[ucrman]

I would like to play a canape system in which I would like to play all one of a suit bids as forcing one round. In conjunction with these opening bids, I would like to play negative step responses (less than 12 HCP) over these opening one bids (i.e., 1NT/1S, 1S/1H, 1H/1D, and 1D/1C). The 1D over 1C is completely legal in the ACBL, and the 1NT over 1S can be played as forcing one round and I think is also legal.

However, a problem exists for the 1S/1H and 1H/1D. I could play 1NT forcing over the 1H opening but not over 1D.

My proposed solution is to play 1S showing 3+ Ss and 1NT denying 3+ Ss (nonforcing) over the 1H opening, and 1H showing 3+ Hs, 1S showing 3+ Ss, and 1NT denying 3+Hs or 3+ Ss (nonforcing) over the 1H opening. The 1NT over 1D would guarantee probably 6+ Cs.

1H-1NT could be passed with a hand like S-QJ10xx,H-KJxx,D-Kx,C-Qx.
1D-1NT could be passed with a hand like S-QJ10xx,H-KQx,D-AJxx,C-x.
Passing the 1NT response would be rare.

Are the proposed 1H, 1S, and 1NT bids over the 1H and 1D openings legal?

[dake50]

Please distinguish legal =by the laws of bridge from ACBL-allowed. They are grossly divergent. Eg. forcing pass is clearly "legal" but ACBL-disallowed.

To your point, are 1S,1H forcing openings allowed? NO. Weird that 1C,1D,1N forcing openings are allowed, yet 1H,1S are NOT.

[ucrman]

Of course, I mean if the ACBL will allow the bids. Too bad that forcing 1H and 1S bids are not allowed.

[glen]

dake50, on Dec 10 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

... To your point, are 1S,1H forcing openings allowed? NO. Weird that 1C,1D,1N forcing openings are allowed, yet 1H,1S are NOT.

mid-chart+, if 15+, assuming the openings are both forcing and artificial (natural and forcing always allowed) - the opening can be artificial and non-forcing too, as long as it is 15+ - for example a 1H opening showing 15-17 NT, but you can't upgrade 14s into it

[TimG]

I don't believe that a 1NT response to 1S must be forcing to be legal in GCC events. I cannot find a specific item on the GCC that allows a non-forcing 1NT response to 1S, but neither can I find a specific item that allows a non-forcing 1NT response to 1H, 1D or 1C.

[TimG]

ucrman, on Dec 9 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

1H-1NT could be passed with a hand like S-QJ10xx,H-KJxx,D-Kx,C-Qx.
1D-1NT could be passed with a hand like S-QJ10xx,H-KQx,D-AJxx,C-x.
Passing the 1NT response would be rare.

I know you did not ask, but I think you should design your system so that you can open 1♠ with ♠QJTxx ♥KQx ♦AJxx ♣x (and especially ♠QJTxx ♥x ♦AJxx ♣KQx) for the preemptive value. That is, with a minimum opening bid, you want to open your highest ranking 4+-card suit rather than strictly follow the second-longest-first canape principle.

[rbforster]

dake50, on Dec 10 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

To your point, are 1S,1H forcing openings allowed? NO. Weird that 1C,1D,1N forcing openings are allowed, yet 1H,1S are NOT.

What makes you think forcing 1M openers aren't allowed? As long as these are natural 1M bids (4+ suits) they are completely ACBL legal. What you can't do is use 1H or 1S as an artificial strong opening ala the standard 2♣ strong artificial opening. But if OP wants to play all his 1 level bids as natural and forcing, similar to Fantunes, I don't think there will be a problem.

There's still an issue that after a natural-and-forcing 1H (or 1D) bid, you can't use 1-of-a-suit as an artificial negative. Probably you could use a non-forcing 1N response on all sorts of random weak hands (in the same way 2/1 players use it as a random constructive hand), but that's not ideal.

[awm]

The openings should be fine. There's a stupid grey area on the general chart regarding natural bids. It seems obvious that a number of natural bids are allowed despite not being specifically sanctioned on the chart (for example, a 1♠ opening showing 12+ points and 5+ spades). However, there are also apparently natural bids which are not allowed despite not being specifically banned (for example 2♠ showing 5-10 points and 5+♠ with a 4-card or longer minor).

In any case, it seems that one-level bids which are natural are allowed (see standard american bidding) and canape is mentioned in several places as allowed. Whether a call is forcing does not generally effect its legality in ACBL, with a small number of exceptions.

The problem is going to be your response structure. The vast majority of artificial non-jump responses to openings are banned on the general chart. In particular, this includes using the cheapest step as a negative (aside from 1♣-1♦). There is also no reason to believe that three card major responses are allowed; they are not defined as natural on the general chart and thus would seem to fall under the "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" clause.

On the mid-chart you're certainly okay with the "respond three-card major" version and probably okay with the "step is negative" version too although this is less clear.

