General Convention Chart

[xcurt]

From the standpoint of defending against artificial 1m calls -- with Tim's proposed method (1♣ showing spades) responder knows something about a specific suit in opener's hand, and can do things like bid

 

1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

 

If 1♣ is one of the Precision Club/Polish Club/could-be-short-but-ostensibly-natural methods, responder knows something about the general parameters of opener's hand, but there are enough different shapes and primary suits in there that responder is hard pressed to place the strain unless he has his own self-sufficient suit.

 

Maybe "all-purpose" is poorly worded but since we cannot create complete contracts, probably not even if we return to a convention chart that is an enumeration of allowed methods -- and that would be far worse than what we have now -- this is a problem without a good solution.

 

Maybe what we need is a commentary on the charts from the C&C committee explaining the logic and giving mad scientists some idea of what's going to be allowed in actual play.

 

Curt

[H_KARLUK]

I read all posts. Then I acknowledged Jim Davis (American Actor. 1915-1981) to be right. He quoted that “Good morning is a contradiction of terms”.

 

I do not see even a small unfair thing about WBF & ACBL decisions. I and my fianceee especially will go on to support ACBL on BBO. This will not change when i start to live in USA.

[TimG]

From the standpoint of defending against artificial 1m calls -- with Tim's proposed method (1♣ showing spades) responder knows something about a specific suit in opener's hand, and can do things like bid

 

1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal.

 

I would expect that it is easier to defend against 1C = exactly 4 spades than 1D = 0+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand. Easier but for the unfamiliarity, that is.

 

It is sort of funny that you are arguing that 1C = 4 spades should not be allowed because it shows a suit which makes things easier for the opening side. But, when people want to play methods like 2D = weak with either major, you will now claim that this shouldn't be allowed because an opening with no known suit is hard to defend against.

[Cascade]

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

 

It is not intended to satisfy you.

Just to get the context clear this is what I was responding to:

 

"The ACBL has gone the other way, describing in general, and sometimes vague, terms what is allowed and disallowed. Players and Directors are expected to infer the intent. "

 

Are you satisfied by the fuzzy rules and the problems they cause.

 

 

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

 

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

 

You are not one of them.

 

True but I have played in ACBL games.

 

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

 

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

 

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

 

Its not really relevant to my argument. You say "live in the loopholes" as if it is clear what is a loophole. The problem is that it is not clear whether a method is part of the "loopholes" or whether it is allowed by the chart.

 

Even if the percentages for the above are small there is another group of regular players that believe methods that there opponents legitimately play are not allowed and complain and sometimes cause an unnecessary fuss. The methods they complain about are things like: Polish Club; non-standard NT ranges; offshape NTs; 'multi' openings that are not multi etc.

 

However even if the percentages are small these problems could be easily eliminated if the convention chart was clear and therefore better for everyone not just those who wish to experiment with system.

 

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole.

 

He did no such thing. The loophole is not closed. The GCC is as ambiguous as it was before Rick Beye expressed an opinion.

 

He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been  "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

 

The right thing would be to change the GCC properly. Issuing a document that allows certain actions and then allowing someone to override that on some whim (however valid or not you believe a particular decision is) is a very dangerous situation.

 

If it is right to disallow methods that the GCC allows then it is much better to ammend the GCC than expect players to "infer the intent".

 

How are players and directors on the ground supposed to know what Rick Beye said in some private correspondence?

 

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

 

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

 

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

 

I am not trying to make a judgement on whether or not any particular decision is good or bad.

 

Nor am I trying to pick on the ACBL or its GCC. Similar problems occur elsewhere.

 

I simply believe that regulations should say what they mean and mean what they say.

[xcurt]

...

1♣-P-3♠ preemptive

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal.

You're arguing that any convention theoretically worse than the natural treatment should be allowed because, well, it's easier to defend against than the corresponding natural method.

 

I would expect that it is easier to defend against 1C = exactly 4 spades than 1D = 0+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand.  Easier but for the unfamiliarity, that is.

