General Convention Chart

[TimG]

The ACBL General Convention Chart does not seem to me to allow a Standard American 1H opening bid. I thought there used to be something about natural openings being allowed, but I can't find it.

[rbforster]

...or a standard weak two bids either, like 2D or 2H. Unless you read their definitions of "natural" for openings and overcalls as permitting all natural bids (a reasonable interpretation, but not spelled out), there's no provision that allows these normal openings.

[kenrexford]

You're starting to get closer to some GCC manipulation options, I can tell. Keep thinking through things.

 

As an example, where does a treatment fall? Can you define a treatment so as to actually allow a "convention" to be played that is really not a "convention," even if alternatively defined as a convention?

[TimG]

...or a standard weak two bids either, like 2D or 2H. Unless you read their definitions of "natural" for openings and overcalls as permitting all natural bids (a reasonable interpretation, but not spelled out), there's no provision that allows these normal openings.

I think that used to be part of the definitions or an item under "allowed".

 

If one were to assume from this that all natural openings are allowed, a 2H opening which shows 5+ hearts and a 4-card minor would be allowed. (It fits the given definition of natural.) But, if that were the case, why would:

 

"12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a

4-card minor. (2)"

 

be a mid-chart item (requiring an approved defense)?

[LH2650]

This keeps popping up, so I'll repeat the standard answer. In the old Laws, the sponsoring organization was authorized to regulate conventions, and the Laws contained a definition. The Standard American 1♥ opening bid did not meet the definition, so there was no authority to regulate it.

 

The new Laws allow the Regulating Authority to prohibit anything, as a "special partnership understanding", but that requires action, and the ACBL has not yet disallowed the Standard American 1♥ opening bid.

[rbforster]

This keeps popping up, so I'll repeat the standard answer. In the old Laws, the sponsoring organization was authorized to regulate conventions, and the Laws contained a definition. The Standard American 1♥ opening bid did not meet the definition, so there was no authority to regulate it.

 

The new Laws allow the Regulating Authority to prohibit anything, as a "special partnership understanding", but that requires action, and the ACBL has not yet disallowed the Standard American 1♥ opening bid.

Thanks for the explanation. So we are to assume that non-conventional bids are allowed unless specifically disallowed by the Regulating Authority? Which/whose definition of conventional should we use - can you point me to where to look for this? Much appreciated.

[ArtK78]

From the ACBL General Convention Chart:

 

DEFINITIONS

 

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it

shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more

cards in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced

(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

 

2. An overcall in a suit is considered natural if, by agreement, it shows four

or more cards in the denomination named.

[TimG]

This keeps popping up, so I'll repeat the standard answer. In the old Laws, the sponsoring organization was authorized to regulate conventions, and the Laws contained a definition. The Standard American 1♥ opening bid did not meet the definition, so there was no authority to regulate it.

 

The new Laws allow the Regulating Authority to prohibit anything, as a "special partnership understanding", but that requires action, and the ACBL has not yet disallowed the Standard American 1♥ opening bid.

That all may be true, but the GCC says:

 

"ALLOWED   Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed  "

 

(Those funny characters are stars.) Which sure sounds like they have taken action to prohibit everything not specifically listed as allowed.

[blackshoe]

The current GCC was written before the current laws came into effect. It has not been amended since. In the context of the 1997 laws, where "convention" was defined and the regulation of natural (i.e., not conventional) calls was not permitted, the statement about what's allowed or disallowed refers only to conventional bids. As someone else pointed out upthread, the current laws do allow regulation of natural bids, but such bids have to be explicitly and specifically declared by the RA as "special partnership understandings" in any such regulation. No such natural bids are so designated in the GCC (or any other ACBL regulation) so the ACBL has not yet chosen to regulate any natural bids. Therefore, any argument that natural bids are prohibited under the GCC is specious. Let's find something else to argue about. :D

[TimG]

The current GCC was written before the current laws came into effect. It has not been amended since. In the context of the 1997 laws, where "convention" was defined and the regulation of natural (i.e., not conventional) calls was not permitted, the statement about what's allowed or disallowed refers only to conventional bids. As someone else pointed out upthread, the current laws do allow regulation of natural bids, but such bids have to be explicitly and specifically declared by the RA as "special partnership understandings" in any such regulation. No such natural bids are so designated in the GCC (or any other ACBL regulation) so the ACBL has not yet chosen to regulate any natural bids. Therefore, any argument that natural bids are prohibited under the GCC is specious. Let's find something else to argue about. :D

It used to be that a call was either "natural" or "artificial" and that a "conventional call" could be either "natural" or "artificial". I seem to think that has changed and that now "natural" and "conventional" are opposites. Is that right?

