A GCC legal transfer opening structure?

[Kungsgeten]

I met a system this summer which was pretty interesting:

 

1C = 4+ spades, 8+

1D = 4+ hearts, 8+

1M = 5+ suit, 8-14 (but might have been another range)

1NT = 13-17, no major

2m = 13-17 unbal, no major

2H = 18+ hcp, 5+ clubs and no major

2S = 18+ hcp, 5+ diamonds and no major

2NT = Cant remember, perhaps 18-20?

 

I'm unsure of the merits of this structure (I think it is an attempt to play a legal version of the forcing pass system Säfflespader), but would it be GCC legal? The 1m openings are nebulous, which seems to be legal when playing forcing club/diamond and the rest of the bids are either natural or strong.

[hrothgar]

> would it be GCC legal?

 

No

[steve2005]

1C = 4+ spades, 8+

1D = 4+ hearts, 8+

1M = 5+ suit, 8-14 (but might have been another range)

1NT = 13-17, no major

2m = 13-17 unbal, no major

2H = 18+ hcp, 5+ clubs and no major

2S = 18+ hcp, 5+ diamonds and no major

2NT = Cant remember, perhaps 18-20?

 

I'm unsure of the merits of this structure (I think it is an attempt to play a legal version of the forcing pass system Säfflespader), but would it be GCC legal? The 1m openings are nebulous, which seems to be legal when playing forcing club/diamond and the rest of the bids are either natural or strong.

 

not even close to being gcc legal

 

the nebulous 1♣/1♦ must be 10+ hcp. not even sure their nebulous as their showing a suit.

 

2m not a allowed convention

 

2♥/2♠ transfers not allowed for 2-level openings

 

1M I presume shows a minor so is not allowed as a convention

 

that leaves only 1N/2N allowed

[Kungsgeten]

Okay, so 1C and 1D would be legal if it shows 10+ hcp? The definition seems to be an "all purpose opening bid" with at least 10 hcp. 1M does not show a minor, its natural. If you hold a 5+ major when opening 1m you have at least 15+ hcp (if less hcp then exactly four cards in the major). The 2m openings are natural, they show the suit bid. It says that "STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto." are legal. So opening 2M with a strong minor seems to be legal, but you have to use some kind of crap response if you play them?

[hrothgar]

Okay, so 1C and 1D would be legal if it shows 10+ hcp?

 

No

[helene_t]

that leaves only 1N/2N allowed

1N not allowed either.

 

Edit: sorry, didn't realize that it promises a balanced hand.

[blackshoe]

1N not allowed either.

Why not?

[rbforster]

1m - if you upped these to 10 hcp, they would have a chance. However, transfer openings are hated by the ACBL committee in charge of this, so it wouldn't fly even if it ought to under the "all purpose" clause on the GCC ("all purpose" is what we say, not what you say). If you included a few 31(54) shapes in 1m, perhaps awkward ones, then it would not promise 4M although it would have them most of the time. If you're playing 1m as forcing (I expect you are), you could add a few very strong hands that don't have a 4M and then you should be good on the all-purpose front. For example, you don't have bids listed for 21+ NT hands with 4m333 or (32)44 shapes, so maybe these hands open their better 4 card minor 1m?

 

1M - should be fine, even if there is a negative inference that it's unbalanced.

 

1N - contrary to Helene's comment, any range with 8+ is allowed for 1N as long as it's generally balanced (no voids or singletons, usually). 13-17 balanced no major is fine and doesn't run into the conventional continuation restrictions either (since it's 10+ and the full range is 5 or less hcp)

 

2m - if these are natural (3+ in the bid suit), then they are completely legal. I believe that was what was meant

 

2M - these are strong, but that's not enough. However, if you ask partner for trump support (or A/K points or something similar), then these would be fine. It probably wouldn't be too hard to cast your responses in terms of support for openers minor in these sequences.

 

2N - this is fine if balanced or semi balanced.

[antonylee]

I actually agree with rbfoster that except for the response scheme to 2M that needs to show "aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality", this should be legal.

[Siegmund]

I tried 1D = 4 hearts and got shot down, though I had a couple directors on my side. The hazard of asking for a ruling is that once you get one you can't deny having gotten one sometimes.

[antonylee]

OK, I'll alert 1D as "10+ not suitable for any other opening". If that's not catchall, I don't know what catchall means. It *just* turns out that the only hole in the system is the hands with 4 hearts...

[hrothgar]

OK, I'll alert 1D as "10+ not suitable for any other opening". If that's not catchall, I don't know what catchall means. It *just* turns out that the only hole in the system is the hands with 4 hearts...

