WJ05 2H opening and the ACBL

[shaztaz]

The WJ2005 2H opening bid promises 5-5 in hearts and another suit and 6-11 HCP. This is obviously quite illegal under the ACBL General Convention Chart, but it also seems to be illegal by the Midchart. The Midchart lists under illegal: "Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened)." Since 2H does not fall under this category, I had originally assumed that the call would be legal. However the chart also states that calls are illegal unless specifically listed as legal. So the chart lists a 2H bid showing hearts and spades as legal and it shows a 2H bid showing hearts and a minor as legal. I guess it follows that the 2H bid showing hearts and another suit is not legal under the Midchart.

 

So I'm wondering what Polish Club players in North America are doing about this. Do you just not play the Polish 2H? If so do you still play the Polish 2S call (which is legal)? What do you substitute 2H with? Or do you perhaps restrict yourself to only ever playing in Superchart events or just not playing in North America? =)

 

Also, it seems to me that the call isn't so insane that it should be illegal. It's fairly natural and names/shows a 5-card suit.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Shaz

[blackshoe]

If it's illegal (I haven't looked, so have no opinion) then probably your best (only?) recourse is to petition the C&C committee to legalize it.

[awm]

One of many cases where "rules on the ground" differ from the official rules. You can definitely play this convention in mid-chart events and quite possibly even in general chart events.

 

There is an implicit exception to the ACBL regulations that encompasses a wide variety of bids such as a 1♥ opening showing 5+♥ and 10+ hcp which are not specifically sanctioned on the convention charts. It's not clear whether this applies to "natural bids" or "non-conventional bids" or just "bids that should be allowed in the director's opinion."

 

It is also possibly worth mentioning that "non-conventional" really is not well-defined at all whereas the general convention chart goes to great pains to define "natural."

[rogerclee]

It is allowable under the midchart.

[matmat]

can i open 2!H on 6-11 with 5+!H (under gcc)?

[effervesce]

The chart doesn't specify pass as 0-11 as being legal. Pass doesn't promise any suit either! Therefore it must be illegal!

[Codo]

The chart doesn't specify pass as 0-11 as being legal. Pass doesn't promise any suit either! Therefore it must be illegal!

I know people who happen to follow this advice and never use this illegal opening.

[rbforster]

can i open 2♥ on 6-11 with 5+♥ (under gcc)?

Yup, and there are no other restrictions on your conventional continuations either.

[paulg]

I'm surprised that people think that 2♥, weak showing 5-5 in hearts and another suit, is legal at Mid Chart. With no defense posted in the ACBL Database I believe that it is clearly illegal to play it. Of course what happens on the ground may be different.

 

I expect that Polish Club players exclude the option of a spade suit in this opening to make it legal, as there is a published defense for hearts and a minor.

 

Contact and process details for getting a defense approved can be found on the ACBL Defense Database page. I suspect that no-one has ever asked for this specific convention to be approved.

 

Paul

[mycroft]

You can bid any natural weak 2 with any strength in the ACBL at GCC, and that explicitly includes 5-card suits as a regular basis.

 

However, if it could be 4 cards, or if the range (in a particular seat) could be more than 7HCP, then you can not have any artificial continuations, including artificial counter-defences to artificial defences (like takeout doubles). Of course, if you *promise* another suit, then it isn't "natural" any more, now is it?

 

Please note, I play EHAA - 86432 and AKQT85432 are weak 2s in my world, if I'm in the 6-12. I Pre-Alert and Alert (under "highly unusual and unexpected"), but it's very legal at GCC. Just don't decide that KQT987 and out is a 6-count...

[Lobowolf]

Of course, if you *promise* another suit, then it isn't "natural" any more, now is it?

I don't have my laws book in front of me, but my recollection is that "Natural" per ACBL means something like an offer to play a particular strain at a particular level. If the 2♥ bid is non-forcing and promises hearts, and responder can just pass & let opener play 2♥ with a suitable hand, then 2♥ is a natural opener, whether opener promises, denies, or may or may not have a second suit.

[awm]

We have had this discussion before.

 

ACBL defines as Natural an opening suit bid or response in a minor which shows three or more cards in that suit, or an opening suit bid or response in a major which shows four or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if no singleton or void and at most one or two doubletons. An overcall of a suit is natural if it promises four or more cards in that suit.

