[TimG]

I was just looking at the GCC and read "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". Not conventions, but methods.

No where is a weak two-bid specifically allowed. Nor, for that matter, a 1♠ opening bid of any sort.

Didn't there used to be some general statement to the effect that natural methods were permitted?

Am I misreading things, or are methods such as 1♠ opening bids not allowed as the GCC is worded?

[TylerE]

You're misreading it. Natural bids are not conventional, and thus not regulated by the chart.

[hrothgar]

TylerE, on Jul 10 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

You're misreading it. Natural bids are not conventional, and thus not regulated by the chart.

Recent changes to the Laws permit zonal authorities to regulate anything they damn well please. (The Endicott fudge is no longer necessary).

I suspect that the ACBL intends just what you state.
However, I'm not sure that the regulations are consistent with this/

[TimG]

TylerE, on Jul 10 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

You're misreading it. Natural bids are not conventional, and thus not regulated by the chart.

I suppose the question is really: are natural bids "methods"?

"Convention" is only mentioned in a few places:

1) In the name;

2) In the opening paragraph, where it says the listed conventions must be allowed (except that clubs have final authority to regulate conventions at games conducted solely at their clubs); and

3) In the allowed sections, some conventional methods are specific allowed; and

4) In the disallowed section, some conventional methods are specifically disallowed.

No where in the chart does it state that "natural" methods are allowed (though it does define "natural").

As I said in the opening post, the chart says (in bold) "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". Emphasis on methods is mine.

I can certainly understand that the intent was to allow natural methods and am not suggesting that I (or anyone else) should call the director and complain the next time someone opens 1♠ in a GCC event. But, if a natural 1♠ opening is allowed even though not specifically allowed, what other natural methods that are not listed should also be allowed?

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength). This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart. Does that mean it is allowed?

Tim

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

Recent changes to the Laws permit zonal authorities to regulate anything they damn well please.

True, so long as the RA designates the "thing" they wish to regulate as a special partnership understanding. To my knowledge, the ACBL has not so designated the bids in question.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

But, if a natural 1♠ opening is allowed even though not specifically allowed, what other natural methods that are not listed should also be allowed?

One would think "all of them", but...

Quote

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

I don't know. I suspect not. I'd suggest asking the C&C committee, which is responsible for the convention charts, but I'd have to add "good luck with that".

[ArtK78]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

The language is very clear. Both suits must be known. If it were intended that a 2M bid showing the bid major and an unknown minor suit with 10+ HCP were to be allowed, it would have been very easy to say so. But the language clearly states that both suits must be known. So an unknown minor suit is not allowed.

[TimG]

I have been told by ACBL that "ALLOWED **Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed** infers conventional methods."

I have further been told that conventional is defined as "a call or play with a defined meaning, which may be artificial". I'm not sure how to parse that definition.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

That's one way of looking at it. But, #6 allows for a 2C opening showing two specific suits, neither of which is clubs. A 2C opening showing the majors needs specific approval because it is not natural. So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

[ArtK78]

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods.

how about "exactly 5, unbalanced hand"

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods.

What if you define the 2S opening as 6+ spades or 5+ spades with a side 4+-card suit?

[ArtK78]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

That's one way of looking at it. But, #6 allows for a 2C opening showing two specific suits, neither of which is clubs. A 2C opening showing the majors needs specific approval because it is not natural. So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

I don't see why a 2♣ opening bid showing the majors AND 10+ HCP would require specific approval, as the regulation clearly allows the bid.

[ArtK78]

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods.

how about "exactly 5, unbalanced hand"

If your methods guarantee a 4+ card minor, this is still not good enough, as your description could include 5431 where the 4 card suit is hearts.

[gnasher]

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

I have been told by ACBL that "ALLOWED **Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed** infers conventional methods."

I have further been told that conventional is defined as "a call or play with a defined meaning, which may be artificial".  I'm not sure how to parse that definition.

Does that mean that you did fully understand the quotation in your first paragraph of this post?

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

That's one way of looking at it. But, #6 allows for a 2C opening showing two specific suits, neither of which is clubs. A 2C opening showing the majors needs specific approval because it is not natural. So, another way of looking at it is that a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is natural, so does not need specific approval.

I don't see why a 2♣ opening bid showing the majors AND 10+ HCP would require specific approval, as the regulation clearly allows the bid.

What I'm saying is that the regulation (specific approval) is there because this opening bid is not natural. So, the opening bid would not be allowed without the regulation (specific approval).

2S showing spades and a minor doesn't need a regulation (specific approval) to be allowed because it is natural.

The answer to this is that the ACBL considers that "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" to infer "conventional methods". And, while 2S showing spades and a minor is natural, it is also conventional.

______________

What is your opinion of 2S = unbalanced with at least 5 spades? Yes, this could be 54xx and I intend that rather than mean this as a workaround for spades plus a minor. I would also use 2H = unbalanced with at least 5 hearts (including 45xx). Would these be conventional?

[TimG]

DELETE

I think I misunderstood gnashers question (and thus my answer was off the mark).

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

matmat, on Jul 10 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 10 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

What sent me to the chart in the first place was a 2M opening which shows the bid major and a minor (and nearly opening bid strength).  This is surely "natural" as defined by the chart.  Does that mean it is allowed?

Specifically allowed on the General Convention Chart is the following:

"6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits."

So, if both suits are known, this method is allowed. If not, it is disallowed in games in which the General Convention Chart applies.

so what if I describe my 2M opening as 5+, not balanced?

Not only would that be dishonest, but you would be violating full disclosure. 6-1-3-3 is unbalanced and meets your definition. So is 7-0-3-3. But if you require a 4 card minor suit whenever you open 2M, you are clearly not disclosing your methods.

how about "exactly 5, unbalanced hand"

If your methods guarantee a 4+ card minor, this is still not good enough, as your description could include 5431 where the 4 card suit is hearts.

A Precision type 2C opening bid which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major is allowed in GCC events. Yet, there is no regulation (specific approval) to cover it. The inference is that it must be natural and non-conventional.

It seems to me that defining 2S to show an unbalanced hand with 5+ spades and fewer than 4 hearts is no different.

Whether you can extend either 2C to be defined as "exactly 5 club in an unbalanced hand without 4 diamonds" or 2S to be defined as "exactly 5 spades in an unbalanced hand without 4 hearts" is another matter.

[goodwintr]

The 5+M/5+m 2M opening bid appears as an authorized method on the ACBL Mid-Chart. Isn't that some evidence that it is not authorized, either explicitly or implicitly, on the GCC?

I suspect that you could get by under GCC if you defined 2M as "5+M, distributional hand," as long as you aren't defining "distributional" as meaning "two-suited."

TLG