GCC Question about overcall of 1N

[steve2005]

GCC says

"7. DEFENSE TO:

 

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct

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

 

does this mean that balancing calls don't have the restriction of at least one known suit for 2♦(the one im interested in)

2♥ & 2♠ ?

[ArtK78]

Yes.

[steve2005]

that's great.

I want to use 2♦ as an unnamed 6 card major, plus it means 2♣ can be for majors which is better than 2♦ s in cap.

 

also means you can use crash in balance, not as destructive as in direct but still could cause headaches for opener

[Vampyr]

that's great.

I want to use 2♦ as an unnamed 6 card major, plus it means 2♣ can be for majors which is better than 2♦ s in cap.

 

also means you can use crash in balance, not as destructive as in direct but still could cause headaches for opener

 

Wait, so Multi-Landy and the like are not permitted unless you are balancing? This never occurred to me, or I would have put it in my post asking what was allowed!

[akwoo]

Wait, so Multi-Landy and the like are not permitted unless you are balancing? This never occurred to me, or I would have put it in my post asking what was allowed!

 

Multi-Landy is not GCC. I believe a fair number of regions have received permission to allow a 2♦ overcall of 1N, showing an unspecified major, in otherwise GCC events.

[steve2005]

the restriction of having an known suit appears to apply only in a direct overcall. This makes some sense as opp have had a chance to make there bids with no interference.(edit sentences got mixed up)

 

so balancing anything goes. This makes some sense as opponents have had a chance to bid their system unimpeded.

 

also there is another spot on GCC which allows conventional balancing conventions calls.

 

from GCC

"COMPETITIVE

1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS"

[Vampyr]

What about doubles? Our defense to a strong NT includes X=majors or minors or diamonds. Is this permitted?

[steve2005]

What about doubles? Our defense to a strong NT includes X=majors or minors or diamonds. Is this permitted?

Double and 2♣ in direct seat don't need a known suit so ok

[Siegmund]

Double and 2C can have any meaning you wish. To be GCC, 2D and higher must contain a known suit.

 

Multi-Landy is Midchart only because of the 2D bid.

Similarly CRASH's 2D bid is Midchart, but people often adapt with something like X=color 2C=shape 2D=majors 2NT=minors which is GCC.

 

As noted above, there are several ACBL districts that allow "GCC+any notrump defense" in their regionals. Side games at an NABC will always be GCC.

[Vampyr]

Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

David Stevenson's 1NT defence pages also contain a line indicating whether the defence is GCC legal. Back in the old days, there was also an indicator for EBU Level 3 legality.

[steve2005]

Its official. I asked for a ruling from ACBL. and it came back.

Multi-Landy is legal in balancing seat.

or for that matter any system goes in balance.

[blackshoe]

According to which provision of the Convention Regulations? And according to whom at ACBL?

[mycroft]

I assume according to the either of the quotes from the GCC in this thread (overcalls of NT, balancing calls), no?

 

I will admit I was surprised to notice this on a reread.

[TylerE]

ANYTHING in balancing seat is legal? What about an agreement, of something like: X = 0-4 or 16+

[steve2005]

According to which provision of the Convention Regulations? And according to whom at ACBL?

GCC says

"7. DEFENSE TO:

 

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct

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

 

 

so ruled restriction is on direct calls not balancing calls. on the theory that " Once the auction has gone 1NT pass pass the defensive systems have less to do with how the opening side can communicate."

 

I asked him specifically about 2♦ as either major (part of Multi-Landy), but should apply to almost anything

 

this was from Dan rulings@acbl.org

[blackshoe]

GCC says

"7. DEFENSE TO:

 

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct

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

 

 

so ruled restriction is on direct calls not balancing calls. on the theory that " Once the auction has gone 1NT pass pass the defensive systems have less to do with how the opening side can communicate."

 

I asked him specifically about 2♦ as either major (part of Multi-Landy), but should apply to almost anything

 

this was from Dan rulings@acbl.org

Okay, fair enough, although I have no idea who "Dan" is. I do know that although Mike Flader writes the "Ruling the Game" column in the Bulletin, and the "rulings@acbl.org" address is specifically tied to that column, several people at HQ are apparently tasked with answering mail to "rulings", not just Mike.

