ACBL and Muiderberg Twos

[awm]

It should also be noted that:

 

(1) The general chart does not say that conventional bids not specifically allowed are disallowed. It says that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed. "Methods" are not defined anywhere as far as I can tell.

 

(2) Every bid in bridge carries information other than about the denomination named. For example opening a natural 1♦ might imply "no five card major" (okay for Steve Robinson it does). Opening a weak two might imply "no four card side major" or "no void" in many partnerships. Opening 1♦ might imply "not a balanced hand" if balanced hands are opened 1♣/1NT. These messages have no relationship to the denomination named.

 

(3) There are a number of methods which seem to run afoul of any loose definition of "methods" which are nonetheless deemed legal. A popular example in southern california is "Bailey Twos" where a two bid shows 5-6 cards in the bid suit, 2-3 cards in any unbid major(s), and denies any void, as well as some point range typically around 8-12. Clearly this opening carries a message about suits other than the one bid (in fact I often see people sign off in the other major at the four-level on a bad six card suit or good five-carder opposite a Bailey two). However this has been consistently ruled legal. Other examples include pure canape methods (where opener always has a longer side suit) or precision 2♣ ("if only five clubs will have a side four card major").

 

Anyways I'll wait and see what response Richard gets from ACBL. Honestly there is virtually no response that he could get which would surprise me at this point, they are so inconsistent at times.

[DrTodd13]

There is nothing in the definition of convention that in plain language says that saying something about another suit in addition to the one you are bidding naturally makes it a convention. In the blml discussion of this matter, someone tried to argue that it did but I just don't see it. As far as I can tell, a 2♥ bid showing 5/5 majors would be natural and non-conventional. It expresses willingness to play in ♥. The rule doesn't say you can't be willing to play somewhere else as well. They could have used the word "only"to say you are _only_ expressing interest in the named suit but they didn't use that word.

 

What about satisfying more than one of the clauses? Is 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 2 of the top 3 a convention?

 

You can't define conventional simply as "saying nothing about any suit besides the one bid naturally" because as Adam pointed out, the natural bid tends to deny a longer suit and therefore you are saying something about all the other suits. In 1998, somebody raised this point with the WBF that maybe natural 1♥ is a convention because it says something about the length of other suits. The WBF answer was basically "we both know that is not what is meant by convention" or "that is not what we meant when we wrote the definition." That is some solace. How are we supposed to know what you meant?

[hotShot]

One of the biggest problems of bridge is, that we don't even get our vocabulary properly defined.

[hrothgar]

(3) There are a number of methods which seem to run afoul of any loose definition of "methods" which are nonetheless deemed legal. A popular example in southern california is "Bailey Twos" where a two bid shows 5-6 cards in the bid suit, 2-3 cards in any unbid major(s), and denies any void, as well as some point range typically around 8-12. Clearly this opening carries a message about suits other than the one bid (in fact I often see people sign off in the other major at the four-level on a bad six card suit or good five-carder opposite a Bailey two). However this has been consistently ruled legal. Other examples include pure canape methods (where opener always has a longer side suit) or precision 2♣ ("if only five clubs will have a side four card major").

 

Anyways I'll wait and see what response Richard gets from ACBL. Honestly there is virtually no response that he could get which would surprise me at this point, they are so inconsistent at times.

Here's my take on matters: (I believe that this approach is logically consistant, however, it certainly is not a majority position)

 

I argue that a Baily type 2♥ opening that specifically promises 2-3 Spades is a conventional bid. I also believe that a "pure" canape 1♠ opening that promises 5+ cards in another is conventional. I'd go so far as to say that a "disciplined" weak 2S opening that denies a side suit void is also conventional. In each of these cases, the opening bid conveys "a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named)". Therefore, the bids are all conventional.

 

From what I can tell, the ONLY reason that this presents a problem is that the regulatory authorities get real weird whenever conventions get involved. Case in point: When the ACBL created the GCC they barred players from using any convention that wasn't explictly sanctioned. Therefore, people get very excited trying to figure out what is/is not a convention. In a similar vein, the Laws grant authorities the right to regulate "conventions". Here once again, you get lots of fights over what is/is not a convention.

