Is this GCC legal?

[CSGibson]

I play in ACBL land. I want to play, in an uncontested auction, that after partner opens 1 of a major, my 2 club response could be either a flawed 3 card limit raise or a game force with clubs.

 

Response structure would be for opener to rebid his major with no interest opposite the 3 card limit raise, or to bid 2 diamonds with a hand that does have interest. Any immediate bid at the 3 level would be a natural move toward slam.

 

Is this method legal in GCC Events? Mid-chart? Superchart?

[paulg]

It appears that the 2♣ is artificial but does not guarantee game forcing values. As such this seems sufficient to make it illegal at GCC.

 

I would not classify this as a relay system and this means it is Mid Chart legal as it is a constructive response that is not prohibited.

[blackshoe]

It's not a relay system unless responder's second bid is a relay, and we aren't told anything about that.

[paulg]

It's not a relay system unless responder's second bid is a relay, and we aren't told anything about that.

I did not appreciate that this was the criteria, although it seems sensible.

 

What would be the verdict if it is only game forcing hands that relay with responder's second bid and that any non game forcing hands make a 'natural' call?

[rbforster]

It's not a relay system unless responder's second bid is a relay, and we aren't told anything about that.

I did not appreciate that this was the criteria, although it seems sensible.

 

What would be the verdict if it is only game forcing hands that relay with responder's second bid and that any non game forcing hands make a 'natural' call?

That would be fine if responder's first bid had been legal. In fact many people have been told that playing 2C as an art GF is fine GCC. In your case, the problem is trying to include some limit raises in 2C as well. If you exclude those limit raises, you're probly fine for all your favorite continuations.

[rbforster]

I play in ACBL land. I want to play, in an uncontested auction, that after partner opens 1 of a major, my 2 club response could be either a flawed 3 card limit raise or a game force with clubs.

One GCC option is to play that 2C is"natural" 3+ cards, either a 3card major limit raise or C GF. This is likely to work most of the time, esp over 1H when responder is at most 33(xx). I don't know how you propose to play 1M-2D, but you could play that as 3+ natural too, covering those limit raises without 3C.

[blackshoe]

That would be fine if responder's first bid had been legal. In fact many people have been told that playing 2C as an art GF is fine GCC.

Um. Playing 2♣ as an artificial GF over 1 of a suit is legal, provided it is not part of a relay system. If the 2♣ bid is a relay (defined as a bid that asks opener to make the next step bid (usually) or make some other descriptive call, then the responder's second bid cannot also be a relay, for that would constitute a relay system.

 

Including invitational hands in 2♣ would be illegal under the GCC because the call must be GF.

[blackshoe]

One GCC option is to play that 2C is"natural" 3+ cards, either a 3card major limit raise or C GF.

I'm not so sure that's legal - there is no explicit provision for it in the GCC, and if there isn't, then it seems to me "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" (near the top of the chart, just above "Opening Bids") applies.

[kenrexford]

One GCC option is to play that 2C is"natural" 3+ cards, either a 3card major limit raise or C GF.

I'm not so sure that's legal - there is no explicit provision for it in the GCC, and if there isn't, then it seems to me "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" (near the top of the chart, just above "Opening Bids") applies.

If the call shows 3+ clubs, it is natural, and any limitations on when you do this become treatments, not conventions.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the question is whether the RA must explicitly designate such an understanding as "special". They certainly could do so, if if they did could make it illegal.

 

I'm not sure what the ACBL's stance on this is currently. I shall ask.

[glen]

... Is this method legal in GCC Events?  Mid-chart?  Superchart?

Not legal in GCC (but see note about 3rd/4th seat in next post, which is correct), legal in super, likely legal in the clear-as-mud mid-chart mess (edit: for mid-chart, changed from likely not legal).

 

Played by the late Barry Crane in GCC type events of his time, and thus the convention was not allowed by charts but allowed by TDs for certain partnerships.

 

Recently featured in the ACBL Bulletin's The Bidding Box, even though it did not mention it was GCC illegal. imo, it would better to mention that it was illegal to avoid partnerships trying something they see in the Bidding Box at a tournament only to get a bad experience with ACBL regs.

 

If allowed in GCC events I would likely play 1♥/♠-?:

 

2♣: ♣s or balanced, game force

2♦: ♦s (unbalanced) game force, or limit raise in major

 

or

 

2♣: ♣s or balanced, game force

2♦: ♦s (unbalanced) game force, or single raise in major weak or bad constructive

2M: good constructive to limit raise

[campboy]

It's GCC legal if the opening was in third or fourth seat, though (under the same regulation which permits Drury).

[PrecisionL]

Well, try 2♣ = artificial G.F. Then, use Compressed Bergen: 1M - 3♣ = 4-cd raise, either mixed or Limit (3♦ asks) and 1M - 3♦ is now the 3-cd Limit Raise.

 

Now 1M - 2♦ is natural, but N.F. and < 10 hcp.

