[straube]

Well, if this could be substantiated, then it seems like the primary purpose of the bidding would not be to destroy the opponents' methods...though at times it certainly would seem to do so. Since this would be so, and since conventional defenses are allowed against conventional openings, it seems like it would be permitted.

Where do you stand on the subject? On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have. On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

Personally, I still feel that the primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods.

I'd be interested in hearing what Fred or Jan have to say on the subject.

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

"Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player. " -

I have no idea what you mean by "complete, draws the line in the intended place".

Here's a GCC without ambiguity - allow only precision, sayc, 2/1, sayc, 2/1 with short club. Each of these systems have well defined opening bids and responses, heck take the superset of all opening bids + responses currently allowed in the GCC, and say that these only only these bids are allowed. That's pretty unambiguous. I suspect an overwhelming majority of club players will have no problem with this + you have preciseness in its definition.

So now to play in GCC events we have to agree on which bids are and aren't part of SAYC?? And this is your suggestion to reduce ambiguity?? Moreover, do you think anyone will be the least bit happy with this GCC which essentially outlaws numerous methods that are currently legal? You only served to prove Fred right.

Quote

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

WOW where do people get off! Everyone who knows nothing about anything thinks they are such a genius. Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?

[Cascade]

straube, on Feb 4 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

Where do you stand on the subject? On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have. On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

I am at a bit of a disadvantage answering that question as:

1. I don't really understand the purpose of a rule against destructive bids

2. I don't really know what is intended by the regulation to be defined as destructive

I think all that I said was that I could live with a ruling that 1♠ was destructive (primarily) under certain circumstances. Mostly that they were not using this bid because they wanted to use PASS for some other more constructive purpose making their overall approach primarily constructive.

Even so I would be unhappy picking on this sort of bid as destructive when there was not an objective measure that I could use to evaluate other players methods that I consider destructive e.g. some pre-empting styles. After all a FERT type bid is simply a pre-empt.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

So now to play in GCC events we have to agree on which bids are and aren't part of SAYC?? And this is your suggestion to reduce ambiguity?? Moreover, do you think anyone will be the least bit happy with this GCC which essentially outlaws numerous methods that are currently legal? You only served to prove Fred right.

Quote

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

WOW where do people get off! Everyone who knows nothing about anything thinks they are such a genius. Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?

You don't have to agree to anything. Since I'm writing the GCC, I'l lpick what bids are part of SAYC.

"Is everything you said there fact or opinion or random stupid guess because you felt like posting something in reply to someone who disagreed with you?"

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

[mikestar]

When in a position to open the bidding or make a direct overcall of an opening bid the meaning of Pass must include all hands with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape and less than 8 HCP.

This rule would allow wild preempting but unambiguously ban ferts and strong pass.

[awm]

fred, on Feb 3 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Or maybe it is harder to get it right than you might think.

How about trying to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem (or at least instead of complaining about the problem without offering any constructive suggestions for fixing it)?

Try writing your own GCC that is free of ambiguity, complete, draws the line in the intended place, and is concise enough to be usable and understandable by the average ACBL club player.

If you are successful then submit your proposed GCC to the ACBL. If you do a wonderful job then perhaps they will start using it.

If not then perhaps the exercise will at least give you some appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I already did this, quite a while ago. I can dig up the old thread if people care. Most of the people posting on that thread actually liked my alternative, and found it to be clear and free of ambiguity.

The problem with proposing such a thing to ACBL is that they will complain that my proposed "new" general chart does not exactly legalize the same set of things as the "old" general chart. Of course, since I have no idea what the "old" general chart actually legalizes (and in fact there is no wide agreement about that, and this is precisely the problem with the "old" general chart) it's impossible for me to ever correct this problem.

Of course, it may be worth noting that two of the early lines on my "new" general chart were of the form:

(1) Any call which guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed.
(2) Any opening of 1♣ or 1♦ which guarantees ten or more points is allowed.

And now we are arguing about those very points on the original chart.

Here is a link to the thread in question. The first three or four pages were really quite interesting, but then Foo hi-jacked the thread and it sort of degenerated.

[fred]

straube, on Feb 3 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

Well, if this could be substantiated, then it seems like the primary purpose of the bidding would not be to destroy the opponents' methods...though at times it certainly would seem to do so.  Since this would be so, and since conventional defenses are allowed against conventional openings, it seems like it would be permitted.

