[steve2005]

GCC says
"7. DEFENSE TO:

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct
calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit. "

does this mean that balancing calls don't have the restriction of at least one known suit for 2♦(the one im interested in)
2♥ & 2♠ ?

[ArtK78]

Yes.

[steve2005]

that's great.
I want to use 2♦ as an unnamed 6 card major, plus it means 2♣ can be for majors which is better than 2♦ s in cap.

also means you can use crash in balance, not as destructive as in direct but still could cause headaches for opener

[Vampyr]

steve2005, on 2013-April-06, 13:00, said:

that's great.
I want to use 2♦ as an unnamed 6 card major, plus it means 2♣ can be for majors which is better than 2♦ s in cap.

also means you can use crash in balance, not as destructive as in direct but still could cause headaches for opener

Wait, so Multi-Landy and the like are not permitted unless you are balancing? This never occurred to me, or I would have put it in my post asking what was allowed!

[akwoo]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-06, 18:10, said:

Wait, so Multi-Landy and the like are not permitted unless you are balancing? This never occurred to me, or I would have put it in my post asking what was allowed!

Multi-Landy is not GCC. I believe a fair number of regions have received permission to allow a 2♦ overcall of 1N, showing an unspecified major, in otherwise GCC events.

[steve2005]

the restriction of having an known suit appears to apply only in a direct overcall. This makes some sense as opp have had a chance to make there bids with no interference.(edit sentences got mixed up)

so balancing anything goes. This makes some sense as opponents have had a chance to bid their system unimpeded.

also there is another spot on GCC which allows conventional balancing conventions calls.

from GCC
"COMPETITIVE
1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS"

[Vampyr]

What about doubles? Our defense to a strong NT includes X=majors or minors or diamonds. Is this permitted?

[steve2005]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-07, 09:57, said:

What about doubles? Our defense to a strong NT includes X=majors or minors or diamonds. Is this permitted?

Double and 2♣ in direct seat don't need a known suit so ok

[Siegmund]

Double and 2C can have any meaning you wish. To be GCC, 2D and higher must contain a known suit.

Multi-Landy is Midchart only because of the 2D bid.
Similarly CRASH's 2D bid is Midchart, but people often adapt with something like X=color 2C=shape 2D=majors 2NT=minors which is GCC.

As noted above, there are several ACBL districts that allow "GCC+any notrump defense" in their regionals. Side games at an NABC will always be GCC.

[Vampyr]

Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

David Stevenson's 1NT defence pages also contain a line indicating whether the defence is GCC legal. Back in the old days, there was also an indicator for EBU Level 3 legality.

[steve2005]

Its official. I asked for a ruling from ACBL. and it came back.
Multi-Landy is legal in balancing seat.
or for that matter any system goes in balance.

[blackshoe]

According to which provision of the Convention Regulations? And according to whom at ACBL?

[mycroft]

I assume according to the either of the quotes from the GCC in this thread (overcalls of NT, balancing calls), no?

I will admit I was surprised to notice this on a reread.

[TylerE]

ANYTHING in balancing seat is legal? What about an agreement, of something like: X = 0-4 or 16+

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 22:53, said:

According to which provision of the Convention Regulations? And according to whom at ACBL?

GCC says
"7. DEFENSE TO:

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct
calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit. "


so ruled restriction is on direct calls not balancing calls. on the theory that " Once the auction has gone 1NT pass pass the defensive systems have less to do with how the opening side can communicate."

I asked him specifically about 2♦ as either major (part of Multi-Landy), but should apply to almost anything

this was from Dan rulings@acbl.org

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2013-April-30, 15:02, said:

GCC says
"7. DEFENSE TO:

b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct
calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit. "


so ruled restriction is on direct calls not balancing calls. on the theory that " Once the auction has gone 1NT pass pass the defensive systems have less to do with how the opening side can communicate."

I asked him specifically about 2♦ as either major (part of Multi-Landy), but should apply to almost anything

this was from Dan rulings@acbl.org

Okay, fair enough, although I have no idea who "Dan" is. I do know that although Mike Flader writes the "Ruling the Game" column in the Bulletin, and the "rulings@acbl.org" address is specifically tied to that column, several people at HQ are apparently tasked with answering mail to "rulings", not just Mike.

[aguahombre]

steve2005, on 2013-April-29, 19:30, said:

Its official. I asked for a ruling from ACBL. and it came back.
Multi-Landy is legal in balancing seat.
or for that matter any system goes in balance.

Yes, it appears they were able to read what we are able to read; and yet, amazingly the question continues to be asked...and some people continue to disagree.

It is a valid observation that club-level directors have differing understanding of the laws, and different degrees of concern about following the laws.

But, IME, National-level ACBL TD's and the people at HQ kind enough to answer questions from us peons only give controversial replies when the context or wording of the question itself was faulty.

[blackshoe]

you've had better luck than I have with HQ then.

Ask HQ or a National TD whether scoring a board as "not played" when a pair was scheduled to play it, but was unable to do so because they ran out of time, is legal. The answer I heard (from Butch Campbell) was "that's what it's for!". "It" meaning "a score of 'not played'".

I do seem to remember this question being addressed by Mike Flader in his "Ruling the Game" column sometime in the last year or two. IIRC, he refused to call it illegal, but he did say "I wouldn't do it". Yet I see nothing in the laws that permits it.

[aguahombre]

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate? Flader is saying what he would do. That is not a law interpretation; it is a concession that the issue is not covered by a law.