[olien]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 17:26, said:

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this:

1♦ "0+" 4♠ unbalanced canape or 4(441), 4S/5+m or 4S/5+H
1♥ 4+♥ unbalanced. Hearts and a minor, either longer, 1444, or 6+ single suited
1♠ 5+ standard
1N 12-14 balanced, includes 5H(332)
2♣ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)
2♦ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)

If 1♥ seems too overloaded here (I think it's manageable with KI and 1H-1S-1N showing 5H/4+m), you can remove the 6+ heart 1-suiters to 2♥.

So, I came up against this opening structure at the regional in London, Ontario not that long ago with the only difference being that they opened 1!D with 5!S-6!H. I was unsure as to the legality of this and ran it past Mike Roberts and Gary Zeiger (both national-level TD's) at the next nationals and they were both explicit that this structure is GCC legal. I asked "but is the 1!D really 'catch-all?'" and they both replied "yes" that catch-all can mean whatever the user wants.

[olien]

Also, I want to apologize to all who I offended in this thread. Clearly, I was an arrogant s**t head and deserved every smart-a** response I got. I have no excuse for my behavior at the time other than I was just a 21-year old kid who was still green behind the ears. I definitely agree that calling this MOSCITO was wrong - guess I just had an infatuation with the idea of MOSCITO

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has a habit of "defining" things, and then saying "it means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means". Seems like an incredibly stupid way to regulate a game.

[rbforster]

olien, on 2018-May-31, 20:29, said:

So, I came up against this opening structure at the regional in London, Ontario not that long ago with the only difference being that they opened 1!D with 5!S-6!H. I was unsure as to the legality of this and ran it past Mike Roberts and Gary Zeiger (both national-level TD's) at the next nationals and they were both explicit that this structure is GCC legal. I asked "but is the 1!D really 'catch-all?'" and they both replied "yes" that catch-all can mean whatever the user wants.

Thanks for the followup. I'm not designing as many bidding systems lately, but it's good to keep up with how things are interpreted currently.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2018-June-02, 16:42, said:

Thanks for the followup. I'm not designing as many bidding systems lately, but it's good to keep up with how things are interpreted currently.

Sadly, this ruling was not interpreted correctly.

FWIW, I don't blame either of the directors for getting this wrong. Rather, the fault lies with the ACBL for not propagating decisions on this sort of stuff to the folks that it expects to interprete the rules.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2018-June-02, 16:42, said:

Thanks for the followup. I'm not designing as many bidding systems lately, but it's good to keep up with how things are interpreted currently.

Sadly, this ruling was not interpreted correctly.

FWIW, I don't blame either of the directors for getting this wrong. Rather, the fault lies with the ACBL for not propagating decisions on this sort of stuff to the folks that it expects to interprete the rules.