Where do you stand on the subject?  On the one hand, you've provided the synopsis of the data that your friends have.  On the other hand, you've seemed to indicate that the primary purpose of a 1S Fert-type bid would be destructive.

Personally, I still feel that the primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods.

I'd be interested in hearing what Fred or Jan have to say on the subject.

Hi David,

I am sorry but I really don't know what to think. Probably the reason is that "primary purpose would be to destroy the opponents' methods" does not mean very much to me. This term, like "all-purpose opening bid", is the sort of thing that I contend needs to be either explicitly defined or left open to interpretation.

I suppose I could attempt to interpret this term, but I don't think my attempt would have much value - as I have said, this is hardly my area of expertise. I do think it is beyond obvious that the ACBL membership would respond very poorly if Fert-like bids were allowed in GCC events. In the absense of a perfect GCC, if it takes vague wording and subjective interpretation to achieve that end, then so be it.

Sorry to the thoughtful and polite people like you who seem to care about my opinions even when you disagree with them, but I would very much like to get out of this discussion. I sometimes feel compelled to respond when I think that fine people like Jan, various ACBL staff members, and those who serve of various ACBL committees are (in my view) unfairly attacked. But I am starting to think I am wasting my time trying to get these particular dogs to drop these particular bones. Probably they think the same about me

So I am going to try ignoring them instead (and hope that other people do the same).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikestar]

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART


Suggested revision by Mike Nelson (mikestar)


DEFINITIONS
1. 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).
2. An overcall in a suit is considered natural if, by agreement, it shows four
or more cards in the denomination named.
3. A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one
of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.
4. A normal opening hand is any hand with 10+ HCPs or conforming to the rule of 19 (HCP + the length of the hand’s two longest suits is at least 19).
5. A strong opening hand is any hand with 15+ HCPs or conforming to the rule of 25 (HCP + the length of the hand’s two longets suits is at least 25).


ALLOWED Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed.

OPENING BIDS
1. Any opening bid except ONE HEART or ONE SPADE which is forcing and shows a strong opening hand.
2. ONE CLUB or ONE DIAMOND may have any meaning which shows a normal opening hand, provided that the bid does not promise length in any specific suit other than the suit opened and does not deny length in the suit opened.
3. TWO CLUBS or TWO DIAMONDS indicating a three-suiter with a normal opening hand.
4. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER showing two
known suits, a normal opening hand and at least 5–4 distribution in the
suits. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.
5. OPENING THREE NOTRUMP BID indicating one of
a) a solid suit or
a minor one-suiter.
6. OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.

RESPONSES AND REBIDS
1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club.
2. ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round;
cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.
3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME
FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.
4. TWO CLUBS OR TWO DIAMONDS response to third or fourth-seat
major-suit openings asking the quality of the opening bid.
5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT
THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER to indicate a raise or to force to game.
6. JUMP RESPONSES TO AN OPENING BID OF ONE IN A SUIT at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.
7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher.
8. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s second
call.
9. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trump
quality and responses thereto.
10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct
overcall.


COMPETITIVE
1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.
2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including
free bids) thereto.
3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one
known suit. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer. At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have a known suit. or
three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits).
4. a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution
in two known suits and responses thereto. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.
SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a normal opening bid,
at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto. It is not required to specify which known suit is longer.
5. TRANSFER ADVANCES (responses to overcalls) where the call shows
length or values in the suit of the transfer.
6. CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid
that could be weak (less tan a normal opning bid) directly over an opening bid,
must show at least one known suit.
7. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls,
natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls over ONE NOTRUMP,
other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.
c) opening bids of two clubs or higher.
8. Numbers 4 through 10 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS above APPLY
TO BOTH PAIRS.



DISALLOWED Any method explicitly disallowed may not be played even if it also fits a definition of an allowed method.

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
opponents’ methods.
2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings.
3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in
conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)
4. A Pass in a position to open the bidding or make a direct overcall of an opening bid whose meaning does not include all hands with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape and fewer values than a queen less than a normal opening bid.
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.
6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer values than
a queen less than a normal opning bid.
7. 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 less than
a normal opening bid or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have
two non-consecutive 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.

CARDING
Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s
first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down
card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved.
In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit
preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a
manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much
like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament
committee.

