Legality of artificial openings and responses

[straube]

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this?

 

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

 

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation.

[Cascade]

Yes I think a reasonable person could think of this as a primary purpose e.g. FERTs 1♥ or whatever showing 0-7 hcp without much other definition (unsuitable for a pre-empt ...).  I think it is a reasonable argument that the primary purpose of a FERT is to allow us to play a strong PASS and therefore we have to put these hands somewhere and any destructive element is a secondary (or lower) purpose or benefit.  Although my experience mostly from talking with others is that the FERT is typically not a benefit and therefore is a blunt instrument if intended primarily as destructive.

 

I think 'any hand' could be subject to ban provided you can establish that this is the primary purpose.

Actually I agree with you, or at least think it's not clear.

 

Do you agree that what I said is true if by 'any hand' they mean they never pass, always choosing to bid (I think it was 1♠) instead if none of their other bids fit? That's how I took Jan originally, I guess it was an assumption but it seems quite likely to me. I am not aware of any system that uses a forcing pass after the opponents open...

As it happens I have actually played against a pair that over my natural 1♣ PASS with any strong hand - I don't happen to know the details of what they do with all other hands. They play the same defense against a precision 1♣. There are two or three pairs (or more like a handful or so of players who play together in various combinations) in my province (region) playing similar defensive methods.

 

So if they have a range of normal or semi-normal or more importantly clearly legal bids (or double) with the exception of 1♠ that caters to everything else and they agree to never PASS. Yes I could live with that being called 'destructive'.

Which means I can't think of an alternative credible primary purpose. Although I am not convinced of the necessity of a 'destructive' rule and even more so think that if there is such a rule then the term needs to be clearly defined.

[Cascade]

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this?

 

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

 

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation.

What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1♠ call. Would this not be persuasive that 1♠ is not in fact 'destructive'?

[qwery_hi]

Nor am I impressed when someone ascribes nefarious intentions to those who express subjective interpretations they happen to disagree with.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

 

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

 

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

[jdonn]

I mean if you open 1♣ natural to avoid controversy on this point and I overcall 1♠ FERT-type and you complain that this is destructive and I argue "no the primary reason is that we wish to play forcing (strong) pass over your 1♣ opening - any destructive element is secondary".  Would you have argument against this?

 

If I were responsible for ruling on this, I would say that my opinion of such a system is that its primary advantage is the destructive element to your opponent's methods. Whether you truly believed your statement should not affect my decision. I would rule against you. Probably what I would be thinking and not saying is that you are lying to me or that you don't have much sense.

 

I would also be glad that my ruling was consistent with ACBL's decision (right or wrong) to prohibit forcing pass systems. Yes, this is a defensive situation we're talking about, but I think I understand the reasons why ACBL prohibited these systems (again rightly or wrongly) and those reasons would also be valid for this situation.

I never said that, you are quoting the wrong person.

[fred]

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

If you have been reading this thread you will know that "all-purpose opening bid" means different things to different people. Hence it is a term that is open to interpretation. Hence subjectivity comes into play.

 

Probably if you managed to resolve this you would start to get questions about the use of the word "points".

 

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is  that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

 

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

 

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

 

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

 

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

 

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

 

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

 

 

What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1♠ call.  Would this not be persuasive that 1[

Sp] is not in fact 'destructive'?

 

I'm editing my original post because I see what you're getting at. That's interesting. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I doubt that this would be the outcome of your hand data and I think the burden would be on you to produce it as it runs counter to what I (if I were ruling) would expect.

 

So if they have a range of normal or semi-normal or more importantly clearly legal bids (or double) with the exception of 1♠ that caters to everything else and they agree to never PASS. Yes I could live with that being called 'destructive'.

Which means I can't think of an alternative credible primary purpose. 

 

Seems like this is what we were talking about and it was this method (more or less) that Jan had objected to.