 

The GCC defines "natural" for the purposes of the ACBL convention charts. If we are to assume natural bids are allowed, than why isn't a 2M opening which shows that major plus a minor not allowed? It fits the ACBL definition of natural. Is the Law definition of natural different from the ACBL definition of natural resulting in dual meanings for the purposes of ACBL convention charts? I guess that would really mean that the first two definitions on the ACBL GCC are to be ignored?

[H_KARLUK]

The ACBL General Convention Chart does not seem to me to allow a Standard American 1H opening bid.  I thought there used to be something about natural openings being allowed, but I can't find it.

Your post reminds me A Few Good Men (1992). Directed by Rob Reiner. With Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore.

 

In this dramatic courtroom thriller, Lt. Daniel Kaffee, a Navy lawyer who has never seen the inside of the courtroom, defends two stubborn Marines who have been accused of murdering a colleague. Kaffee is known as being lazy and had arranged for a plea bargain. Downey's Aunt Ginny appoints Cmdr. Galloway to represent him. Also on the legal staff is Lt. Sam Weinberg. The team rounds up many facts and Kaffee is discovering that he is really cut out for trial work. The defense is originally based upon the fact that PFC Santiago, the victim, was given a "CODE RED". Santiago was basically a screw-up. At Gitmo, screw-ups aren't tolerated. Especially by Col. Nathan Jessup. In Cuba, Jessup and two senior officers try to give all the help they can, but Kaffee knows something's fishy. In the conclusion of the film, the fireworks are set off by a confrontation between Jessup and Kaffee.

 

Memorable quotes :

 

Capt. Ross(prosecuting attorney);Lt Kaffee(defense lawyer)

 

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?

Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.

Capt. Ross: You've read it?

Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.

Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?

Cpl. Barnes: Sir?

Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.

Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don't think that...

Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?

Cpl. Barnes: No sir.

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?

Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.

Capt. Ross: No further questions.

[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]

Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.

Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffee, that's not in the book either, sir.

Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?

Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.

Kaffee: Well, I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn't in this book?

Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.

Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

[kenrexford]

The insanity of the laws is starting to emerge.

 

A bid is called conventional under certaun circumstances that I cannot quite understand. A bid is called "natural" if it shows the suit bid, unless that fact is merely coincidental, in a sense. A bid is stil "natural" if the bid is somehow primarily natural but a "treatment."

 

So, for instance, you cannot play that a 2♥ opening shows 5+ hearts and 4+ of a minor, 11-15 HCP. However, you can play that 2♥ shows 5+ hearts with 11-15 HCP. You can also have a treatment limitation as to when and why you would open 2♥ rather than 1♥. If that treatment is that you only open 2♥ when you also have a 4-card minor, this is not allowed. If you play that you only open 2♥ if unbalanced, that is OK, just like only opening 1♦ if unbalanced is OK.

 

If you then play that 2♥ denies four spades, that is also OK.

 

This limits you to hands with 5+ hearts and 4+ of a minor, unless you have 6331 or 7+ hearts.

 

So, then the question is whether 2♥ can also deny 6331 or 7+ hearts. If not, then you can still get away with it, in a sense. You simply must dedicate a response to show this pattern and then avoid it like the plague. For instance, if 2NT would "ask for the minor," it should instead "ask about shape." You then need to, for instance, give up on a 3NT rebid option, dedicating to that call the "6331 or 7+" meaning, or something like that.