 

It is clear that some exception must be made to the convention charts for "normal" bidding. For example, perusing the legal opening bids, it is not clear why any opening bid of one of a major would be legal, or why a two-level opening which is not "strength showing" and does not promise two known suits would be legal. But obviously we are allowed to play 1♥ or 2♥ showing long hearts. Note that the chart says "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" (i.e. methods not conventions or artificial bids).

 

Two competing views have been put forward on this. My own view is that because of the careful defining of natural immediately prior to the list of allowable bids, the intent is that any natural bid is legal. This immediately legalizes 1♥ or 2♥ showing hearts. Note that this is the case even if the bid also promises another suit, known or unknown. If I open 2♥ and it shows five or more hearts then it's a natural bid, period. It doesn't matter whether it promises a four card spade suit (or denies a four card spade suit) or promises a minor, or whatever.

 

The competing view is that the intent is to legalize non-conventional bids. A bid can be natural and still be conventional; a 2♥ bid showing hearts and a minor is a typical example. This view is supported by the fact that the mid-chart includes language specifically legalizing methods which appear to be natural bids (for example 2M showing that major and a minor or 2♥ showing both majors). While I haven't seen any ACBL document which explicitly defines "conventional" there are such documents in the WBF database.

 

It may also be worth mentioning that writing to ACBL to clarify this issue has been a dismal failure. As best I can tell, Mike Flader (Laws) agrees with my view that natural bids are allowed whereas Rick Beye (Directors) takes the competing view that only non-conventional bids are allowed.

[shaztaz]

I'm fairly convinced that the Polish 2H opening bid does not fall under the GCC seeing as Dutch Two bids (2H showing 5+ hearts, 4+ in an undisclosed minor or 2S showing 5+ spades and 4+ in an undisclosed major, both with weak hands) are not allowed under GCC. Dutch twos are specifically authorized under the Midchart and the ACBL Defense Database provides a defense to these bids. It is made clear that unless a defense exists, the method can not be played in Midchart events (so clearly also not in GCC events).

 

I've looked at the procedures for trying to legalize a call. It involves submitting a defense to the method, and frankly, I can't really think of one. Overcall suits you have values in?! Double for takeout of hearts (and play whatever method you play over takeouts of weak twos)? Bid NT with say 15-18 balanced and a heart stop? It does not seem to me like a defense method is necessary for this call... In response to 2H, 2S is pass/correct and 2NT asks for the other suit. Everything else is exactly what you would expect. New suits (3C, 3D, 3S) show 6+ cards in the suit and are forcing, so it's not even as if there are many problematic continuations to the call...

[LH2650]

We have had this discussion before...

 

 

...It is clear that some exception must be made to the convention charts for "normal" bidding. For example, perusing the legal opening bids, it is not clear why any opening bid of one of a major would be legal...

And answered before. In the old Law 40, no authority was given to regulate natural calls, only conventions. This is slightly modified in the new Law 40, and the ACBL probably needs to rewrite its Convention Charts to conform to the new Laws, but nothing has really changed.

[shaztaz]

Two competing views have been put forward on this. My own view is that because of the careful defining of natural immediately prior to the list of allowable bids, the intent is that any natural bid is legal. This immediately legalizes 1♥ or 2♥ showing hearts. Note that this is the case even if the bid also promises another suit, known or unknown. If I open 2♥ and it shows five or more hearts then it's a natural bid, period. It doesn't matter whether it promises a four card spade suit (or denies a four card spade suit) or promises a minor, or whatever.

I must say though, I much prefer this view! But I don't know if I actually believe that's what they mean.

[benlessard]

Dont worry about it, print the defense for the Dutch 2s and no director will bug you on this.

 

As long as the suit bid is natural or that it cannot be an unknown suit you are ok.

[Gerben42]

Dont worry about it, print the defense for the Dutch 2s and no director will bug you on this.

 

There is a special defense against this? Wow!

[hrothgar]

Dont worry about it, print the defense for the Dutch 2s and no director will bug you on this.

 

As long as the suit bid is natural or that it cannot be an unknown suit you are ok.

I beg to differ...

 

First: My own experience strongly suggests that you will (eventually) run into trouble if you try this type of maneuver. At some point in time, you're going to play against some pair that actually understands the rules, you're going to get called on this, and you're going to lose.

