was called. Are they using different rules?

My guess would be that the USBF trials are not GCC :wacko:

[jtfanclub]

In the USBF trials I saw a player opening 1NT with a singleton. No director was called. Are they using different rules?

You're allowed to open 1NT with a singleton, even in GCC. Just can't do it very often or have a method to field the singleton. Kind of a weird half-psyche.