Legality of artificial openings and responses

[straube]

I mischaracterized Jan's statement when I said that she said that whether 1C promising only 2 clubs should be treated as conventional or natural was unclear. JDonn pointed out that she had used the word "defined" (not treated) and that she was saying that it was unclear whether a minor opening that promised 2 should be defined as natural.

[blackshoe]

The only promise I make at the bridge table is to do my best to win by playing the best bridge I can. I make many — maybe too many :D — agreements with my partner regarding the meanings of calls and plays, but I don't "promise" that i'll have what our agreement says I should have. Not to partner (nor partner to me) and certainly not to opponents.

 

Regulating Authorities can define things however they like, as long as they don't conflict with definitions in the laws. The ACBL, for example, defines natural openings in the minor suits as containing at least three cards in the suit. Therefore, a 1♣ or 1♦ opening that by agreement could contain only two cards in the bid suit is not natural, it is artificial. The WBF apparently (I haven't looked) normally defines, or used to define, these openings in much the same way. Then, just prior to Shanghai, they changed the definition of "natural" for clubs to admit a suit of two cards. In spite of some speculation, this cannot affect the meaning of a 1♦ opening unless they changed the definition for minor suits and not just for clubs. Which they did depends on how they worded the change. Whether the change continues to apply after Shanghai also depends on the wording - and on whether the change was to the conditions of contest for that event, to general conditions of contest for all events, or to convention or alerting regulations.

[JanM]

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Just to be clear:

 

As I recall, the Dutch Pair was playing in the Open Event.

 

I don't think that Jan was competing in that event. (Not even sure whether she plays a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ Clubs)

 

My impression was that she was involved in this discussion because of her role with the USBF. I didn't think that she was a principal who was directly involved in the event.

Actually, I was the NPC for a Bermuda Bowl team, so was involved in this discussion in that capacity. The fact that at the time I was also USBF president was irrelevant to the Systems issues, as is the fact that I do play a 2+ 1 club opening bid.

 

The more I have discussed the issue of what defenses should be allowed over a 1♣ opening that is either natural or balanced, the more convinced I become that we shouldn't base the determination of what overcalls should be allowed on whether the opening bid is "natural" or "conventional" (if "conventional" is even the opposite of "natural"). It is reasonable for a sponsoring organization to allow highly unusual overcalls (I would include in "highly unusual" both 1♠ showing any 13 cards and 2♥ showing a weak jump overcall in either hearts or spades, as well as CRASH type bids) over some opening bids and not over others. The SO really ought to deal with this issue specifically and not by restricting overcalls of "natural" bids.

I don't know what the rule should be. If highly unusual overcalls are allowed over an artificial, strong 1♣ opening, should they also be allowed over a less artificial 1♣ opening that can be either clubs or balanced and might have as many as 5 diamonds and as few as 2 clubs? I don't know. I'm fairly confident, however, that whatever rules govern overcalls of a 1♣ opening that shows 3+ clubs should also apply to a 1♣ opening that can be 2 clubs only if the hand is 4432. Whether that particular 1♣ bid is "natural" has nothing to do with it - that is a bid that fairly unsophisticated players often use and the GCC is designed to a large extent to protect the unsophisticated. Before someone else says it - yes, unsophisticated players also play Precision and certainly open 1NT, but we don't restrict overcalls over both of those bids, even in GCC events. We all recognize that some of the "rules" aren't rational, they're based on history, and we aren't going to change them.

And of course, the players in the Bermuda Bowl aren't unsophisticated and maybe they aren't entitled to any protection at all. Certainly, however, they are entitled to know what methods they will face and when.

[PrecisionL]

Additional information on opening a short club:

 

Mike Flader in the May 2006 issue of the ACBL Bulletin discussed responses to a short club (2+ clubs) with 4+♦ showing 4 or more:

 

"No Alert is required for a response in a major that shows at least a five-card suit. The 1♣ opening and the 1♦ response, however, must be Alerted. If your side declares, you should disclose the information available to you in the bidding at the end of the auction."

 

My Qs (via e-mail):

 

1) "Did you mean announced: "may be as short as 2"? Is this considered a convention or a treatment?"

 

2) "Can the Gardener 1NT Overcall (16-18 or weak with a long suit, not generally GCC legal) be used over such a short club opening? Over an artificial 1D opening?"

