Join Bridge Winners
Is 1-1N Game forcing permitted on the GCC?
(Page of 5)

At the Las Vegas North American Championships, I was playing 1 15 HCP 5+ and 1NT GF.

A director said something to the effect of, "Someone has asked me about your system and you can't play that on the GCC. In the responses and rebids section of the GCC. You're playing a 1NT game forcing response to one of a major which is specifically disallowed by responses and rebids #2 ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round; cannot guarantee game invitational or better values."

My rebuttal next.

I said, "The 'Responses and Rebids' section is not the 'Disallowed' section. My call is specifically enabled by responses and rebids #3, 'CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES...' and #7 'ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids,' not #2--and my call doesn't meet the definition of #2 anyway because its forcing to game, not forcing one round."

The director reconsidered his proposed ruling and I did not hear further about it.

But is it possible to play 1 14+ HCP, 1NT forcing one round showing game invitational or better values? It certainly does not seem the intent of the GCC writers, but can such a bid be GCC compliant anyway?

There is a curious hole in the ACBL GCC and alert chart. A natural NT opening and overcall are defined, "A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced. (Generally, no singleton or void and no more than two doubletons" But a natural NT response is not. Perhaps this is intentional. If I was playing 1NT non forcing for example, I could happily bid 1NT non forcing with 1444 and it satisfies the definition of a natural NT response, because there isn't one.

The ACBL definition of "Convention" is defined on the alert chart. "Convention: A bid or call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning notnecessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of Pass, Double and Redouble, the last denomination named."

Given these two definitions (or lack thereof), is it possible to play 1 14+HCP, 1NT forcing one round invitational to 3NT or 6NT? This is not a convention because it is related to the denomination named. It's not artificial because people can play 1NT natural and this fits because, arguably, every NT response is natural.

What if ACBL put a new #8 in the "disallowed" section of the GCC, "1NT forcing one round guaranteeing invitational or better values in response to a major suit opening." in the "disallowed" section of the general convention chart?

 

To quote the ACBL alert chart, "Treatment: A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart." So the GCC may not even apply to the 1NT call.

And if ACBL further defined this 1NT call as a convention would this disallow 1NT invitational or better in response to 1 14+HCP?

It is ambiguous whether 1-1NT invitational to 3NT or 6NT forcing to 2NT would still be permitted because this response may not meet the narrow definition of forcing one round because it's forcing to a particular level. Also given the word "guaranteeing", it may still be possible to have 1N be invitational or better 95% of the time, but have a 2NT rebid permit a 3-level signoff.

 

54 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top