Allowed defenses to "could be short" 1C or 1D

[BudH]

In the ACBL, when limited to the General Convention Chart, are you allowed to use any defense (such as a Midchart convention such as Suction) when the opponents open either of these two opening bids:

 

1. 1♣, "could be short", when it could be a doubleton only with a 4=4=3=2 distribution (and could be 12 HCP or 19 HCP)

 

 

2. 1♦, "could be short", when it could be as short as a doubleton in a Precision type structure.

 

 

Bud H

[hrothgar]

only in months with "r's" in them

[awm]

7. DEFENSE TO:

  a) conventional calls

 

So the only relevant question is whether a 1♣ or 1♦ opening which could be fewer than three cards qualifies as a conventional call. Note that:

 

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

 

So the 1♣ or 1♦ opening described is certainly not natural. Obviously one can split hairs about whether "conventional" is really the opposite of "natural" and whether it's possible for a call to be both natural and conventional (or neither natural nor conventional); no formal definition of "conventional" is given on the General Chart.

 

If we go to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge for a definition of "convention" they say that it's the same as "special partnership understanding" which is defined in Law 40B:

 

Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

 

This strongly implies that any call which has an artificial meaning is conventional, while leaving the door open for some natural calls to also be considered conventional at the discretion of the regulating authority (here ACBL). Since the 1♣ or 1♦ opening is certainly artificial (not natural), it's conventional and any defense is permitted.

[hrothgar]

7. DEFENSE TO:

  a) conventional calls

 

So the only relevant question is whether a 1♣ or 1♦ opening which could be fewer than three cards qualifies as a conventional call. Note that:

 

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

 

So the 1♣ or 1♦ opening described is certainly not natural. Obviously one can split hairs about whether "conventional" is really the opposite of "natural" and whether it's possible for a call to be both natural and conventional (or neither natural nor conventional); no formal definition of "conventional" is given on the General Chart.

 

If we go to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge for a definition of "convention" they say that it's the same as "special partnership understanding" which is defined in Law 40B:

 

Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

 

This strongly implies that any call which has an artificial meaning is conventional, while leaving the door open for some natural calls to also be considered conventional at the discretion of the regulating authority (here ACBL). Since the 1♣ or 1♦ opening is certainly artificial (not natural), it's conventional and any defense is permitted.

FWIW: I agree completely with Adam's reasoning.

 

I think that any reasonable person should interpret the existing regulations in a similar manner.

[awm]

It may also be worth mentioning the "rules on the ground."

 

I've discussed this with national directors. A number of years ago, it was the case that many directors believed that conventional defenses to 1♣/1♦ "could be short" openings were not permitted. However, this situation changed very suddenly about five years ago, at which point it seemingly became universally accepted by national level directors that any defenses to these openings were okay on the General Chart. I suspect there was a memo or something from ACBL (to which I was not privy) or something appeared in the appeals casebooks.

 

Anyway, the "rules on the ground" are that any defenses to these opening bids are GCC-allowed.

[Free]

FWIW I think there's a huge difference between a precision 1♦ opening, and a 1♣ opening which can be done on a doubleton only when 4=4=3=2 exactly (5542 system). The 1♣ opening has just 1 exception to not being a 3 card or longer (and not being the longest minor). The Precision opening opens 1♦ on a variety of hands, from natural to 4=2=2=5 distributions. It's much more artificial.

 

Change the 1♣ opening to something like 15-17 balanced or 12+ natural and the opening becomes much more artificial. Here you'll effectively open 1♣ with 4=3=4=2 hands, so the chance of a doubleton is much higher.

[jdonn]

I'm sure the authors of the GCC intended to:

 

- Disallow suction over 1♣ that is 3+

- Allow suction over 1♣ that is 3+ or 4432

- Disallow a 3NT opening bid to show a strong hand with either major

- Allow a 3NT opening bid to show a weak hand with either minor

 

I disagree that Adam's interpretation is the only reasonable one (though I do think it's reasonable and very likely the most reasonable). FWIW I would allow any defense (perhaps other than completely random ie 1♠ on any hand) over any opening bid, but I seriously doubt it was ever anyone's intention to have wildly different regulations over 1♣ 3+ and 1♣ 3+ or 4432.

 

One (of many) thing the GCC really needs IMO is an exception that treats any bid which shows "blah or one exact shape that is a single card from blah" exactly the same as it treats "blah". Other somewhat common examples would be a common Norwegian system where a 1♥ opening is 5+ or 4432 exactly, and a system where a 2♣ response to 1♠ is 3+ or 3442 exactly.

