another gcc question

[luke warm]

it's an acbl tourney and the bidding goes:

 

(1h) 2h* (p) 2nt

 

2h was michael's and 2nt wasn't alerted, but was queried... the explanation was 'asking for partner's minor'... the question(s):

 

1) is 2nt gcc legal when used in that way?

2) if it is, how does it differ from 1h* (p) 1s where 1h shows a 2 suited hand and 1s asks for opener's 2nd suit?

 

both bids are 'tell me more' bids, right? thanks

[scoob]

1) yes

2) i believe the distinguishing feature in the eyes of the GCC is that michaels is a defensive bid, while 1H is an open, which cannot promise an undisclosed 2nd 5card suit

 

in one of the older versions of the system llammas and i play now, our 2major opens showed a natural major & an undisclosed minor, with 2NT asking for that minor - it didn't fly with the GCC so we were forced to change them.

 

it's a strange little world over here in GCC land lol

[hrothgar]

Under "competitive" the GCC clearly permits:

 

"6. Cuebids of an opponent's suit and responses thereto"

 

Hence, this is legal. Its as simple as that.

 

Don't bother looking for logic.

There is none.

[luke warm]

imho that's just kaka... not your explanation, acbl's position..

 

2) i believe the distinguishing feature in the eyes of the GCC is that michaels is a defensive bid, while 1H is an open, which cannot promise an undisclosed 2nd 5card suit

 

wait a sec... are you saying that not only is the 1s bid disallowed, but the 1h also (if it promises an undisclosed 5 carder)? surely not

[scoob]

as you say: kaka

[hrothgar]

imho that's just kaka... not your explanation, acbl's position..

 

2) i believe the distinguishing feature in the eyes of the GCC is that michaels is a defensive bid, while 1H is an open, which cannot promise an undisclosed 2nd 5card suit

 

wait a sec... are you saying that not only is the 1s bid disallowed, but the 1h also (if it promises an undisclosed 5 carder)? surely not

Now that you mention it

 

A 1♥ opening the promises another 5+ card suit is a convention and its not licensed at the GCC level.

[luke warm]

geez

 

you're right, no use looking for any logic in that

[han]

I think that there actually is some logic involved here. The gcc is made to "protect" the less serious players to conventions they are not used to. Since nobody in those circles plays 1H as hearts plus another, while almost everybody plays michaels, it makes some sense to forbid the 1H bid but not the 2H bid.

 

Some other countries have similar logics. For instance, I believe that in The Netherlands, multi is allowed, but many similar calls are not. This is because Multi was already played a lot while the rules were being made. (This may not be true, I don't remember the source of the story)

[EricK]

Some other countries have similar logics. For instance, I believe that in The Netherlands, multi is allowed, but many similar calls are not. This is because Multi was already played a lot while the rules were being made. (This may not be true, I don't remember the source of the story)

I can't vouch for what happened in the Netherlands, but in the UK the multi is given special treatment because it was already popular when the new licencing methods were introduced. So it is allowed at levels where it logically shouldn't be, but there are restirctions on how you can play it

 

Eric

[luke warm]

I think that there actually is some logic involved here. The gcc is made to "protect" the less serious players to conventions they are not used to. Since nobody in those circles plays 1H as hearts plus another, while almost everybody plays michaels, it makes some sense to forbid the 1H bid but not the 2H bid.

 

Some other countries have similar logics. For instance, I believe that in The Netherlands, multi is allowed, but many similar calls are not. This is because Multi was already played a lot while the rules were being made. (This may not be true, I don't remember the source of the story)

i understand what you're saying, but my view is that logic (by definition) is objective in nature... this seems too subjective to be logical

 

i spoke with ben about this yesterday, and if i understood him he's of the opinion that this is a treatment, not a convention, and as such is legal...

[hrothgar]

i spoke with ben about this yesterday, and if i understood him he's of the opinion that this is a treatment, not a convention, and as such is legal...

The definition of convention is VERY clear

 

Convention

 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

 

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

 

A 1♥ opening that promises 5+ cards in another suit is most certainly a convention, just as a Muiderberg stle 2♥ opening that promises a 4+ card minor is also a convention.

 

There is some debate regarding the application of this definition. For example, I would argue that a highly disciplined major suit preempt style that denies a side suit void or a 4 card major is also a convention. While there is backing for this interpretation, it is a minority view. However, the 1♥ opening is clearly a convention.

[luke warm]

well i could have misunderstood what he said, we only spoke a moment... what if the 1♥ bid didn't promise a 5 card side suit? what if it promised 4+?

[hrothgar]

well i could have misunderstood what he said, we only spoke a moment... what if the 1♥ bid didn't promise a 5 card side suit? what if it promised 4+?