 

ANSWERS:

 

1) "Yes, I suspect that I meant announced. By definition, the Short Club should be a convention since when one opens 1C they could have fewer that 3 clubs."

 

2) "The Gardener 1NT overcall would not be legal over these artificial openings bids unless they were by definition strong (15+) according to the General Convention Chart."

 

Hope this is helpful. Mike Flader

[JanM]

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

 

Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+.

I think I just said this, but in case I didn't. My real problem with the 2+ 1♣ rules is that I don't think the question of what overcalls should be allowed ought to depend on whether an opening bid is "natural" or not. To me, it seems obvious that the line between opening bids of 1♣ that are entitled to protection from weird overcalls and opening bids of 1♣ that are not entitled to that protection should not be drawn between players who open 1♦ with 4432 shape and players who open 1♣ with 4432 shape. Virtually all of the hands that are opened 1♣ by the first set of players will also be opened 1♣ by the second set.

I don't know whether the line should be drawn between the 4432 1♣ opening and a 1♣ opening that can be 4342, or whether the line should be drawn between that opening and one that can be 3352, or perhaps only between an opening that can be clubs or balanced and an opening that is never clubs (2♣ is used for long club suits in a minimum hand, as it is by some playing Polish Club), or maybe weird overcalls should be allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong, artificial and forcing. I am merely suggesting that the question that should be asked is not "is this 1♣ bid natural?" but rather "is this 1♣ bid entitled to protection from weird overcalls?"

By the way, I think as time goes by we see that the overcallers will actually do the line drawing for us. I don't know very many people who want to play CRASH type bids over a 1♣ opening bid that shows clubs in a minimum opening hand at least 75% of the time. Many don't want to use such bids over a Polish club that is usually a weak NT. That's because when the opening bid is unlikely to be a strong hand, the defenders don't want to make the auction confusing for their side, and all of these bids do that.

[JanM]

I just went back and reviewed the Convention Cards for the Dutch Pair

 

The Dutch Pair were using a defensive structure that they refer to as "Holo Bolo".  As Jan notes, this is a pretty complicated overcall strcuture that includes lots of multi-meaning bids.

I haven't gone and looked at what is currently posted, but I do think it's only fair to those of us who had to contend with this at the time to mention that what is now there is different from what was originally submitted, at least by one of the pairs. One pair did a careful job of describing "Holo Bolo" the other didn't. I also think that everyone (including the proponents of the method) agreed that "Holo Bolo" if it is used over a natural 1♣ opening bid, includes BS bids. The 2♥ bid (and identical 3♥ bid) clearly does not promise 4+ cards in a known suit, and to the best of my recollection neither do some of the 1 level overcalls.

[straube]

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

 

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

 

The first pair uses...

1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

 

the second pair uses...

1C-shows four hearts

1D-shows four spades

 

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit. The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

 

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd? Both or neither?

[JanM]

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

 

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

 

The first pair uses...

1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

 

the second pair uses...

1C-shows four hearts

1D-shows four spades

 

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit.  The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

 

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd?  Both or neither?

I'm not sure what question you intend to ask here - whether these methods are currently GCC legal? Mid-Chart legal? Or whether I think they should be GCC/Mid-Chart legal. Also, I'm not advocating against 1 of a minor bids showing a specific Major, what I've been advocating is complying with the rules, which include the requirement to present a complete description and defense for such a bid and get it approved.

Anyway, if your question is whether these different structures would be GCC legal under my understanding of the GCC as it now exists, the answer is that although I think the first set of methods are not very good and likely not very playable, I believe that they are GCC legal as "all-purpose" bids. And although the second set is probably more playable, it is not currently GCC or Mid-Chart legal. It would be Mid-Chart legal if a defense were presented and approved.

Why should the first meanings be GCC legal and the second not? I suppose because lots of people who play in low-level events play "nebulous" and multi-purpose club and diamond openings, whereas virtually none play 1m opening bids to show a specific Major. The GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. Obviously, that stifles change. Maybe it's not a good way to run the ship, but it's what we have.

[david_c]

The first pair uses...

1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

 

the second pair uses...

1C-shows four hearts

1D-shows four spades

I would have said the same as Jan - the first set is OK but the second is not. (Actually I think it would be impossible to construct a legal system around the second set of bids even if those bids were OK themselves.)

