[pigpenz]

The_Hog, on Dec 28 2006, 10:11 PM, said:

"So if you run into some people what are playing 2D Mexican you should abe able to ask them what their bids are/or suggest a defense to it. We have asked this question before when opps come to the table dont pre announce what theyare playing it puts the opps at a disadvantage. So when that 2D bid gets sprung on you, you should be able to ask for a standard defense to it if it is a legal convention that can be used in the ACBL GCC. "

Why pigpenz? I have never seen the logic behind this comment. Why should I have to suggest a defence to my opponents? They should be prepared with meta defences if they are taking their bridge seriously.

This distinction with GCC and mid chart is so arbitrary anyway - what is familiar in one country may well not be familiar in another. The Polish 2D opening is a case in point; everyone knows it and most play it in Poland. Ask for a defence and they laugh at you, but short C or short D is not familiar....Where and how do you draw the distinction? And you can't say "What is common in the US", after all this is an international game?

i think usually in KO's or national events I always thought that if you are using unusual methods that is why you have to post your methods before the event.

[blackshoe]

Mexican 2D is GCC legal. There is no obligation on the user of a GCC legal convention to teach an opponent how to defend against it - that's their problem.

The GCC does not say that "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table." That admonition is in the alert regulation, specifically the section about pre-alerts in regard to systems with which opponents may be unfamiliar. It applies whatever conventions are allowed. I would think one should pre-alert Mexican 2D, since it's pretty rare IME, but that doesn't mean you should have to provide a defense to it.

In the actual case at the start of this thread (possible impossible negative response to Precision 1C, followed by a jump after opener's 1M rebid) "splinter" is inadequate disclosure regardless of the agreement ("explaining" by naming a convention is never adequate disclosure). The bid should have been explained as "4=4=4=1, 8+ HCP" if it was the impossible negative, short in clubs, or 5-7 HCP (or whatever the agreed range), 4 trumps, singleton or void in clubs" if that's what it meant. Yes, I know the impossible negative possibility was already disclosed. Tough. Tell 'em again.

[glen]

A few months ago we were playing f2f against an online expert. I opened 1NT showing 14-17 and he wanted our suggested defense to this strange approach before continuing. I provided this:

Pass: 11+
Double: 0-10, flat hand
Suit bid: Shows longest suit is the suit immediately below this

For some reason he did not adopt this.

[blackshoe]

"Relay systems are disallowed." (Number 5 under "Disallowed" on the GCC).

"A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid."

"Relay: an artificial, nondescriptive bid that asks partner for a description." - The Bridge World Glossary

If the opening bid is 1X, and responder's first bid is a relay, and so is his second, that's a relay system. If the responder's first bid is a relay, and his second bid is not, that's not a relay system. If the responder's first bid is not a relay, they aren't playing a relay system.

IMO, this should not apply if the opening bid is a forcing 1C, but the regulation doesn't actually say that.

Ron Klinger's "Power" system is not GCC legal because the 2C relay response to 1M is not game forcing. The 2D bid is game forcing, but the follow on, iirc, is also a relay, so this qualifies as a relay system, and GCC illegal under Disallowed #5.

The above is my opinion, not in any way "official", but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[DrTodd13]

Describe to me how or why "invitational or better" is not a "descriptive" bid. One might say that a bid showing any shape and 0+ points would be non-descriptive but as long as the bid describes any point count then isn't that saying something about the hand, therefore, descriptive, therefore not illegal. Note that if the bid means 0+ any shape then all other bids would have to be undefined. If some other bid were defined then the relay bid would simply mean "all hands that don't qualify for this other bid." That in and of itself is a description of your hand so since nobody would ever have such a ridiculous bid defined then I posit that this regulation actually does not ban anything. It will be interpreted to ban whatever they want to ban but reasoning about it with pure logic one can make an argument that it doesn't ban anything that anybody would actually use. So, please ACBL define the word "descriptive" for me.

[blackshoe]

I'm not ACBL. Talk to Memphis.

Maybe I shouldn't have put the Bridge World's glossary definition in there, but the ACBL doesn't actually define "relay" AFAIK, so I went with what I had. Maybe you can come up with a better one.

I don't think you'll find any TD in the ACBL saying that the ban on relay systems in the GCC is null and void because the definition of "relay" doesn't make sense.

[Gerben42]

Quote

1st tank is due to typing long lines, correcting spelling and adding spaces, then comparing the hand with the description of what I wrote in the alert box.

Solution: Full Disclosure card!

Quote

Mexican 2D is GCC legal. There is no obligation on the user of a GCC legal convention to teach an opponent how to defend against it - that's their problem.

The GCC does not say that "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table." That admonition is in the alert regulation, specifically the section about pre-alerts in regard to systems with which opponents may be unfamiliar. It applies whatever conventions are allowed. I would think one should pre-alert Mexican 2D, since it's pretty rare IME, but that doesn't mean you should have to provide a defense to it.

Well it's not that hard to think of a general defense against art. strong bids on the 2-level. You should have one of those, use it. Just because pairs don't talk about even how to defend against the common 2♣ strong opening doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about it.

