[barmar]

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

barmar, on Dec 21 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation.

I don't think "it's a consequence of other systemic choices" makes it any less conventional (even though that is no longer defined).

But it's still a natural opening. The fact that there are side suit implications doesn't make it any less GCC-legal.

[TimG]

barmar, on Dec 22 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

barmar, on Dec 21 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

Isn't the information about side suits in these 2♣ openings basically just a consequence of the rest of the system? If they were 5-4 or better in the minors they'd open 1♦, and with 5-3-3-2 they'd open a weak NT or a strong ♣ depending on strength. So 2♣ is essentially just a natural bid, and the GCC doesn't explicitly allow them. It's still necessary to alert it and include this extra information in the explanation.

I don't think "it's a consequence of other systemic choices" makes it any less conventional (even though that is no longer defined).

But it's still a natural opening. The fact that there are side suit implications doesn't make it any less GCC-legal.

Are you telling me that all natural openings are allowed in GCC events?

2♥ showing hearts and another suit is a natural opening. If you want, I can define other openings such that they cover single-suited hands with hearts so that we are left to infer that the 2♥ opening contains a side suit. But, I don't believe this is a GCC legal method.

[Siegmund]

timg said:

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations.  No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed.

I'm sure TimG already knows this, but in case anyone unfamiliar with the idea wanders in...

Before 2007, SOs could regulate only conventions, and were obligated to allow all natural bids in all events, including 2♣ openings that showed club suits. (There was and still is an issue about openings that promise a side suit; but when the side suit wasn't promised, the almost-universal interpretation was that it was a natural bid.)

That notwithstanding, I did once play a system featuring a weak two in clubs, and had an opponent (in a regional in 1997) who owned a bridge club tell me to my face that I wasn't welcome in her club as long as I was using that "convention."

I for one have been keeping quiet rather than urging the ACBL to update the GCC for the 2007 Laws, because I know any changes they make aren't going to be in my favour.

Edited to clarify: in the pre-2007 world, "natural" and "conventional" were not antonyms. Conventional meant "conveying a meaning other than natural" - whether instead of or in addition to.

[bluejak]

TimG, on Dec 21 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 21 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The 2♣ opening is essentially the same as a Precision 2♣ and is also GCC legal.

This is one of those everyone-knows-it's-legal-even-if-the-chart-doesn't-say-so situations. No where on the GCC is a 2♣ opening which shows 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major allowed. Nor is there any provision for natural two-level openings (weak or constructive) which also carry information about side suits.

Well, if you are going to be like that, Tim, I don't see anything which says you can open a 1-bid with rules about other suits, so better minor is illegal at GCC.