[kenberg]

Oops, question answered. Thanks.

I have recently been playing at a local club with a new partner. He expressed interest in a defense to 1NT that is often called Woolsey or Robibson. Whatever it is called, (1NT)-2C is Landy-;like, expressing an interest in both majors, and (1NT)-2D shows (or usually shows) one major and partner is expected to bid 2H after which overcaller passes or bids spades (presumably fourth hand could bid 2S as a pass or correct call, but we haven't discussed that yet).

Anyway, I said that I didn't think it was allowed under the general chart. No reason, just policy, as they say.

But today I went to the acbl website. After some mild frustration I finally found my way to the convention charts. I post the link below.
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

Now the real frustration began. Not to be shy about my views, who wrote this crap? Here are the rules for allowed conventions that are listed under "competitive" (I presume that's the right category for this, anyway nothing else seemed right).

Quote

1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.
2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including
free bids) thereto.
3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a ) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one
known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have
a known suit.) or
b ) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits.)
4. a ) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution
in two known suits and responses thereto.
b ) SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a minimum of 10
HCP, at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.
5. TRANSFER ADVANCES (responses to overcalls) where the call shows
length or values in the suit of the transfer.
6. CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid
that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid,
must show at least one known suit.
7. DEFENSE TO:
a ) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above
and #7 under DISALLOWED below),
b ) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls,
other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.
c) opening bids of two clubs or higher.
8. Numbers 4 through 10 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS above APPLY
TO BOTH PAIRS.
DISALLOWED
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
opponents’ methods.
2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings.
3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in
conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)
4. Forcing pass systems.
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.
6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than
8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)
7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL
DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after
natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than
10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have
two non-consecutive ranges) and 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.

Somehow I am supposed to find in this list the rule that authorizes the Capp 2C and disallows the Woolsey 2D? Where?


When I play a game I believe in following the rules, even if I think that the rules are stupid, as would be the case if I can use 2C to show one unspecified suit but cannot use 2D to shoe one unspecified major.

I had understood (word of mouth I guess) that the General Chart was in fact written that way (Capp 2C ok, Woolsey 2D not ok). But if I take the rules as written, together with the assertion

Quote

Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed

then it seems neither the Capp 2C or the Woolsey 2D is allowed. But I have never seen the Capp 2C disallowed. The online acbl game allows it, for example.

I'm just very confused. I can't recall ever, at least not in the last few years, finding a website as frustrating as the acbl site. Can someone help me out here?

I suppose this has been gone over before. I apologize for not knowing where. Maybe the Woolsey 2D is allowed, in which case I really apologize. I just didn't want to play something that I thought was well-known to be disallowed.


PS When playing against a weak nt (and maybe even against a strong nt) I would think a Landy 2C would be allowed on 4-4 in the majors. It appears (Rule 3a) that this is not so. Do I have that right?

[campboy]

7b. Any defence where 2♦ and above show length in a known suit is allowed.

[edit] Ah, I see where you got confused. 3 is about your 1NT overcall of their 1suit; 7b is your overcall of their 1NT.

[kfay]

Didn't read your ref, but I thought the rule was that Dbl and 2♣ were allowed to be whatever.

Higher than that, you are not allowed to play this way (over most NTs)

Edit: 7b

[Apollo81]

Kenberg, you live in district 6 (Maryland, DC, Virginia), right? At sectionals and regionals, there is a district policy that allows Woolsey/Robinson in general chart events. Many clubs also allow this convention even though it is not general chart, as so many people in the district play it. I suggest checking with the club director if you want to use it.

[campboy]

LOL, I just noticed that a strict reading of the rules requires pass to show a known suit (it's a call other than dbl or 2♣, after all).

[kenberg]

Thanks guys. I did indeed get confused about "Notrump overcall". The phrase seemed ambiguous (overcall of a nt or nt overcall of a suit) but since I hadn't expected (1D)-1NT as a three suiter to to be general chart I just figured it was bad phrasing. OK. I'm back to thinking that the rule is real, just stupid.

Apollo, yes I am in district 6 but I am now living out in the sticks and until recently I didn't know there was a club around. Actually there are two, one of which would be more suitable than the other for stretching the general chart on the basis of district 6 tolerance. Still, it's good to know the district's views on this. I was always proud of them for allowing the multi 2D, but I figured it just applied at the unit game.


Than ks all,
Ken

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on Mar 31 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

LOL, I just noticed that a strict reading of the rules requires pass to show a known suit (it's a call other than dbl or 2♣, after all).

That's a blow! I prefer pass to show an unspecified suit of 4 or more cards.

[TimG]

At the Fall 2009 meetings of the C&C Committee, "Woolsey 2D over 1NT (and others)" was discussed. The Committee proposed "to modify the GCC to allow bids with no anchor suit to include double, 2C and 2D." This was sent to the BoD for approval.

I do not know whether the BoD acted upon this at the recent Spring NABC. Nor do I know when the change would be published if the BoD did approve the proposal. A change made to the mid-chart and defense database at the Summer 2009 meetings of the C&C Committee still has not found its way into the online charts.

Tim

[kenberg]

Tim, thanks, and I am glad to hear it. As to stuff from mid-2009 not yet making it online, I suggest this be viewed as the tip of a large iceberg. The acbl website is in serious need of improvement.

[rbforster]

LOL at pass over their NT requiring a known suit... maybe one of the rules lawyers should bust that one out on Meckwell next time they pull some technicality on their opps.

TimG, on Mar 31 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

At the Fall 2009 meetings of the C&C Committee, "Woolsey 2D over 1NT (and others)" was discussed.  The Committee proposed "to modify the GCC to allow bids with no anchor suit to include double, 2C and 2D."  This was sent to the BoD for approval.

