[steve2005]

edit: NEVER MIND RAN BU RULINGS@ACBL.ORG INTENT WAS STRONG AND FORCING

While reading gcc for other reasons I noticed something new to me that could allow Transfer Walsh as GCC compatible.

Artificial and conventional calls are allowed after forcing opening bids. Last time i looked i thought it said strong forcing openeings. im guessing this was changed to accomadate systems where 1♣ is clubs or strong and Polish club type openings.

So if you make your 1♣ forcing you can use transfers.

Im ok with bidding 1♦/1♥ with 0 pts where accepting transfer is 2-3 cards min/weak NT hand and 1N is 17-19 or similar range

However, after 1♣-1♠ im bidding 1N with weak NT and 2N with 17-19. 2N could be too high.
I was thinking for strong balanced hand rebid 2♦ over 1♠ then your in a Mexican 2♦ situation and for C-D reverses bid 2N. Obviously have to work out the details.

but does that sound ok or are there any better ideas out there.

[paulg]

steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 12:53, said:

However, after 1♣-1♠ im bidding 1N with weak NT and 2N with 17-19. 2N could be too high.
I was thinking for strong balanced hand rebid 2♦ over 1♠ then your in a Mexican 2♦ situation and for C-D reverses bid 2N. Obviously have to work out the details.

Don't we all do this already, albeit at Mid-Chart currently?

[PrecisionL]

steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 12:53, said:

While reading gcc for other reasons I noticed something new to me that could allow Transfer Walsh as GCC compatible.

Artificial and conventional calls are allowed after forcing opening bids. Last time i looked i thought it said strong forcing openeings. im guessing this was changed to accomadate systems where 1♣ is clubs or strong and Polish club type openings.

So if you make your 1♣ forcing you can use transfers.

The GCC still says "strong."

7. ARTIFICAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher.

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf T16 REV. 02/14 #520226 Printed in USA by ACBL

[helene_t]

You could also play 1♠ as 2-way, 0-5(6) or (10)11+. Then opener accepts with 12-14 or 18-20

With (6)7-9(10) you respond 1NT.

[steve2005]

PrecisionL, on 2014-March-08, 14:46, said:

The GCC still says "strong."

7. ARTIFICAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher.

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf T16 REV. 02/14 #520226 Printed in USA by ACBL

think you missed a comma (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids

I certainly hope so or ive misread it. storng 15+, OR FORCING OPEINING BIDS

[rbforster]

PrecisionL, on 2014-March-08, 14:46, said:

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf T16 REV. 02/14 #520226 Printed in USA by ACBL

I will note that "relay systems" are now so illegal they had to be defined twice (Definitions #3 & 6). Sheesh, proof no one copy reads these things.

Also, those of you who were clamoring for a weaker Romex, your 1NT can now start at 15 HCP instead of 16.

[glen]

steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 18:46, said:

think you missed a comma

the comma is not new, same old:

http://www.acbl.org/...nvchart2005.pdf:

[steve2005]

glen, on 2014-March-09, 08:19, said:

the comma is not new, same old:

http://www.acbl.org/...nvchart2005.pdf:

me thinks im seeing a mirage.

no need for a comma there just say "strong (15+) forcing opening bids"

comma makes it look like strong, or forcing opening bids




in English an or is implied by the comma

[PrecisionL]

steve2005 said:

1394379262[/url]' post='782426']
me thinks im seeing a mirage.

no need for a comma there just say "strong (15+) forcing opening bids"

comma makes it look like strong, or forcing opening bids

in English an or is implied by the comma

Are you assuming the GCC was written by a professional writer? Me thinks the evidence is otherwise, thus your assumption may be incorrect.

I asked rulings years ago if we could play transfers over a Precision 2 club opener and the answer was NO because 2 clubs was not strong. (But 2NT asking is allowed over weak 2-bids ... so another example of ACBL reading the GCC according to their mindset?)

Conventional responses to 1♣ opening bids have been allowed for a long time if the 1♣ opening bid is forcing AND strong. I see no evidence that anything has changed on this interpretation by ACBL.

The GCC continues to be a mess and open to unclear interpretations.