[Cascade]

 

 

What if I provide you with thousands of hands of data that show that we win on average 0.5 IMPs when we make the forcing pass and lose 0.3 IMPs when we make the 'destructive' 1♠ call.  Would this not be persuasive that 1[

Sp] is not in fact 'destructive'?

 

I'm editing my original post because I see what you're getting at. That's interesting. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I doubt that this would be the outcome of your hand data and I think the burden would be on you to produce it as it runs counter to what I (if I were ruling) would expect.

My admittedly unsubstantiated discussions with other players playing FERTs from 15-20 years ago when I was experimenting with these systems suggested that this was exactly what their data looked like. It came along with comments like 'we don't play a FERT because we want to play a FERT we play a FERT because we want to play a forcing pass and that means we need to put the FERT hands somewhere'.

[jtfanclub]

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid. It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

 

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not include hands with fewer than 10 hcp by agreement unless it also includes 3+ cards in the suit bid.

 

An opening of 1 of a minor may not include hands with fewer than 7 hcp by agreement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An opening or overcall of 1 of a major must promise at least 4 cards in the suit bid, and may not promise a minimum length* in an unbid suit.

An opening of 1 of a major may not include hands with fewer than 7 hcp by agreement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An opening of 1NT shall include no more than 5 possible HCP totals, which must be a continuous range (such as 11-15). None of these total by agreement may be less than 10 HCP unless no conventions are used in the responses. An opening of 1NT must mostly contain balanced hands- hands with a singleton may be opened rarely if there is no inquiry response to ask for the singleton, and hands with a void may not be opened 1NT by agreement. Openings of 1NT may not promise a minimum length* for an unbid suit.

 

All overcalls of 1NT which promise at least 8 HCP are legal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An opening or overcall of two of a suit shall contain at least 5 of the suit.

All openings and overcalls of 2NT or higher are legal provided they promise one of

-A balanced hand or one or more named suits, or

-Are an inquiry for specific high cards or the number of high cards, such as the number of aces.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXCEPTIONS: The following are legal regardless of the above.

Over a 1 club or 1 diamond opening which does not promise 3 of the bid suit, all overcalls are legal except those specifically prohibited as 'destructive'.

 

1NT promising 16+ HCP that does not promise 3+ cards in a specific suit.

 

2 clubs and 2 diamonds promising a strong (18+ hcp or 7+ tricks) hand, that does not promise minimum length* in an unbid suit.

 

2 bids of any suit promising at least 10 hcp and one of the following-

-Both majors (4+/4+)

-Both minors (5+/4+)

-The suit bid plus at least one other suit.

-A singleton or void, in a known or unknown suit.

 

An overcall of 2 of a suit over an opening of 1 of the same suit is legal provided it either promises length in the suit bid or length in at least two suits outside of the one buid (5+/4+). The suits do not need to be known.

 

*If a bid denies having a doubleton in a suit, while including some hands that have 3 or more cards in the suit, it shall be considered to have a minimum length in the suit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm sure I missed some lawyerese somewhere, but is this actually longer than the openings and overcalls section for GCC as written? Are there any popular methods included in GCC but excluded by my system, or vice versa? I can do responses too- they're pretty easy since they're so wide open.

 

I'm sure the Committee can figure this stuff out on their own. Do they really want me sending them stuff like this?

[qwery_hi]

If the point of discussion is whether the sentence "1C or 1D can be used as an all-purpose opening bid ... with 10+ points", then where is the subjectivity of the interpretation?

If you have been reading this thread you will see that "all-purpose opening bid" means different things to different people. Hence it is a term that is open to interpretation. Hence subjectivity comes into play.

 

Probably if you managed to resolve this you would start to get questions about the use of the word "points".

 

I agree that raising the question of "nefarious intentions" when the committee is doing a poor job is not impressive, perhaps the simpler reason is  that the committee doesnt care about how good/bad the GCC is. How many MP's do the GCC committee members earn playing in GCC events? How much money do they make playing in GCC events?