 

I sincerely hope that you get caught and crucified.

 

Lying about your methods in order to avoid disclosure requirements is about as low as you can get.

[helene_t]

I sincerely hope that you get caught and crucified.

 

Lying about your methods in order to avoid disclosure requirements is about as low as you can get.

Why so hostile? Does Antony really have to put a smiley in such posts?

[hrothgar]

Why so hostile? Does Antony really have to put a smiley in such posts?

 

Because I have seen far too many people say these types of things in complete seriousness?

[antonylee]

OK, so let's be clear: a smiley was intended after the previous post. I have played various "funny" methods and have always described the non-obvious inferences to the opps. Still, it doesn't mean that how you alert your methods can have an influence on its legality...

For example, when I played in the district and the national finals of the GNTC two years ago, I was playing (NV only) 2C=8-11 bal with 4+ clubs -- essentially a mini-notrump. This is a GCC-legal method -- I have an official ruling for that (saying in essence "it's a (semi)constructive natural opening and would be illegal if weaker"), which was questioned by the opps, and upheld by the DIC. Over that, we played 2D~ NF stayman with 3+D, 3C&3D~ F stayman with 3+ of the minor (essentially we lose "only" on invitational hands with a 4cM and not 3D, and GF 5=4=2=2 hands (with 4=5=2=2 we can start with 3H)).

Now if we alert these as "Stayman" this will certainly be ruled as illegal (as "conventions over weak twos with less than 5 cards"), so we alerted 2D as (if I remember well, wording not exact) "less than GF, 3+D (making it natural), usually 4+M" and 3m as "GF, 3+m, usually interested in opener's major holding".

I believe these satisfy full disclosure, but also say something about the problem we are discussing...

[helene_t]

The expression "all-purpose" is of course useless unless it really means that it could be anything the partnership wants it to be, which is probably not the case. I suppose there is some case law that gives us some clue as to what it means in ACBL lingo.

[johnu]

For example, when I played in the district and the national finals of the GNTC two years ago, I was playing (NV only) 2C=8-11 bal with 4+ clubs -- essentially a mini-notrump. This is a GCC-legal method -- I have an official ruling for that (saying in essence "it's a (semi)constructive natural opening and would be illegal if weaker")

 

IMO, that's not GCC legal since it doesn't promise 5+ clubs. Conventional responses would also be disallowed under item 7 in the Disallowed section of the GCC charts. As we've seen, you can get "official" rulings that have no reliance on the actual rules.

[rbforster]

IMO, that's not GCC legal since it doesn't promise 5+ clubs. Conventional responses would also be disallowed under item 7 in the Disallowed section of the GCC charts. As we've seen, you can get "official" rulings that have no reliance on the actual rules.

Natural bids are allowed and for minor suits that's showing 3+ cards. this covers both his 2♣ opening and the natural 2♦ response. Artificial responses aren't allowed when a natural two level bid is weak and doesn't promise 5+ cards, but natural responses are fine. However, it's not clear to me that an 8-11 range for 2♣ counts as "weak two bid" (a term not defined by the GCC), and if it were viewed as constructive rather than weak, the restriction on responses wouldn't apply at all.

[mikestar13]

Let's face facts -- there is no such thing as a GCC legal transfer opening method at the one level -- it is ACBL's obvious intent not to allow this, in part because of a determination to keep Moscito out of North America, regaring it as the same moral evil as FP systems. (Yes, ACBL does think in those terms--ask hrothgar). ACBL management will never interpret the GCC as allowing transfer openings at the one level, no matter what the letter of the GCC says. This is an (admittedly highly unfortunate, in my view) fact of reality, but will continue to be a fact of reality as long as current management is running the show. Try formulating systems for use in somewhat sane bridge jurisdictions--ACBL GCC is a lost cause, and Mid-Chart is not much better (Super-chart is not too bad, actually, but who gets to play it?)

[johnu]

Natural bids are allowed and for minor suits that's showing 3+ cards. this covers both his 2♣ opening and the natural 2♦ response. Artificial responses aren't allowed when a natural two level bid is weak and doesn't promise 5+ cards, but natural responses are fine. However, it's not clear to me that an 8-11 range for 2♣ counts as "weak two bid" (a term not defined by the GCC), and if it were viewed as constructive rather than weak, the restriction on responses wouldn't apply at all.