5 card, 4 card, stiff, it doesn't matter one way or another

 

the "important" criteria is that the call conveys information about another denomination...

[EricK]

well i could have misunderstood what he said, we only spoke a moment... what if the 1♥ bid didn't promise a 5 card side suit? what if it promised 4+?

5 card, 4 card, stiff, it doesn't matter one way or another

 

the "important" criteria is that the call conveys information about another denomination...

But really pretty much all calls say something about another suit.

 

eg In most systems a 1♥ opening categorically denies having 7♠.

 

Or to use a less extrene example:

 

1♠ 1NT 2♥. Using a forcing NT, the 2♥ bid, for most pairs at any rate, denies holding a four card minor.

 

That isn't to say I can come up with a better definition...

 

I personally think the definition is slightly ambiguous. One could certainly take it to mean that as long as you don't mind partner passing then it is not conventional (compare with "If you drop litter you will receive a punishment other than a jail sentence". If you received a jail sentence and a fine would you think you had been treated fairly?)

 

Eric

[inquiry]

I think richard and jimmy are arguing different things.

 

richard wants to open, say 1♥ to show a spade suit, or some sense. So when he says you can't open 1 in one suit to show five in another that is absolutely correct. That is disallowed, as it is an unapproved convention.

 

What jimmy is wondering about is opening a four card suit while having a five card suit. This is allowed. A ton of people open 1♦ with 4♦ and 5♣ for rebid purposes. Some people who don;t play flannery will do the same with 4♠ and 5♥. And, canape systems are legal, in that it is perfectly legal to open your second longest suit and then rebid your longest. None of these are conventions, and all of these are perfectly legal.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

I think richard and jimmy are arguing different things.

 

richard wants to open, say 1♥ to show a spade suit, or some sense. So when he says you can't open 1 in one suit to show five in another that is absolutely correct. That is disallowed, as it is an unapproved convention.

 

What jimmy is wondering about is opening a four card suit while having a five card suit. This is allowed. A ton of people open 1♦ with 4♦ and 5♣ for rebid purposes. Some people who don;t play flannery will do the same with 4♠ and 5♥. And, canape systems are legal, in that it is perfectly legal to open your second longest suit and then rebid your longest. None of these are conventions, and all of these are perfectly legal.

 

Ben

As I understand matters, the 1♥ opening being discussed explictly promises 5+ cards in another suit. This is very different from the examples that you are discussing in which a 1♥ may or may not show another suit...

 

As an example, I offer the following:

 

A Flannery 2♥ opening in which 2♥ promises 5+ Hearts, 4 Spades and ~11 - 15 HCP is clearly a convention and treated as such by the regulatory authorities.

 

A Muiderberg 2♥ opening in which 2♥ promises a 5+ Hearts suit and 4+ cards in a minor is once again a conventional bid...

[mikestar]

Jimmy has elsewhere inquired about Larry Weiss' Simplified Club, where 1 of a suit is canape and never one-suited. This is conventional by definition just as Richard said. The canape style where the second suit will be longer if there is a second suit is not a convention.

 

Simplified Club is a good system if you don't mind compromising your ability to open premptively and it isn't overly hard to defend against, but it isn't GCC legal because of the one bids.

 

Personally, I think the current definiton is wrong on this point. Though such an opening should be alertable, it should not be deemed a convention.

 

What I'd like to see is something like:

 

Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey a meaning of willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. An agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. An agreement that a call concurrently suggests playing in or length or strenght in another denomination does not make a call a convention.

 

The latter two sentences are for clarification. The first sentence is actually a sufficient statement. Note the good effects of restating the definiton in the negative--all sorts of wonderful bids that less advanced players are quite capable of defending against become non-conventional and therefor legal.

 

To my mind, no one above the rankest beginner should need protection against any method where a player has hearts when he bids hearts.

 

By the way, the existing law is flawed in that a strict reading of its letter makes Precision 1C non-conventional! Precision 1C does not express willingness to play in any denomination other than clubs, nor does it show length or values in any suit other than clubs--of course, it also doesn't express willingness to play in clubs or length or values in clubs. All it shows is 16+ HCP. This does not meet the current definition of a convention; equally clearly it does fit my negative restatement of the definition.

 

In conclusion, a law that makes an opening bid of 1H a convention when the opener has hearts a convention and doesn't make a purely artificail 1C opening a convention needs some rethinking.

 

Yes I know that both ACBL and WBF say Precision 1C is conventional, but they are contravening the letter of the law.

