[Zelandakh]

MickyB, on 2012-October-22, 06:03, said:

the only shapes that aren't fair game are 3433 and 3424.

How about 44(23)? It seems like that might have some issues opposite, say, 3244. I used to play a 3-suited overcall method too and the biggest problem was always the rare hands on which you cannot scramble a fit in 2♦/2M and have to play in 3m on a fit that is not really good enough. I must admit the defence was certainly fun to play though.

[MickyB]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-22, 06:38, said:

How about 44(23)?

You are in a similar position to Landy. If pard bids 2D, he won't have 3H2S but might have 3S2H, so you should rebid 2S, so you'll always play in the 4-3 opposite (32)44.

[Zelandakh]

OK, so after the 2♦ advance, 2♠ is 4+ rather than 5+. That gives a potential problem opposite 2254 though - either 2♠ gets passed in a possible 4-2 fit or we are committed to 3♣ in what is likely to be 5413 opposite 2254. Admittedly, practically all methods have some awkward cases if you examine them closely.

[MickyB]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-22, 06:56, said:

OK, so after the 2♦ advance, 2♠ is 4+ rather than 5+. That gives a potential problem opposite 2254 though - either 2♠ gets passed in a possible 4-2 fit or we are committed to 3♣ in what is likely to be 5413 opposite 2254. Admittedly, practically all methods have some awkward cases if you examine them closely.

Yes, like I said, we are in the same position as Landy if we decide to bid there. Only difference is that we'd play 2S in the 4-2 when they'd probably play 2H in the 4-2.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 18:56, said:

Oh! Reading the ACBL GCC I find this under "DISALLOWED"
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

Where in the GCC is (1N) 2D (showing one major) relay to 2H allowed?

If the 2♦ bid forces advancer to bid 2♥ then it is a puppet, not a relay

The ACBL ban on relay systems is meant to impact sequences like the following

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 2♥
2♠ - 2N


Where, 1H shows 4+ spades and 1S asks openers to tell more about the hand
2♥ shows 5+ spades and 4+ hearts and 2H asks opener to tell more about the hand
2♠ shows at least 5-5 in the majors and 2NT asks opener to tell more about the hand

[phil_20686]

I don't like non shapely overcalls. Overcalling on 5332 is always wrong imo, much better to defend 1N, so I don't think `natural' overcalls gain much. Prefer to be able to show Major+minor and 6+ cards in the major.

I think double should be something that is reasonably high frequency and allows partner to pass when he wants to convert. Either 5m4M or a natural overcall in either minor (i.e. identical to your 2d bid but for the minors) fits this bill, and they are quite useful to have.

So I recommend 2C = majors, 2d = either major 2h/s = 5M4m 2N = 55 minors, x = 5m4M. Changing dble to 6+ cards in either minor is ok too. Double should be strong enough that partner can pass with confidence when he has 11 of so HCP. So I play it as 11+ which ever I play, although I make all the other bids with less over a strong NT.

[mycroft]

Please note that Woolsey/Multi-Landy, et al. all used to be GCC legal, many years ago. They got taken *off* the GCC by the BoD (mostly because people didn't like playing against CRaSh and Suction. Why, I don't know :-). People have been trying to reverse that ever since, and it will eventually happen, because the good players want to play it in GCC events. (People have been trying to reverse the "Announce 1NT even if 15-17" for about as many years, and that, thankfully, will never happen).

It is in fact much harder to defend against 2♦ "one major" than 2♣ "one suit"; and I'm not sure that, given the decision to ban some defences to 1NT, that it shouldn't stay. But *I'd* be happier if it had never happened (as it hasn't in some benighted places like California where they're still stuck in the '80s :-).

Interesting question: are they going to do the same thing in SF that they did in Anaheim, where for that Nationals, GCC events were "GCC + any defence to NT"? That caused real problems in Toronto three months later, where many people thought that the rule had been changed, rather than the exception common in California was kept for that event only - but if they don't, it's going to cause a lot of problems in SF.

[jillybean]

Interisting How/when do we find out if the event in SF will be GCC+?

[mycroft]

My guess would be:
- ask someone on the tournament committee
- wait for the first daily bulletin where they explain what CC regulations are and what happens if you don't meet them.

