Weak 2 in majors showing 5-4 holding

[Hairy_Scot]

Is there a convention that covers weak 2 bids in the majors showing a 5-4 holding?

eg:-

2♥=6-10HCP with 5♥4♠

2♠=6-10HCP with 5♠4♥

This would perhaps be coupled with a multi 2♦

[effervesce]

Why have two separate bids for 5H-4S and 4H-5S? That's just inefficient use of an opening bid.

Many players have used a weak bid with 4+/4+ majors, opening it 2C, 2D, or 2H.

My preference if using it is to open it as 2H to prevent the opponents having a free double.

 

My 2H structure: Any major bid is to play

After 2H - 2NT (relay)

3C = minimum 5-4 / 4-5

3D asks for longer major

3H =

3D = min, 4-4

3H = max, 5 hearts, 4 spades

3S = max, 5 spades 4 hearts

3NT = max, 4-4

4C/4D = splinter, 5-5, good hand

4H = 5-5, poor hand

 

2H - 3C/3D are to play.

[rbforster]

I play something similar, although I allow hands with more than just (54) major shape. My (hopefully) GCC version of this follows (but requires 5+♥s to comply with the rules allowing artificial responses and rebids):

 

2♥ 5+♥/4+♠, weak 2 bid strength (~4-9 points)

 

Responses:

 

2S to play

2N invitational+ inquiry

3m GF long minor

3M preemptive

3N to play

4m preemptive

4M to play

 

After 2♥-2N asking for strength and/or shape:

 

3C any min, 3D inquires further:

.........3H 4S/5-6H (NF)

.........3S 5S/5H (NF)

.........3N 5S/6H or 6S/5H (4C asks to transfer to the long suit)

.........4C 6S/6H

 

3D+ show maximum values (game forcing). shape is shown in steps:

3D 4-5S and 5H. then 3H asks for spade length

......... 3S 4S

......... 3N 5S

3H 4S/6H

3S 5S/6H

3N 6S/5H

4C 6S/6H

 

I suppose one could play this in various combinations with other weak two bids, the most obvious combinations would be

 

2♦ multi

2♥ majors

2♠ 5♠/5+minor (or maybe a regular weak 2 bid that's weaker/stronger than the ♠ option in multi)

 

or

 

2♦ weak two bid (or maybe ♦+major)

2♥ majors

2♠ weak two bid

[paulg]

I play something similar, although I allow hands with more than just (54) major shape.  My (hopefully) GCC version of this follows (but requires 5+♥s to comply with the rules allowing artificial responses and rebids):

Mid Chart, I'm afraid.

 

A two-level opener for a two-suited hand must have at least 10 points.

 

As well as being legal at Mid Chart, you need an approved defence. There is one for this opener but you are constrained to 5-5 distribution in events with fewer than 6-board rounds.

 

Paul

[Free]

Dunno about what regulations you have to respect, but there are several conventions available.

 

Here in Belgium, a common treatment is to open 2♣ with either a semi GF hand (strong NT included), or a weak hand with both Majors. Works ok in combination of multi 2♦ (including GF hands) and Muiderberg 2M (showing 5M and 4+m), although the strong hands can be problematic (= low frequency).

 

Another option is to open 2♥ with any weak hand with both Majors. Advantage opposite the 2♣ opening is that it creates pressure and opps only have 1 cuebid, disadvantage is that you don't always end up in your best fit.

 

Another possibility is to play 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4♠, while 2♠ shows 5♠ and another suit (some form of Lucas). This combines Muiderberg 2♠ and the ability to open weak with both Majors. It also covers the main disadvantage of opening 2♥ with any Major 2-suiter, but it creates a new one: evaluation and continuations after 2♠...

[Cascade]

I would think that having two bids for both majors would be relatively inefficient. Especially when they are quite narrowly defined.

[Hairy_Scot]

I play something similar, although I allow hands with more than just (54) major shape.  My (hopefully) GCC version of this follows (but requires 5+♥s to comply with the rules allowing artificial responses and rebids):

Mid Chart, I'm afraid.

 

A two-level opener for a two-suited hand must have at least 10 points.

 

As well as being legal at Mid Chart, you need an approved defence. There is one for this opener but you are constrained to 5-5 distribution in events with fewer than 6-board rounds.

 

Paul

Some interesting info here, thanks guys.

 

I am intrigued by the three points that Paul raises.

Can you expand on those?

Where can one find further detail on those points?

Are these ACBL rules?

They seem a bit draconian.

 

If someone devises a new convention must they also devise a defence to it?

[paulg]

These are ACBL regulations (GCC and Mid Chart are their definitions). More information is available on their web site.

 

Speifically the GCC and Mid Charts are found in the Convention Charts (PDF).

