Join Bridge Winners
GCC Compliance and Full Disclosure

Some convention stories:

1) A partner wanted to use 2 in response to an artificial (but not strong) 1 as invitational and artificial and 2 as mildly invitational with at least one major. This is not allowed on the GCC.

2)  Drury is allowed on the GCC, but, for reasons unknown, only by a passed hand.  For reasons known, people would like to play it by an unpassed hand. 

3) People use 2 in response to a natural 1m opener as either a strong J/S in hearts or INV in NT.  The INV possibility is not GCC - they need to switch so that the direct 2NT is INV and the 2 is always GF.

4)  A partner wanted to use 2 in response to very light 1M openings as a puppet to 2 to either show an INV fit with length in the other major OR a signoff in any suit.  Not allowed

5)  The GCC "bars" relay methods, but actually allows them stating with openers rebid.  So when the initial response to the opening bid shows something, you can then use relay.  So relay isn't even slightly disallowed under the GCC.

 

 

SO...

Partner in 1) above wanted to use those methods anyways.  He looked deep into the GCC and found under "ALLOWED:"

9. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trumpquality and responses thereto.

and defined those calls as asking for a club void.  The 3 rebid was reserved (that DID hurt) for the improbable void.  

 

Which leads me to believe that in 2) above people COULD use Drury and just parse it as asking for singletons:

Respond: 2 min with shortness, 2NT extras with shortness, 2M=min, others NAT.  So you have drury back in first seat.

 

In 3) you are back to using it as a void ask, reserve 3 as a spade void and otherwise bid normal.

 

In 4) we decided to use 2 as NATURAL, 3+ clubs, F1, could have a longer side suit.  The bid functions exactly as before, we just can't use it without 3+ clubs.  In rare cases, we might be able to find a superior 5-3 club fit if opener holds 5 club and responder tries to sign off in another suit.

 

5)  is just yet another illustration of the failure of the GCC to accomplish anything it sets out to accomplish.

 

And the result:  You can play pretty much whatever you want with a few silly exceptions.  But the FURTHER RESULT is a decrease in disclosure!!

 

In 1) above, we can explain the bid as "basically like INV Stayman" and the opponents would understand.  And also knowledgeable opponents would know it is illegal.  We could explain it as asking for a club void with Stayman-like responses, and that is what we MUST do - and that is much more confusing.

In 2) above, exlaining it as "Drury" is easily understood.  Explaining it as F1, asking for shortness like Jacoby 2NT, but not necessarily GF is probably also easily understood, although I resent having to pull that trick.

In 4) above, explaining 2 as an artificial puppet to 2 - either to sign off in a new suit or INVITE with both majors is easily understood.  "Natural, F1, no GF hands, 3+ Clubs, could have a longer side suit." is the new and proper explanation.  It is both honest and dishonest at the same time.  Hard to understand and missing the point of the call!

 

The problem is that in order to squeeze conventions onto the GCC that the GCC was foolishly trying to bar, you have to assign another meaning to them.  And in doing so, the DISCLOSURE BECOMES OBFUSCATED.  

The GCC needs an overhaul.  The job of the GCC should not be to give comfort to the elderly and to obstruct scientific progress at the whim of a small group of administrators.  That is the function of a completely different practice (that I won't name for fear of being overwhelmed by flags.)  But even if that IS the purpose of the GCC, it is a complete failure at even that.  Science is not stopped but bidding has become more confusing so the definitions can squeeze into the allowed portion.  

 

 

 

 

62 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top