 

Second: As I've mentioned before, I don't think that Adam's interpretation holds any water. If we use Adam's line of reasoning Muiderberg type 2M openings are GCC legal. In turn, this means that they don't require any kind of Midchart level defense. However, the Defensive database contains specific defenses against these bids. It think that its clear that the Conventions Committee - the folks who write the actual charts - believe that these bids don't fall under the GCC.

 

Moreover, I will note that if Muiderberg Twos were GCC legal the Frellings Twos would be as well and I can guarantee that the Conventions Committee doesn't believe that these are GCC legal bids.

 

Third: I find it pretty reprehensible that folks are arguing that you should bundle a Polish type 2H opening under the suggested defense for Muiderberg type bids. We all know that the ACBL regulatory system is completely screwed up, but this doesn't give you the right to start gaming the system.

 

The correct course of action is to submit the Polish 2H opening and a suggestion defense to the Conventions Committee and wait for approval. Absent said approval, you shouldn't be playing the methods in ACBL sanctioned events. Ambiguity does not mean do whatever you damn well please. Ambiguity means that there is a fault in the system that you should attempt to resolve. In the mean time, you should default to the more conservative of the two options which means that you table the Polish 2H opening until you're able to get matters clarified.

 

Moreover, if A director found out that you were knowingly violating the rules they should throw the book at you.

[benlessard]

First of all we are talking midchart.

 

2ndly read

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2g.htm

 

and please enlight me in telling what is the crucial difference between 5H +4/5m vs 5H+5os.

 

Note that the suggested defense for 2H as showing both major include that 2S should be natural.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2c.htm

 

Anyway i would be F%$# ashamed of myself (and you should be too) if id call the director to complain that the 2H bidder may also have a 5 card spades suit.

 

Moreover, if A director found out that you were knowingly violating the rules they should throw the book at you.

Get real, its not like you are willingly strecthing the rule to get an unfair advantage.

[hrothgar]

First of all we are talking midchart.

 

2ndly read

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2g.htm

 

and please enlight me in telling what is the crucial difference between 5H +4/5m vs 5H+5os.

 

Note that the suggested defense for 2H as showing both major include that 2S should be natural.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2c.htm

 

Anyway i would be F%$# ashamed of myself (and you should be too) if id call the director to complain that the 2H bidder may also have a 5 card spades suit.

 

Moreover, if A director found out that you were knowingly violating the rules they should throw the book at you.

Get real, its not like you are willingly strecthing the rule to get an unfair advantage.

I am assuming that your decision to restrict the discussion to the Midchart means that you don't agree with Adam's fudge... Regardless, if we assume that the opening in question is not sanctioned by the GCC life becomes VERY simple

 

The Midchart explictly states:

 

Allowed ***  Unless specifically allowed or listed on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are Disallowed **

 

There is nothing on the Midchart that Allows this method. As we are both aware, the closest regulation is item 12 that sanctions

 

12. Opening two hearts or two spades showing a weak two bid, with a

4-card minor. (2)

 

Furthermore, there is nothing in the defensive database that sanctions this methods. The defense that you cite specifically states that it is a defense to a

2♥ or 2♠ opening that shows a 5 card major and a 4+ card minor.

 

This is a very specific statement which says NOTHING about a 2♥ opening that promises 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another suit.

 

You don't get to ignore the regulations as they are written because you wish that they were different. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

 

For what its worth, I agree that the Polish 2♥ opening should be legal. Moreover, I suspect that the ACBL Conventions Committee would approve a defense to said opening. If they refused, I'd be one of the first to condemn them for it. But we aren't talking about whether or not this opening should be legal. We're discussing what the regulations state and whether or not players should follow said regulations.

 

If I ran into a player using said method at a tournament I wouldn't raise a stink about it if I thought that it was an honest mistake. On the other hand, if I ran into a member of this forum who should damn well know was legitimate and what isn't that's a whole different story. The issue is not the legality of the 2♥ opening, but rather ignoring elements of the regulatory structure to acrue a personal advantage.

 

Moreover, if A director found out that you were knowingly violating the rules they should throw the book at you.

Get real, its not like you are willingly strecthing the rule to get an unfair advantage.