[glen]

steve2005, on 2014-March-09, 09:34, said:

in English an or is implied by the comma

you'll pry the Oxford comma out of my cold, dead, and unambigously described hands

[johnu]

rbforster, on 2014-March-09, 08:11, said:

I will note that "relay systems" are now so illegal they had to be defined twice (Definitions #3 & 6). Sheesh, proof no one copy reads these things.

I believe this is the counterpoint to double secret probation.

[SteveMoe]

Transfer responses to Polish Club are Mid Chart.
To Precision Club they are GCC.

[helene_t]

PrecisionL, on 2014-March-08, 14:46, said:

strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher.

If it had said "strong opening bids, forcing opening bids and opening bids of 2♣" then I would agree with Steve that forcing but not necessarily strong opening bids were included.

As it is, it is bad grammar IMO, and we should default to whichever interpretation is more plausible a priori. Which probably most would say is:
[....] are allowed
- in response to opening bids that are strong and forcing, and
- in response to opening bids of 2♣ and higher

I find it amazing so big problems regulators have with writing clear statutes. It is probably hybris when I (English as third language, not even having had it at grammar school) think I could do a better job myself, but really. It shouldn't be rocket science.

[Zelandakh]

steve2005, on 2014-March-09, 09:34, said:

in English an or is implied by the comma

Perhaps in Canadian English. Arguably the most famous sentence in English is "The quick, brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." Is your reading of this sentence really that the fox is either quick or brown (but not both)? Most of the time, comma-separated adjectives in front of a noun imply an AND condition. In this sentence "strong" and "forcing" are adjectives describing the object "opening bids". It is therefore clear that this clause refers to opening (one) bids that are both strong and forcing.

[Kungsgeten]

So I guess tranfers over Nightmare's 1C would be GCC legal? So would probably this?

1C = 15+ balanced or 15+ with clubs
1D = 4+ unbalanced, 11+
1M = 5+ suit, 11+
1NT = 12--14
2C = 10--14, Fantunes or Precision
2D = Artificial GF
2M = Weak
2N = ?

[mycroft]

The Oxford comma is in fact useful at times. "I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God" being the classic example.

[rbforster]

Kungsgeten, on 2014-March-18, 07:43, said:

So I guess tranfers over Nightmare's 1C would be GCC legal? So would probably this?

1C = 15+ balanced or 15+ with clubs
1D = 4+ unbalanced, 11+
1M = 5+ suit, 11+
1NT = 12--14
2C = 10--14, Fantunes or Precision
2D = Artificial GF
2M = Weak
2N = ?

All these opening bids are GCC. Any responses to the strong 1C are also GCC, transfers or whatever you like. You couldn't do transfers over the other openings however, unless they met some other restrictive conditions (like being GF).

[PrecisionL]

Kungsgeten, on 2014-March-18, 07:43, said:

So I guess tranfers over Nightmare's 1C would be GCC legal? So would probably this?

1C = 15+ balanced or 15+ with clubs
1D = 4+ unbalanced, 11+
1M = 5+ suit, 11+
1NT = 12--14
2C = 10--14, Fantunes or Precision
2D = Artificial GF
2M = Weak
2N = ?

No, I don't think so. My copy of Nightmare (in Italian), 2001, page 15:

1♣:

(a) Mano bilanciata(semi) 15-17 p.o

(b) Mano sbilanciata 15 o+p.o. - 4(tricolor)0+♣

{c} Mano sbilanciatta 11+ con 6♣ 5x - valore 16+
(d) Qualsiasi forcing manche

Thus, item {c} 11+ would render transfer responses null and to Nightmare's1♣ Opening (less than 15 hcp)

[Kungsgeten]

Well I guess then that this is a definition of what "strong" means; if strong is only based on HCP or not. In the Swedish system rules the definition of strong is 15+ HCP or 18+ HCP + distributional values (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton). Even so if playing Nightmare I guess you could put those hand into some other opening (perhaps 3NT) if you do not want to open 1D, 1M or 2C with those.

[mycroft]

The issue is that the GCC has two definitions of strong (at least).

One specifically says that conventions are allowed after "strong (at least 15HCP) ..." openings. Another says that 2♣ or 2♦ can be used for "a strong hand". When it states a HCP range, you follow that; when it states a style, then you argue what that style is.

I do so love the GCC.