[peachy]

Several responses have been given here to the OP, to my surprise. The answer seems very clear but knowing how rare such clarity is, I might have missed something LOL.

 

Conventional 2C response by unpassed hand to a 1D, 1H, 1S opening bid is GCC legal if it is gameforcing, and not GCC legal if it is not gameforcing. One of the two meanings (flawed limit raise in opener's suit) says nothing about clubs, which makes it conventional.

 

Under RESPONSES AND REBIDS, item 3.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[awm]

It's not general chart (except 3rd/4th seat where drury is allowed).

 

If redefined so that it always shows 3+♣ (i.e. 2♣ is natural, either invitational values with clubs and a fit, or game forcing values with clubs) then it should be allowed.

 

The method would certainly be mid-chart, where all constructive responses are permitted. There's nothing remotely resembling a "relay system" in this call.

[aguahombre]

Since, it is not GCC legal with only 2 clubs, its usefulness seems to go away. Presumably the purpose is to eliminate major-suit raises from the possible hand types that a forcing NT can have.

 

Of course, if 2C shows 3+ and could be bid with a 3-card limit raise, that would be old fashioned Standard American; and that is no fun.

[TimG]

One GCC option is to play that 2C is"natural" 3+ cards, either a 3card major limit raise or C GF.

I'm not so sure that's legal - there is no explicit provision for it in the GCC, and if there isn't, then it seems to me "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" (near the top of the chart, just above "Opening Bids") applies.

Neither does the GCC specifically allow a 1S opening which promises 5+ spades and 13+ HCP. For that matter, I don't think it specifically allows any 1S opening bid; none of the eight listed items under "OPENING BIDS" addresses a 1S opening bid.

 

It is true that the GCC is a "convention chart", but the chart says "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". It does not say "unless specifically allowed, conventional methods are disallowed".

 

It has long been held that item #1 under Definitions implicitly permits natural methods, but that is not strictly the case: a 2S opening which shows 5+ spades and a 4+ card minor is not allowed in GCC events despite it being natural by the given definition.

 

As you point out, under the most recent Laws, there is no longer a definition of conventional and a Sponsoring Organization may designate any method "special" and regulate those methods even if natural.

[CSGibson]

Follow up question: The consensus seems to think that this is a mid-chart method. Does that mean a pre-alert/written explanation/Approved defense is required for this method?

[TimG]

Follow up question:  The consensus seems to think that this is a mid-chart method.  Does that mean a pre-alert/written explanation/Approved defense is required for this method?

You should read the mid-chart...

 

When using a method permitted by the Mid-Chart but not by the

General Convention Chart, a pair is required to:

1. Pre-Alert the method(s)

2. Have a written description of the method(s) available for the opponents.

3. Except for those methods authorized by sections #1 – 5 below,

have a copy of the approved suggested defense available for each

opponent.

My brief reading of your method leads me to believe that it is permitted under #3 below, so it does not require an approved defense.

[PrecisionL]

 

It has long been held that item #1 under Definitions implicitly permits natural methods, but that is not strictly the case: a 2S opening which shows 5+ spades and a 4+ card minor is not allowed in GCC events despite it being natural by the given definition.

 

As you point out, under the most recent Laws, there is no longer a definition of conventional and a Sponsoring Organization may designate any method "special" and regulate those methods even if natural.

Well, the CC is a mess and I often get conflicting rulings from rulings@acbl.org, BUT 5♠ and 4♣ hands can be opened 2♠ if 10+ hcp.

[TimG]

 

It has long been held that item #1 under Definitions implicitly permits natural methods, but that is not strictly the case: a 2S opening which shows 5+ spades and a 4+ card minor is not allowed in GCC events despite it being natural by the given definition.

 

As you point out, under the most recent Laws, there is no longer a definition of conventional and a Sponsoring Organization may designate any method "special" and regulate those methods even if natural.

Well, the CC is a mess and I often get conflicting rulings from rulings@acbl.org, but 5♠ and 4♣ hands can be opened 2♠ if 10+ hcp.

From the allowed section:

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits.

 

So, it would appear that your method (promising spades and clubs) is GCC legal. If it was 5+ spades and 4+ in either minor, or if the bid could be made on fewer than the 10 HCP, the method would not be GCC legal.

 

Item 12 from the mid-chart is:

 

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

4-card minor. (2)

 

So, a weak opening 2S showing 5+ spades and an undisclosed 4+ card minor is mid-chart legal. But, there does not seem to be a provision for playing a constructive 2S opening showing 5+ spades and an undisclosed 4+ card minor.

 

The charts are indeed a mess. And, you are not alone in getting conflicting rulings depending upon whom you ask at ACBL (or upon what day of the week you ask).

[straube]

Chris, I agree this is only Midchart legal. As you're also considering using this for the Midchart anyway, why not use for spades...

 

2C-artificial GF

2D-hearts

2H-LR

2S-CR

 

for hearts

 

2C-artificial GF

2D-LR

2H-CR