 

Perhaps the reason is even simpler - The GCC committee is stupid. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

 

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

 

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

 

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

 

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

 

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

"Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player. " -

 

I have no idea what you mean by "complete, draws the line in the intended place".

 

Here's a GCC without ambiguity - allow only precision, sayc, 2/1, sayc, 2/1 with short club. Each of these systems have well defined opening bids and responses, heck take the superset of all opening bids + responses currently allowed in the GCC, and say that these only only these bids are allowed. That's pretty unambiguous. I suspect an overwhelming majority of club players will have no problem with this + you have preciseness in its definition.

 

Of course, I may be accused of stifling innovation, and I would acknowledge that I was. Which BTW is better than the intellectual dishonesty of pretending to not stifle innovation by using vague wording in a document.

 

"How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?"

 

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

[straube]

Well, if this could be substantiated, then it seems like the primary purpose of the bidding would not be to destroy the opponents' methods...though at times it certainly would seem to do so. Since this would be so, and since conventional defenses are allowed against conventional openings, it seems like it would be permitted.

 

Where do you stand on the subject? On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have. On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

 

Personally, I still feel that the primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what Fred or Jan have to say on the subject.

[jdonn]

"Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player. " -

 

I have no idea what you mean by "complete, draws the line in the intended place".

 

Here's a GCC without ambiguity - allow only precision, sayc, 2/1, sayc, 2/1 with short club. Each of these systems have well defined opening bids and responses, heck take the superset of all opening bids + responses currently allowed in the GCC, and say that these only only these bids are allowed. That's pretty unambiguous. I suspect an overwhelming majority of club players will have no problem with this + you have preciseness in its definition.

So now to play in GCC events we have to agree on which bids are and aren't part of SAYC?? And this is your suggestion to reduce ambiguity?? Moreover, do you think anyone will be the least bit happy with this GCC which essentially outlaws numerous methods that are currently legal? You only served to prove Fred right.

 

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

WOW where do people get off! Everyone who knows nothing about anything thinks they are such a genius. Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?

[Cascade]

Where do you stand on the subject? On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have. On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

I am at a bit of a disadvantage answering that question as:

 

1. I don't really understand the purpose of a rule against destructive bids

 

2. I don't really know what is intended by the regulation to be defined as destructive

 

I think all that I said was that I could live with a ruling that 1♠ was destructive (primarily) under certain circumstances. Mostly that they were not using this bid because they wanted to use PASS for some other more constructive purpose making their overall approach primarily constructive.

 

Even so I would be unhappy picking on this sort of bid as destructive when there was not an objective measure that I could use to evaluate other players methods that I consider destructive e.g. some pre-empting styles. After all a FERT type bid is simply a pre-empt.

[qwery_hi]

So now to play in GCC events we have to agree on which bids are and aren't part of SAYC?? And this is your suggestion to reduce ambiguity?? Moreover, do you think anyone will be the least bit happy with this GCC which essentially outlaws numerous methods that are currently legal? You only served to prove Fred right.

 

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

WOW where do people get off! Everyone who knows nothing about anything thinks they are such a genius. Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?

You don't have to agree to anything. Since I'm writing the GCC, I'l lpick what bids are part of SAYC.

 

"Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?"

 

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

[mikestar]

When in a position to open the bidding or make a direct overcall of an opening bid the meaning of Pass must include all hands with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape and less than 8 HCP.

 

This rule would allow wild preempting but unambiguously ban ferts and strong pass.

[awm]

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

 

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

 

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

 

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

 

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I already did this, quite a while ago. I can dig up the old thread if people care. Most of the people posting on that thread actually liked my alternative, and found it to be clear and free of ambiguity.

 

The problem with proposing such a thing to ACBL is that they will complain that my proposed "new" general chart does not exactly legalize the same set of things as the "old" general chart. Of course, since I have no idea what the "old" general chart actually legalizes (and in fact there is no wide agreement about that, and this is precisely the problem with the "old" general chart) it's impossible for me to ever correct this problem.