That's the point of the charts. We're playing bridge, not "Game Theory of Bridge Bidding ."

 

It is sort of funny that you are arguing that 1C = 4 spades should not be allowed because it shows a suit which makes things easier for the opening side.  But, when people want to play methods like 2D = weak with either major, you will now claim that this shouldn't be allowed because an opening with no known suit is hard to defend against.

 

The point is not whether the opening bid shows a suit, or suits. The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening. Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

[mrdct]

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

 

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

Sure there probably aren't a lot of people amongst "club players" who would want to explore loopholes in system regulations or play 1♣=♠, but when it comes to being interested in experiencing playing against methods which are a bit different I would expect a significant majority would be ambivolent.

 

Of the minority there may well be a few that are turned off the game by the stress of dealing with something different, but I think a greater number would be genuinely interested in playing against something different.

 

The other comment I would make is that playing against 1♣=♠ sounds a lot easier to me than playing against, for example, a Polish 1♣ that includes several quite different sorts of hands that would take a fair bit of thought and preparation to work out the optimal defence; especially if you haven't had a chance to discuss anything with your partner.

[hrothgar]

As a player this seems totally unsatisfactory to me.

 

It is not intended to satisfy you.

 

As I understand it, the GCC is meant to be used in bridge clubs and lower level tournaments in North America.

 

It is intended to satisfy the 100K+ who play in ACBL GCC games. Most of these people are what you would call "club players". You, being a player who has represented New Zealand in the World Championships, play better than almost all of them. You also happen to be much much more interested, knowledgable, and experienced in terms of systems then almost all of them - perhaps even all of them.

 

You are not one of them.

 

I don't have hard data as usual. This may be difficult (since you are not one of them), but perhaps you can reflect on the time you spent as an ACBL TD and consider:

 

What % of the these GCC-types would you guess are interested in scouring the GCC for loopholes that they can exploit?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play the 1C=spades system if it was allowed?

 

What % of these GCC-types would want to play against this system or some of the other systems that live in the loopholes?

 

You know the answers to all these questions is "a very small percentage". Trust your judgment and experience even though you don't like what it says. You don't need hard data to know the answers.

 

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole. He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades. He did the right thing for the bridge clubs and tournaments who won't have deal with the potential disruption that would have occurred if Rick's answer had been "I guess GCC really does say that - you can play 1C=spades and feel free to play Pass=strong-but-not-forcing while you are at it!".

 

As you probably know, the ACBL considers BBO to be a "bridge club". In fact, we are the ACBL's biggest bridge club! As one of the managers of that club (where, as you know, GCC is played in all our ACBL games), I am grateful that there is someone as sensible as Rick Beye dealing with such things. In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

 

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be. That person would know from experience that what is exposed by the loophole is not of the flavor that ACBL tried to capture with GCC. It was probably not posed as a "serious question".

 

I am not trying to excuse bad wording or loopholes in documentation pertaining to system restrictions.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The GCC is completely irrelevant to club players.

 

Club owners allow whatever they please and ban whatever they please. The games they run might all be described as "bridge", but there are dramatic variations regarding what is/is not allowed.

 

This is all fine and dandy. Look back regarding the psots in this thread.

Few, if any care, what happens in their local club.

 

The purpose of the GCC is to allow players who normally compete in their own local clubs to compete against one another in broader tournament.

 

These players need clear guidance regarding what is/is not permissable. They need to understand what parts of the game are standard and what parts are a pipe dream concocted by the club owner.

[TimG]

The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening. Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc.

 

Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs.

 

Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

[xcurt]

The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening.  Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc.

 

Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs.

 

Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

You are talking about natural calls.

 

Besides, natural over their NT isn't awful. Landy is almost natural and I much prefer Landy to, say, Cappelletti.

 

Against opening suit bids at the 1-level I don't find the "standard" set of 2-suited overcalls to be that great. That doesn't mean leaving them undefined is best, but I could certainly defend, say, 1♥ natural just with takeout doubles and natural other calls.