[antonylee]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-22, 05:04, said:

Here is my suggestion, a mix of Asptro, French and Multi-Landy:

X = 4+ hearts: either ♥ + ♦ + ♣, or 4♥ + longer minor, or ♥ + ♠ (spades > hearts)
2♣ = 4+ spades: either ♠ + ♥ + ♦, or 4♠ + longer minor, or ♠ + ♥ (hearts > spades)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2♥ = 5♥ + minor
2♠ = 5♠ + minor
2NT = minors
3m = natural

This gets you into the auction on all of the hands your existing systems do (plus some extras) while still differentiating between major suit lengths. You also get your major into the auction directly with the Asptro-like X/2♣ calls rather than the suits being completely unknown. Of course, none of this is GCC legal; but then again neither is your current defence.

That is somewhat somewhat common where I played in France, with the additional X=could be 55 majors, shown by rebidding spades on the next round while rebidding hearts shows 4♥5♠. When I moved to the US I made the seemingly natural fix to make that GCC: X=one suit, 2C=4♥5X or 5♥5♠, 2D=4♠5X, which is not as good but still works if you want to describe your shape well. I am actually still playing this with my regular partner, though I would now like to move to something with natural 2M overcalls (or multi 2♦, but ACBL blablabla...).

[Mbodell]

mycroft, on 2012-October-22, 12:44, said:

Please note that Woolsey/Multi-Landy, et al. all used to be GCC legal, many years ago. They got taken *off* the GCC by the BoD (mostly because people didn't like playing against CRaSh and Suction. Why, I don't know :-). People have been trying to reverse that ever since, and it will eventually happen, because the good players want to play it in GCC events. (People have been trying to reverse the "Announce 1NT even if 15-17" for about as many years, and that, thankfully, will never happen).

It is in fact much harder to defend against 2♦ "one major" than 2♣ "one suit"; and I'm not sure that, given the decision to ban some defences to 1NT, that it shouldn't stay. But *I'd* be happier if it had never happened (as it hasn't in some benighted places like California where they're still stuck in the '80s :-).

Interesting question: are they going to do the same thing in SF that they did in Anaheim, where for that Nationals, GCC events were "GCC + any defence to NT"? That caused real problems in Toronto three months later, where many people thought that the rule had been changed, rather than the exception common in California was kept for that event only - but if they don't, it's going to cause a lot of problems in SF.

FWIW in district 21 most events are either GCC or midchart but not the (GCC + any defense to 1nt) which I think is more of a SoCal thing. That said, district 21 is pretty pro-midchart as at least half the sectionals and most of the clubs are midchart here. Most of the clubs here still let us play multi-2♦ in pairs games right after the switch to mid-6.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2012-October-22, 02:53, said:

Even stronger, we can play anything in all but novice events in the UK.

Even HUMs?

[Zelandakh]

antonylee, on 2012-October-23, 11:53, said:

That is somewhat somewhat common where I played in France,

Seriously? Does it have a name there? It is not on Dave Stevenson's website and is something (I thought) I created myself from scratch. Your GCC fix is also interesting although I suspect under GCC conditions I would go for something like "Middlesex" Asptro.

X = ♣ or ♦ or 5-5 majors
2♣ = 4♥ + longer side suit or 6+♥
2♦ = 4♠ + longer side suit or 6+♠
2♥ = 5♥ + minor
2♠ = 5♠ + minor
2NT = minors

This is is simply Asptro with the 5M+m and major one-suited hands switched. I think this makes the follow-ups over 2m easier since there are fewer hand types to deal with. Actually, looking back over the 2 they are pretty similar so it probably makes little difference in practise.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2012-October-22, 02:53, said:

Even stronger, we can play anything in all but novice events in the UK.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-24, 01:27, said:

Even HUMs?

This thread is about defences to 1NT and regulation of defences to 1NT and my comment was made in that context. HUMs are defined based on opening calls, not overcalls.

[Vampyr]

How did you create that embedded quote?

[Zelandakh]

You can do it manually by either selecting Multiquote for each of the messages you want to quote and then moving the tags so that one quote is contained within the other, or by replying to the first message, copying the entire text and pasting that into a reply of the second message. I have not (yet) found a way to do it automatically.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 10:02, said:

How did you create that embedded quote?

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-26, 02:31, said:

You can do it manually by either selecting Multiquote for each of the messages you want to quote and then moving the tags so that one quote is contained within the other, or by replying to the first message, copying the entire text and pasting that into a reply of the second message. I have not (yet) found a way to do it automatically.

The MultiQuote method is easily the best since it preserves the headers of all the quotes.