 

This is PRECISELY what you are recommending

[rbforster]

I think there's an analogy with 1 level bids that might be instructive here. Here's a fairly natural set of opening bids:

 

1♣ strong 15+ (all below are 10-14 unless specified)

1♦ 4+ unbal

1♥ 5+ unbal

1♠ 5+ unbal

1N 12-14 balanced, including 5332's and 4414

2♣ 5+ unbal, precision style

2♦ 6+ one suited

2M 6+ one suited

 

It might not be the best system, but I'd be surprised if the rules lawyers claimed you should "get the book thrown at you" for playing it. Observe that the 1♥ opening will always have a side suit due to the intermediate one-suited 2♥ option. So here you have a bid of

 

1♥ 10-14 5+♥, 4+ unknown suit

 

Under the "this is conventional, not natural, and must be specifically sanctioned" interpretation, at what level can I bid 1♥ this way? The answer is that under that interpretation, this opening is illegal at all ACBL levels including SuperChart. The new Midchart removed the "4+ known suit" clause, and there are no specifically allowed bids for 1♥ that show hearts (it's ok if it shows spades though!). Superchart does not extend allowed 1 level openings beyond that of the Midchart.

 

Does anyone honestly think this is a Bermuda-only level system? I would be 99% positive that you could run this system by any director and he'd say it was totally fine under GCC. This leads me to believe the "conventional, not natural" interpretation is not just unreasonable, its consequences are completely absurd. Don't forget that the 1♦ and 1♠ openings above are also illegal since they promise unknown side suits too!

 

Yet here we have a 2♥ bid showing the exact same shapes as this 1♥ opening and it causes everyone to get all upset. (Ok, the OP here asked about 5/5+, but you could equivalently ask about the looser Polish 2♥ version where you only need 5♥/4+ which is the exact same shapes)

 

So here's my question to those of you who think 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+ other is not GCC. Do you think my system above is illegal at Superchart? Really? Or do you not worry about logical inconsistencies and just don't like people playing weak two bids different than yourself? And if you think my 1♥ bid above is ok under GCC, then surely the 2♥ version must be allowed under the same reasoning (i.e. natural), whether weak or not.

 

Perhaps someone should shoot off an email asking about this system and its natural, unbalanced and 2-suited one level bids and see if they are allowed. I would say it's very likely these would be approved - just don't mention the 2 level version since I think some of the guys in Atlanta are hardwired to reject any 2 level opening proposed as illegal (seriously).

[TylerE]

I've played a similar system in GCC events.

 

 

1♣ - 15+ Bal, 16+ Unbal

1♦ - 2+, 11-15, Unblanced, Canape

1♥ - 4+, 11-15, Canape

1♠ - 4+, 11-15, Canape

1NT - 11-14, Includes 5M322, 5M422 (optional, may be opened in the 4 card suit), 6m322...

2♣ - 4+, 11-15, Canape (yes, this is mandatory systemically on, say, 6=1=2=4)

2♦ - Mini-Roman (Don't snigger...nessesary to make the system work.)

2M - 10-13, 6M, no 4 card side suit

2N - Minors

 

Notice how the 1x openings practically promise a side suit (and in fact we systemically open the side suit, not the 6 bagger....pretty strict canape)

 

Never had any director complaints playing in mostly sectional-level events.

[hrothgar]

I think there's an analogy with 1 level bids that might be instructive here. Here's a fairly natural set of opening bids:

 

1♣ strong 15+ (all below are 10-14 unless specified)

1♦ 4+ unbal

1♥ 5+ unbal

1♠ 5+ unbal

1N 12-14 balanced, including 5332's and 4414

2♣ 5+ unbal, precision style

2♦ 6+ one suited

2M 6+ one suited

 

It might not be the best system, but I'd be surprised if the rules lawyers claimed you should "get the book thrown at you" for playing it. Observe that the 1♥ opening will always have a side suit due to the intermediate one-suited 2♥ option. So here you have a bid of

 

1♥ 10-14 5+♥, 4+ unknown suit

 

Under the "this is conventional, not natural, and must be specifically sanctioned" interpretation, at what level can I bid 1♥ this way? The answer is that under that interpretation, this opening is illegal at all ACBL levels including SuperChart. The new Midchart removed the "4+ known suit" clause, and there are no specifically allowed bids for 1♥ that show hearts (it's ok if it shows spades though!). Superchart does not extend allowed 1 level openings beyond that of the Midchart.