[kenrexford]

Back in the early 90's, I played a version of canape. Many patterns were handled through the bids 1♥ through 2NT. However, there were some gap patterns. We also needed a strong, forcing opening.

 

The strong, forcing opening was originally 1♦, and then 1♣, and then 1♦. We bounced back and forth as the months passed.

 

In any event, the other one covered the gap patterns.

 

These gap patterns were, if I recall correctly, all limited hands, hands with just clubs or diamonds. We also handled hands with one 5+ major and one unknown 4+ minor if the hand was worth about five losers. We also handled a gap light balanced (12-15 or so).

 

This "all purpose" bid was necessary to make the entire system work. Everything except the "all purpose" opening was GCC compliant. The system was not made up; it was made up by someone but had been around for a while.

 

In any event, that meaning of either 1♣ or 1♦ was allowed back then, because of the "all purpose" language. This was not some attempt to be silly just to be silly. This was not some loophole sought after to take advantage of the GCC. This was a legitimate "nebulous 1♦" (or 1♣, depending) in the context of the version of canape we were playing (included many LTC-based tiers in the structure).

 

Back then, the most known national tournament director (Brian M-something, maybe) approved this approach as obviously allowed. He did not see some sort of difference between the words "all" and "any."

 

Now, however, it seems that some local who might not like it if Srcan and I were winning to much might be able to persuade the TD that "all" does not mean "any," and that the definitional difference between "all" and "any" is that "all" does not include this specific meaning we needed for our system to be used.

 

I mean, come on. If the meaning of "all purpose" is somehow limited beyond that which plain English suggests, then why is it not explained at least somewhat?

 

What you are missing is how wildly unfair this reinterpretation is. When Srcan introduced me to what he called "Rosso e Nerro," which is similar to Livorno, I checked to see if it was GCC compliant. I asked TD's. All was good. So, I spent a few years working on understanding this. If I then show up and have someone arbitrarily say that this is no longer allowed, because "all" does not mean "any," and all that time preparing is lost, and I have to play SAYC because of this, I get pissed off, for good reason.

[TimG]

The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening.  Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc.

 

Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs.

 

Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal.

You are talking about natural calls.

Indeed I am. That was my point.

[kenrexford]

Actually, a simpler example of the danger of Beye is easy. For years, I played Precision. After a while, however, I grew to dislike the three-pack combo of the 1♦, 2♣, and 2♦ openings, for reasons that many who play Precision will know (agree or not).

 

So, I restructured those three bids.

 

2♦ ended up showing a limited hand (intermediate) with both minors (at least 5-4). Completely GCC allowed.

 

2♣ became Mini-Roman (with a 2♦ asking bid). Completely GCC allowed.

 

What this did was to leave as a residue the 1♦ opening as (1) balanced but not the 13-15 range, or (2) either minor but not both minors (1♦...2♣ showed just clubs).

 

With "any" different from "all," that treatment might be subject to interpretation out of the GCC for no apparent reason.

 

When playing canape for about 10 years with another, simpler approach to Livorno/Rosso-e-Nerro, this same basic structure was adopted, as well. With the canape approach, however, 1♦ showed (1) either minor but not both, or (2) 3+ diamonds and a 5+ major (canape ♦ opening). This was approved for 10 years. Now, the Beye might deem this not covered by "all" even if covered by "any."

[fred]

How are players and directors on the ground supposed to know what Rick Beye said in some private correspondence?

If there is really a single person out there sufficiently out of touch with reality to think that "no forcing pass" gives them a green light to play "strong but not forcing pass" in GCC games, then I suppose what will happen is this:

 

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it

2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.

3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".

4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.

5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

 

In the more likely event that the person who discovers the loophole is not completely out of touch with reality, he can simply let the ACBL know that they have a wording problem and we can proceed directly to step 5) above.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

IMO Rick Beye did exactly the right thing by closing the loophole. He did the right thing for the 100K+ GCC players who don't want to deal with 1C=spades.

This is the kind of bad logic and reasoning that makes dealing with the ACBL Charts and officials so frustrating.

