Legality of artificial openings and responses

[straube]

Thanks Fred

[jdonn]

jdonn not me said he would walk out or rather he would choose not to play that day when the real most likely possibility is that you would only become aware of that possibility part way through a session so the implication is that you would need to walk out if you were going to choose not to play.

To clarify, if I found out in the middle of the session that the director says I can't play something I thought I could play (this has happened to me once, and the director was completely correct), then by far my most likely course of action would be to finish the session playing something the director deems legal before deciding on any further course of action (which is what I did when it happened to me.) In fact, I have a hard time envisioning myself following any other course of action.

 

 

I want to make my final point in a way that is the least likely possible to fan any more flames, but I feel it needs to be said. Wayne, I think you might consider that when you have this to say on the topic of something being 'ridiculous'

 

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

 

I don't understand where the boundary is that you are forming.

but this to say on the topic of something being 'nonsense'

 

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

then I don't feel you should be surprised that you find I can 'twist your words' from time to time. Words like these come pre-twisted long before I reply to them.

[akhare]

"And if any member of the C&C committee were to read your posts here, surely the result would be to make them more opposed to allowing whatever methods you favor than they might be now."

 

This statement concerns me, too. I hope that the C&C committee members wouldn't make a ruling on the legality of a convention based on what a few might post on a forum such as this. It makes it sound like their decision-making is capricious or retaliatory.

I am sure that Richard has a few choice words to say in this regard, unless years of trying to get Moscito defences approved have worn him out :)...

[Phil]

To me, C and C isn't a lot different than a lot of other legislative bodies. Reminds me of a lot of Planning Commissions I've had to deal with over the years. Appointed (but knowledgeable) members with a lot of power making a lot of discretionary decisions.

 

Capricious? Sometimes.

 

Retaliatory? Never.

 

Transparent? Usually, except there are always off-the-record discussions with applicants and stakeholders.

 

Prejudiced? Everyone comes with their pre-conceived ideas.

 

What I do know is that the applicants that walk into hearings with their chest puffed out feeling high-minded frequently get their projects rejected, or "redesigned" so that the deal becomes unfeasible.

 

If I wanted to get something approved by C and C, I would immediately lose the self-righteous attitude, and adopt a more constructive and empathetic one.

[JanM]

I see that I didn't phrase my statement about Cascade's attitude in this thread well. First, I don't think that any C&C members are reading this thread. Second, I don't think that C&C members act capriciously or based on their own personal prejudices. What I do think is that attitudes like Cascade's are less likely to get positive responses than attitudes like Fred's. If you think that means people are prejudiced and the "high and mighty" C&C committee in particular act in their own best interests, so be it.

 

As far as the legality of 1♦ showing spades:

 

• I believe that in order for a 1♦ bid showing 4 spades to be a "catchall" it would have to be played as part of a system that no one would seriously want to play (a system where every other bid denied 4 spades). In addition, it would probably have to show exactly 4 spades, not 4 or more spades. When someone suggested that was the way to get a 1♦ bid showing spades approved it sounded to me as if that was somewhat facetious.
  
• What you really want to play is 1♦ showing 4+ spades and an opening bid (at least I think that's what you really want to play)
  
• That bid is clearly not GCC legal; it isn't a catchall 1♦ bid and that's the only way it would qualify under the GCC.
  
• That bid is currently not Midchart legal because no defense to it has been approved. To the best of my knowledge there is no defense being reviewed for approval, but I could be wrong on that. I believe that there is a defense to 1♦ showing 5+ spades being reviewed, but I am not certain of that either.
  
• The current Midchart makes it very clear (I think) what bids are and are not allowed; you shouldn't be guessing about whether something that is not GCC-legal is allowed under the Midchart. The argument for 1♦ showing 4 spades as a "catchall" is based on the GCC. Once you realize that it is very unlikely for that argument to apply to a system anyone would want to play, it is easy to see that the transfer 1 bids are not Midchart legal because they are not listed in opening bids that are allowed.
  
• 1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades are Superchart legal. No recommended defense is required for Superchart events. On the other hand, there aren't very many of them (perhaps only the Vanderbilt, Spingold and Team Trials KO stages). Marston played Moscito in the Vanderbilt a couple of years ago (I know that because Chip's team played them so we put together a quick and dirty defense). They had rolled over their first few opponents and then lost badly to Chip's team. Whether that means that Moscito is more successful against unprepared opponents or simply that Chip's team was significantly better than the ones they had played earlier I do not know.
  