[the hog]

jtfanclub, on Feb 4 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid. It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

So this rules out artificial defences to a big C!!
This seems a tad unfair.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 4 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

An opening or overcall of 1 of a minor may not have a minimum length* for any suit other that the suit bid.  It may include 'an unbid major' or 'an unbid suit'.

So this rules out artificial defences to a big C!!
This seems a tad unfair.

He does have:

"EXCEPTIONS: The following are legal regardless of the above.
Over a 1 club or 1 diamond opening which does not promise 3 of the bid suit, all overcalls are legal except those specifically prohibited as 'destructive'."

[Mbodell]

For the bids over 1♣ I agree that JanM's opponents should be able to play any defense that would be legal over a precision 1♣. My reading of her descriptions though was that the defenses in question were not such a legal defense and shouldn't be allowed over her 1♣ as they were destructive. For a question of the destructive methods consider the following 2 methods. 1 of which I'll argue is unambiguously destructive, the other of which feels quite destructive but may well be ok.

1. Over an artificial strong 1♣ partnership agreement is to bid 1♠ with every single hand. No other bids are available to partnership. It is required. Note that in the ACBL opponents may not psych a strong 1♣ so this isn't even subject to the problem that with a long spade suit the opponents psych 1♣.

I'd argue that 1 above is totally destructive and shouldn't be allowed based on the disallowed part of the GCC.

2. Over an artificial strong 1♣ partnership agreement is to reverse pass and 1♠. That is using whatever system you play (crash, suction, mathe, etc.) everything is like others who play that system except where they would pass you bid 1♠ and where they would bid 1♠ you pass.

I'd argue the primary reason people would play 2 is they want to knock the strong club players out of their relays/constructive/comfortable auction and they want to maximize the occurrences of the 1♠ bid. There is also the issue of full disclosure that is hard to explain on such a 1♠ bid, but that is manageable and may be a different issue.

Forgetting about if someone has opened a "strong" 1♣ or just a "could be short" 1♣, I hope everyone would agree that 1 above is not legal in the ACBL charts. I think 2 above is not legal either in the ACBL charts, but I acknowledge that this may be a more debatable decision.

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

Quote

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

You're entitled to it of course. We could always take a vote on who is the bigger idiot.

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.
Person B: Tells off person A.
Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

Quote

How about the GCC committee pretending there is no problem or acknowledging there is a problem but being too lazy/disinterested/incompetent to do anything about it?

You just served to prove that you're an idiot. This is my opinion BTW.

You're entitled to it of course. We could always take a vote on who is the bigger idiot.

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.
Person B: Tells off person A.
Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

Instead of a vote, let's have a committee where I choose two other members to decide who is the bigger idiot.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

Person A: Calls a group of strangers about whom he knows nothing at all lazy, disinterested, incompetent because he believes they do a poor job of something they do not get paid for but simply volunteer their spare time to do, and that is completely thankless.
Person B: Tells off person A.
Person A: Calls person B an idiot.

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC

Right, you believe they are doing a bad job, therefore they are stupid lazy incompetent idiots. And you are completely qualified to judge that. Makes sense.

Quote

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?

Another good point. These people you don't know are obviously corrupt as well, they don't do it for the good of bridge like you would. And again this was an easy judgment to make purely because you feel they have done a bad job. I'm starting to get it now.

Quote

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.

I don't think having total strangers consider me lazy corrupt incompetent and whatever else is a great power. You may disagree. I also doubt they want your sympathy, in fact I speculate they would be quite happy if you simply ignored them.

Quote

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.

Neither am I. I am not forming judgments at all about people I don't know very well based on essentially no evidence of any kind, because it would obviously be foolish to do so and wouldn't make me come across very well either.

Oh wait, I forgot my lessons...

[qwery_hi]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

1. I do not need to know anything about them expect the kind of job they are doing re the GCC
Right, you believe they are doing a bad job, therefore they are stupid lazy incompetent idiots. And you are completely qualified to judge that. Makes sense.

Nice try jdonn - I never called them idiots - you are calling them idiots

Quote

2. The fact that they are volunteers and do not get paid does not exempt them from criticism. They are doing it out of their own self interest. Where is Adam Wildavsky when you need him?
Another good point. These people you don't know are obviously corrupt as well, they don't do it for the good of bridge like you would. And again this was an easy judgment to make purely because you feel they have done a bad job. I'm starting to get it now.