I do not know whether the BoD acted upon this at the recent Spring NABC. 

The BoD tabled the "woolsey" motion for consideration at the Summer NABC, when the C&C Committee is meeting.

[Rodney26]

I did notice that "It's Your Call" this month presented a problem where partner bid 2D showing an unspecified major. Thought it was interesting that they'd present a non-GCC problem (if it is still indeed disallowed on the GCC).

I really think this one needs to change so that pairs have better options against defending weak NT while retaining a penalty double.

[jdonn]

Not to defend the convention charts, but I really think it's obvious what "notrump overcall" means and where to find the answer to your original question!

[Phil]

I happened to agree with the league that 2♦ not promising an anchor suit can be tricky if you aren't prepared.

Nice to see D6 following the lead of the So Cal Districts in allowing this however. Once players are used to these treatments, they are easier to defend against and standardized treatments develop.

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Not to defend the convention charts, but I really think it's obvious what "notrump overcall" means and where to find the answer to your original question!

Well, yes. On any website it is always obvious once I find it. It is, after all, right there in plain sight.

But consider:
I am not yet either blind or senile and I knew in general terms what I was looking for, still I missed it. Someone who gets paid for making an informative website might want to ask himself how that happens. For example, there are eight topics listed by name, exactly one has NoTrump in the title. I should have looked under DEFENSES TO:
My bad, no doubt.

If I had more faith in their site, I perhaps would have stuck with it. But by then I had spent some time just finding the chart. I began with google, and clicked on myacbl. There were some promising leads, but no luck there. So I backed up and went to the main page. I looked down at "popular pages". Nope. OK, maybe the index. There were some promising leads there but no. OK, back to the main page. type general chart into the search. Voila. Many listings, one of them works.

Aggravated but there: Notrump overcalls. Hmm. Well, I don't see anything else about notrump so I guess this is it. Oops. Yep, should have gone to DEFENSES TO and scanned over to the smaller print about notrump.

On some sites, I find it very easy to get the information I am seeking. The acbl site is not one of them.

When normally capable people have trouble using a website, the folks who design it have a choice: They can conclude that the users are just too stupid to appreciate their fine site, or they can consider that maybe the site could use a little work.

But definitely the information was there, I can't argue that.

[mycroft]

Heh - I found at least two pairs playing Woolsey or Suction over NT in the Red Ribbons, and (after the big warning from the TD that it's a GCC event) called the TD over to ensure that *they* knew it wasn't allowed (before the round started, of course).

As far as the "pull it on MR" goes, well, they don't play in GCC events, and that's one of the exceptions to "needs a defence" (along with GF relay systems (of which I hit three in Reno - Welland's, whatever Ultimate has evolved into, and Tarzan Club), and a few others) - any defence to NT. They do have to Pre-Alert it (which about half of the people playing it against me did - I even had a discussion with one pair who said "most people are surprised when we do this, because they don't think it's necessary" :-).

That's one of the problems with D6/D21's decision - "everyone knows" they play GCC+any defence to NT in their "GCC" events, but forget that it's a (rarely spoken) exception, and go outside the district, or to NABCs, and... Not that I disapprove, though. I'd be happy with much more of a liberalization of the GCC than we have (as people, I am sure, know already - along with my opinion of the format of the GCC).

I do hope what passes is "any defence to NT", not "push the exception one bid", though. Needless exceptions are needless</lolcat>.

[jdonn]

Kenberg it's not that long. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to read the whole thing before concluding they can't find what they are looking for.

[peachy]

kenberg, on Mar 31 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

On some sites, I find it very easy to get the information I am seeking. The acbl site is not one of them.

In no way, shape, or form am I defending the layout or design of ACBL web site. Information there is cleverly hidden but after YEARS of trying ang trying, I finally seem to find what I need there.

But there are worse ones - have you tried the WBF site? Try it if you are ready for a nightmare. Added bonus, it only functions if you are using Internet Explore, not if Firefox or others...

[kenrexford]

WellSpyder, on Mar 31 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

campboy, on Mar 31 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

LOL, I just noticed that a strict reading of the rules requires pass to show a known suit (it's a call other than dbl or 2♣, after all).

That's a blow! I prefer pass to show an unspecified suit of 4 or more cards.

Actually, a literal reading of the GCC only requires that the call show a known suit. But, it doesn't say a "shown" suit. Just a "known" suit.

The way I read it, as long as I personally know what 4+ suit (or suits) I have, then I can pass. If I do not know which suit in my hand is 4+, then I cannot pass.

That seems to have implications for the other calls, as well. But, I think we need to get the definition of pass down, first.

I also think that I must actually have a 4+ suit. I must not only know which one it is, I must have one.

This rule was clearly designed to avoid three problems. First, passing without looking at your hand. Second, passing with 12 cards in your hand. Third, passing before correcting a mis-sort. Now, as to the second and third, the rule is ineffective. I mean, one might have 12 cards but still have a known suit, or one might have a mis-sort but still have a known suit.

So, I agree that the rule is stupid, as drafted.

[fromageGB]

Ken, you would be in trouble if, as you say, the call SHOWS a known suit, because even though you know it, you haven't shown it.

But in fact, you are OK to pass because the "rule" actually says that you HAVE a known suit, not that you show it. All's well that ends well.

[Apollo81]

Phil, on Mar 31 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Nice to see D6 following the lead of the So Cal Districts in allowing this however.

In D6 this has been allowed since 2003 at least (the first time I played in this district), perhaps for even longer. No coincidence, since Woolsey lives in SoCal and Robinson lives in D6.