[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-May-31, 16:13, said:

Just to reiterate -- 8-10 1NT is legal. You're just not allowed to play any conventional responses to it.This is a holdover from the 1997 Laws, which only permitted RAs to regulate conventions, not natural calls. So ACBL couldn't prohibit any natural NT bids, but they could prohibit artificial responses like Stayman in the context of certain NT bids. They could have changed GCC to prohibit the ultra-weak 1NT under the 2007 Laws, but they didn't -- they're still using the old strategy that allows it but makes it unplayable.

Sorry, you're right. I got sloppy.

TylerE, on 2017-May-31, 17:40, said:

But conventional methods over _opponents_ conventions are still legal, right?

Nope.

Quote

General Convention Chart, Item 7 under "Disallowed: CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural no trump 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 non-consecutive ranges)…

The rest of it has to do with weak two bids.

[nige1]

Just to summaries my feelings: if weak 1N openings must be regulated then the rules should be as simple as possible e.g.

• A rigid Milton Work HCP lower limit
• No judgement about "upgrades".
• No deviations or psychs.
• No exemptions if you eschew conventional continuations.

Even with such simple rules, players will probably balk at compliance.

[blackshoe]

If they must indeed. In this particular case, I would want to know why such bids must be regulated. If the answer is that these bids are so far out of the norm as to disrupt the game, that's one thing (though in the case of a "Kamikaze" NT, I don't buy it). If the answer is that forty years ago someone with some influence within the Regulating Authority wanted it banned because he got bit by it, that's another thing altogether, and should be anathema to any real bridge player.

[barmar]

I don't think you'll ever get an explanation other than "We think this is what most of our members want, and our job is to serve them".

And it's probably right, since the majority of ACBL members are probably LOLs and life novices, who find anything out of the ordinary to be a big annoyance.

[blackshoe]

I would reply "your job is to serve all your members".

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-02, 12:07, said:

I would reply "your job is to serve all your members".

They might counter by saying that they offer Midchart and Super Chart for the other members and that you are welcome to set up your own club and run tournaments using those if you can find enough like-minded players to make it financially viable.

[blackshoe]

yeah, they might.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-02, 12:07, said:

I would reply "your job is to serve all your members".

And they'll simply say that they can't make everyone happy with the same regulations, so they have to choose which group to satisfy.

[blackshoe]

To which, Barry, the only reasonable reply is either "shut up and soldier" or find something else to do with one's time and money.

[BudH]

Ssems this discussion crossed outside the "Simple Rulings" criteria long ago!

[Shugart23]

Partner and I once played around with opening 1NT with 9-15 HCP only in 3rd seat and only when we were white and opponents red and have had good success with it...We just bid naturally...(we pre-alerted )...I think this was legal and playing 1NT white is usually a top in Matchpoint, even if going down 1

[blackshoe]

It's legal if and only if (under the General Convention Chart) you played no conventions (no Stayman, no transfers, no Lebensohl if they intervene, no stolen bid doubles, etc.) after the opening bid. The restriction does not apply under the Mid or Super charts.

If you're not in ACBL's jurisdiction, consult your local system regulations for legality.

[Shugart23]

Precisely. We bid 100 percent natural

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 14:45, said:

Precisely. We bid 100 percent natural

That's unnatural!

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 16:11, said:

That's unnatural!

It's as unnatural as Unusual 2NT is unusual.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 14:30, said:

It's as unnatural as Unusual 2NT is unusual.

Of course.

[johnu]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-08, 14:45, said:

Precisely. We bid 100 percent natural

Somebody on the Bridgewinners site said complied with the no conventions rule by using 2♣ to show 3+ clubs, 2♦ to show 3+ diamonds, and opener would rebid a 4 card major. The net result is effectively Stayman. Legal or not?

[weejonnie]

johnu, on 2017-July-09, 20:27, said:

Somebody on the Bridgewinners site said complied with the no conventions rule by using 2♣ to show 3+ clubs, 2♦ to show 3+ diamonds, and opener would rebid a 4 card major. The net result is effectively Stayman. Legal or not?

Probably not - since the call is forcing (asking for partner's 4-card major)

[pran]

johnu, on 2017-July-09, 20:27, said:

Somebody on the Bridgewinners site said complied with the no conventions rule by using 2♣ to show 3+ clubs, 2♦ to show 3+ diamonds, and opener would rebid a 4 card major. The net result is effectively Stayman. Legal or not?

weejonnie, on 2017-July-10, 03:39, said:

Probably not - since the call is forcing (asking for partner's 4-card major)

The fundamental (origional) definition of a non-conventional bid is that the bidder is willing to play with that bid as his contract, i.e. his partner must be permitted (by agreements) to pass.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-10, 05:44, said:

The fundamental (origional) definition of a non-conventional bid is that the bidder is willing to play with that bid as his contract, i.e. his partner must be permitted (by agreements) to pass.

So that excludes all approach-forcing systems.