I see that your initial post also asked about responses to the 1♣ and 1♦ bids should you be allowed to play them. The responses would have to be included in the recommended defense - IOW, the defense needs to include what bids should mean after your response, so I suppose that means that your response structure is reviewed in the context of whether your defense works against it, but in general constructive responses and rebids are allowed (I don't know why the chart lists rebids before responses).

[akhare]

[*]I believe that in order for a 1♦ bid showing 4 spades to be a "catchall" it would have to be played as part of a system that no one would seriously want to play (a system where every other bid denied 4 spades). In addition, it would probably have to show exactly 4 spades, not 4 or more spades. When someone suggested that was the way to get a 1♦ bid showing spades approved it sounded to me as if that was somewhat facetious.

Well, I don't know what the intent of the original 1♦ = ♠ poster was, but to me, it would be worthwhile to play a system in which 1♦ showed exactly 4♠.

 

Basically, it would be part of a system where:

 

1C: 15+

1♦: 10-14, exactly 4♠

1♥: 4+, unbalanced

1♠: 5+

1N: Some range

2♣/2♦: Natural, 5+

 

Granted, it might sound ludicrous, but surely it has some merits as an experimental system?

[awm]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

 

Even if we replace "all-purpose" with "catchall" (the term which Jan used, but which appears nowhere on the convention charts) -- that just means "a bid which handles all hands not described by other calls." Again, this could be anything, but now it weirdly depends on the rest of your system.

 

The thing that troubles me about this whole process, is that the rulings I get about which methods are allowed frequently have nothing to do with the charts. They don't come with an explanation like "this is not allowed because..." -- in fact frequently statements made about the charts themselves directly contradict the rest of the reply in the same email (for example, stating that the rules about 1st and 3rd seat legal methods are the same, but that an agreement to open the particular example hand I asked about in 1st seat would be illegal, but in 3rd is fine because "we all open this hand").

 

And when I complain about the charts specifically, indicating a clear problem and asking for clarification, the response is to deny that any problem exists, then give "answers" to any specific queries I might make which are totally contradictory (including ruling that 2♠ showing exactly 5♠ and unbalanced is fine, but showing exactly 5♠ and a 4+ side suit is illegal).

 

The normal reaction when a lack of clarity in a set of rules is pointed out, is to try to fix them. Not to deny that a problem exists and make arbitrary rulings. The process is very frustrating, because I feel like the person acting as "gatekeeper" for the C&C committee is not giving me answers that even remotely make sense, and it's not clear what (if anything) I can do to improve the situation (if I reply by pointing out the logical fallacies, he just ignores my response).

[JanM]

Granted, it might sound ludicrous, but surely it has some merits as an experimental system?

I think that if you "experiment" with this system in the BBO Partnership Bidding section, you will quickly find that it really isn't a playable system, even without competition. However, I also think that if you really wanted to play it, it would be GCC legal. I can't see any reason that canape openings are not allowed (I suspect you'd want to open 1♥ with some hands with a longer minor in order to limit the 2m bids). The opponents could easily treat your 1♦ opening the same as a Precision ♦ in the bidding but have additional information if you were on defense. Limiting the 1♦ bid to exactly 4 spades makes it much easier for the opponents to deal with (and much less effective :P).

[jdonn]

And when I complain about the charts specifically, indicating a clear problem and asking for clarification, the response is to deny that any problem exists, then give "answers" to any specific queries I might make which are totally contradictory (including ruling that 2♠ showing exactly 5♠ and unbalanced is fine, but showing exactly 5♠ and a 4+ side suit is illegal).

I was actually thinking about this recently, and I don't think this is contradictory even though it shows the same hands. I think the ruling should be interpreted to control what follow-ups are allowed. So I would take that to mean you can't play anything over 2♠ that is asking for a side suit such as a 2NT bid, no 3♣ p/c, etc. In other words, you can't play a two-suited opening in the sense that the system lets you show or rest in the second suit, but you are free to play a weak two bid in which your style is to never open it on 6+ spades or with a balanced hand.