[jdonn]

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

 

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

 

The first pair uses...

1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

 

the second pair uses...

1C-shows four hearts

1D-shows four spades

 

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit. The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

 

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd? Both or neither?

I thought I had said earlier that I don't pretend to have much idea where the borderline for 'all purpose' is or not, I was merely arguing that it doesn't include every possible bid. Anyway my best idea of the answer is the same as Jan's.

[qwery_hi]

I think I just said this, but in case I didn't. My real problem with the 2+ 1♣ rules is that I don't think the question of what overcalls should be allowed ought to depend on whether an opening bid is "natural" or not. To me, it seems obvious that the line between opening bids of 1♣ that are entitled to protection from weird overcalls and opening bids of 1♣ that are not entitled to that protection should not be drawn between players who open 1♦ with 4432 shape and players who open 1♣ with 4432 shape. Virtually all of the hands that are opened 1♣ by the first set of players will also be opened 1♣ by the second set.

The question to be asked is whether the unusual overcall methods are better than the usual overcall methods. (Lets assume that people playing a short club agree that it is better than playing a natural club).

 

If you think this is true, then the leeway given to the opening bidder (protection from unusual overcalls) should be given to the opposing team as well (some types of unusual overcalls should be allowed).

[akhare]

Why should the first meanings be GCC legal and the second not? I suppose because lots of people who play in low-level events play "nebulous" and multi-purpose club and diamond openings, whereas virtually none play 1m opening bids to show a specific Major. The GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. Obviously, that stifles change. Maybe it's not a good way to run the ship, but it's what we have.

Isn't this a chcken and egg problem? How can anyone play it at the entry level if it's forbidden to begin with?

 

Also, I really cannot fathom the logic behind why nebulous bids are considered easier to defend against than a bid promising a specific suit.

 

Does anyone seriously think that it's the case? If so, can someone provide a lucid example on why defending 1♦ = 4♠ is actually harder than 1♦ = 0+?

[akhare]

I would have said the same as Jan - the first set is OK but the second is not. (Actually I think it would be impossible to construct a legal system around the second set of bids even if those bids were OK themselves.)

1C=10+, 4 ♥

1♦=10+, 4♠

1♥=5+♥

1♠=5+♠

1N=11-14

2♣/2♦ = Natural

 

I would really like to know what's illegal or impossible about this system other than the fact that it looks weird.

[mikestar]

All purpose really needs a definition. And perhaps an amendment to the GCC which says something like "An opening bid of 1♣ on a shape of 4♠-4♥-3♦-2♣ shall be deemed natural." will protect the often unsophisticated short club bidders but not the more ambitious types with more convoluted all purpose bids.

[mikestar]

Jan,

 

I would appreciate your opinion about the GCC legality of the following bid.

 

A 1♦ opening which shows one of two hand types:

 

1) 10-16 HCP unbalanced, 4+ diamonds.

 

2) 15-17 HCP balanced, 2+ diamonds, may (but need not) have a 5 card major.

 

 

The last specification of item 2 is the real issue; there is no question in my mind that if the shape of the balanced alternative were restricted to 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 that this would be a bonafide all purpose opening.

[JanM]

The question to be asked is whether the unusual overcall methods are better than the usual overcall methods. (Lets assume that people playing a short club agree that it is better than playing a natural club).

 

If you think this is true, then the leeway given to the opening bidder (protection from unusual overcalls) should be given to the opposing team as well (some types of unusual overcalls should be allowed).

I think that most of the unusual overcalls are worse than normal overcalls when employed over an opening 1♣ bid that is usually natural. They are probably better when employed over an opening 1♣ bid that is always strong. As for 1♣ bids that are in the middle (Polish Club), people can disagree - we use a CRASH variant over Strong Club but not over Polish Club. I'm pretty sure that ambiguous overcalls aren't effective over a natural or balanced 1♣, but some people disagree.

[JanM]

Jan,

 

I would appreciate your opinion about the GCC legality of the following bid.

 

A 1♦ opening which shows one of two hand types:

 

1) 10-16 HCP unbalanced, 4+ diamonds.

 

2) 15-17 HCP balanced, 2+ diamonds, may (but need not) have a 5 card major.

 

 

The last specification of item 2 is the real issue; there is no question in my mind that if the shape of the balanced alternative were restricted to 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 that this would be a bonafide all purpose opening.