[aguahombre]

Its official. I asked for a ruling from ACBL. and it came back.

Multi-Landy is legal in balancing seat.

or for that matter any system goes in balance.

Yes, it appears they were able to read what we are able to read; and yet, amazingly the question continues to be asked...and some people continue to disagree.

 

It is a valid observation that club-level directors have differing understanding of the laws, and different degrees of concern about following the laws.

 

But, IME, National-level ACBL TD's and the people at HQ kind enough to answer questions from us peons only give controversial replies when the context or wording of the question itself was faulty.

[blackshoe]

you've had better luck than I have with HQ then.

 

Ask HQ or a National TD whether scoring a board as "not played" when a pair was scheduled to play it, but was unable to do so because they ran out of time, is legal. The answer I heard (from Butch Campbell) was "that's what it's for!". "It" meaning "a score of 'not played'".

 

I do seem to remember this question being addressed by Mike Flader in his "Ruling the Game" column sometime in the last year or two. IIRC, he refused to call it illegal, but he did say "I wouldn't do it". Yet I see nothing in the laws that permits it.

[aguahombre]

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate? Flader is saying what he would do. That is not a law interpretation; it is a concession that the issue is not covered by a law.

[Siegmund]

It comes down to whether you think failing to play fast enough to finish a board is an "irregularity." The laws don't explicitly say it is. But 8B2 speaks of "canceling a board" as something different from the "proper movement...and progression" set in 8A1.

 

If you do believe it's an irregularity when the players cause the movement to not be completed, then you go straight to 12C2 which tells you what adjusted score to award, and NP isn't in the list. It may well be 50/50 if you can't tell who is at fault... but my experience is that you almost invariably can.

 

I have used NP when a contestant withdrew for a medical emergency, and have seen it used when the whole last round of the game was cancelled for everyone because of time constraints. I have never used it in place of a late play and never will.

[RMB1]

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? ...

 

The pairs might object if they knew that Law 12C2 gives them (at least) 60% if they are not at fault.

[aguahombre]

The pairs might object if they knew that Law 12C2 gives them (at least) 60% if they are not at fault.

I am not convinced that applies. Depends on the interpretation of "owing to an irregularity". I would not have thought running out of time when neither pair is to blame, or a player getting sick was included in 12C2.

[gordontd]

Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate?

And where in the laws do you find those two words used as a method of awarding a score on a board?

[blackshoe]

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate? Flader is saying what he would do. That is not a law interpretation; it is a concession that the issue is not covered by a law.

If he believes that, then he should have said so.

 

A board is scheduled to be played. Implicit in that is that it is scheduled to be scored. I will grant there is at least one case where "not played" is a viable approach. That one case is where the movement is amended to, for example, eliminate the last round, or part of it, perhaps due to lack of time. But then everybody loses the opportunity to play the same number of boards. A "slow play" case is different. Two pairs lose the opportunity to play (usually) one board. The schedule of boards to be played is not amended; they're simply told that in order to keep the movement going, they have to move, and therefore cannot play the board at this time. The director can require that the board be played at the end of the session. Many people don't like that - there is the "I have to go or I'll miss the last train" argument. Perhaps the venue does not remain available for some reason. I understand the objections, but it doesn't change the basic principle. Law 12C2a starts "When owing to an irregularity no score can be obtained…" Slow play is such an irregularity. The law continues "… the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity…" Nothing in there at all about "not played". A pair not responsible for slow play is entitled to 60% of a top on this board. More if they're having a better game. It is neither fair nor legal to deprive them of this. A pair which is responsible for slow play may also get a windfall, if they're having a better than 40% game. Is that fair? It's certainly not legal.

 

I'm guessing, but I think "not played" was put into ACBLScore because amending a movement on the fly (to delete the last round, for example) is a PITA, and a little scary for many club TDs (you get a message that you may lose all the scores that are already entered). I don't know where the idea to use it for slow play cases originated, but I say again that Law 12C2a tells us how to score a board not played because of slow play, and "not played" is not the way.