 

My own belief is that things would progress a lot more smoothly if the "concept" of a conventional bid was de-emphasized in the regulatory structure. If boundaries surrounding conventional bids became less important we'd have a lot less fights about what is/is not a convention and, in turn, we could probably start apply the existing definition in a more consistent manner. No one would get upset if a Bailey 2 bid was ruled to be a convention because the "concept" of a convention would only apply in a few limited cases (for example, insufficient bids and the like)

 

I will note in passing that the WBF seems to be coming arround to this position. It is rumored that the next version of the Laws with grant Zonal authorities the right to regulate "Agreements" rather than conventions.

[inquiry]

This has actually begun to interest me. I think you need very formal definitions for several words/phrases.

 

Natural bid

Method (and or treatment and or agreement)

Conventional bid

Conventional responses

Conventional rebids

ohters

 

Perhaps we could propose in this thread some novel wording such that a language can be developed that will allow the description of what is, and is not, allowed.

 

For instance, a 1D bid that promises 3D and six spades and non-forcing values. Since 1D could be the final resting place, one might argue that it is natural (but we all know it would not be). So the definition would ahve to include covering things like that.

 

For instance, 2H weak with five card suit is natural. Two hearts weak with no void and no side four card suit major and "unbalanced" is both natural, but it includes much more. That much more might be a treatment. It would become, perhpas a convention if you have "conventional responses" to it.

[inquiry]

For example any bid with multiple additional requirements (like 2H with 5-4 and 5 in hearts) is a treatment or method or sometihing until you add a "conventional response" and/or a conventional rebid to it.

 

For example open 2H is just fine as long as there is no 2NT that ask anything about bid the minor, or no 3C bid as pass/correct. But once you have specialized folllow up auctions, then it turns the "natural 2H and assoicated method, or treatment, or agreements" into a convention.

 

Likewise should you require 1H to have two of the top three honors, no problem, unless you have a specific asking bid if the missing one is the queen (or ace, or king).

 

Something like that.

[hrothgar]

This has actually begun to interest me. I think you need very formal definitions for several words/phrases.

 

Natural bid

Method (and or treatment)

Conventional bid

Conventional responses

Conventional rebids

others

 

Perhaps we could propose in this thread some novel wording such that a language can be developed that will allow the description of what is, and is not, allowed.

 

For instance, a 1D bid that promises 3D and six spades and non-forcing values. Since 1D could be the final resting place, one might argue that it is natural (but we all know it would not be). So the definition would have to include covering things like that.

 

For instance, 2H weak with five card suit is natural. Two hearts weak with no void and no side four card suit major and "unbalanced" is both natural, but it includes much more. That much more might be a treatment. It would become, perhpas a convention if you have "conventional responses" to it.

While I agree that this is an interesting topic, I'm not sure whether this forum is the best place to discuss this. Bridge Law is VERY tricky. We don't have many real experts who actively participate on these forums. We're missing a lot of context and history. I'm worried that we'll quickly spiral down a rat hole. There is a LOT of discussion arround this topic on the Bridge laws mailing list. Its esoterica and involved a lot of arguments about minutia, but its fairly well informed.

 

Few quick comments about your post:

 

1. "Treatment" is an expression originally coined by Kaplan to describe different flavors of natural bids. For example, a "Constructive raise" is a specific treatment for the auction 1M - 2M. In a similar vein, an inverted minor raise is another example of a treatment. I'm not aware of any linkage between the expression "treatment" and "method" and would suggest that the discussion of the two be separated.

 

2. Its unclear to me whether the nature of the response structure should be used to define whether or not a bid is "conventional". In the past I've argued that certain bids can be defined by their response structures. In particular, I've argued that relays can be differentiated from asking bids based on the concept of recursion. This has met with some strong opposition. Not sure if you want to open this can of worms.

 

3. Personally, i think that it usedful to establish a few ground rules for the discussion. Here's how I normally think about things:

 

Let C be the set of all bids

 

C is a disjoint Union of the sets (Artificial and Natural). (This is

a formal way of stating the following. All bids can be labeled as

either Artificial or Natural. No natural bids are artificial. No

artificial bids are natural)

 

The set of "Conventional Bids" is a subset of C.

 

The set of "Artificial Bids" is a subset of the set of Conventional Bids.

 

The intersection of "Conventional" and "Natural" is not empty

 

The set of "Treatments" is a subset of the set of Natural bids

 

"Treatments" and "conventions" are disjoint.

[joshs]

From The Bridge World:

 

Artificial

 

(1) not natural;

 

(2) (of a call) (a) not indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain; or (B) offering information relevant to a specific strain other than the one named (or, if not a bid, the last-named); or both;

 

(2) (of a bidding system) consisting significantly or more of agreements that actions, or most early-in-the-auction actions, are artificial.

