ehhh Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Is CRASH a general convention chart defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Over what? 1NT? Strong club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Most conventions that go by the name of CRASH are legal in ACBL General Convention Chart events, since (almost) any methods are permitted over conventional calls and over opening bids of 2C and higher. Versions of CRASH over a natural 1NT opening are likely to be illegal, since at least one call in addition to double and 2C will show a 2-suiter with no known suit. All this assumes that by CRASH you refer to a set of three overcalls that show respectively 2-suiters of the same colour, same rank or same shape, such as (over a strong 1C), Double is S+C or H+D, 1D is S+H or C+D, 1NT is S+D or H+C - there are many variations on the theme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 against sstrong club: yesagain 1nt : no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Of course, depending on where OP is... if it's Ontario, California and not Ontario, Canada, it is legal, at least in regional and below levels since the Calif. district has a special rider to the GCC explicitly allowing GCC+Any constructive defense to 1NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 The question was "is it GCC?", not "can I play it?". Whether or not it is GCC is independent of whether the original poster is from planet Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I think his point was that "GCC-legal" means something different in California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffford76 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I think his point was that "GCC-legal" means something different in California. I know it's pedantic, but "GCC-legal" means the same thing in California. They run events under a rule set that is slightly different than the GCC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 There are three districts in California, and the Western Conference includes more than that; so I have no idea what Tyler is talking about, and am surprised Barry went along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegmund Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 As already said - Crash over any conventional opening is allowed; over a natural 1NT, the 2D bid is not legal because it has no known suit, but the double and 2C meanings are allowed. The obvious fix is to use 2D=majors 2NT=minors, along with an ambiguous X and 2C -- "Chasm" if double is red-or-black, "Scum" if double is pointed-or-round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 the Calif. district has a special rider to the GCC explicitly allowing GCC+Any constructive defense to 1NTdoes crash count as "constructive"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 I know it's pedantic, but "GCC-legal" means the same thing in California. They run events under a rule set that is slightly different than the GCC.But I assumed they advertise them as being run under the GCC, and the dispensation is what allows this difference; so a reference to the GCC in that part of the ACBL means something different. If they actually document that they're running their events under this "relaxed" variant of the GCC, then I take back what I said. There are three districts in California, and the Western Conference includes more than that; so I have no idea what Tyler is talking about, and am surprised Barry went along with it.I don't have ACBL's district map memorized; California is on the opposite coast, I don't have much need to concern myself with district boundaries there. I went along with it because it sounded plausible (it's the ACBL, so anything is possible), and I saw no need to personally verify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffford76 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 But I assumed they advertise them as being run under the GCC, and the dispensation is what allows this difference; so a reference to the GCC in that part of the ACBL means something different. If they actually document that they're running their events under this "relaxed" variant of the GCC, then I take back what I said. I don't know what parts of California actually have liberal NT defenses. I regularly play in Oregon, where they have the same rules, and flyers contain language like this (taken from the upcoming Seaside Regional), "Mid-chart Conventions: Allowed in all stand alone Flight A/AX events and top bracket of Knockout Teams (excluding Compact KOs). Midchart defenses to the opponents’ 1NT are allowed in all events." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Advertising as GCC an event in which conventions not allowed on the GCC are permitted violates ACBL regulations. Not to mention it would smell an awful lot like fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 See for instance: District 20http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/Ads/2013/02/1302026.pdf D20 covers Oregon, Northern California including SF, and most of Nevada except the Las Vegas area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Midchart defenses to the opponents’ 1NT are allowed in all events."OK, that's different from my initial interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Jefford was quoting the conditions of contest for certain Regional tournaments. That is a whole separate issue from any particular District being given special license. They are taking license districts already have. The GCC is what it is. The conditions of contest state whether Mid-Chart items are permitted in some of their events. They are not changing the GCC for their tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 See for instance: District 20http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/Ads/2013/02/1302026.pdf D20 covers Oregon, Northern California including SF, and most of Nevada except the Las Vegas area. D20 covers Oregon, Hawaii, Guam, far northern California NOT including SF, some small part of southern washington, and Boise/Nampa Idaho. No part of Nevada is in D20 now that Reno changed districts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Apologies. The map I looked at must have been quite out of date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 I took no offense, just wanted to correct an inaccuracy, as someone who frequently gets involved in D20 bridge politics ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 D20 covers Oregon, Hawaii, Guam, far northern California NOT including SF, some small part of southern washington, and Boise/Nampa Idaho. No part of Nevada is in D20 now that Reno changed districts.It would appear the ACBL website needs to be updated then. It says D20 covers "Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Nevada & Hawaii" and includes the following Units: 394 Boise398 Nampa-Caldwell452 Vancouver457 Chico/Paradise458 Eureka460 Sutter Buttes461 Nevada County464 Redding469 The Big Island470 Honolulu471 Wailuku, Maui476 Bend477 Corvallis479 Eugene481 Grants Pass482 Klamath Falls484 Jackson County485 Ontario487 Portland490 Salem491 Seaside492 Mid-Columbia493 Tillamook569 Ukiah572 Central Coast Guam is apparently part of Unit 470. None of these Units, as far as I can tell, is in Nevada. Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii are all represented. The map on the D20 website appears to be accurate, and shows the same 25 Units as are listed here and on the ACBL website. The D20 website describes their area as "SW Washington, SW Idaho, Oregon, N. California, & Hawaii". Seems like somebody should tell the ACBL webmaster of this discrepancy. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 From the list of units it appears to be consistent with what Gibson stated. Nevada County is in California, so I can't find the discrepancy you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 The discrepancy isn't in the list of units, which as you say doesn't include any in Nevada, and which matches the list on the D20 website. The discrepancy is in the general description of the geographical coverage of D20 (on the ACBL site) which still lists Nevada as part of the district. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted July 26, 2013 Report Share Posted July 26, 2013 Their posted map is totally wrong too. http://www.acbl.org/units/districts.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Another form of CRASH that noone has mentioned is over their 1 of a suit opening bid - cue = same colour; 2NT = same rank; 3♣ = same shape. Naturally this is different from the 1♣ and 1NT cases in that both suits are known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.