 

In order to play Mid Chart conventions, a defence must have been registered in the Defense Database. If there is a convention you wish to play that is Mid Chart, you must supply an appropriate defence for consideration. There have been few recent additions to the Defense Database - this may be due to lack of requests, or inadequate defences being supplied.

 

The ACBL is traditionally more restrictive than other countries. Luckily I play most of my bridge in the UK and only suffer this during the Summer NABCs.

 

Paul

[rbforster]

Mid Chart, I'm afraid.  A two-level opener for a two-suited hand must have at least 10 points.

A strict intrepration might say so, a less strict one would not. EHAA using 5 card weak two bids are fine, even if you require that they be unbalanced hands. Unbalanced hands always have a side suit if they are only 5 cards. There are many cases where people have played "restricted" weak two bids legally - i.e. no void, no side 4 card major, etc. "Unbalanced" doesn't seem to be an unreasonable restriction for 5 card hands.

 

If you open your 6 card suits at the 3 level (or 1 level, or not at all), your unbalanced weak two's will be pretty close to the bid I describe.

[paulg]

Mid Chart, I'm afraid.  A two-level opener for a two-suited hand must have at least 10 points.

A strict intrepration might say so, a less strict one would not. EHAA using 5 card weak two bids are fine, even if you require that they be unbalanced hands. Unbalanced hands always have a side suit if they are only 5 cards. There are many cases where people have played "restricted" weak two bids legally - i.e. no void, no side 4 card major, etc. "Unbalanced" doesn't seem to be an unreasonable restriction for 5 card hands.

 

If you open your 6 card suits at the 3 level (or 1 level, or not at all), your unbalanced weak two's will be pretty close to the bid I describe.

I don't understand how this relates to a 2♥ bid that shows 5+♥ and 4+♠. Are you claiming it is not a two-suited bid?

 

p

[Hairy_Scot]

Mid Chart, I'm afraid.  A two-level opener for a two-suited hand must have at least 10 points.

A strict intrepration might say so, a less strict one would not. EHAA using 5 card weak two bids are fine, even if you require that they be unbalanced hands. Unbalanced hands always have a side suit if they are only 5 cards. There are many cases where people have played "restricted" weak two bids legally - i.e. no void, no side 4 card major, etc. "Unbalanced" doesn't seem to be an unreasonable restriction for 5 card hands.

 

If you open your 6 card suits at the 3 level (or 1 level, or not at all), your unbalanced weak two's will be pretty close to the bid I describe.

I don't understand how this relates to a 2♥ bid that shows 5+♥ and 4+♠. Are you claiming it is not a two-suited bid?

 

p

I must confess that my understanding of "two suited" or "a two suiter" is that the hand has two 5(+) card suits.

However the term "three suited" suggests three 4 card suits.

 

Or maybe it's just semantics?

 

I think my main objection to the ACBL rules would be the 10HCP restriction on such bids. In my view there is no logic in that.

[awm]

This discussion has basically happened before. I have a letter from Flader (ACBL Rulings) saying that any two-level opening which guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed. He suggests that the "10+ points" restriction is for openings that don't show the suit named (like 2♦ flannery or 2♠ for minors). I believe Hrothgar had a similar correspondence with Beye (ACBL Directors) indicating exactly the opposite.

[Cascade]

This discussion has basically happened before. I have a letter from Flader (ACBL Rulings) saying that any two-level opening which guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed. He suggests that the "10+ points" restriction is for openings that don't show the suit named (like 2♦ flannery or 2♠ for minors). I believe Hrothgar had a similar correspondence with Beye (ACBL Directors) indicating exactly the opposite.

Since I needed to make a ruling on this earlier today and had the convention chart open. Here is the relevant part ...

 

"5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.

B) a strong hand.

c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits."

 

Given there is a specific rule for Flannery it is hard to see how 6. can be interpreted as only allowing other 5-4 hands when they show 10 or more hcp.

 

I think Mr Flader is wrong.

[Hairy_Scot]

This discussion has basically happened before. I have a letter from Flader (ACBL Rulings) saying that any two-level opening which guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is allowed. He suggests that the "10+ points" restriction is for openings that don't show the suit named (like 2♦ flannery or 2♠ for minors).  I believe Hrothgar had a similar correspondence with Beye (ACBL Directors) indicating exactly the opposite.

Since I needed to make a ruling on this earlier today and had the convention chart open. Here is the relevant part ...

 

"5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.

B) a strong hand.

c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits."

 

Given there is a specific rule for Flannery it is hard to see how 6. can be interpreted as only allowing other 5-4 hands when they show 10 or more hcp.

 

I think Mr Flader is wrong.