 

Of course, it may be worth noting that two of the early lines on my "new" general chart were of the form:

 

(1) Any call which guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed.

(2) Any opening of 1♣ or 1♦ which guarantees ten or more points is allowed.

 

And now we are arguing about those very points on the original chart.

 

Here is a link to the thread in question. The first three or four pages were really quite interesting, but then Foo hi-jacked the thread and it sort of degenerated.

[fred]

Well, if this could be substantiated, then it seems like the primary purpose of the bidding would not be to destroy the opponents' methods...though at times it certainly would seem to do so.  Since this would be so, and since conventional defenses are allowed against conventional openings, it seems like it would be permitted.

 

Where do you stand on the subject?  On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have.  On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

 

Personally, I still feel that the primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what Fred or Jan have to say on the subject.

Hi David,

 

I am sorry but I really don't know what to think. Probably the reason is that "primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods" does not mean very much to me. This term, like "all-purpose opening bid", is the sort of thing that I contend needs to be either explicitly defined or left open to interpretation.

 

I suppose I could attempt to interpret this term, but I don't think my attempt would have much value - as I have said, this is hardly my area of expertise. I do think it is beyond obvious that the ACBL membership would respond very poorly if Fert-like bids were allowed in GCC events. In the absense of a perfect GCC, if it takes vague wording and subjective interpretation to achieve that end, then so be it.

 

Sorry to the thoughtful and polite people like you who seem to care about my opinions even when you disagree with them, but I would very much like to get out of this discussion. I sometimes feel compelled to respond when I think that fine people like Jan, various ACBL staff members, and those who serve of various ACBL committees are (in my view) unfairly attacked. But I am starting to think I am wasting my time trying to get these particular dogs to drop these particular bones. Probably they think the same about me :P

 

So I am going to try ignoring them instead (and hope that other people do the same).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikestar]

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART

 

 

Suggested revision by Mike Nelson (mikestar)

 

 

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.

3. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one

of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

4. A normal opening hand is any hand with 10+ HCPs or conforming to the rule of 19 (HCP + the length of the hand’s two longest suits is at least 19).

5. A strong opening hand is any hand with 15+ HCPs or conforming to the rule of 25 (HCP + the length of the hand’s two longets suits is at least 25).

 

 

ALLOWED Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed.

 

OPENING BIDS

1. Any opening bid except ONE HEART or ONE SPADE which is forcing and shows a strong opening hand.

2. ONE CLUB or ONE DIAMOND may have any meaning which shows a normal opening hand, provided that the bid does not promise length in any specific suit other than the suit opened and does not deny length in the suit opened.

3. TWO CLUBS or TWO DIAMONDS indicating a three-suiter with a normal opening hand.

4. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER showing two

known suits, a normal opening hand and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.

5. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of

a) a solid suit or

:P a minor one-suiter.

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

 

RESPONSES AND REBIDS

1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club.

2. ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round;

cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.

3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME

FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.

4. TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to third or fourth-seat

major-suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid.

5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT

THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.

6. JUMP RESPONSES TO AN OPENING BID OF ONE IN A SUIT at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher.

8. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second

call.

9. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trump

quality and responses thereto.

10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct

overcall.

 

 

COMPETITIVE

1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.

2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including

free bids) thereto.

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either

a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one

known suit. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer. At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have a known suit. or

B) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits).

4. a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution

in two known suits and responses thereto. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.

B) SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a normal opening bid,

at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.

5. TRANSFER ADVANCES (responses to overcalls) where the call shows

length or values in the suit of the transfer.

6. CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid

that could be weak (less tan a normal opning bid) directly over an opening bid,

must show at least one known suit.

7. DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls,

B) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls over ONE NOTRUMP,

other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

c) opening bids of two clubs or higher.

8. Numbers 4 through 10 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS above APPLY

TO BOTH PAIRS.