 

1. the 100K+ GCC players don't have the right not to "deal with 1C=spades" no more than they have the right not to "deal with" people playing Precision 1D, or 8-10 NT, or any number of other odd conventions that are allowed by the rules under GCC. Just because they might not like it doesn't mean it's not legal. I bet they don't like preempts either, why don't we ban those too? Better yet, why don't we say they're allowed as natural bids, but ban/sanction a non-pro whenever they bid one? That's more in the ACBL spirit I think.

 

2. it's not his job to "close the loophole." If a convention is allowed under the rules as written as an "all purpose" artificial opening, it's not his job go around making up subjective and arbitrary interpretations (which he does very very frequently if you look at the history of his responses to what people ask). If something "should be illegal", the laws need to be changed first and it's legal until then.

 

3. I'm sick and tired of selective enforcement of the laws against unknown/young players. Meckwell wanted to play 2♥ as a precision 2♦ opener, and magically it gets a defense approved for Midchart (when was the last time that happened?) and a special exception written in. I bet if they decided to play 1♣ was 16+ or 10-15 5+♦ it would be ruled an "all purpose opening," but if you're a nobody you have to play some famous person's system. Innovation is forbidden on the first 2 bids of the auction.

 

In my view it is 1000% that he made the right decision in this case.

I'm sure you think this based on what you wrote about "protecting the masses". But that's like convicting a poor black guy on trumped up charges because he was "probably guilty of something" - you know, for the general good. If the ACBL can't follow it's own laws, they should just admit they're a dictatorship where you must ask the C&C guys about every convention you want to play and they just tell you yes or no based on whim. There's no point in having laws if you don't follow them!

 

By the way, I think any ACBL member clever enough to find this loophole and interested enough in the 1C=spades system to ask Rick Beye, should (and would) have known in advance what Rick's answer would be.

Sure, but that's because his ridiculously inconsistent rulings are well known thanks to the internet. "No transfer opening are allowed!" is a standard response to even unrelated questions! And he's still wrong when the question is about 1m showing something artificial with 10+ points.

[Gerben42]

As an outsider, let me say that I find the GCC as it is currently written very tough to make heads or tails of. If it's too restrictive or not is none of my business.

 

I would start with something like:

ALLOWED:

 

1. A Natural opening bid that promise at least 10 HCP.

 

2. A Natural suit opening bid on the 2-level or higher that promise at least 5 cards in the bid suit.

 

3. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an opening bid showing one or more of:

a. A Natural opening bid with at least 10 HCP.

b. A balanced hand with at least 10 HCP.

c. A strong hand with at least 15 HCP.

 

4. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

 

5. STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER, showing at least 18 HCP.

 

6. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a. both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.

b. a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

 

7. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

 

8. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors.

 

9. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of

a. a solid suit or

b. a minor one-suiter.

 

10. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.

 

Now other than making things clearer, I think I haven't changed much. And this is much clearer, I think.

[rbforster]

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this. What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be. Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

 

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too. But it is simpler.

[TimG]

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

I don't find that a problem. It seems to be in the spirit of the GCC that players are not to be expected to defend against opening bids which may or may not be based upon length in the suit opened (except for 1C and 2C to allow strong hands). I think if we are to follow the unwritten spirit of the GCC the 0+ or 1+ Precision 1D should not be allowed.

 

I do have a two small nits to pick with Gerben's chart, however. Item 6a is redundant -- it is covered by item 7. And, I do not see why three-suited openings should be allowed for 2D and 2C only. I would combine 4 and 6b into one item and allow it for any suit opening at the 2-level. (I understand Gerben's choices were influenced by trying to duplicate the content of the current GCC, so that this second nit is a little off topic.)

[H_KARLUK]

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

 

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

 

Am I mistaken about classic demagogy methods? Long years passed.

 

Apples and oranges (like mixing of incomparable quantities), Half-truth, False authority, Unrelated facts, Emotional appeal or personal attack, Demonization, Loaded questions, mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization?

 

The worst "False dilemma — assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

 

You might knew well, populism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites."