[luke warm]

mike's right... the system has a lot to recommend it imho... i like the idea of being able to show all hand types with one bid (1 suited, 2 suited, 3 suited and strong), but i don't like being unable to play it in acbl events.... i'm unable to travel to play in many regionals/nationals (where this is usually declared legal by chief TD), so i hate limiting myself to a system i can only use online

 

otoh, it is fun, tho philosophically it takes some getting used to (no weak 2 bids for example)

[inquiry]

I think richard and jimmy are arguing different things.

 

richard wants to open, say 1♥ to show a spade suit, or some sense. So when he says you can't open 1 in one suit to show five in another that is absolutely correct. That is disallowed, as it is an unapproved convention.

 

What jimmy is wondering about is opening a four card suit while having a five card suit. This is allowed. A ton of people open 1♦ with 4♦ and 5♣ for rebid purposes. Some people who don;t play flannery will do the same with 4♠ and 5♥. And, canape systems are legal, in that it is perfectly legal to open your second longest suit and then rebid your longest. None of these are conventions, and all of these are perfectly legal.

 

Ben

As I understand matters, the 1♥ opening being discussed explictly promises 5+ cards in another suit. This is very different from the examples that you are discussing in which a 1♥ may or may not show another suit...

 

As an example, I offer the following:

 

A Flannery 2♥ opening in which 2♥ promises 5+ Hearts, 4 Spades and ~11 - 15 HCP is clearly a convention and treated as such by the regulatory authorities.

 

A Muiderberg 2♥ opening in which 2♥ promises a 5+ Hearts suit and 4+ cards in a minor is once again a conventional bid...

Yes, Richard I know what you were saying EXPLICITY. I even repeated in my post this is what you were talking about. But if you read Jimmy's post, where he mentioned he talked to me, he was worried that what you were saying was, in essences, that Canape is GCC illegal. He came on here, and credit me with some comments (which I did make concerning canape) when he said. i spoke with ben about this yesterday, and if i understood him he's of the opinion that this is a treatment, not a convention, and as such is legal...

 

I was clarifying his comments that referred to me, and what we discussed on line the day before, and comparing that with what you were talking about. But thanks for point it out... as I must be an idiot not to know what you were discussing, even though I credited you with EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

 

ben

[mikestar]

Ben,

 

I read the original post and Jimmy's subsequent post-- the question was about a 1 heart opening that is only opened on 2-suited hands, promising an unspecifed second suit. In the system in question, one suited heart hands are not opend 1 heart, they are openend 2 hearts. The guarantee of the existence of a second suit it what makes the bid a convention, not the fact that it is longer. (A non-canape version which promisedised 5+ hearts and an unspecified 4+ side suit would be equally conventional.)

 

You and Jimmy had a miscommunication or your interpretation of the law does not agree with Richard's and mine. The question of normal canape, where one heart could have a longer side suit but might be a heart one suiter was not asked in the post. If that is what Jimmy asked you in your private communication, worrying than canape itself might not be legal, it was a different question than the one he asked in his posts.

 

OK--we've all had a failure to communicate. I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?

[inquiry]

Ben,

 

I read the original post -- the question was about a 1 heart opening that is only opened on 2-suited hands, promising an unspecifed second suit. In the system in question, one suited heart hands are not opend 1 heart, they are openend 2 hearts. The guarantee of the existence of a second suit it what makes the bid a convention, not the fact that it is longer. (A non-canape version which promisedised 5+ hearts and an unspecified 4+ side suit would be equally conventional.)

 

You and Jimmy had a miscommunication or your interpretation of the law does not agree with Richard's and mine. The question of normal canape, where one heart could have a longer side suit but might be a heart one suiter was not asked in the post. If that is what Jimmy asked you in your private communication, worrying than canape itself might not be legal, it was a different question than the one he asked in the original post.

 

OK--we've all had a failure to communicate. I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?

Yes Jimmy asked me if this thread meant that canape was illegal. I told him no, that canape was legal as a treatment (open one of suit may or maynot have longer second suit).

 

Jimmy communicated my comments, which were correct reflection of what I said, as it related to canape. I never questioned the issue issue of whether opening 1H with a known or unknown second suit (or even a different suit and not hearts) was illegal (it is). I only wanted to address the communication between jimmy and me (he asked me about canape being illegal under GCC).

 

Since I thought there was a failure of understanding, I pointed out what jimmy was worried about (in my conversation with him, and in reply here quoting me) was something QUITE different from what richard was discussing.

 

So to quote you....

I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?

 

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying... a 1♥ opening bid that may or may not have a second suit, and may or may not be your longest suit, but which DOES show hearts is perfectly legal and is not a convention. A 1♥ bid that promises anything other than just hearts and opening values is a convention, and may or may not be legal depending upon rather or not such convention is allowed. For the ACBL, no such 1♥ conventions are allowed. So your assertions are 100% correct.

 

Ben

[luke warm]

thanks everyone