[pigpenz]

Gerben42, on Dec 29 2006, 03:05 AM, said:

Well it's not that hard to think of a general defense against art. strong bids on the 2-level. You should have one of those, use it. Just because pairs don't talk about even how to defend against the common 2♣ strong opening doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about it.

oh yes well taken
tell that though to most of the people not all who play in the online acbl bbo games.most as soon is the game is over go over and start a new game without any discussion at all.

[Gerben42]

For those who do not want to think of a defense vs strong artificial 2♦ Mexican, Benji, 2♣ art. strong and the Ouagadougou strong 2m opening bid (no idea what it is but if its art. and strong, this def. is for you!)

Here it is:

Double shows the suit they bid.
A suit bid shows that suit.
An NT bid shows the minors.

Impressive, eh?

[jikl]

Is it Meckstroth or Rodwell on the system commitee over there?

I find it ironic whoever it is since they play more unusual bids than most others.

Sean

[A2003]

hrothgar, on Dec 28 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Dec 29 2006, 03:34 AM, said:

Now you used to use the Full Disclosure conv card, thats what it is for is to save you typing so you can explain your bids!!! wink.gif

ACBL Director does not recognize Full disclosure convention card and its explanations.
It is required to alert and explain in ALERT BOX in spite of what it says in Full disclosure convention card. This is in addition to what it says in Full disclosure convention card explanations.
ACBL Director Gweny ruled against me for ave- for not doing this on couple of occasions.
TD says "THIS IS NOT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE." in capital letters.
To me, it is redundant information and losing concentration in the play and bid area.

Someone suggested me this: for 1D bid
0-7 Any distribution or 8+ with any 4441 distribution
So, it is difficult to find appropriate wording to enter in alert box when faced with unusual bidding. Everyone explains in their own way to which there is always some complain.

I am not often looking closely at the chat area when I am concentrating on the bid and play area, sound is off when I play.

[mike777]

A2003, on Dec 27 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

ACBL director send this following message at the beginning of the tournament.

♥♥ Remember, only those conventions on the ACBL General Convention Chart are allowed in this ACBL game, please keep this in mind when bidding.  Sorry, but this means NO multi, NO ...  Wilkosz ♥♥

What is wilkosz? This is not in ACBL encyclopedia.

One player opens 2D announced as 18-19 balanced hand, the partner say 2S as transfer to 2NT, then 3NT. What convention is this?
Is this falls under general convention chart?

Is transfer precision method falls under ACBL general convention chart?

Is there any List available for all the conventions that are allowed under ACBL general convention chart? I see Not allowed as two conventions:  MULTI 2D and Wilkosz.

BTW as a side note playing Mexican 2D is not that great of a convention. It helps us take some of our stronger hands out of our very wide ranging one level bids which is important and helps us. Opening 2D is ok but do not worry that it is some super convention that hurts you.

I win or lose ten or twenty more deals in the play or defense of the hand

[Cascade]

Gerben42, on Dec 29 2006, 11:41 PM, said:

For those who do not want to think of a defense vs strong artificial 2♦ Mexican, Benji, 2♣ art. strong and the Ouagadougou strong 2m opening bid (no idea what it is but if its art. and strong, this def. is for you!)

Here it is:

Double shows the suit they bid.
A suit bid shows that suit.
An NT bid shows the minors.

Impressive, eh?

I think your defense is wrong - well inefficient.

There are two ways to show the suit bid: double and bidding the suit at the next level (and of course other ways at higher level).

So I like to use the double to show another two-suiter. I use it to show majors.

Maybe there are some hands that would double but not be willing to bid at the next level. And the single suiters are more frequent so maybe your way is better but I like to be able to show more hand types.

[glen]

I like double as ♠s and another suit, so it handles the hand types majors and ♠s and a minor. Advancer bids 2♥ if no ♠ fit, and then doubler can pass or correct. 2NT overcall is two suits not including ♠s.

[pigpenz]

the new bridge world not only has article by PClayton but editorial on the burden of responsiblity carried by partnerships that play complicated or systems unfamiliar to their opponents. The newness of systems of creates an advantage to the users of the system. That is what I was talking about ifyou are gonna play something bizarre and the opps asked I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest a defense for them to play against it.

1980 Nationals in Fresno, Ron Anderson the Hog was upset about Ron Gerard and Larry Cohen playing 1-2-3 two suiters cause there was not a sufficient amount of time to prepare a defense to them.....Now that was at the National level. So think what it must be like for the casual or online player running into conventios that may skirt the line on legality.

[the hog]

pigpenz, on Dec 31 2006, 01:41 AM, said:

the new bridge world not only has article by PClayton but editorial on the burden of responsiblity carried by partnerships that play complicated or systems unfamiliar to their opponents. The newness of systems of creates an advantage to the users of the system. That is what I was talking about ifyou are gonna play something bizarre and the opps asked I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest a defense for them to play against it.

