[dave_beer]

Never mind ♦, the language you quote doesn't mention weak two bids in ♥ or ♠ (other than ones which guarantee a 4-card minor in addition to the major).

[steve2005]

Yes, weak 2's are restricted under ACBL GCC
Disallowed "7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after ... 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. "

so, I suppose your partnership could use 4-card preempts but wouldn't be allowed any conventional bids after.

go to
ACBL GCC
if interested in entire GCC which will be rewritten at some point in the near future.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2017-April-17, 18:40, said:

Yes, weak 2's are restricted under ACBL GCC
Disallowed "7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after ... 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. "

so, I suppose your partnership could use 4-card preempts but wouldn't be allowed any conventional bids after.

Exactly. For instance, you can't have any way to find out if partner made a normal preempt or a 4-card preempt. You can't even play 2NT asking for a feature.

[JLilly]

"allowance of anything considered natural."

So "natural" is a term of art that may as well mean "conventional"?

[JLilly]

What about a 2♦ bid that promised five hearts and spoke minimally about diamonds? Is that disallaowed? Can "the suit" mean, "the suit understood to be indicated by the bid"?

[barmar]

JLilly, on 2017-April-19, 17:16, said:

"allowance of anything considered natural."

So "natural" is a term of art that may as well mean "conventional"?

The beginning of the GCC defines what is considered natural.

[barmar]

JLilly, on 2017-April-19, 17:18, said:

What about a 2♦ bid that promised five hearts and spoke minimally about diamonds? Is that disallaowed? Can "the suit" mean, "the suit understood to be indicated by the bid"?

If a bid shows the suit bid and also shows specific information about some other suit(s) then it's a convention. E.g. DONT and Cappeletti.

[JLilly]

Is this a philosophy that's reflected in ACBL standards generally -- natural bids are solely natural and not natural-plus? (plus additional information that is not just from the "natural" interpretation of the auction?)

[barmar]

JLilly, on 2017-April-23, 19:11, said:

Is this a philosophy that's reflected in ACBL standards generally -- natural bids are solely natural and not natural-plus? (plus additional information that is not just from the "natural" interpretation of the auction?)

Yes. In the Alert Procedure, there's the following definition of a convention:

Quote

A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or
redouble, the last denomination named.

So a bid that shows that suit and some other suit conveys a meaning unrelated to the suit bid: the other suit. That makes it a conventional bid rather than natural.

[JLilly]

barmar, on 2017-April-24, 09:08, said:

Yes. In the Alert Procedure, there's the following definition of a convention:

So a bid that shows that suit and some other suit conveys a meaning unrelated to the suit bid: the other suit. That makes it a conventional bid rather than natural.

There's a case to be made that Stayman isn't conventional, then. 1NT means balanced and looking for majors, since any non-major 1-level bid is looking for majors. 2M would mean 5-cM. With 2H and 2S blocked, 2D and 2C remain to express a 4-cM.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-April-16, 14:11, said:

I think the intent is that this means "showing strong hands", so there's a minimum to the range, but no upper limit.

But as Ed is fond of mentioning. "strong" in the ACBL only means that the bidder thinks of the hand as strong and is otherwise not defined anywhere, so if I find AKQxxx and out a strong hand then that should be legal, right? I wonder if I could get away with considering KQJxxxx and out as "strong"...

[Zelandakh]

JLilly, on 2017-April-26, 19:40, said:

There's a case to be made that Stayman isn't conventional, then.

No, there is no case for Stayman not to be considered as conventional. The Culbertson system did use a natural 2♣ response and sometimes used a logic not so dissimilar from the one you convey.

[barmar]

JLilly, on 2017-April-26, 19:40, said:

There's a case to be made that Stayman isn't conventional, then. 1NT means balanced and looking for majors, since any non-major 1-level bid is looking for majors. 2M would mean 5-cM. With 2H and 2S blocked, 2D and 2C remain to express a 4-cM.

The 2♣ bid in Stayman is not related to the club suit, so how can you claim it's not conventional? The 2♥ and 2♠ responses are natural, but the 2♦ response isn't.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-April-27, 03:09, said:

But as Ed is fond of mentioning. "strong" in the ACBL only means that the bidder thinks of the hand as strong and is otherwise not defined anywhere, so if I find AKQxxx and out a strong hand then that should be legal, right? I wonder if I could get away with considering KQJxxxx and out as "strong"...

Sure, if it also "asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality". Doesn't seem like a playable method to me, though.

The kind of thing that rule in GCC seems to be intended for is opening 4NT Blackwood with a powerhouse.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-April-27, 09:39, said:

Sure, if it also "asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality". Doesn't seem like a playable method to me, though.

The kind of thing that rule in GCC seems to be intended for is opening 4NT Blackwood with a powerhouse.

I understand what it is designed to cover. That does not mean that we cannot use the rule for other purposes though.

Let's see about making it playable. Say we make the 1♠ opening as asking for aces with either a 6 or 7 card minor or a standard 2♣ opening. Over partner's 1NT/2♣ response we either show our minor or bid 2♥+ with the (genuinely) strong hand. Naturally all the hands are "strong" if asked about it.

We have lost the 1♠ opening so we best move spade-based hands somewhere. 1♦ would be the logical choice as that can be used as a bucket for hands that do not fit elsewhere. The diamond openers then need to be moved down to 1♣ and to take some pressure off that we can add a Precision/Polish 2♣ opener. Would this be unplayable?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-April-28, 06:38, said:

I understand what it is designed to cover. That does not mean that we cannot use the rule for other purposes though.

Let's see about making it playable. Say we make the 1♠ opening as asking for aces with either a 6 or 7 card minor or a standard 2♣ opening. Over partner's 1NT/2♣ response we either show our minor or bid 2♥+ with the (genuinely) strong hand. Naturally all the hands are "strong" if asked about it.

It says that a 2+ opening can be used as the strength-showing asking bid, not 1♠. How does using 1♠ for this fit in?

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-April-28, 08:10, said:

It says that a 2+ opening can be used as the strength-showing asking bid, not 1♠. How does using 1♠ for this fit in?

Darn it, no minor suit multi for the gcc I guess. We could do a 2♣ major suit multi I suppose and substitute a Benji strong 2♦. That would surely be playable, albeit not very good.