[PrecisionL]

awm, on Dec 10 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

The problem is going to be your response structure. The vast majority of artificial non-jump responses to openings are banned on the general chart. In particular, this includes using the cheapest step as a negative (aside from 1♣-1♦). There is also no reason to believe that three card major responses are allowed; they are not defined as natural on the general chart and thus would seem to fall under the "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" clause.

As I read the ACBL GCC, if one of a major is 15+ HCP then conventional G.F. responses are allowed. And by inference a Herbert Negative (cheapest response). I admit that the legality of the Herbert Negative is not specifically stated, but neither is an artificial 1♥ negative response to a strong 1♦ opening bid (15+ hcp).

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART: RESPONSES AND REBIDS

3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.

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

As Edgar Kaplan stated years ago we will soon lose the heart suit (after losing the 1♣ and then the 1♦ openings to artificiality). NOW IS THE TIME!?

Larry

P.S. I play a forcing 1♣ and a 98% forcing 1♦ opening bids. 1♥ response (to 1♦) is alerted as may have longer ♠s or occasionally be only a 3-card heart suit. The strength range is 0-9 hcp. Invitational hands respond 2♦, LR or better, may have a 4-cd major!

PP.SS. Has anyone notice that #5. on the GCC has deleted the entry formerly allowing a 2♦ Opening with a minimum of 10 HCP and both majors? 12/2004 #520226

[TimG]

PrecisionL, on Dec 10 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

P.S.  Has anyone notice that #5. on the GCC has deleted the entry formerly allowing a 2♦ Opening with a minimum of 10 HCP and both majors?  12/2004 #520226

Yes, that is now covered more generally by #6:

Quote

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the
suits.

[rbforster]

It's true that if you want to open 1M naturally (4+) showing 15+ points, you are allowed to use artificial responses. I suppose that would be a pretty interesting system where all 1 level bids promise 15+, all 2 level bids are say 5+ suits and 4-9ish, and you pass with 10-14's.

TimG, on Dec 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Dec 10 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

P.S.  Has anyone notice that #5. on the GCC has deleted the entry formerly allowing a 2♦ Opening with a minimum of 10 HCP and both majors?  12/2004 #520226

Yes, that is now covered more generally by #6:

Quote

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the
suits.

It is covered more strictly by specifying that "both majors" now requires 5/4+. Before you could use 4/4 as both majors.

[TimG]

Rob F, on Dec 10 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 10 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Dec 10 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

P.S.  Has anyone notice that #5. on the GCC has deleted the entry formerly allowing a 2♦ Opening with a minimum of 10 HCP and both majors?  12/2004 #520226

Yes, that is now covered more generally by #6:

Quote

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the
suits.

It is covered more strictly by specifying that "both majors" now requires 5/4+. Before you could use 4/4 as both majors.

Perhaps I misused "generally". But, previously one could not open 2♣ to show the majors (and 10+) or 2♣ to show diamonds and hearts (and 10+), but could open 2♦ to show the majors (and 10+). It was an obvious exception for Flannery 2♦. Now all suits are treated equally as far as two-level openings that show two known suits and 10+ points.

It was, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

[mycroft]

awm, I think you're being disingenuous here - a 1S call showing 5+S with a 4-card minor wouldn't be allowed either, and you know that.

It's not the fact that you have the suit you bid that makes it natural - it's the fact that you *promise* something not totally duh-worthy about another suit that makes it artificial. No, the CC doesn't explicitly say that non-artificial calls are legal, but that's a holdover from the old law book (where that was a - well fought-over - given).

Now that we've switched from "RA can regulate conventional agreements" to "RA can regulate special agreements" so that they don't have to use the Endicott corollary to do what they want, we should expect the CCs to be rewritten to match. With the speed of the ACBL, I expect it just about in time for the next edition of the Law book. :-)

[ucrman]

In the system I am proposing, the 1D, 1H, and 1S bids are unlimited. They show either a 6+ cards one-suiter or a two-suiter canape style.

All these hands would be opened 1H:
xx,AKxx,KQxxx,xx
AK,AKQx,KQJxx,Qx
Ax,AQJxxx,xx,xxx
AK,AQJxxx,AQ,Kx
All one suiter Hs are opened 1H and all two-suiter with 4 Hs and 5+ Ds are opened 1H with any strength.

I just need to know if the above 1H, 1S, and 1NT responses to 1D and 1H are allowed ny the ACBL.

[PrecisionL]

ucrman, on Dec 10 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

In the system I am proposing, the 1D, 1H, and 1S bids are unlimited.  They show either a 6+ cards one-suiter or a two-suiter canape style.

All these hands would be opened 1H:
xx,AKxx,KQxxx,xx
AK,AKQx,KQJxx,Qx
Ax,AQJxxx,xx,xxx
AK,AQJxxx,AQ,Kx
All one suiter Hs are opened 1H and all two-suiter with 4 Hs and 5+ Ds are opened 1H with any strength.

I just need to know if the above 1H, 1S, and 1NT responses to 1D and 1H are allowed ny the ACBL.

For a definitive answer e-mail Mike Fladder, Associate National Tournament Director.

rulings@acbl.org