 

I am not saying I agree with such a regulation (or interpretation of a probably vague regulation) but I don't think it's inherently inconsistent.

 

By the way, we have heard of all these things that have happened to you many times by now...

[JanM]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

 

Even if we replace "all-purpose" with "catchall" (the term which Jan used, but which appears nowhere on the convention charts) -- that just means "a bid which handles all hands not described by other calls." Again, this could be anything, but now it weirdly depends on the rest of your system.

 

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as."

 

Yes, what hands you open with this "all-purpose" bid will depend on the rest of your system, but that's sort of the point I think. You aren't allowed to design a system around 1♣ and 1♦ bids that show (for instance) 4+ cards in the corresponding Major, but if the way you have defined other bids means that your opening 1♦ bid will always have exactly 4 spades, that is probably okay.

 

The thing that troubles me about this whole process, is that the rulings I get about which methods are allowed frequently have nothing to do with the charts. They don't come with an explanation like "this is not allowed because..." -- in fact frequently statements made about the charts themselves directly contradict the rest of the reply in the same email (for example, stating that the rules about 1st and 3rd seat legal methods are the same, but that an agreement to open the particular example hand I asked about in 1st seat would be illegal, but in 3rd is fine because "we all open this hand").

 

The charts aren't great, but it is very hard to write system rules in a clear and simple manner. I tried, in a very simple context (everything allowed, just trying to define what needed defenses) and failed badly the first time and I still don't think I have it right, so I have more sympathy than some with the drafters of the ACBL Convention Charts.

 

And when I complain about the charts specifically, indicating a clear problem and asking for clarification, the response is to deny that any problem exists, then give "answers" to any specific queries I might make which are totally contradictory (including ruling that 2♠ showing exactly 5♠ and unbalanced is fine, but showing exactly 5♠ and a 4+ side suit is illegal).

 

I'm going to make a wild guess here :P. I'll bet that the person who responded to your first question didn't realize that you were saying 2♠ showed exactly 5 spades in an unbalanced hand, but thought you meant 5+ spades, which of course is what many many people play. If I'm right, the responses you think are conflicting really aren't. I happen to agree with you that a weak 2M bid showing 5 cards in the Major and 4+ in a second suit should be GCC legal - I don't see how it's any more difficult to defend against than a "normal" weak 2M bid, but I can tell from the fact that that method is listed under Midchart bids that those who interpret the Convention Charts disagree. And I can easily see how someone who had to deal with a lot of requests could misread "5 spades in an unbalanced hand" as "5+ spades in an unbalanced hand."

[awm]

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as."

This is exactly the problem. I don't know anything of the sort. I thought the regulations were intended to be read as written. I also thought that Polish Club (1♣ showing a strong hand or some balanced range) was supposed to be allowed, even though this seems extremely not "catch-all"-ish.

 

I also assumed that phantom club (bid as if opponents opened 1♣, with our 1♣ opening being like a double) was allowed. But this is 1♣ showing "support for both majors or a strong hand" -- is that "catch-all"-ish?

 

It was my impression that these charts existed so people could read what they said and determine what was allowed... not that they were just garbage and everything would be determined by some authority (possibly at game time) without any relationship to what was written in the documents.

 

My mistake I guess.

[straube]

Phil, if you read what I wrote carefully I said that Jan's quote made it sound like the committee was capricious or retaliatory. I didn't say that they actually were that, but I guess you feel that they are sometimes capricious. I'm not familiar with the committee or its members and I was reacting only to the quote. Jan acknowledged that it wasn't phrased the way she wanted and I understand what she means now.

 

Thanks Jan for answering my questions in detail. I'm just a bit confused though. It sounds like you're saying that 1D can't show four spades unless it is combined with a whole system that no one would want to play. So I'm focusing on that "unless" a bit...

 

It's probably not a sound system, but I and others have been experimenting with ideas where 1D didn't "show" spades but had by default to "be" spades...specifically four. That's the basis by which I would claim legality.

 

You mentioned that responses to 1D (showing spades) would have to have an approved defense. I received an email from the ACBL that 1S-2D (showing hearts) was legal and did not require a defense for a Midchart event. Were you thinking of Midchart events, too? Because I don't see a difference between say...

1S-2D showing hearts and 1D-1S (forcing, 8+).