 

The ACBL is strong. World Bridge Federation is strong. That's why their policies depend strong reasons.

 

They will always remain strong. Especially Americans never give up.

[DrTodd13]

Actually, a simpler example of the danger of Beye is easy. For years, I played Precision. After a while, however, I grew to dislike the three-pack combo of the 1♦, 2♣, and 2♦ openings, for reasons that many who play Precision will know (agree or not).

 

So, I restructured those three bids.

 

2♦ ended up showing a limited hand (intermediate) with both minors (at least 5-4). Completely GCC allowed.

 

2♣ became Mini-Roman (with a 2♦ asking bid). Completely GCC allowed.

 

What this did was to leave as a residue the 1♦ opening as (1) balanced but not the 13-15 range, or (2) either minor but not both minors (1♦...2♣ showed just clubs).

 

With "any" different from "all," that treatment might be subject to interpretation out of the GCC for no apparent reason.

 

When playing canape for about 10 years with another, simpler approach to Livorno/Rosso-e-Nerro, this same basic structure was adopted, as well. With the canape approach, however, 1♦ showed (1) either minor but not both, or (2) 3+ diamonds and a 5+ major (canape ♦ opening). This was approved for 10 years. Now, the Beye might deem this not covered by "all" even if covered by "any."

It isn't consistent we know but a lot of this is probably a snap judgment. If you describe it as you did where you needed a bid for the stuff left over then I would bet it would be classified as "all-purpose" and allowed. However, one would have trouble honestly describing a system where everything managed to get defined except intermediate hands with exactly 4 hearts. If you could it would probably be allowed. If you hear the description it sounds like that was one of the first bids defined, not the last. They wanted to allow various "catch-all" bids in 1♣ and 1♦. If you wanted to precisely define that term you probably couldn't do it but it is like pornography, they know a catch-all bid when they see it.

[Cascade]

How are players and directors on the ground supposed to know what Rick Beye said in some private correspondence?

If there is really a single person out there sufficiently out of touch with reality to think that "no forcing pass" gives them a green light to play "strong but not forcing pass" in GCC games, then I suppose what will happen is this:

 

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it

2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.

3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".

4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.

5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

 

In the more likely event that the person who discovers the loophole is not completely out of touch with reality, he can simply let the ACBL know that they have a wording problem and we can proceed directly to step 5) above.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred you are on record as saying that you are happy where the line has been drawn.

 

Now you are arguing that some things need to be changed.

 

With all due respect there is an obvious inconsistency in your reasoning.

[rbforster]

Funny Gerben, I was just wondering what the European perspective would be on all this.  What are those funny Americans doing with their rules that they can have pages of arguments over what is allowed, rather than what should be.  Just look it up in the orange book and check, right?

 

PS Your proposal just banned precision (no 1D 1+ ♦), and light openings too.  But it is simpler.

So Rob F, now time for populism and demagogy ? Gerben did not intend anything wrong. Besides he started with "As an outsider".

Huh? I wasn't criticizing his response - Gerben offered a simple and clearly worded proposal very similar to the GCC except without the ambiguity. My last remark was pointing out some of the differences between what some people play now and what would be allowed under his simplified version.

 

It's certainly good to have rules that are unambiguous - it avoids mistakes and misunderstandings and everyone can be clear on what they can play. That's why I was saying how the European bridge organizations have done a much better on this front than we (the US/ACBL) has with our Charts and their poor wording that makes it hard to know even if a natural 1♥ opener is allowed.

[fred]

Fred you are on record as saying that you are happy where the line has been drawn.

 

Now you are arguing that some things need to be changed.

 

With all due respect there is an obvious inconsistency in your reasoning.

I am not suggesting that the GCC line needs to be changed. I think it is fine where it is right now. If it moved a bit to the left or to the right, that would also be fine with me and I suspect it would be fine for most other GCC players too.

 

The line is fine. It is the way the line is drawn that I am suggesting has room for positive change (at least in terms of making the definition more exact - I would expect such change to be negative in terms of comprehensibility).

