October 2018 - 34

The New Convention Charts and You - part 3
BY TOM CARMICHAEL, Competitions and Conventions Committee Chair

In the previous two articles, we looked at the Basic and
Basic+ Charts. This month, we examine the Open Chart, the
first of our charts that was designed from the ground up. It
is different from any previous chart.
See the new charts at acbl.org/newconventioncharts.

Open Chart

The Open Chart is intended for most single-session
games with no upper masterpoint limits. For tournament
play, this means it applies primarily to sectional tournaments, but also would be in effect for open, single-session
games at regionals and NABCs, such as side series events,
evening session Swiss/BAM events, and so on. In knockout
events with a large number of brackets, some upper- and
mid-tier groups may also use the Open Chart. It is also the
chart recommended for open club games to use as their governing chart. As a reminder, clubs are allowed to implement
whatever rules as they see fit. It is expected, however, that
most clubs will use this as their default chart.
The Open Chart is fundamentally different from both
the current convention charts (GCC, MidChart, etc.) and
the Basic and Basic+ charts. All of the previous charts were
built with the underlying assumption that everything that
is allowed is specifically itemized within the chart. While
this sounds good in theory, in practice it has created some
logistical problems.
As an example, there was a point in time not too long
ago where a 2♦ opening showing a weak hand with both
majors was legal under the MidChart; however, a 2♥ opening showing the same thing was not. Similarly, there was a
time when a 1♦ opening showing hearts was allowed on the
MidChart, but a 1♥ opening showing spades was not. These
types of inconsistencies can crop up over time as the rule
base gets larger and larger allowing specific items only.
In other instances, wording has led to rules being interpreted differently than they were intended. For example,
there has been a rule on the GCC for a long time which
allowed transfer advances after an overcall. This was
intended to allow either the opening side or the overcalling
side to use transfers, but was (correctly) interpreted by the
wording to allow transfers only by the overcalling side. This
was fixed eventually by modifying the chart to also allow
transfer responses with very similar wording, but this type
of oversight is very easy to make when attempting to update
these charts. These types of problems are only compounded
when different directors interpret the wording of the chart
differently, leading to differing rulings. This leads to frustration for both the players and the directors.
The Open (and Open+) charts were designed differently.
In addition to defining various terms with specific technical

34 Bridge Bulletin October 2018

meanings in the intro to all the charts, the basis of the charts
is permissive. Instead of trying to create a list of all the possible things which are allowed, we instead created categories that are disallowed. The underlying assumption is that
anything which isn't specifically disallowed is, in fact, legal.
Part of the reason to allow most bids is to encourage experimentation and growth. Every convention that a bridge
player uses was invented at some point by a player; if we
only ever allow those things that are already known, the
game as we know it would grow stagnant. Trying to keep
up with changes with the old methodology is impractical,
while this method should allow experimentation to flourish.
At the same time, with the definitions and rules being a bit
more technical, the hope is that director rulings will become
more consistent and less open to interpretation.
Having said this, we don't want a completely open system
where "anything goes." The Open Chart guiding philosophy
is a simple one: We want to allow nearly any constructive
method, even if artificial. Newer methods such as playing
transfers after a natural (or quasi-natural) 1♣ are allowed,
as this is a constructive but artificial bid: It is easy to explain
to the opponents and the concept is a familiar one. In some
cases where methods are fundamentally constructive, but
may be unfamiliar to players and require some discussion,
we have restricted the bids to board segments of six or longer (i.e., team games). An example of that would be a system
which employs transfer-based opening bids, such as 1♦
opener showing hearts.
We don't want to allow artificial destructive methods under the Open Chart, as those bids can be problematic to deal
with at the table. Bids such as multi, transfer preempts or
other artificial weak bids are not allowed on the Open Chart.
This is the biggest difference between the Open and Open+ .
There are still some restrictions in the Open Chart that
are similar to the GCC. For example, 1NT openings still
must have 10 HCP and a range no greater than 5 HCP.
Opening bids still have strength requirements, either NearAverage for (Quasi-) Natural bids or Average for Artificial
bids. Forcing pass systems and other destructive bids are
not permitted.
The Open Chart may take some adjustments for players,
but ideally it should be a balance between allowing innovation while keeping bidding understandable. Everything that
is permissible under the lower charts would also be allowed
on the Open Chart, so most players will not need to change
their system. This chart doesn't have a direct comparison to
a current chart, but it lies somewhere between the current
GCC and MidChart.
As always, feel free to email any questions about the legality of a convention or system to charts@acbl.org.
◾

http://www.acbl.org/newconventioncharts

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2018