Another nice try - I never called them corrupt or suggested any such thing. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged to realize what I mean by self interest.

Quote

Committee members who weild great power cribbing about a thankless, unpaid job or apologists for said committee members get no sympathy from me.
I don't think having total strangers consider me lazy corrupt incompetent and whatever else is a great power. You may disagree. I also doubt they want your sympathy, in fact I speculate they would be quite happy if you simply ignored them.

LOL

Quote

I'm not the one putting the committee on a pedestal.
Neither am I. I am not forming judgments at all about people I don't know very well based on essentially no evidence of any kind, because it would obviously be foolish to do so and wouldn't make me come across very well either.

Oh wait, I forgot my lessons...

Pithy attempt at sarcastic humor . Par for the course .

[akhare]

awm, on Feb 3 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

I already did this, quite a while ago. I can dig up the old thread if people care. Most of the people posting on that thread actually liked my alternative, and found it to be clear and free of ambiguity.

I really like Adam's version -- direct link for those who don't want to dig through the thread:

Adam's version

Anyway, this is all stuff of dreams. As Richard and many others on the thread will attest, all this is much ado about nothing. A year from now, all this will have fallen on deaf (ACBL) ears and the GCC will continue to be status quo ante.

And then we will have another excuse to kick start this again (and go for each other's jugular while we are at it) ...

[jdonn]

akhare, on Feb 4 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

I really like Adam's version -- direct link for those who don't want to dig through the thread:

Adam's version

Thanks for the link. I give Adam credit for at least trying. However it seems quite far from clear to me that this is any improvement at all over the GCC. I found all the following errors or questionable aspects (all just IMO of course). Keep in mind this is what 1 person found in 15 minutes. Imagine what tens of thousands of people would find over the course of time.

- I do not like the definition of 'minor deviation', particularly as it pertains to distribution. One high card point is fair enough, but being off by a card in suit length is quite a major deviation in a lot of cases, even given the caveat about suit strength. I would not say someone who opens 1♠ with KQTx xx Axx Axxx is playing five card majors. Further, I have no idea what "in general" (so not always?), "logical" (we will ever agree what is logical?), "typically" (again, so not always?), or "strong" or "weak" (as they pertain to suits) mean. Axxx is stronger than the average four card suit in high card strength but doesn't look like a strong suit to me. I thought the whole point was to clarify things, but this seems more vague than the current GCC!

- I do not like the definition of 'major deviation', particularly as it pertains to high cards. There are a number of hands with a six card minor that I think are completely normal to upgrade by 2 or 3 points to open 2NT. I also, in addition to most of the vague terms already mentioned, don't know what a "pattern of psychics" is. 2 or more? Technically one every 20 years is a pattern.

- Why limit opening bids to 8 high card points? Aside from it being arbitrary, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Some will be mad that such a low number is allowed. Others will be mad that any minimum exists.

- Why limit 2NT+ openings and overcalls to at most either of two 8 card suits? Because it is popular now? There are people who like to play 3NT is any solid suit, why should they be denied? And the way it's written it seems like I can't open 3NT promising a solid minor if my definition of 'solid' is "At least AKQ seventh or AKJ eighth". I could have it guarantee one of those or the other, but not either in the same bid. And the part about strong (what's that?) 8 card suits doesn't even allow for longer suits, if I have 9 I'm screwed!

- It seems wrong to me that you allow any meanings at all for overcalls of a 1♣ that is 3+ or 4432, but not nearly as much freedom over a 1♣ that is 3+.

- I have no idea what "possibly" means in 2. under responses. It's not allowed to be guaranteed but you can do it sometimes?

- Allowing any response which guarantees 7+ in a particular suit opens any response to mean anything at all as long as they simply won't bid it when short in opener's major. Maybe that's what you wanted, but I doubt it.

- What are the "values for game"? 24+? 20+ with a big fit? And you don't even say the bid must be game forcing, just show such values.

- I thought this was kind of the funniest. You seem to allow a forcing 1NT response to a major suit if it guarantees a game force, or if it guarantees NOT a game force, but you don't allow it if it could be either. That is an extremely common way to play, to include certain game forcing hands in a 1NT forcing response (particularly minimum game forcing balanced ones.)