 

The line is certainly fuzzy in some areas. Removing that fuzziness can only be good, especially if/when the fuzziness exists in places where the intent is not obvious.

 

I certainly never claimed that the line is perfect or that it even makes any sense to try to drawn a perfect line. I think the line is getting the job done and I believe that most GCC players would agree.

 

That is why I am happy with it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

1) If that person is interested in playing strong pass in a GCC game they will try it

2) On approximately the 3rd board someone will call the director.

3) Probably the director will know how to handle this on his own. He will say something like "You can't play that in my game. Please contact ACBL if you don't like it".

4) If the director is uncertain he can contact ACBL himself.

5) However the ACBL comes to learn about this loophole, they will hopefully improve the wording of the GCC so that the loophole does not exist. They will do this using whatever mechanism they have in place for changing the GCC. It might not happen overnight. They will then distribute a new version of the GCC using whatever mechanism they have in place for doing this. It might not happen overnight.

Your story sounds very likely, except from part 5), I would bet against it happening...

[Benoit35]

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.

Sorry for puling this up from the first page, but... Just. Awesome.

 

Probably something that every player who aspires to improve should do at least once... Use logic skills and stop relying on those absurdly fancy Stayman and Blackwood conventions!

 

Fun thing is, I bet you spent the whole evening alerting... :blink:

[Cascade]

Here are some variations for 1♣/1♦ all of which I have seen played (almost all) or proposed (one or two). It is not intended as a complete list.

 

Does anyone know definitively which of these are GCC legal? I mean do you know not tell me your opinion. I am not for now interested in which you think are legal and which not just simply "Do you know?"

 

If you don't know or more importantly you suspect that no one (outside the Conventions Committee) or not very many people know then this highlights the problem with fuzzy regulations.

 

If you think nearly everyone will instinctively know then I guess the fuzzy regulations are good.

 

1. Acol or Goren etc

1♣/1♦ Natural 4+

 

2. Standard

1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds

1♦ Natural 3+ only three with precisely 4=4=3=2 distribution

 

3. Preferred Minor on suit quality

1♣ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand without four diamonds

1♦ Natural 3+ only three with a balanced hand can be 3=3 in the minors

 

4. Short Club

1♣ Natural or Balanced 2+

1♦ Natural

 

5. Precision

1♣ 16+ (or 13+ or whatever) unlimited distribution

1♦ Natural (can be canape with clubs)

 

6. Precision with short diamond

1♣ 16+ any

1♦ Natural or Balanced 2+

 

7. Precision with 1+ diamond

1♣ 16+ any

1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1

 

8. Precision with 0+ diamond

1♣ 16+ any

1♦ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1 or 4=4=0=5 with bad clubs

 

9. Symmetric Diamond (without the relays of course)

1♣ 16+ any

1♦ Two or three suit unbalanced no five-card major (in other words length in either minor)

 

10. Matchpoint Precision

1♣ 16+

1♦ Promises an undisclosed 4-card major

 

5-10 could be repeated (perhaps with some changes) for strong diamond systems.

 

11. Omnibus Club

1♣ Natural or Balanced or any 4-4-4-1

1♦ 5+

 

12. MidMac

1♣ Guarantees one or both 4-card major(s)

1♦ Denies a 4-card major

 

13. Diamond Major

1♣ Denies a 4-card major

1♦ Promises one or both 4-card major(s)

 

14. Transfer Openings

1♣ 4+ hearts

1♦ 4+ spades

 

15. Tied Major

1♣ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 hearts

1♦ balanced or long minor with exactly 4 spades

 

16. Canape

1♣ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major

1♦ Natural (3+) Canape - could have a 5+ major

 

17.

1♣ Natural or Balanced

1♦ Natural or Balanced

with Balaned open 1♣/♦ at random

 

18.

1♣ Natural or Balanced 12-14

1♦ Natural or Balanced 18-19

other ranges would be possible

 

19. Polish Club variations

1♣ Natural or Balanced or Artificial Strong

1♦ Natural

There are variations on this where 1♦ is less natural.