 

 

 

DISALLOWED Any method explicitly disallowed may not be played even if it also fits a definition of an allowed method.

 

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods.

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings.

3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in

conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

4. A Pass in a position to open the bidding or make a direct overcall of an opening bid whose meaning does not include all hands with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape and fewer values than a queen less than a normal opening bid.

5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer values than

a queen less than a normal opning bid.

7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL

DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after

natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of less than

a normal opening bid or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have

two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership

agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five

cards in the suit.

 

CARDING

Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s

first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down

card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved.

In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit

preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a

manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much

like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament

committee.

[the hog]

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid. It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

So this rules out artificial defences to a big C!!

This seems a tad unfair.

[Cascade]

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid.  It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

So this rules out artificial defences to a big C!!

This seems a tad unfair.

He does have:

 

"EXCEPTIONS: The following are legal regardless of the above.

Over a 1 club or 1 diamond opening which does not promise 3 of the bid suit, all overcalls are legal except those specifically prohibited as 'destructive'."

[Mbodell]

For the bids over 1♣ I agree that JanM's opponents should be able to play any defense that would be legal over a precision 1♣. My reading of her descriptions though was that the defenses in question were not such a legal defense and shouldn't be allowed over her 1♣ as they were destructive. For a question of the destructive methods consider the following 2 methods. 1 of which I'll argue is unambiguously destructive, the other of which feels quite destructive but may well be ok.

 

1. Over an artificial strong 1♣ partnership agreement is to bid 1♠ with every single hand. No other bids are available to partnership. It is required. Note that in the ACBL opponents may not psych a strong 1♣ so this isn't even subject to the problem that with a long spade suit the opponents psych 1♣.

 

I'd argue that 1 above is totally destructive and shouldn't be allowed based on the disallowed part of the GCC.

 

2. Over an artificial strong 1♣ partnership agreement is to reverse pass and 1♠. That is using whatever system you play (crash, suction, mathe, etc.) everything is like others who play that system except where they would pass you bid 1♠ and where they would bid 1♠ you pass.

 

I'd argue the primary reason people would play 2 is they want to knock the strong club players out of their relays/constructive/comfortable auction and they want to maximize the occurrences of the 1♠ bid. There is also the issue of full disclosure that is hard to explain on such a 1♠ bid, but that is manageable and may be a different issue.

 

Forgetting about if someone has opened a "strong" 1♣ or just a "could be short" 1♣, I hope everyone would agree that 1 above is not legal in the ACBL charts. I think 2 above is not legal either in the ACBL charts, but I acknowledge that this may be a more debatable decision.

[jdonn]

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

 

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

You're entitled to it of course. We could always take a vote on who is the bigger idiot.

 

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.

Person B: Tells off person A.

Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

[qwery_hi]

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

 

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

You're entitled to it of course. We could always take a vote on who is the bigger idiot.

 

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.

Person B: Tells off person A.

Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

Instead of a vote, let's have a committee where I choose two other members to decide who is the bigger idiot.

[qwery_hi]

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.

Person B: Tells off person A.

Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC

 

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?

 

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.

 

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.

[jdonn]

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC

Right, you believe they are doing a bad job, therefore they are stupid lazy incompetent idiots. And you are completely qualified to judge that. Makes sense.

 

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?

Another good point. These people you don't know are obviously corrupt as well, they don't do it for the good of bridge like you would. And again this was an easy judgment to make purely because you feel they have done a bad job. I'm starting to get it now.

 

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.

I don't think having total strangers consider me lazy corrupt incompetent and whatever else is a great power. You may disagree. I also doubt they want your sympathy, in fact I speculate they would be quite happy if you simply ignored them.

 

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.

Neither am I. I am not forming judgments at all about people I don't know very well based on essentially no evidence of any kind, because it would obviously be foolish to do so and wouldn't make me come across very well either.

 

Oh wait, I forgot my lessons...