[steve2005]

I have a question about how the new GCC regulations affect bidding after 1suit X.

The new reg as of May 1 is :

8. TRANSFER RESPONSES (responses after overcalls) where the call shows length or values in the suit of the transfer.

Is double considered an overcall in which case transfer responses would be allowed?


Or were transfers over doubles already allowed (have seen people using them) under current GCC because of

allowed : CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto.

I'm thinking artificial free bids allowed after a double.

link to new reg http://www.acbl.org/...eb-motions1.pdf

link to gcc http://web2.acbl.org...ntion-Chart.pdf

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2015-April-25, 09:46, said:

allowed : CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto.

This refers to advancer's calls, not responder's.

[paulg]

You may play almost anything over an opponent's double because it is a conventional call and it is covered in the permitted section of COMPETITIVE

7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),

The exclusions are mostly to do with very weak no-trump opener/overcall.

Over partner's double, blackshoe's identified section applies.

So, I think, we can all do almost whatever we like after a double by anyone.

[steve2005]

doubles (and redoubles) are natural if partner is requested to pass, So takeout doubles are conventional even though nobody uses penalty doubles. neat.

[aguahombre]

steve2005, on 2015-April-25, 12:59, said:

doubles (and redoubles) are natural if partner is requested to pass, So takeout doubles are conventional even though nobody uses penalty doubles. neat.

Nothing new, here. A convention is not defined by how many people use it. Very few people play a natural 2C in response to 1NT; yet Stayman is a convention.

More fun: some conventions are very common, thus conventional. Others are more rare, thus unconventional. Many conventional auctions contain no conventions.

[fromageGB]

It would be much simpler if we did not use the expression "conventional bid" at all, but referred to it properly as an "artificial bid".

[paulg]

fromageGB, on 2015-April-27, 06:57, said:

It would be much simpler if we did not use the expression "conventional bid" at all, but referred to it properly as an "artificial bid".

If you petitioned the C&CC now, then I expect this change could probably be implemented in 2017. They might even address the difference between 'bid' and 'call'.

But this is really unrealistic for an organisation that seems happy with the following:

Quote

DEFINITIONS

An opening bid of one club is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly 4-4-3-2 with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major. Otherwise:

• An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally,no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).
• A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced (generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons).

namely, an un-numbered definition followed by two different definitions for the same item.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2015-April-27, 06:57, said:

It would be much simpler if we did not use the expression "conventional bid" at all, but referred to it properly as an "artificial bid".

Unfortunately, all conventions are not artificial. Perhaps retaining the term "convention" and its Bridge definition, but not using its adjective form, would work.

The adjective "artificial" would still be a good thing when used to describe some conventions.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-25, 16:33, said:

More fun: some conventions are very common, thus conventional. Others are more rare, thus unconventional. Many conventional auctions contain no conventions.

And Unusual 2NT has not been unusual for a very long time.

[jeffford76]

paulg, on 2015-April-27, 09:17, said:

But this is really unrealistic for an organisation that seems happy with the following:

...

namely, an un-numbered definition followed by two different definitions for the same item.

It looks like there are multiple copies of the convention charts on the ACBL webpage currently, each with its own problems. I'll try to follow up on getting this fixed. There should be a new version on May 1 incorporating the recent changes, so hopefully that will be an impetus to fix the problems.

[mrzee]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-27, 09:55, said:

Unfortunately, all conventions are not artificial. Perhaps retaining the term "convention" and its Bridge definition, but not using its adjective form, would work.

The adjective "artificial" would still be a good thing when used to describe some conventions.

Do either the ACBL or the WBF have an explicit definition for the term "convention"?

[aguahombre]

mrzee, on 2015-April-27, 17:42, said:

Do either the ACBL or the WBF have an explicit definition for the term "convention"?

Yes.

"Convention: A bid 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. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named."

[mrzee]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-27, 17:53, said:

Yes.

"Convention: A bid 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. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named."

Thanks