GCC legal?

[relknes]

I read in the GCC that responses that ask for singletons or voids are legal, as are trump quality asks. Is the following bid legal, as it combines a singleton/void ask with a trump quality ask?

 

1x - 2♣ = fit for partner, invitational or better values, asking for singleton/void and trump quality.

 

Responses are:

 

2x = light opener, good 5+ suit

2y = sound opener and a singleton in the bid suit and 5+ trump

2N = sound values with only 4 in the opened suit

3♣ = sound opener with a singleton/void in clubs and 5+ trump

3x = sound opener with 5+ in the suit, but no singleton or void

3y = sound opener with a void in the bid suit and 5+ trump

[daveharty]

I don't think this would be legal; it would seem to fall under the ACBL definition of a "relay system", which are disallowed under the GCC. But others are more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Maybe the fact that 2C shows a fit makes it okay.

[aguahombre]

As Dave, I only know what I can read; however, I read it differently. There seems to be a distinction between a systemic fit-showing bid which also serves as an asking bid (your example) and what they describe in the GCC as a "relay tell-me-more system".

 

In your case, if the relays do not continue on after the answer to the first, I don't believe the wording considers it a relay "system". Cases in point:

 

NMF---asking for more information, but the continuations are not relays.

J2N---Opener shows something or other, but no more relays ensue.

[CSGibson]

its not legal. Or, rather, if it were legal than it would also be legal to play Drury in all seats, and it is not. It would be legal if it promised game forcing values, but not as invitational+

[aguahombre]

That answer is logical, if we can find somewhere in the GCC that 2C in response to an opening 1M showing a major suit fit is illegal. 2C in response to a 3rd seat 1M is allowed, but that does not exclude automatically its use in response to a 1st or second seat opening. Maybe it is there, but I can't find it.

 

What I do find is that a relay system is defined as a sequence of relays, and that a relay system is not allowed. One relay is not a sequence.

 

I fully expect to be enlightened by the real Laws gurus, and personally don't have a stake in the answer since 2/1=g.f. but not a relay for us. I just would like the OP and others to be able to do what they have worked out, since it cannot damage the opponents and is not with destructive intent.

[blackshoe]

As has already been pointed out, this is not a relay system unless responder's second bid is a relay.

 

Someone suggested it's not legal because it's not game forcing (Item 3 under responses and rebids). However, read number 9 under responses and rebids. Read it carefully, and don't assume it means something it doesn't say. If you do that, this bid is legal under that item. Now, whether an experienced and well trained ACBL Tournament TD would rule it legal I don't know, but that's another story.

[SteveMoe]

Analogy:

 

In Precision, when partner opens 2♣ 11-15 with 6+ ♣s, responder can bid 2♦ with 11+ HCP (no other implication about responder's holding), asking partner to further describe his/her hand. Strength, major suits, and balanced or unbalanced shapes are part of the response structure. Decades ago I asked why 2♦ could be used automatically to allow opener to fully describe their hand. I was told that the 11+ HCP (Invitational +) was sufficient description of responder's hand and that one ask did not a relay system make.

 

2♣ as Invitational Plus by itself is not GCC. So we cannot play 2♣ as a balanced GF, ♣ GF, or Inv+ raise except in superchart (?) events. It's the Inv range that apparently causes problems. The shape showing response structure is expressly allowed by the ACBL - GCC Responses and rebids: 9. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto - are expressly allowed. A single response to an artificial forcing bid is not a relay system - a relay system requires more than one "tell me more" bid in sequence.

 

Does anyone see the inconsistency in these two cases?

 

I do. What I don't see is how to resolve them constructively with the authorities...

[CSGibson]

As has already been pointed out, this is not a relay system unless responder's second bid is a relay.

 

Someone suggested it's not legal because it's not game forcing (Item 3 under responses and rebids). However, read number 9 under responses and rebids. Read it carefully, and don't assume it means something it doesn't say. If you do that, this bid is legal under that item. Now, whether an experienced and well trained ACBL Tournament TD would rule it legal I don't know, but that's another story.

 

except that if you read the actual treatment, it really asks: Do you have a sound opener? If not, bid 2x, if so, describe singletons & length of suit. That is completely different than a bid that strictly asks about singletons/voids or a bid asking about trump quality, or both. OP seems to be trying to make 1st & 2nd seat drury legal, and to fudge around the convention chart. I don't think this is the solution.

