[kenrexford]

So, the one recent discussion concerns "finding loopholes" in the GCC and closing them. I think I just found a "non-loophole," meaning a lack of ability to play a convention, that is humorous.

There is no definition for "natural" for a 1NT response. Hence, one could surmise that all 1NT responses are conventional (because there is no defintion for a natural 1NT call) or that any 1NT response that is not balanced is a convention.

The GCC allows a 1NT response to a major opening that is forcing for one round. To regulate a forcing bid, the bid must be a convention. Hence, 1NT forcing is a convention, largely because it does not show anything like a balanced hand.

However, the GCC never authorizes a non-forcing 1NT response. If the call is conventional, its nature as forcing or not forcing should not change that characterization as a convention. Hence, it seems that a non-forcing 1NT is not an approved convention.

This, of course, makes SAYC on par with other HUM systems, like MOSCITO.

I think we should call the TD to report the next occurrence of the rampant GCC violation, eh?

[Free]

kenrexford, on Dec 19 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

This, of course, makes SAYC on par with other HUM systems, like MOSCITO.

MOSCITO is not a HUM...

[kenrexford]

Free, on Dec 19 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 19 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

This, of course, makes SAYC on par with other HUM systems, like MOSCITO.

MOSCITO is not a HUM...

Well, see then! All of the Moscito players should be protected from the strange SAYC folks. It does seem way to hard to defend against this nebulous 1NT response.

[awm]

I believe I've commented on this before. There is a related problem with the simple raise of a major suit opening (i.e. 1♥-2♥) which certainly does not promise four cards in the major suit named (most frequently it is three cards; if you play Bergen it almost has to be three cards).

The point here is that the definitions of natural are only intended to apply to openings and overcalls. In fact it says as much.

So what the charts appear to need:

(1) A statement that natural opening bids are allowed (subject to the caveats under "disallowed" barring one-level openings on less than eight points, etc). Of course, if it is the intent that some natural bids (such as muiderberg, which is certainly natural by the definition presented) are to be disallowed then it will be necessary to either make a statement about which natural bids are allowed or to rewrite the definition of natural to exclude such calls.

(2) A definition of natural for responses (currently completely absent) and an analogous statement that natural responses are allowed. I suspect that the intent is that any notrump call which shows a limited range of strength and where opener is expected to pass fairly often should be considered natural. Defining this precisely may be non-trivial however.

[rbforster]

In particular, remember how much sh*t some directors give people for daring to open 1N on a singleton? Systematically opening 1N on 4441's seems like some sort of capital crime to judge by the ACBL responses we often hear about.

Let's take a moment to remember how SAYC will bid this systematically after 1M-1N(non-forcing) with a singleton in the bid major. Ban it - it's clearly not GCC! (although it appears to be allowed without needing an approved defense for Midchart events). This 4441 issue is in addition to the completely off-shape hands that rebid a NF 1M-1N in standard like

xx
AJxxxxx
Kxx
x

or

x
xx
KQxxx
Kxxxx

"no singleton" my a$$ - you'll regularly have one and not even just in partner's major.

[lexlogan]

Amusing. At any rate, I do not believe it is possible to precisely define what is and isn't allowed. This is the lawyer fallacy, which leads to such absurdities as labeling fishing lures as "harmful if swallowed" -- because they contain lead! Ken, you declared that the bridge authorities ought to fix the conventions problem once and for all. I defy you to concoct a set of unambiguous rules which permit Standard American, SAYC, Acol and Precision methods for opening bids and responses while banning those things the ACBL clearly considers Highly Unusual. As with the law, the best that can be done is to provide reasonable guidelines and apply them with common sense, accepting that there will be inconsistencies since those interpreting the rules are human. The fact that a line cannot be drawn precisely does not justify anything goes, in law or bridge.

[kenrexford]

Actually, Lex, I have very little gripe with the GCC. Personally, I think that the GCC could be improved vastly with very few tweaks, most or all of which I have suggested without any comment back.

1. Stop Rick Beye from making $#!+ up. "All-purpose" means that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean anything, so long as Opener has 10+ HCP. Simple and easy.

2. Define a response as "natural" for a major if it shows "generally" 4+ cards.

3. Stop regulating natural bids that are treatments. If 1♦ can be opened with 4+ diamonds, even with the limitation that it (a.) promises an unbalanced hand, or (b.) shows 4+ and canape or 6+, or (c.) could be short, then a 2M call that promises 5+ in the suit is natural, whatever treatment restrictions the partnership includes (e.g., must have a side minor).

4. Allow a 1NT response to show whatever anyone wants to show.

5. Allow any transfer response. If people can handle 1NT...transfers and transfers after takeout doubles, then people can handle 1♣-P-1♥ as a transfer. Let's not be stupid.

The first is easy and obvious. The second seems necessary to correct a stupid, recurring issue. The third seems necessary to correct a stupid trend. The fourth seems basic enough. The fourth is one that I believe 99% of the bridge world would have no problem with very shortly after implementation, very slight education, and then probably rampant adoption and use by a huge chunk of people.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Dec 20 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

5. Allow any transfer response. If people can handle 1NT...transfers and transfers after takeout doubles, then people can handle 1♣-P-1♥ as a transfer. Let's not be stupid.

6. Allow transfer openings.

It is only a small step from transfer responses to transfer openings. A very small step.

[awm]

Cascade, on Dec 19 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

6. Allow transfer openings.

It is only a small step from transfer responses to transfer openings. A very small step.

There are some major differences.

(1) A transfer response is generally forcing. You don't see a lot of 1NT-Pass-2♦!-Pass-Pass. The safety factor in passing the transfer bid and then coming in later helps make it easier to defend. In contrast transfer openings (in a Moscito context anyway) are fairly frequently passed.

(2) A transfer showing five cards in the suit transferred to is generally easier to defend than a transfer showing four, because in the first case you pretty much know that you don't want to play in the suit they showed. So 1NT-Pass-2♦!-2♥ is pretty obviously a cuebid of some sort and not an attempt to play in hearts. On the other hand, it has been strongly suggested that the best use of 1♦!-1♥ may well be to show hearts if 1♦ is a transfer showing 4+♥.

[TimG]

awm, on Dec 19 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 19 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

6. Allow transfer openings.

It is only a small step from transfer responses to transfer openings.  A very small step.

There are some major differences.

(1) A transfer response is generally forcing. You don't see a lot of 1NT-Pass-2♦!-Pass-Pass. The safety factor in passing the transfer bid and then coming in later helps make it easier to defend. In contrast transfer openings (in a Moscito context anyway) are fairly frequently passed.

(2) A transfer showing five cards in the suit transferred to is generally easier to defend than a transfer showing four, because in the first case you pretty much know that you don't want to play in the suit they showed. So 1NT-Pass-2♦!-2♥ is pretty obviously a cuebid of some sort and not an attempt to play in hearts. On the other hand, it has been strongly suggested that the best use of 1♦!-1♥ may well be to show hearts if 1♦ is a transfer showing 4+♥.

I think it goes beyond that. In the case of GCC allowed transfers, there has already been a lot of information given to the opponents. A transfer opening is an opening salvo. Not only is the frequency of a transfer opening greater, but the likelihood that the opponents will want to compete over the transfer is also greater.

I, for one, have no problem leaving transfer opening off the GCC. Of course, I think they should be allowed on the mid-chart, probably as one of the methods that does not require an approved defense.