 

There are several places in the ACBL alert documentation where opening bids on the 2 level are only considered "natural" if they contain 5+ cards, and 6+ cards on the 3 level. This is contradicted by your definition where a minor suit opening only needs 3 cards. This leads to the ridiculous interpretation that an opening 3♣ is natural on a 3 card suit. If there is no actual definition of "weak", just like there's no definition of "strong", then "constructive" is even less defined. There are a couple of places where 10 points are specifically mentioned for opening 1 bids, so it seems reasonable to me that "weak" 2's would have a lower range less than 10 points, but what do I know :unsure:

[rbforster]

There are several places in the ACBL alert documentation where opening bids on the 2 level are only considered "natural" if they contain 5+ cards, and 6+ cards on the 3 level. This is contradicted by your definition where a minor suit opening only needs 3 cards. This leads to the ridiculous interpretation that an opening 3♣ is natural on a 3 card suit. If there is no actual definition of "weak", just like there's no definition of "strong", then "constructive" is even less defined. There are a couple of places where 10 points are specifically mentioned for opening 1 bids, so it seems reasonable to me that "weak" 2's would have a lower range less than 10 points, but what do I know :unsure:

Weak two bids that may be on fewer than 5 cards suits are alertable as they are unusual, not because they're illegal (or what, the alert would be "this bid is illegal, call the director"?). Yes, you can open 3♣ on a 3 card suit, just like you can open 1♣ or 1♦ naturally (noting that these don't require the 10 point "all purpose" opening clause to be legal; you can open a natural 1m on 8 HCPs if you want). If you want to understand why natural bids are allowed and why it's important that GCC defines what natural means for openings and overalls, ask yourself whether you're allowed to open 4 card majors 1M, and if so, where is it allowed on the GCC.

 

As for strong, weak, etc, "strong" is referenced several times together with the requirement of 15+ HCPs, even though it's not explictly defined that way. Recalling that 10 hcp is average, you would think that a 9-11 range for example would be a hand of average strength, not "weak", since it's almost as likely to be stronger than weaker than 10 HCPs. Normal weak twos typically have a 5-11 range as played in standard, so something with 8-11 is a lot closer to "average" strength than weak. Not as issue we can resolve since they don't define "weak", but it sounds like Anthony's ruling referenced this issue referring to his opening as semi-constructive rather than weak.

[johnu]

Weak two bids that may be on fewer than 5 cards suits are alertable as they are unusual, not because they're illegal (or what, the alert would be "this bid is illegal, call the director"?). Yes, you can open 3♣ on a 3 card suit, just like you can open 1♣ or 1♦ naturally (noting that these don't require the 10 point "all purpose" opening clause to be legal; you can open a natural 1m on 8 HCPs if you want). If you want to understand why natural bids are allowed and why it's important that GCC defines what natural means for openings and overalls, ask yourself whether you're allowed to open 4 card majors 1M, and if so, where is it allowed on the GCC.

 

As for strong, weak, etc, "strong" is referenced several times together with the requirement of 15+ HCPs, even though it's not explictly defined that way. Recalling that 10 hcp is average, you would think that a 9-11 range for example would be a hand of average strength, not "weak", since it's almost as likely to be stronger than weaker than 10 HCPs. Normal weak twos typically have a 5-11 range as played in standard, so something with 8-11 is a lot closer to "average" strength than weak. Not as issue we can resolve since they don't define "weak", but it sounds like Anthony's ruling referenced this issue referring to his opening as semi-constructive rather than weak.

 

The alert chart says that 2 level bids without at least 5 cards is not an accepted treatment.

 

Treatment: A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements. As to length ACBL accepts the following as treatments.

1. All bids listed above as natural.

2. A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit.

3. A three-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees six or more cards in the named suit.

 

Admittedly, there is a disconnect between this and the language on the GCC which seems to equate opening bid with 1 level opening bid, but I attribute that to laziness and lack of interest on the people who are in charge of updating the GCC.

[antonylee]

GCC exegesis is always a bit silly, but for me, the fact that conventional methods after "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit" (item 7) are explicitly prohibited means that the openings themselves are not prohibited.

[blackshoe]

GCC exegesis is always a bit silly, but for me, the fact that conventional methods after "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit" (item 7) are explicitly prohibited means that the openings themselves are not prohibited.

You are correct. However, keep in mind that the regulation was written under laws that did not permit the regulation of natural bidding. That is no longer the case - the ACBL could re-write the regulation to say "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit are prohibited". Or "allowed: Weak two openings which by partnership agreement show at least five cards in the suit and a range of at least 7 HCP." But that would require them to actually do something.

[antonylee]

Yes. Fortunately, I don't think they will :-)