Wayne,

 

If I understand this correctly, it would seem that the classic multi 2♦ bid presented by Reese et al is not allowed since it can cover a hand which is less than 10HCP and which contains two unnamed suits.

 

Does ACBL want to remove all the fun from the game?

 

B)

[paulg]

We have had this discussion before.

 

The clear answer, despite what Flader may have said, is that conventions that have a defence listed in the Mid Chart Defense Database are Mid Chart. This includes the Multi 2♦ and a 2♥ opener showing a weak hand with both majors.

 

p

[Cascade]

We have had this discussion before.

 

The clear answer, despite what Flader may have said, is that conventions that have a defence listed in the Mid Chart Defense Database are Mid Chart. This includes the Multi 2♦ and a 2♥ opener showing a weak hand with both majors.

 

p

And presumably other similar things like 2♦ or 2♣ showing both majors.

[paulg]

We have had this discussion before.

 

The clear answer, despite what Flader may have said, is that conventions that have a defence listed in the Mid Chart Defense Database are Mid Chart. This includes the Multi 2♦ and a 2♥ opener showing a weak hand with both majors.

 

p

And presumably other similar things like 2♦ or 2♣ showing both majors.

Tee-hee, there speaks a man who has not played in the ACBL :P

 

2♣ and 2♦ showing weak with both majors is Mid Chart. However no defence for them exists in the Defense Database, so you would need to have a defence accepted before you could play them in a Mid Chart event.

 

They are legal at Superchart, so you could play them in the Spingold and Vanderbilt.

 

p

[jtfanclub]

I don't understand how this relates to a 2♥ bid that shows 5+♥ and 4+♠. Are you claiming it is not a two-suited bid?

I would claim it was a natural bid.

 

--------------------------------------------

Definitions

 

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.

--------------------------------------------

 

I would therefore argue that it was legal (and in fact may not be something they're even allowed to regulate), and apparently Mike Flader feels the same way. Unfortunately, my opinion isn't worth anything when I'm not the director.

[rbforster]

To elaborate on jtfanclub's reply, the thing to remember here is that we're talking about what's legal according to the ABCL Convention Charts, which only apply to conventions. In the case that you want to play 2♣ or 2♦ for the majors, it's clear this is a conventional bid and must be legal under the appropriate convention chart (this is what #5/#6 above refer to, and such bids, if weak, are only allowed at MidChart+). Natural bids, however, aren't regulated by the convention charts and the ACBL has defined "natural" to mean 3+ in a minor suit or 4+ in a major suit. If OP wanted to open 2♥ with any weak hand and 4+ hearts it's clear that he's allowed to do this as a natural bid (less clear if this is a good idea).

 

So the question becomes if you put distributional limitations on a natural bid, does it become conventional at some point, and if so, at what point? Consider natural weak two bids - there's lots of precedent for people playing all sorts of various distributional constraints on their weak two bids without any legal issues - no void, no side 4 card major, must have exactly 3 in other major, must be unbalanced, etc. Nobody claims these constraints make the weak two bid "conventional" or illegal.

 

What about requiring exactly a 5 card suit and an unbalanced hand? This seems innocuous enough (especially if you open all 6+ suits at the 3 level instead), but now you promise a 4+ side suit as a negative inference. Maybe you open weak hands with hearts and a minor (5♥/4+minor) in the minor instead (along with other weak hands with that minor). Now the only hands left for your 5♥ unbalanced are those with 5♥ and 4+♠, but the spade length is a negative inference of your other opening bids.

 

In short, is this bid legal? Who knows? I think so; others think not. My suggestion would be to play this if you enjoy it since you'll never get a straight answer out of the ACBL if you ask them anyway (or rather, you'll get a different answer for each person you ask, most of them largely incoherent and contradictory).

[paulg]

The ACBL may not write good regulations but the spirit of them is clear: the ACBL wishes to regulate weak 2-suited openers more robustly than many other authorities.

 

Exploiting poorly written regulations is certainly ethical, but in the long term I think it will prove pointless and may well be frustrating in the short term. But you are welcome to try.

 

Paul

[Cascade]

I don't understand how this relates to a 2♥ bid that shows 5+♥ and 4+♠. Are you claiming it is not a two-suited bid?

I would claim it was a natural bid.

 

--------------------------------------------

Definitions

 

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.

--------------------------------------------

 

I would therefore argue that it was legal (and in fact may not be something they're even allowed to regulate), and apparently Mike Flader feels the same way. Unfortunately, my opinion isn't worth anything when I'm not the director.

Currently they are entitled to regulate conventions. When the 2007 laws come into affect they are entitled to regulate partnership understandings.

 

These 2Major openings I believe are conventions because they not only show something about the suit opened by they explicitly show length in another suits and therefore are able to be regulated.