21 May 2011

ACBL Convention Chart: 2

Here's my second attempt at finding reason in the GCC. There's quite a few good things in there but this clause really caught my eye:
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 nonconsecutive 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.
This is something I'm not familiar with because in New Zealand we aren't allowed sentences that long. As far as I can tell this can be condensed to the following:
If you play certain weird openings and they play a weird defense you're not allowed a weird comeback.
Basically, pray your opening did the damage. I hope that's it because it took me some time and for a while I thought it was beyond me. It's a bit of an obscure rule though because it means you get an advantage from playing a conventional defense. By the simple act of bidding what you don't have you can prevent the other side from doing the same thing!

Seems like an attempt to impose some "maximum complexity" on the auction. Oh no, now I have visions of a little meter that sits on the table and emits a wee siren every time the auction gets too messy.

1 comment:

  1. The purpose of this regulation, which I have also seen in other countries, is to regulate natural opening bids.

    Prior to the 2007 Laws the system regulators could not legitimately ban certain types of natural opening bids just because they disliked them. However they could control the response structures.

    So if you played 1NT as 8-10 HCP, or a weak two bid with a range of 0-10 HCP, you could do so. But this regulation meant that you could only use 100% natural continuations, whether there was competition or not.

    Subsequently, in the 2007 Laws, the system regulators can explicitly ban natural openings so this clause should become redundant ... if and when the ACBL update their charts.