1980 Nationals in Fresno, Ron Anderson the Hog was upset about Ron Gerard and Larry Cohen playing 1-2-3 two suiters cause there was not a sufficient amount of time to prepare a defense to them.....Now that was at the National level. So think what it must be like for the casual or online player running into conventios that may skirt the line on legality.

What you are forgetting is that this is the US. Players are used to seeing 2/1 or SAYC. Imo anyone who plays bridge even half seriously should be prepared against unusual methods. This involves the use of meta conventions. The example you give here of Ron Anderson is absurd. I could point out a number of others; interestingly many of these occur when a pro is playing with a client. More interestingly some have occurred from practitioners of highly complicated methods. Inetersting, huh?

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Dec 30 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

Imo anyone who plays bridge even half seriously should be prepared against unusual methods. This involves the use of meta conventions.

Anybody who plays bridge even half seriously should not be entering GCC events.

I think there's some confusion about GCC. The GCC is not designed to be what clubs will allow...clubs can play Superchart if they want. The GCC is what clubs are NOT allowed to BAN in multiple-site events. If you play a GCC card, then you can play it anywhere in the country. If your card isn't GCC legal, that doesn't mean that you can't play it at a club, it means that you need to see if it's OK according the the club.

There's nothing in the ACBL rules that states that the BBO games need to be GCC. They are set that way because that's what Gweny and company believe that's what the customers want. If you can convince them that they would make more money allowing a system that a majority of their players likely have not heard of, I understand that they're very good at responding to emails. But this is a business decision made by them, not by the ACBL.

[paulg]

jtfanclub, on Jan 15 2007, 09:39 PM, said:

There's nothing in the ACBL rules that states that the BBO games need to be GCC.  They are set that way because that's what Gweny and company believe that's what the customers want.  If you can convince them that they would make more money allowing a system that a majority of their players likely have not heard of, I understand that they're very good at responding to emails.  But this is a business decision made by them, not by the ACBL.

Getting pairs to provide Full Disclosure Mid Chart defences ... I bet Gweny and the ACBL team cannot wait!

[blackshoe]

Hehe.

Quote

Anybody who plays bridge even half seriously should not be entering GCC events.

Good idea, but problematic. The majority of events are, afaics, GCC. The SO of a sectional, or of a regional with the exception of certain team events, has to put in the event advertising a statement that the mid or superchart will be allowed if that is to be the case. I don't think I've ever seen one.

As for clubs, lemme tell you a story. Way back when I first started playing here (Rochester, NY), my regular partner and I decided to try Precision. So I asked the TD at the club at which we usually played "can we play Precision?" He replied "you can play anything you want." We never had a problem playing Precision at that club, btw. Some years later, partner moved, and I started playing with another player, at another club. There were some pretty good players at that club, or so it seemed to me at the time, and there was some "experimentation" among them (nothing earthshattering). So Dick and I decided to give Romex a try. Three months later (!) the director came to us and said "I understand you guys are playing a forcing 1NT opening". I affirmed it, he said "that bid is banned in this club" and walked away. I followed, asking why. He couldn't give a satisfactory answer, in fact any answer other than "because I say so". I did some research. It turned out that one of the club players, who had once been a bridge teacher, objected to the bid (not in our presence, but privately to the TD) on the grounds that "some players might have problems with it". Not her, of course, she was perfectly capable of dealing with it. So there happened to be a TD from another club assisting that evening, and he recommended that the bid be banned. Guess who? The TD who had told me a few years previously "you can play anything you want" at his club! Later, I asked him if Dick and I could play Romex there, and he said "sure, so long as you treat your 1NT opening as a Mid-Chart convention (it's GCC legal)". The club where the bid (and hence the system) was banned was not owned by the TD - it had a board of directors, and one of the directors suggested that we appeal to the board. I would have done so, but Dick died shortly thereafter, and I just stopped going to that club.

Bottom line: in clubs which do not publish their convention regs so everybody can see them (virtually all of them, in my experience), don't expect anything in particular from that club - decisions as to whether a convention is allowed or not will be made arbitrarily, on the fly. I daresay that even if you ask, the answer you get on one day may not be the same as the one you get on a different day, or from a different TD.

Note: do not take anything in the above as an indictment of the ACBL operation here on BBO. I have no idea what their convention policy is.

[awm]

Unfortunately there's not all that much choice here in the US but to occasionally enter GCC events. Virtually every tournament event except for national events and bracket one knockouts at regionals is typically governed by the General Chart. This includes for example:

(1) The open swiss teams held the last day of most regionals. Almost everyone playing at a regional plays in this event.

(2) Regional level open pairs events.

(3) Every event at a sectional tournament.

(4) Knockout events, other than the top bracket. This seems to apply even when there are a lot of brackets, and when bracket two is fairly strong. Also note that people generally are not allowed to play up, so the only way to get into bracket one is to accumulate 5000 or so ACBL points (per person) which essentially requires playing in a lot of those GCC regional events.

So if you decide never to play in a General Chart event, then you basically can't play face-to-face bridge in the USA outside of nationals. Since virtually all the top players are playing thousands of hands a year, never playing face-to-face outside of nationals might substantially hurt one's chances of doing well.