I'm pretty sure that would be GCC legal, but it sounds like a really bad method to me :P. While there are lots of people who like to open a 15-17 1NT with hands that include 5 card Majors, I don't think that they'd really want to do so if they had the alternative of opening the Major and then showing 15-17 balanced the next round, IOW if they played weak NT and 1♥-1♠-1NT showed a Strong NT with 5 hearts and 1♠...2NT showed a strong NT with 5 spades (of course the second auction is less attractive, so I might understand wanting to put 5 spades, strong NT into 1♦ although I still don't think it would work well.

[straube]

First, thanks for your replies. The hypothetical I put up was for a GCC event. I'm sorry that I didn't get your position quite right, jdonn.

 

 

Why should the first meanings be GCC legal and the second not? I suppose because lots of people who play in low-level events play "nebulous" and multi-purpose club and diamond openings, whereas virtually none play 1m opening bids to show a specific Major. The GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. Obviously, that stifles change. Maybe it's not a good way to run the ship, but it's what we have.

 

You're saying that the GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. I suppose that because what is not allowed is disallowed, that the corollary is that the GCC was designed to make illegal what was not common...

 

I appreciate your sharing what you know in this informal setting, but how (in the absolute and formal sense) am I to know that this is true? Or that there weren't competing considerations? Why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL saw fit to provide a little latitude in the GCC so as to encourage experimentation or even to placate system designers like me? Or alternately, why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL wanted a chart that could be taken literally...even at the cost of unlooked for or unwanted results? It seems like some of the drafters might even have said, "Hey. You know, someone could do something pretty crazy with these all-purpose bids...like maybe play a Little Majors system...except that we've restricted the responses, so probably no one will try." Because there really is an upside (as well as I'm sure a downside) to abiding by what is stated instead of what is meant. One of those things is that we have different levels of knowlege of what the drafters were thinking, but the same knowlege of what the chart actually says.

 

Understanding what the designers of a rule were thinking can be helpful (if it's an ambiguous rule) but there are other ways to decide what a rule means, too. One might try the logic of the situation "It must mean this because the other meanings are silly" or choice of wording "It would have been simpler to say it that other way, so the phrase must mean this way."

 

Hopefully, the average bridge player will be able to understand the plain meaning of the chart. Obviously, not always. I know there are differences of opinion about the all-purpose bids, but I'm glad that so many people seem to think that the plain meaning of all-purpose allows for something specific like showing four spades. I even received an email from the ACBL that said it could.

 

Who/what is the final arbiter of a method anyway? I hope it is not the same people who drafted the chart. Then they would always have strings attached to it. I'm thinking of one of the reasons why legislators make laws and judges interpret laws.

 

Now I meant to respond to this from awhile back...

 

 

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.

 

Couldn't one organize one's openings so that hands with 4 spades and certain patterns have no place to go but 1D? It would still serve as a catchall.

 

For example...

 

1C-16+

1D-all-purpose

1H-four+ hearts, could have four spades

1S-five spades

1N-balanced, could have four spades

2C-six clubs or (31)-4-5

2D-six diamonds or (31)-5-4

 

In this scheme, where would I put 4-1-4-4 or 4-3-1-5 except 1D?

[Cascade]

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

 

Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+.

I think I just said this, but in case I didn't. My real problem with the 2+ 1♣ rules is that I don't think the question of what overcalls should be allowed ought to depend on whether an opening bid is "natural" or not. To me, it seems obvious that the line between opening bids of 1♣ that are entitled to protection from weird overcalls and opening bids of 1♣ that are not entitled to that protection should not be drawn between players who open 1♦ with 4432 shape and players who open 1♣ with 4432 shape. Virtually all of the hands that are opened 1♣ by the first set of players will also be opened 1♣ by the second set.

I don't know whether the line should be drawn between the 4432 1♣ opening and a 1♣ opening that can be 4342, or whether the line should be drawn between that opening and one that can be 3352, or perhaps only between an opening that can be clubs or balanced and an opening that is never clubs (2♣ is used for long club suits in a minimum hand, as it is by some playing Polish Club), or maybe weird overcalls should be allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong, artificial and forcing. I am merely suggesting that the question that should be asked is not "is this 1♣ bid natural?" but rather "is this 1♣ bid entitled to protection from weird overcalls?"