 

Natural

 

(1) (of a call) indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain;

 

(2) (of a bidding system) consisting largely or entirely of agreements that most actions, or most early-in-the-auction actions, are natural

 

Convention

 

an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.

 

Treatment

 

a partnership's interpretaton of an action.

 

 

Note: A treatment usually refers to the length or strength shown by a natural call. For instance is 1D-2D:

6-9

11-13

11+

13+

or so on

 

Or in the auction: 1D-2D(game forcing)-3C-3H

Are 3C and 3H natural (4+ cards?)

Values?

Qbids?

Any of the above?

 

Which natural meaning a partnership uses for these bids are what is called a treatment.

 

From these definitions, Muiderberg 2M are artificial and thus not natural. Yes it suggests playing in 2M but it also suggests playing in 3 of openers minor. (Although perhaps the distrinction should be if there was a way to locate and get to opener's minor)

 

Personally I think Bailey 2's are also ART but some people think that promising 2 or 3 cards in the other majors isn't so much of a suggestion to play in the other major as a control on hand types. I think the distinction should be if the partnership has the ability to stop at the cheapist level of the other suit but not other suits. So if playing Bailey 2's if after a 2S opening you played 2S-3H as non forcing but 2S-3m as forcing than this would certainly be viewed as a suggestion to play in hearts in addition to playing in spades....

 

I don't think negative implications are the same as positive implications unless they enable partner to identify and play in a shown or implied side suit. If 1D opening denied a 5 card major, it might have 2 4 card majors, or voids in both, there is no suggestion or implication that the hand can play in any suit other than diamonds. This is not different than if 1D can be 6D and 5M, just some shapes are excluded.

[awm]

This is all very tricky. Some of the issues:

 

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

 

(2) Is it reasonable to allow a bid of X which shows one of a set of hands Y, but to disallow the same bid X showing one of a set of hands Z, when Z is a subset of Y? In other words, is it reasonable to say "five card major preempts are allowed, but five card major preempts that promise a four card minor side suit are not allowed"? I would say probably not, since any such rule runs into serious regulatory/disclosure issues -- can't we claim our agreement is to show Y and then just "use judgement" and in fact only use the bid with hands Z? Especially with preemptive calls people very frequently "use judgement" to pass a hand that might otherwise seem suitable for the bid.

 

(3) How do "positive" and "negative" inferences differ? It seems obvious -- a negative inference says I can't have something. But you can get positive inferences by combining negative inferences with the fact that people only have 13 cards. For example, an opening of 1♠ that shows "four or five spades, unbalanced" seems like it's just a natural bid with some negative inferences. But looking at this further, we can see that there's an implication of a four-card or longer side suit somewhere (thus another place to play, a positive inference).

 

In the long run it's probably best to have a simple set of rules people can understand. I'd recommend "any suit bid that guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is legal" as a good starting point. Then again perhaps these bids that show five cards in the suit named are simply too nefarious for the bridge playing population to defend against, especially if one is not absolutely required to make the bid with every hand containing five cards in that suit?

[Echognome]

It's a shame that the ACBL doesn't give their interpretations of this. In the EBU, there is a couple of pages in the Orange Book explaining their rules. I certainly won't quote all of it. The simple definition is:

 

A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits. Note that in the earlier rounds of bidding a natural suit bid usually shows at least four cards.

 

They then go on to give their interpretations of specific cases (saying e.g. that a 1m opening showing 3 cards is not alertable). The point is that it seems they recognize the definition is murky and then go on to instruct players as to specific cases.

[inquiry]

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

I am not sure that is what i am suggesting. I think you can open 2H natural with this "treatment"...

 

1) five card suit

2) no side four card major

3) 6-11 hcp

4) no void

5) not balanced distribution (so not 5332).

 

This is effectively muilderberg, but no problem. The minute you make a conventional response to this bid, however (3C as pass/correct being an example) it makes the bid now more than a treatment. So you can play the treatment, but not the "convention"

[hrothgar]

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

I am not sure that is what i am suggesting. I think you can open 2H natural with this "treatment"...

 

1) five card suit

2) no side four card major

3) 6-11 hcp

4) no void

5) not balanced distribution (so not 5332).