 

Does anyone honestly think this is a Bermuda-only level system? I would be 99% positive that you could run this system by any director and he'd say it was totally fine under GCC. This leads me to believe the "conventional, not natural" interpretation is not just unreasonable, its consequences are completely absurd. Don't forget that the 1♦ and 1♠ openings above are also illegal since they promise unknown side suits too!

 

Yet here we have a 2♥ bid showing the exact same shapes as this 1♥ opening and it causes everyone to get all upset. (Ok, the OP here asked about 5/5+, but you could equivalently ask about the looser Polish 2♥ version where you only need 5♥/4+ which is the exact same shapes)

 

So here's my question to those of you how think 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+ other is not GCC. Do you think my system above is illegal at Superchart? Really? Or do you not worry about logical inconsistencies and just don't like people playing weak two bids different than yourself? And if you think my 1♥ bid above is ok under GCC, then surely the 2♥ version must be allowed under the same reasoning (i.e. natural), whether weak or not.

 

Perhaps someone should shoot off an email asking about this system and its natural, unbalanced and 2-suited one level bids and see if they are allowed. I would say it's very likely these would be approved - just don't mention the 2 level version since I think some of the guys in Atlanta are hardwired to reject any 2 level opening proposed as illegal (seriously).

I don't think anyone believes that the ACBL regulatory structure is well conceived. It's riddled with inconsistencies. Pointing this out doesn't advance your argument.

 

I have long maintained that regulatory systems should be based on the set of hands shown by a bid rather than the vocabulary used to describe it. Furthermore, I don't think that it should matter at all whether if you have an explict agreement that a 1♥ opening promises a two suited hand or, alternatively, that you have an agreement that 1♥ shows 5+ hearts unbalanced (But always promises a two sutied hand because hands with 6+ hearts get opened something else).

 

From a practical perspective, the two bids are identical. I think that the regulatory structure show treat them in an identical fashion. I think that we're both in agreement about this.

 

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I'm not the one who gets to make the rules. My opinions about an optimal regulatory structure don't matter jack *****.

 

What does matter (alot) is how you want to be playing the game. We all know that its possible to hoodwink the opponents and the directors by playing silly games with disclosure. It's easy enough to cheat at bridge. But why would you want to play a game where you need to behave this way?

 

I have a very simple question for all of you who are trying to find ways to rules lawyer the existing regulation... Why don't you invest the same time and effort constructing a simple, clear description of your two heart opening bid and then submit this to Memphis and see what they have to say? Those of you who care about the 1♥ opening should do the same.

 

I suspect that the reason that you aren't doing this is that you already know what answer they're going to bring back and you don't want hear it directly.

[olegru]

Contact and process details for getting a defense approved can be found on the ACBL Defense Database page. I suspect that no-one has ever asked for this specific convention to be approved.

Are you kidding?

Since 2004 I was trying to get approval (or at least reasons for disapproval) for 2 diamonds pre-emptive openning showing 5 cards spade and 5 card in unknown suit. Of cause I submit full description of method and sugessted deffence.

The last reply from 03/02/2007 was:

"The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment. They have stated that they are not adding any weak agreement at this time. Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year. Please be patient.

Respectfully,

Richard F. Beye"

 

Now I am sending my proposal 5th time.

[paulg]

Contact and process details for getting a defense approved can be found on the ACBL Defense Database page. I suspect that no-one has ever asked for this specific convention to be approved.

Are you kidding?

Since 2004 I was trying to get approval (or at least reasons for disapproval) for 2 diamonds pre-emptive openning showing 5 cards spade and 5 card in unknown suit. Of cause I submit full description of method and sugessted deffence.

The last reply from 03/02/2007 was:

"The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment. They have stated that they are not adding any weak agreement at this time. Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year. Please be patient.

Respectfully,

Richard F. Beye"

 

Now I am sending my proposal 5th time.

There is a subtle difference between the Polish 2♥ and your 2♦, namely that the Polish 2♥ guarantees the bid suit (and so opponents have a takeout double) and your 2♦ that may, or may not, have a diamond suit. Many authorities take the view that this is significant in making a defence easier to play.

 

In terms of the ACBL process, I started my way down this road a couple of months ago. I play a multi 2♦ where the only weak option is a weak 2♥. This is permitted at Mid Chart using the current multi defence, but I am trying to get a more appropriate defence approved. Time will tell.

 

Paul