By the way, I think as time goes by we see that the overcallers will actually do the line drawing for us. I don't know very many people who want to play CRASH type bids over a 1♣ opening bid that shows clubs in a minimum opening hand at least 75% of the time. Many don't want to use such bids over a Polish club that is usually a weak NT. That's because when the opening bid is unlikely to be a strong hand, the defenders don't want to make the auction confusing for their side, and all of these bids do that.

If there is to be a dividing line then I think the natural place to draw the line is between 1♣ that shows 4+ clubs and one that shows fewer than four clubs.

 

In other words as soon as your system has an alternative to showing the suit bid e.g. clubs (or some other suit) or balanced (or some other hand type - 4-4-4-1 etc).

 

Why draw the line between four and three? Because when you might have three (or fewer) in the suit opened and actually do have the hand with fewer than four cards then necessarily some other player has more cards in this suit than you do. If this player is one of the opponents then they may well want to bid the suit opened naturally. Of course this can happen over a natural 4+ suit but it is less likely. Therefore after you open a three card or shorter suit your opponents have five denominations that they might like to play in with reasonable frequency.

 

If you are entitled to the artificiality (meant in a common language sense not a specific defined bridge sense where three cards is considered 'natural') of opening a suit that you do not have then it seems reasonable to allow the opponents artificial tools to deal with the problems that your artificial bid created.

 

To take an extreme example imagine if 'natural' or balanced was allowed for a 1♠ opening. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to allow the opponents some tools, artificial if wanted, to determine where they want to play? Equally it seems reasonable to me that if you play a short (shorter than three club) then it is reasonable to allow your opponents to play methods to overcome the problems created by your methods.

 

Defending againsts a short club (fewer than three clubs) or short diamond creates problems which most pairs for the large part ignore. Mostly they are relatively infrequent. Although as it happens today I had a 2=2=2=7 hand after a short 1♣ opening and partner overcalled 1♦. This hand exposed a hole in our system since our agreement was that system was ON after a one-level overcall - in other words we assume we made a one-level opening bid although we do use a cue-bid as a three-card raise. For us system ON meant that 2NT was a four-card balanced raise. This meant that my choices with the 2=2=2=7 hand were 1NT or 3NT - quite limited. We have now allowed 2NT to be natural giving us a third option but still no option to bid clubs naturally.

[blackshoe]

Jan,

 

I would appreciate your opinion about the GCC legality of the following bid.

 

A 1♦ opening which shows one of two hand types:

 

1) 10-16 HCP unbalanced, 4+ diamonds.

 

2) 15-17 HCP balanced, 2+ diamonds, may (but need not) have a 5 card major.

 

 

The last specification of item 2 is the real issue; there is no question in my mind that if the shape of the balanced alternative were restricted to 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 that this would be a bonafide all purpose opening.

"Balanced" includes 5-3-3-2 (any 5 card suit). Therefore the second clause of your second specification is redundant. If you think mentioning the redundancy will be a problem, don't. :)

[Mbodell]

By the way, I think as time goes by we see that the overcallers will actually do the line drawing for us. I don't know very many people who want to play CRASH type bids over a 1♣ opening bid that shows clubs in a minimum opening hand at least 75% of the time. Many don't want to use such bids over a Polish club that is usually a weak NT. That's because when the opening bid is unlikely to be a strong hand, the defenders don't want to make the auction confusing for their side, and all of these bids do that.

Thank you JanM for engaging with this thread, even when at times you unfairly got put in the unenviable position of defending the status quo GCC and ACBL.

 

If I were allowed written defenses (as I understand some are for artificial 2+ club openers), I would want to try out the Stevenson defense. This shows (I've condensed a little, more details in the link):

 

X - normal takeout double with other 3 suits or any 18+ with normal bidding

1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣ = canape style second longest suit (3 or 4 or very bad 5), with an outside 5+ card suit

1NT - balanced 16-19

2♦ - at least 5/5 with ♦ and another

2M - weak natural

2NT - at least 5/5 w/o ♦

3x - natural weak

 

Over the canape style bids cheapest advance is pass/correct, 2nd cheapest is game try or better force, and higher new suits and NT are natural (suits forcing), over the 2♦ you get 2nt as a force and over 2nt you get 3♦ as a force.