 

This may sound like gibberish. However, I ultimately persuaded a very well-known former national tournament director (I cannot remember his name; he passed away but used to write a column in the Bulletin) that this was correct and allowed, thereby wedging in the essential equivalent of the Roman 2♥ opening into GCC. My partner and I even made the effort to open 2♥ once or twice with the trouble 6331 or 7+ pattern, just to maintain integrity.

 

A lot of wiggle room exists, then, in the GCC, so long as you know how to precisely define calls.

 

Another example of manipulating the GCC is to define a 2♠ response to a 2♥ opening as an asking bid. You provide answers that all fall below or at 3♥. This then becomes somewhat of a "psychic control," except that it is no longer controlling a psychic because 2♠ is not a psychic but an asking bid.

 

You can even take this a step further and define one response to the "asking bid" as a pass. In this manner, foir instance, 2♠ asks a question, and Opener passes to show something defined. The TD's then asked why passing would ever make sense as an option to an asking bid. The answer is that this is (I use a term that I coined back then) a "steppingstone bid." A "steppingstone bid" is one where the opponents, for bridge reasons, must double you to find out your meaning. Hence, you pre-anticipate the need of the opponents to keep the auction alive into your structure, allowing you one extra level of space to define Opener's hand patterns. Since this is constructive (I have five responses rather than four now), this all becomes legitimate.

 

Now, on the one hand, someone could say that this is somehow bad stuff, to play games with the GCC. Except, the GCC makes no sense. Why interpret it in a manner that limits you if another reasonable interpretation does not. Just because the general guess would be otherwise? That seems dumb. If you add in the ability to pre-discuss and gain prior approval for methods, what's the problem?

 

I mean, the "problem" might be that the other guy cannot figurte out this nonsense document, and think outside the box, sufficiently, which gives what is really an unfair, lawyer-like advantage. Well, maybe enough of us doing that would force the ACBL and the rest of the bridge world to fix the stupid problem sensibly.

[Cascade]

On a related topic...

 

What exactly does:

 

"ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening

bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points."

 

mean?

 

Is this what licenses a short 1♣?

 

These 1♣ and 1♦ are allowed to be either artificial or natural - which seems to allow for Standard American 1♣, Precision 1♣, Precision 1♦, by symmetry strong 1♦ systems would be allowed.

 

Or am misunderstanding this.

 

Since these 1♣ and 1♦ bids are specifically allowed to be artificial would 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades be allowed.

 

Say 1♣ = 4+ hearts or balanced

 

1♦ = 4+ spades or balanced

 

These seem to be identical to Standard American short 1♣ and Precision 1♦ except that the non-balanced meaning is "artificial" rather than "natural" and since "artificial" is specifically allowed I can't see why these definitions would be not allowed.

[TimG]

Since these 1♣ and 1♦ bids are specifically allowed to be artificial would 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades be allowed.

I asked ACBL whether a 1C opening which showed exactly four spades (10+ points, etc.) would be allowed under this "all-purpose" clause. The answer (from Rick Beye) was "no".

[Cascade]

Since these 1♣ and 1♦ bids are specifically allowed to be artificial would 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades be allowed.

I asked ACBL whether a 1C opening which showed exactly four spades (10+ points, etc.) would be allowed under this "all-purpose" clause. The answer (from Rick Beye) was "no".

Again the problem is no one knows where the boundary is.

 

I certainly can't see the difference between 1♣ showing clubs or balanced AND the same bid showing hearts (or spades) or balanced.

[DrTodd13]

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid. The system would be utter crap holistically as results goes but would still be legal unless you run afoul of the generic "failure to try to get a good score" rule. A panel of judges gives a score for each system from 1 to 5, 5 being the most ridiculous system. Add to that the number of director calls you get when you actually try to use the system. 3 points for each director call where they rule your GCC-legal bid isn't GCC-legal. Add to that how many other pairs you manage to beat. Top cumulative amount is the winner.

[TimG]

Since these 1♣ and 1♦ bids are specifically allowed to be artificial would 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades be allowed.

I asked ACBL whether a 1C opening which showed exactly four spades (10+ points, etc.) would be allowed under this "all-purpose" clause. The answer (from Rick Beye) was "no".

Again the problem is no one knows where the boundary is.