 

Thanks again. David

[straube]

Oh. I've seen you've already answered my main question. This has been a busy thread lately :P

[Cascade]

jdonn not me said he would walk out or rather he would choose not to play that day when the real most likely possibility is that you would only become aware of that possibility part way through a session so the implication is that you would need to walk out if you were going to choose not to play.

To clarify, if I found out in the middle of the session that the director says I can't play something I thought I could play (this has happened to me once, and the director was completely correct), then by far my most likely course of action would be to finish the session playing something the director deems legal before deciding on any further course of action (which is what I did when it happened to me.) In fact, I have a hard time envisioning myself following any other course of action.

Disallowing something that is allowed is a completely different situation than disallowing something that is disallowed.

 

 

I want to make my final point in a way that is the least likely possible to fan any more flames, but I feel it needs to be said. Wayne, I think you might consider that when you have this to say on the topic of something being 'ridiculous'

 

What is ridiculous about a director saying 5-card majors are illegal but saying 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal is not ridiculous.

 

I don't understand where the boundary is that you are forming.

but this to say on the topic of something being 'nonsense'

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. At the least I left out a question mark. My intention was simply to ask a question about where the boundary was between a common method that is clearly allowed and a less common method that seems to be allowed by the "all-purpose" phrase but some claim is not allowed.

 

When I wrote that my intention was also to compare two methods that might be allowed. My whole point has been that it is inappropriate for the director on the fly to disallow a method that is allowed by the written regulations - doing so would violate the directors requirements to follow the laws.

[Cascade]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

 

Even if we replace "all-purpose" with "catchall" (the term which Jan used, but which appears nowhere on the convention charts) -- that just means "a bid which handles all hands not described by other calls." Again, this could be anything, but now it weirdly depends on the rest of your system.

 

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as."

 

Yes, what hands you open with this "all-purpose" bid will depend on the rest of your system, but that's sort of the point I think. You aren't allowed to design a system around 1♣ and 1♦ bids that show (for instance) 4+ cards in the corresponding Major, but if the way you have defined other bids means that your opening 1♦ bid will always have exactly 4 spades, that is probably okay.

And which came first the chicken or the egg?

[orlam]

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

LOLLLLLL

Why is anyone still arguing with this troll?

[Cascade]

As far as the legality of 1♦ showing spades: ...

 

[*]That bid is clearly not GCC legal; it isn't a catchall 1♦ bid and that's the only way it would qualify under the GCC.

...

I posted this list in another thread recently. I am sure I could expand on it.

 

Jan, which are clearly GCC legal and which not? And the more important question - how do you tell?

 

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.

[the hog]

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

The fundamental mistake you make is that nonsense is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

LOLLLLLL

Why is anyone still arguing with this troll?

A very stupid comment. Wayne is far from being a troll; you may not agree with his views but he has evey right to express them. You don't have to answer his posts.

[david_c]

I do not understand Jan's interpretation of "all-purpose."

 

It seems very clear to me that this means the bid can mean whatever you want it to mean (subject to the given constraint that it promise ten or more points). In fact I cannot really imagine any other interpretation of this rule.

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan.

 

I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as

 

"Used for many different purposes."

 

(Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!)

 

I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades.

 

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

 

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

[hrothgar]

Your comments on this thread remind me of a time many years ago when I was playing in an NABC pair event with Chip. A pair came to our table and explained that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades. I asked Chip what we did against that and he said that we called the director because it was illegal. We called the director; the opponents said that the method was legal because the Midchart said you could play any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. Chip said that he knew it was illegal because the Midchart also requires an approved defense. The director looked confused, went off to consult with someone else and eventually returned to say that (surprise) Chip was right and the opponents could not use their methods in this event. We played the two boards against them. They went off to the next table, where we heard them explaining to their new opponents that their 1♣ opening showed 4+ hearts and their 1♦ opening showed 4+ spades! Of course, by this time we were late, so although we did call the Director, we didn't pay attention to what went on at the next table, so I don't know whether they were penalized or just told not to do that any more.