 

I mean if many people played the short club near me then I'd be in favor of playing this with my partner even if we couldn't have written defenses (but since not many do it is too much memory for too little gain). But we do have one pair near us who do the 5551 opening style, and I'd like to break out this defense against them sometime.

 

So while it is true that the defense to strong, forcing, and artificial that I'd want is different than the defense I'd want to could be short 1♣, I'd still rather play a conventional overcall system over could be short 1♣.

[Mbodell]

Does anyone seriously think that it's the case? If so, can someone provide a lucid example on why defending 1♦ = 4♠ is actually harder than 1♦ = 0+?

Nope. 1♦ = 4♠ is clearly easier than 1♦=0+. If I were designing a bidding convention chart I'd at least make one of the rules be:

 

Any set (or subset) of hands that are legal to be shown by a given bid B are also legal to be shown by a cheaper bid provided the cheaper bid creates a force through B.

 

Basically this means that any constructive bidding should be allowed, and you can tell the opponents in the worst case to just treat it as if the side opened B and ignore all the extra space (in practice the extra space should make these openings easier to defend against, and the forcing through B means you get two bites at the apple). The "forcing through B" is to cover things where what you showed was weak and you wanted to get out earlier.

 

Others might say that this allows too many different bids (1 under or 2 under openings or preempts), but I'd say these shouldn't really be that hard to play against.

[david_c]

I would have said the same as Jan - the first set is OK but the second is not. (Actually I think it would be impossible to construct a legal system around the second set of bids even if those bids were OK themselves.)

1C=10+, 4 ♥

1♦=10+, 4♠

1♥=5+♥

1♠=5+♠

1N=11-14

2♣/2♦ = Natural

 

I would really like to know what's illegal or impossible about this system other than the fact that it looks weird.

The lack of a sensible NT ladder is what makes it "impossible". Here you have no bid for 15+ balanced without a major. OK in theory you could play 1NT = 13-17, 2NT = 18-22, 3NT = 23+ but I doubt anyone would find this playable.

[qwery_hi]

Does anyone seriously think that it's the case? If so, can someone provide a lucid example on why defending 1♦ = 4♠ is actually harder than 1♦ = 0+?

Nope. 1♦ = 4♠ is clearly easier than 1♦=0+. If I were designing a bidding convention chart I'd at least make one of the rules be:

 

Any set (or subset) of hands that are legal to be shown by a given bid B are also legal to be shown by a cheaper bid provided the cheaper bid creates a force through B.

 

Basically this means that any constructive bidding should be allowed, and you can tell the opponents in the worst case to just treat it as if the side opened B and ignore all the extra space (in practice the extra space should make these openings easier to defend against, and the forcing through B means you get two bites at the apple). The "forcing through B" is to cover things where what you showed was weak and you wanted to get out earlier.

 

Others might say that this allows too many different bids (1 under or 2 under openings or preempts), but I'd say these shouldn't really be that hard to play against.

Does this apply to openings or to overcalls also?

[JanM]

I appreciate your sharing what you know in this informal setting, but how (in the absolute and formal sense) am I to know that this is true? Or that there weren't competing considerations?  Why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL saw fit to provide a little latitude in the GCC so as to encourage experimentation or even to placate system designers like me?  Or alternately, why couldn't I suppose that the ACBL wanted a chart that could be taken literally...even at the cost of unlooked for or unwanted results?  It seems like some of the drafters might even have said, "Hey.  You know, someone could do something pretty crazy with these all-purpose bids...like maybe play a Little Majors system...except that we've restricted the responses, so probably no one will try." 

You can't, and in fact, neither can I. I try to say things like "I think" and "maybe" often, but I see that I didn't in the particular answer you quoted, for which I apologize. I may be able to speculate with a little more background knowledge than you, but all I am doing is speculating. And I'm sure that different drafters had different ideas in mind. Some of the ambiguities in the GCC no doubt arise from an attempt to leave things flexible (for example, I'm sure that's why we have the "all-purpose" clause instead of something more specific).

All that I am trying to suggest is that a major purpose of the GCC was to make legal in low-level games things that players in those games would be comfortable with. Sure, some of those things (like Precision 1♦) are hard to defend against, but they are things that those players are used to dealing with. I think the context in which the GCC was drafted is relevant to understanding it.