[CSGibson]

Analogy:

 

In Precision, when partner opens 2♣ 11-15 with 6+ ♣s, responder can bid 2♦ with 11+ HCP (no other implication about responder's holding), asking partner to further describe his/her hand. Strength, major suits, and balanced or unbalanced shapes are part of the response structure. Decades ago I asked why 2♦ could be used automatically to allow opener to fully describe their hand. I was told that the 11+ HCP (Invitational +) was sufficient description of responder's hand and that one ask did not a relay system make.

 

2♣ as Invitational Plus by itself is not GCC. So we cannot play 2♣ as a balanced GF, ♣ GF, or Inv+ raise except in superchart (?) events. It's the Inv range that apparently causes problems. The shape showing response structure is expressly allowed by the ACBL - GCC Responses and rebids: 9. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto - are expressly allowed. A single response to an artificial forcing bid is not a relay system - a relay system requires more than one "tell me more" bid in sequence.

 

Does anyone see the inconsistency in these two cases?

 

I do. What I don't see is how to resolve them constructively with the authorities...

 

In the first case, 2D is an artificial response after an opening bid of 2C or higher, specifically allowed under this point:

 

"7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)"

 

The 2nd is not specifically allowed after a 1st or 2nd seat opener (though it is legal in mid chart, I believe, as a constructive response).

[SteveMoe]

In the first case, 2D is an artificial response after an opening bid of 2C or higher, specifically allowed under this point:

 

"7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)"

 

The 2nd is not specifically allowed after a 1st or 2nd seat opener (though it is legal in mid chart, I believe, as a constructive response).

 

Don't think #7 applies Chris - the Precision 2♣ opener is 11-15 not 15+, and 2♣ is not forcing...

[Siegmund]

Don't think #7 applies Chris - the Precision 2♣ opener is 11-15 not 15+, and 2♣ is not forcing...

 

It is, however, an opening of two clubs or higher.

 

Returning to the original question, a) I would be surprised if they intend the GCC to allow the same non-jump bid to ask for both shortness and trump quality, and b) I would be surprised if they intend the GCC to allow the 2C response to both promise support and do a bunch of other stuff -- as opposed to a 2C response that JUST asked for a singleton, without making any promises about anything.

[CSGibson]

Don't think #7 applies Chris - the Precision 2♣ opener is 11-15 not 15+, and 2♣ is not forcing...

 

 

Read again. It is EITHER 15+ OR 2C or higher, not both.

[SteveMoe]

Read again. It is EITHER 15+ OR 2C or higher, not both.

Yup - misread the first time.

Still, the difference feels incongruous.

[Cascade]

Still, the difference feels incongruous.

 

Welcome to the GCC

[hrothgar]

 

Returning to the original question, a) I would be surprised if they intend the GCC to allow the same non-jump bid to ask for both shortness and trump quality, and b) I would be surprised if they intend the GCC to allow the 2C response to both promise support and do a bunch of other stuff -- as opposed to a 2C response that JUST asked for a singleton, without making any promises about anything.

 

I think the Siegmund is hitting the nail right on the head.

 

Your 2♣ ask is discriminating between

 

1. Light and sound openers

2. The presence / absence of a singleton

3. The presence / absence of a 5th trump

 

If you didn't have the light / sound opening information then the opening would probably be legal. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that

 

1. An ask for singletons / voids is legal

2. An ask for trump quality is legal

3, An ask about both singletons and trump quality is not

[Zelandakh]

If we were to remove the light/sound opening quality from the responses, so that, say:

 

1♠ - 2♣

==

2♦ = no shortage (then 2♥ = min raise (say 9-10) or GF; 2♠ = limit raise)

2♥ = good trumps and side shortage

2♠ = bad trumps

2NT = very good trumps without void

3m = very good trumps and void in m

3♥ = very good trumps and heart void

 

Notwithstanding the point about combined asks being potentially illegal, this seems to qualify to the strict letter of the regulation. By condensing the 2♦♥♠ responses we can get some of the functionality of Drury without explicitly asking about strength. Anyone have any objection to this scheme?

[barmar]

Yup - misread the first time.

Still, the difference feels incongruous.