 

I certainly can't see the difference between 1♣ showing clubs or balanced AND the same bid showing hearts (or spades) or balanced.

The odd part to me isn't that it is not GCC-legal, but that it skips right over mid-chart and belongs in SuperChart.

[kenrexford]

Since these 1♣ and 1♦ bids are specifically allowed to be artificial would 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades be allowed.

I asked ACBL whether a 1C opening which showed exactly four spades (10+ points, etc.) would be allowed under this "all-purpose" clause. The answer (from Rick Beye) was "no".

The answer from Rick Beye is wrong. Or, the meaning of the GCC has changed over the years from what is once meant, because people interpreting clear language come to different conclusions randomly.

 

"All Purpose" used to mean "all purpose." Now, according to RB, "all purpose" means "all purpose except for the one you want to play, if I don't like it."

[jdonn]

I always thought it would be fun to cobble together a GCC-legal system where for each bid you search around and find (or create) the most bizarre yet still legal use of each bid. The system would be utter crap holistically as results goes but would still be legal unless you run afoul of the generic "failure to try to get a good score" rule. A panel of judges gives a score for each system from 1 to 5, 5 being the most ridiculous system. Add to that the number of director calls you get when you actually try to use the system. 3 points for each director call where they rule your GCC-legal bid isn't GCC-legal. Add to that how many other pairs you manage to beat. Top cumulative amount is the winner.

I think that would actually be fun.

 

I used to play with my dad sometimes, in club games, that we used no conventions at all. All doubles penalty, all jumps stronger than not jumping, jumping another level even stronger.

 

The two best stories were I got to overcall 2NT natural, and we got 1100 from the auction 1♥ (penalty double) 1♠ (penalty double) all pass.

[DrTodd13]

I actually ran into a pair once playing a 7-8HCP balanced 2NT opening.

[JoAnneM]

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing? I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

 

BTW, Rick Beye is no longer head honcho for the ACBL Directors and they are in a "transition" period which I finally tracked down was where my "picky" emails from ACBL were coming from recently.

[hrothgar]

I actually ran into a pair once playing a 7-8HCP balanced 2NT opening.

I knew a couple pairs around Boston who were playing the same

(Only in 2nd seat, only white versus red)

 

I think it was more for amusement value than anything else

[blackshoe]

The insanity of the laws is starting to emerge.

 

A bid is called conventional under certaun circumstances that I cannot quite understand. A bid is called "natural" if it shows the suit bid, unless that fact is merely coincidental, in a sense. A bid is stil "natural" if the bid is somehow primarily natural but a "treatment."

 

[snip]

 

I mean, the "problem" might be that the other guy cannot figurte out this nonsense document, and think outside the box, sufficiently, which gives what is really an unfair, lawyer-like advantage. Well, maybe enough of us doing that would force the ACBL and the rest of the bridge world to fix the stupid problem sensibly.

The term "conventional" is no longer defined in the laws, and only appears there in one place - Law 40B1(:P, which says that the term "special partnership understandings" incudss conventions.

 

The definition of "convention" in the previous laws had its difficulties. The lawmakers are trying to move away from use of the term, I think, but they missed this one.

 

None of that makes the law book "nonsense".

[barmar]

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing? I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

Non-forcing 1NT is a natural bid, not a convention, so it's not regulated by the GCC. The section you refer to is saying that a forcing 1NT opening is also allowed.

[rbforster]

How many play that opening 1NT is forcing?  I don't know anyone but that is what it is call in the GCC - Forcing 1NT Opening Bid.

Non-forcing 1NT is a natural bid, not a convention, so it's not regulated by the GCC. The section you refer to is saying that a forcing 1NT opening is also allowed.

I'm not sure if the GCC gets to regulate what the ACBL calls natural since natural bids aren't supposed to be regulated, but that issue aside...

 

if you're opening 1NT with a balanced hand (which GCC says is generally no singleton, void, or >2 doubletons), you can do it by agreement on any hands with at least 8 points. The point of the "forcing NT opening" is to allow you to open 1NT on unbalanced hands as a strong artificial opening similar to the strong 1♣ or 2♣ openings used in more standard systems.