 

This is effectively muilderberg, but no problem. The minute you make a conventional response to this bid, however (3C as pass/correct being an example) it makes the bid now more than a treatment. So you can play the treatment, but not the "convention"

As I commented earlier, I think that this sort of sophistry should be punished.

 

The nature of a bid "convention" / "treatment" / "non-convention" whatever should be determined by the set of hands that map on to that bid, not the specific verbiage that you use to describe it.

[whereagles]

Muiderberg is obviously ok to play because it's really a 5-card weak 2 under disguise. You get to play in the minor less than 1% of the time or so..

[mikestar]

Muiderberg is natural. But it is also conventional because it guarantees the existence of the 4+ minor suit. A weak two which will have a four card minor when it is five cards but might easily be 6 cards with or without a four card minor is not a convention--the existence of the side suit is not guaranteed, merely possible--which it would be if the partnership opened 5-6 card weak twos without any distributional restriction. This usage would be similar to Precision 2♣ but preemptive.

[uday]

I can't understand why it should be so difficult to understand the rules, here (not that I do, either).

 

Can anyone comprehensively complete this sentence?

 

A call is permissible under the GCC if ... ?

 

Don't forget to define any terms you use, please. It seems that we (or the acbl?) can't agree on what "natural" means, or even if "natural" is by definition permissible (and when).

[hrothgar]

It's a shame that the ACBL doesn't give their interpretations of this.  In the EBU, there is a couple of pages in the Orange Book explaining their rules.  I certainly won't quote all of it.  The simple definition is:

 

A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits. Note that in the earlier rounds of bidding a natural suit bid usually shows at least four cards.

 

They then go on to give their interpretations of specific cases (saying e.g. that a 1m opening showing 3 cards is not alertable). The point is that it seems they recognize the definition is murky and then go on to instruct players as to specific cases.

For the life of me, I've never understood why the ACBL never produced anything comporable to the Orange Book or the White Book. I don't claim that these books are perfect, however, the EBL seems to have done a very good job. Moreover, the core approach of producing a simple unambiguous set of documentation is very laudable.

 

The ACBL's is much larger than the EBL. On the one hand this means that the organization has a lot more resources to draw upon to work on this type of effort. On the other, producing this type of simple case law would benefit many more people.

 

Somehow, the idea never caught on over here.

 

(Note: I'm looking over Duplicate Decisions which is actually alot better than I recalled. There's still some scary stuff. The section on psyches is a travesty. All of the following psyches are considered "unsportsmanlike:

 

Psyches against inexperienced pairs

Psyches against teams that may be in contention

Psyches designed to "create action"

 

However, it does seem like things may be moving in the right direction)

[hrothgar]

I just fired off the following email to rulings@acbl.org

Its going to be quite amusing to see what falls out from this.

I just received a response from Richard Beye (the ACBL's chief Tournament Director) on the whole Muiderberg question. (Pretty good turn arround time, considering that I fired off the original email at close of business on Friday)

 

I'm attaching his response below. (Adam, any chance that you could forward me - alternatively forward Mr Beye - a copy of your original email to Mike Flader?).

 

(BTW, I'm going to be vacationing for a few days in Southern Illinois starting on Wednesday morning. I probably won't have much access to the Internet)

 

I'll note with some satisfaction that I called this one almost perfectly:

 

AWM initially received an email stating that the methods in question were legal.

The contents of this email are quickly being rescinded

 

>Mr. Wiley,

>

>I do not have a copy of the original email. However, I likely disagree with Mike's

>interpretation below. The agreement you note in your first paragraph below would

>not be legal on the GCC unless it promised two known suits and a minimum of 10

>HCPs. The GCC seems pretty clear on this point.

 

>It sounds like Mr. Meyerson is attempting to play some variation of Wilkosz, a

>convention pretty much obsolete, prohibited in most parts of the world. If you

>could, please send me a copy of the original email. Too, feel free to share my

>email with Mr. Meyerson.

 

>As a side note - We have no agreements on the GCC which would require a written

>defense.

 

>Respectfully,

 

>Richard F. Beye

>Chief Tournament Director

>American Contract Bridge League

>2990 Airways Boulevard

>Memphis, TN 38116

>901-332-5586, ext. 1331

[cherdano]

How did Wilkosz get mixed into this confusion??

[hrothgar]

How did Wilkosz get mixed into this confusion??

The Wilkosz detour is a bit strange...