If this is the case that I think it is, you have some important particulars wrong:

 

1. I know an Australian pair who flew in from Oz for one of the US Nationals.

 

2. Said pair was playing a MOSCITO variant with a 1♦ opening that showed 4+ Hearts and a 1♥ opening that promised 4+ Spades

 

3. Said pair ran into you and Chip during a pairs match; were told by a director that they couldn't play their methods, and tried to play them at the next table.

 

I'm not disputing any of this.

I'm certainly not defending their behavior...

 

There is one important point that you are leaving out:

 

The ACBL Midchart used to contain suggested defenses to transfer opening bids.

 

Josh Sher submitted a description of the opening bid as well as the defenses.

The defenses were added to the defensive database

 

I have no way of knowing whether the Conventions Committee ever approved said defenses. However, they were MOST definitely posted on the Defensive Database. I tried using the wayback machine to look at some archived versions of the Defensive Database. Sadly, its running pretty slow this morning.

 

I don't recall precisely when the defenses were yanked from the database. (I do know that they were up there for a fairly significant amount of time... Six monthes or so feels right)

 

Josh is off vacationing in Laos/Thailand/somewhere...

I dropped him an email to see whether he recalls the particulars in more detail.

 

Its possible that The Hog (Ron) might also be able to point to some useful information. There was a fair amount of discussion about this on some of the Aussie forums.

[jdonn]

To clarify, if I found out in the middle of the session that the director says I can't play something I thought I could play (this has happened to me once, and the director was completely correct), then by far my most likely course of action would be to finish the session playing something the director deems legal before deciding on any further course of action (which is what I did when it happened to me.) In fact, I have a hard time envisioning myself following any other course of action.

Disallowing something that is allowed is a completely different situation than disallowing something that is disallowed.

To clarify my clarification, I had no idea whether the director was right or not until I went home and checked everything online. Nor did I care, I was happy to take his word for it.

[jdonn]

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as."

This is exactly the problem. I don't know anything of the sort.

Oh come on... You just refuse to admit anything of the sort, that doesn't mean you don't know it. I'm quite sure you know it.

[blackshoe]

1♣ showing hearts and 1♦ showing spades are Superchart legal. No recommended defense is required for Superchart events.

This brings to mind something that's always bothered me about the Superchart. That chart's second paragraph says

Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing. A defense to a method which requires the above pre-Alert may be referred to during the auction by opponents of the convention user.

That says, to me, that any method that's not on the GCC requires both a written description and a written proposed defense, even if it's a Mid-Chart method for which the Mid-Chart does not require a written defense. That's never made any sense to me, but it is what the words say. Yet you say, Jan, that it such defenses aren't required — and the way you've said it implies "even if such defenses are required under the MidChart".

 

I don't play in Superchart events, so obviously your experience is greater than mine, but now I'm even more confused than I was. :P

[straube]

I'm not going to claim that the GCC is well-written, but you know that the "all-purpose" wording is meant to deal with things like Precision 1♦ and "short club" in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamonds system, not "anything I want to define it as."

This is exactly the problem. I don't know anything of the sort.

Oh come on... You just refuse to admit anything of the sort, that doesn't mean you don't know it. I'm quite sure you know it.

I think that's why he used italics for "know". I think I understand their (the ACBL's) intent, but I think they've created a loophole. I'm sure that they also didn't intend for 1D to be used to promise a 4-card major...which allows for 1D (P) 4H (as pass or correct), but a few of us locally have played that for decades and no opponent or TD has had a problem with it...so that's one use that has survived a possible objection to the "intent" argument. Now if I want to use 1D for four spades, I don't think I should have to look at the intent question (unless they are then going to go after people (including me sometimes) who use it to show an unspecified major). I have to look at the plain language of the charts. "All purpose" apparently means different things to different people. Translating it as "catchall" helps my case the most, but even if it's "many purposes", I think I can argue successfully that having promised only 4 spades, that my hand is largely undefined. Hence, the diamond is multipurpose. If someone told me I couldn't play it, I think I'd say "Well, I have the right to open hands that are 10+ and all of my other openings are legal so I have to do something with these four-spade hands. Which of my other legal openings can't I use?"

[akhare]

So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades.

 

I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

Edit: Deleted previous comment

 

Under this interpretation, why is 1♣/1♦ showing 2+ legal? It isn't "all-purpose" because it specificially promises 2+ cards in a given suit and isn't natural either because it doesn't show 3+ cards in the opened suit.