[zasanya]

I am not sure where I should post this and I do not mean it as a complaint.Just curious about ACBL rules which apply to bbo tourneys.
A friend of mine regularly plays acbl tournaments on bbo and he recently reported what I have given below in bold.
"I was warned by director for bidding 2D over 1NT as single suit major. I (had) alerted the opponents. He says that according to ACBL any bid after 1NT other than double and 2C cannot have a meaning other than bid suit. It can be bid suit plus something else. Since my 2D did not imply diamond suit my bid was deemed illegal
Does it mean Multi Landy is not allowed on bbo acbl tournaments?

[uday]

I don't know if multi-landy is legal under the GCC but since 2D is used as majors in capp, I don't think I buy the 'anything but X/2C has to show the called suit'

Jacki, who organizes our ACBL games, will take a look. Meanwhile, if you don't mind, drop her an IM or an email ( @bridgebase.com ) with your friends name and we'll clear this up. I'm sure you could email Rulings@acbl.org and get an official opinion as well

The GCC says, about defences to 1N openers and overcalls "... direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit."

Maybe the GCC has been updated, but barring that, it seems like 2D = either major would not be legal under the GCC

U

[kenberg]

I will be watching this with interest since I would like to play the variously named and attributed defense (ML/Woolsey/Robinson) that includes the 2♦ as a single suited (or single major suited) hand. I have been told that I cannot, so I don't.


The rules are what they are, I am glad someone is checking, and I will conform. However, my view is that at least in defending against the weak no trump, some flexibility would be very desirable. If it's not, it's not. I'll survive as long as the rules are the same for everyone.

[awm]

The relevant rule is that intervention over the opposing 1NT other than double or 2♣ must show a known suit. It is not necessary that the calls be natural. Thus methods like CAPP are allowed (2♦ shows known suits) as would be playing transfers over the opponents notrump. However, multi-landy would be a mid-chart convention because 2♦ does not show length in any known suit.

This is complicated a bit by the fact that quite a number of districts (including most of the west coast and the mid-atlantic region on the east coast) have decided to legalize any defense to the opponents notrump at the general chart level. The upshot is that if I play in the pairs at my local sectional, multi-landy is legal... but if I play in a (non NABC+) open pairs at nationals then multi-landy is not legal.

[keylime]

I have reason to believe that Multi-Landy is NOT GCC legal, because there is no known anchor suit at the 2♦ bid. If it was, Larry and I would be using it full time versus the part-time usage in KO's of a certain MP level that is currently available to us. There is a rumor afoot to allow all NT defenses into the GCC.

[mycroft]

As several have said, this is easy - if 2D doesn't promise a known suit (not necessarily diamonds), it's not GCC legal. There are several places where the GCC could be clarified - not least, what is "a known suit"? (yes, we all know it's 4+, but it should be stated somewhere), but it isn't that hard to read, and most things are resolvable. It is available at the ACBL web site

There has been several attempts since the "except double and 2C" condition was added to allowed NT defences to remove it; they have always failed. I don't know why. In New Orleans, there was a motion to add 2D (only) to the allowed "non-suit" calls - that was also defeated. I agree with this one - if you're going to go that far, just revert to the old rule and allow any defence to NT again.

[rduran1216]

This is an interesting issue, because around the LA area, I've played a modified version of Hamilton where the 2C and 2D responses are reversed, it has always been allowed, so I'm curious about this as well

[wyman]

rduran1216, on 2010-October-26, 09:48, said:

This is an interesting issue, because around the LA area, I've played a modified version of Hamilton where the 2C and 2D responses are reversed, it has always been allowed, so I'm curious about this as well

<post redacted>
nevermind, i am dumb

[mycroft]

rduran1216, on 2010-October-26, 09:48, said:

This is an interesting issue, because around the LA area, I've played a modified version of Hamilton where the 2C and 2D responses are reversed, it has always been allowed, so I'm curious about this as well

awm, on 2010-October-22, 09:55, said:

This is complicated a bit by the fact that quite a number of districts (including most of the west coast and the mid-atlantic region on the east coast) have decided to legalize any defense to the opponents notrump at the general chart level. The upshot is that if I play in the pairs at my local sectional, multi-landy is legal... but if I play in a (non NABC+) open pairs at nationals then multi-landy is not legal.

...and there's your curious (emphasis mine). Having said that, it was usually posted on flyers in the area that the tournaments are "GCC + any defence to NT" (it seems not to be now; I guess that's a district decision that you're just supposed to know).

[kenberg]

Just out of curiosity:

Some people play that after 1NT-pass, a call of 2♠ by responder shows an unspecified minor. Is this GCC legal? It seems weird to allow the NT team to use a 2♠ bid to show an unspecified minor but forbid the defense team to use 2♦ to show an unspecified major.

Not that I have ever thought logic really has much to do with any of this.

"No reason, just policy" is an explanation for many rules. I have other fish to fry.

[campboy]

Unless the 1NT opening is unusually weak or wide-ranging, any responses are permitted. In general, though, rules for responses are much more relaxed than for initial actions, and there is some sense in this; it is much less likely that next player will want to act after 1NT 2♠ ?? than 1NT pass 2♠ ??, whatever 2♠ means. The thing which has always struck me as odd about the GCC here is that the meaning of a 2♦ overcall is restricted but a 2♣ overcall is not.

[Free]

In Belgium any defense is allowed against 1NT, because the same principle applies as after a strong 1♣: opps haven't promissed any suit at all, so why should we show a suit? I think it's fair enough.

[Edmunte1]

As long as methods as Capeletti are allowed, i don't know why Multilandy should not be allowed. Anyway imho ACBL is putting big brakes in development of the game, thanks God i'm an european