 

My assumption is that Beye knows that Wilkosz is a conventional preemptive opening that shows a two suited hand patter that contains a major and assumed that this is what we're discussing.

 

Here's a copy of my reply:

 

>Dear Mr Beye.

>

>Thanks very much for your quick response... I should be able to

>procure a copy of Adam's original email within 24 hours or so.

>

>One quick clarification:

>

>"Wilkosz" is a preemptive 2D opening that show a two suited hand with

>at least 5-5 shape. At least one of the two suits is a major. As you

>note, relatively few pairs are using this convention.

>

>"Muilderberg" is a preemptive 2M opening that shows 5+ cards in the bid major

>and at least 4 cards in an unknown minor. This opening is in fairly

>widespread use throughout the world. (I know a number of pairs who

>play this in Midchart level events here in the ACBL)

>

>Thanks again

>

[the hog]

I find it amusing that this guy is giving rulings on conventions he clearly knows nothing about. Obsolete?? Reall??!

[pbleighton]

"I find it amusing that this guy is giving rulings on conventions he clearly knows nothing about. Obsolete?? Reall??! "

 

Remember, Ron, nothing that happens outside of the ACBL exists.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Sure, everything is obsolete if you legislate it out of existence. There are probably at least 50 types of two-suited preempts and to think that there are only one or two types shows appalling ignorance. This is your brain ( :D )...this is your brain on ACBL ( :) ).

[awm]

Here's the original text of my message to Rulings@acbl.org, which Mike Flader responded to (in bold):

 

Does the general chart permit a 2M opening which shows a weak hand

(say 5-10 hcp) with five cards in the bid major and a 4-card or

longer minor?

 

On the one hand:

 

(1) This is a natural bid, and natural bids seem to be allowed.

 

(2) It's pretty clear that an agreement to play "five card weak two

bids" is legal, and this only differs by negative inferences (no 5332

hands, no side 4-card major). In fact those negative inferences are

pretty common ones for people playing weak twos in general.

 

On the other hand:

 

(1) There's a specific rule allowing "two-level openings showing 10+

points and 5-4 in two known suits" which would seem to imply that a

two-level opening with a two-suiter that doesn't guarantee 10+ points

might not be allowed.

 

(2) There's a rule that "methods not specifically allowed are

disallowed..." although unfortunately that would also seem to

disallow a natural, non-forcing 1H opening (5+ cards) since it's not

specified anywhere that such a bid is allowed, and this is obviously

not the intent of the GCC.

 

Thanks,

Adam

 

Rick Beye is a very nice fellow (in fact I partnered him at a regional in San Diego a few years back). However, he seems to be among the most likely at ACBL to have fuzzy interpretations on the rules, and in fact he was the one who sent me an email about very light openings in third seat a while back, where he contradicted himself in a single email. His reference to Wilkosz is an indication that he may not have thought this through very thoroughly, and/or may not know what he's talking about. On the other hand, I've received several emails from Mike Flader in the past which seemed extremely reasonable and well-thought-out, but which apparently do not reflect official ACBL policy; for example he agreed with me that opening a strong 2♣ on a solid 9-card major and no other cards was a psych, when there is apparently a directive from ACBL HQ (strangely this directive is available only to regional-level directors and not to the bridge-playing population at large) indicating that exactly the same hand is a legal 2♣ opening. Getting to the bottom of this whole issue is likely to be extremely difficult, to say the least.

[hrothgar]

Getting to the bottom of this whole issue is likely to be extremely difficult, to say the least.

 

I know that Mike Flader is a TD and writes the "Ruling the Game" column, but I have no idea about his position in the official heirarchy

 

Any idea if either of the individuals is able to issue an authoritative opinion?

[LH2650]

As far as I can tell, a 2♥ bid showing 5/5 majors would be natural and non-conventional.  It expresses willingness to play in ♥.  The rule doesn't say you can't be willing to play somewhere else as well.

If I used this convention, I would be willing to play in either ♠ or ♥. You may not like the wording in the Laws, but the intended meaning is clear. Likewise, a bid of 2M, showing (a willingness to play in) a known 5 card major or an unknown 4 card minor, conveys something other than just a desire to play in the major, so it is a convention. And it is a convention not allowed by the GCC.

 

If you just sit back and try to understand the simple point that the Laws Commission was trying to make, rather than lawyering it to death, the answer is clear.

 

Mike Flader is an Associate National Tournament Director. There are a few National Tournament Directors above him.