That's because you're thinking of it wrong. They don't have general principles, and then systems that fit the principles are allowed. Instead, they decided which systems and conventions they wanted to allow (Precision, Jacoby 2NT, Drury are OK, Multi isn't) and then crafted the GCC in a way that it would allow what they wanted, without actually naming them (so the specific biases aren't overt).

[relknes]

If we were to remove the light/sound opening quality from the responses, so that, say:

 

1♠ - 2♣

==

2♦ = no shortage (then 2♥ = min raise (say 9-10) or GF; 2♠ = limit raise)

2♥ = good trumps and side shortage

2♠ = bad trumps

2NT = very good trumps without void

3m = very good trumps and void in m

3♥ = very good trumps and heart void

 

Notwithstanding the point about combined asks being potentially illegal, this seems to qualify to the strict letter of the regulation. By condensing the 2♦♥♠ responses we can get some of the functionality of Drury without explicitly asking about strength. Anyone have any objection to this scheme?

Would this still work over 1♦ and 1♥?

Also, there does seem to be some disagreement on whether or not a combined ask is legal. Does anyone have a final answer on that?

[aguahombre]

Also, there does seem to be some disagreement on whether or not a combined ask is legal. Does anyone have a final answer on that?

I think Ed had as final an answer as we will be getting (post #6), until it comes up at the table with a particular TD...and the time after that.

[jeffford76]

Also, there does seem to be some disagreement on whether or not a combined ask is legal. Does anyone have a final answer on that?

 

I believe there is no way to get an official ACBL answer on whether a convention is legal under a particular chart.

[hrothgar]

I believe there is no way to get an official ACBL answer on whether a convention is legal under a particular chart.

 

This is true. However, to balance this out, its very easy to get multiple (conflicting) ACBL answers regarding whether conventions are legal, and many of these suggest that they are official...

[mycroft]

That's because you're thinking of it wrong. They don't have general principles, and then systems that fit the principles are allowed. Instead, they decided which systems and conventions they wanted to allow (Precision, Jacoby 2NT, Drury are OK, Multi isn't) and then crafted the GCC in a way that it would allow what they wanted, without actually naming them (so the specific biases aren't overt).

Well, yes, but I believe it was the other way around.

 

Years ago, there were real convention charts, A to F, and they had conventions on them. And if you played them (the only way they were played, of course), you could, in events that included that chart or higher. (Now Justice) Amalya Kearse's Bridge Conventions Complete was exactly that, back then - if you could play it (in the ACBL), it was in Kearse's book, explained well enough to actually play it. Kind of fun, really.

 

But nobody played conventions exactly the same way, and they would keep on inventing new ones. So the ACBL moved to "you can play conventional X calls that say Y" charts, and made sure that the regular tournament games (that became GCC) could play all the stuff you could play at the old level (I believe it was Class C). So, of course, you can see that "we want to allow Romex Dynamic NT, and Precision 2♣ and 2♦, and Drury, and ..." in the GCC, to this day; you can also see that they want to be able to say "we don't like this kind of call".

 

Add 30 years of massaging (and after about 25 of them, they realized they had to update their "if you don't have a convention card, you're limited to Class A conventions..." spiel at every Nationals) you get the current GCC.

[Flem72]

its not legal. Or, rather, if it were legal than it would also be legal to play Drury in all seats, and it is not. It would be legal if it promised game forcing values, but not as invitational+

 

IIRC, inv+ is GCC disallowed b/c Barry Crane played this way. And he won too much....

 

After thinking about this a while -- and it is one of the GCC rules that really pisses me me off, along with Kaplan Inversion -- it seems to me that 2C inv+ or C should be allowed so long as there are no Drury-like controls on weak openers. That, after all, was the problem with Crane's use of the structure: it was truly "all seat Drury." Why not allow it using a rule similar to psychic controls: OK so long as there is no rebid that announces the sub-min opener? Or is that too complicated for the masses? too much of a disadvantage to them?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Flem72

[blackshoe]

Add 30 years of massaging (and after about 25 of them, they realized they had to update their "if you don't have a convention card, you're limited to Class A conventions..." spiel at every Nationals) you get the current GCC.

That may well have happened because I (and perhaps other people, but I know I did) wrote in and pointed out that there's no such thing as "Class A conventions" these days.