- The sentence on subsequent calls is the worst part of your entire GCC. It's more vague than any regulation I have ever seen in my life. After two bids, "any agreements which can be explained to an average player in under 30 seconds are allowed." Explained by whom? That guy in the micro machine commercials can talk really fast. And it doesn't even say they have to understand, it just has to be explained to them (which makes who you are explaining to totally irrelevant anyway). And what is an average player, have you seen how BBO players rate themselves? I'm one of the most experienced bridge players out there, and without even trying to be obstinate I can truly say I don't have the slightest idea what an average player is. (It doesn't even say average bridge player! I think I'm an average blackjack player...) And what if I can only explain it to an average player in 30 seconds 1 time out of 100, well that means it can be done so my agreement is legal. You could argue that any bid at all can be explained in 30 seconds, or if all tiny inferences are included that no bid at all can be explained in 30 seconds. I think you are forced to admit this entire sentence / section is completely meaningless and doesn't rule out a single bid.

As I said, I give you credit for trying. I think it's better than most could have done, but in general more vague than the current GCC or at least vague in different ways. If anything I hope this at least shows people how hard this is to do well.

[rogerclee]

qwery_hi, on Feb 3 2009, 09:17 PM, said:

Nice try jdonn - I never called them idiots - you are calling them idiots

LOL

[awm]

To reply to Josh:

-- The current GCC makes no mention of psychs or deviations from agreements. I believe that having any guidelines here is a substantial improvement.

-- I personally question the attitude of opening 2NT often with 17-18 high card point hands with a six-card minor and then disclosing "20-21." This strikes me as an attempt to gain an advantage over unsuspecting opponents. I would disclose this as something like "a very good 18 to a bad 21" or perhaps "usually 20-21, but could be as few as 17 if holding a six or seven card minor." Otherwise if partner has seen you make these openings on several occasions I believe that there is a real disclosure issue.

-- Many of your other complaints, such as limiting one-level openings to 8-plus points, or limiting the notrump openings to one of at most two suits, or allowing any defense to 1♣ showing two-plus, are holdovers from the current chart. I would be quite happy to modify these to something simpler and clearer, but my goal was to minimize the changes from current policy.

-- "Possibly" just means that you don't have to guarantee singleton or void. The rule is that for this particular classification, the 1NT response cannot include any hands which have singletons or voids in suits where opener could have fewer than four cards. Singletons or voids in suits opener has promised are okay. Perhaps this could've been worded better.

-- The intent of "promising seven or more cards in a known suit" is to allow bids which are raises. However, this should include four-card raises of "three-plus" minor suit openings and three-card major suit raises in a four-card major system. So it pretty much means what it should mean. You can play fit-showing jumps or mini-splinters or drury and so forth.

-- Note that the current general chart also uses the terms "game forcing" without explaining what this really means. It's hard to get around this really, because people should be allowed to evaluate their hand in a rational way. Straight-jacketing them with high-card points especially after the first call of the auction is a little ridiculous.

-- The issue of forcing notrump responses is very tricky. The current regulation is extremely nonsensical (cannot "guarantee invitational or better values"). Note that the current GCC allows a 1NT response which is forcing, and a 1NT response which is game-forcing, but does not allow "invitational-plus." Again, I would be happy discarding this and just allowing any 1NT response to an opening call. This specification was an attempt to remain as close as possible to the nonsensical rule on the current chart. Edited: to be more specific, I think the issue here is that they do not want a forcing notrump call to be followed later by a game-forcing relay, as this essentially bypasses the rule against relay systems by arguing that the first call is a (perfectly legal) forcing notrump and the relay sequence did not start until responder's second bid. This was the situation I was trying to address here, in forbidding the 1NT response including both very strong and very weak hands.

-- The "30 second" regulation is exactly the rule from the Cavendish. Really the point is just that bids must be disclosed. If I can't explain what my bid means to a normal person in a reasonable length of time, then it really shouldn't be allowed. Obviously there is some gray area about who is a "normal person" (some basic bridge knowledge should be assumed) or how fast am I allowed to talk, but the idea is that it shouldn't normally come down to a timer. Again, the current charts have nothing of this sort. I'm allowed to play that after 1♠-1NT, my 2♣ rebid shows one of four-thousand three-hundred and ninety-two types of hands which bear no particular resemblance to each other, then offer to enumerate them (over the course of the next two hours) if my opponents ask for explanation. I think this is unacceptable.