[Free]

One (of many) thing the GCC really needs IMO is an exception that treats any bid which shows "blah or one exact shape that is a single card from blah" exactly the same as it treats "blah". Other somewhat common examples would be a common Norwegian system where a 1♥ opening is 5+ or 4432 exactly, and a system where a 2♣ response to 1♠ is 3+ or 3442 exactly.

Then most of us will be playing 4-card ♦ openings, since 1♦ is only a 3 card with 4=4=3=2 (yes, the same hand again) for many players. Maybe we can just ban the 4=4=3=2 distribution completely, just to help regulations. B)

 

I agree with the idea.

[Gerben42]

As someone playing a short ♣ like always, I encourage people to play their pet conventions after that. It often ends with a top for us if it comes up.

 

In other news, I think for a while a 2+♣ opening was considered natural in the Netherlands. Not sure if it still is as I've moved out. I guess it was done to protect the crowd from experts who play things like Holo-Bolo (basically a convention where every bid is a Multi)

[PrecisionL]

In ACBLand:

 

No, conventional defenses to an opening 1♣ or 1♦ that may be short are NOT allowed. I have an e-mail from rulings@acbl.org that says that.

 

However, if the same bids are Artificial AND Strong (15+ hcp) then conventional defenses are allowed.

[awm]

In ACBLand:

 

No, conventional defenses to an opening 1♣ or 1♦ that may be short are NOT allowed.  I have an e-mail from rulings@acbl.org that says that. 

 

However, if the same bids are Artificial AND Strong (15+ hcp) then conventional defenses are allowed.

All I can say is, this is far from the first time that you've had very strange ideas about what is and isn't allowed in ACBL events. Your opinion contradicts any logical reading of the convention charts, and also contradicts the consistent opinion of at least half a dozen national-level directors.

 

The folks they have at rulings@acbl do make many mistakes, and their opinions are far from "official" at times. This particular opinion is also something that has changed in the last six years or so.

[blackshoe]

The GCC allows any defense to conventional calls, with some exceptions that do not apply here (#7a under "Competitive"). By the definition in the chart, a "could be short" 1♣ or 1♦ opening is not natural. The implication is that it is conventional. If it is conventional, then any defense to it is allowed.

[helene_t]

One (of many) thing the GCC really needs IMO is an exception that treats any bid which shows "blah or one exact shape that is a single card from blah" exactly the same as it treats "blah".

I think this is wrong. The set of all hands constitute a connected network where each connected pair differ only slightly, say by one HCP or one card changing suit. So your proposal would mean that all agreements would be treated the same.

 

So I believe the borderline must be somewhere. Treating 2+m and 3+M as artificial but 3+m and 4+M as natural is simple, and as reasonable as anything.

[PrecisionL]

In ACBLand:

 

No, conventional defenses to an opening 1♣ or 1♦ that may be short are NOT allowed.  I have an e-mail from rulings@acbl.org that says that. 

 

However, if the same bids are Artificial AND Strong (15+ hcp) then conventional defenses are allowed.

All I can say is, this is far from the first time that you've had very strange ideas about what is and isn't allowed in ACBL events. Your opinion contradicts any logical reading of the convention charts, and also contradicts the consistent opinion of at least half a dozen national-level directors.

 

The folks they have at rulings@acbl do make many mistakes, and their opinions are far from "official" at times. This particular opinion is also something that has changed in the last six years or so.

I am only reporting the official position of Mike Fladder, Associate National Tournament Director or Rick Beye his boss from questions submitted to rulings@acbl.org

 

There does not seem to be a meeting of the minds if National Tournament Directors state otherwise. So, I guess the prudent thing to do is to ask all the TDs at a tournament to decide if there is a unity of interpretation of the King's English (GCC).

[blackshoe]

No. Just ask the DIC. If another TD gives you a different interpretation, tell him to talk to the DIC.

 

Best would be an interpretation from the Conventions and Competitions Committee, or whatever they're called, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one.

[akhare]

In ACBLand:

 

No, conventional defenses to an opening 1♣ or 1♦ that may be short are NOT allowed. I have an e-mail from rulings@acbl.org that says that.

I vaguely recall a post from JanM which stated that the opponents' use of a conventional defence over their 1♣ ("could be short") opening was upheld...a search should turn it up...

[jdonn]

One (of many) thing the GCC really needs IMO is an exception that treats any bid which shows "blah or one exact shape that is a single card from blah" exactly the same as it treats "blah".

I think this is wrong. The set of all hands constitute a connected network where each connected pair differ only slightly, say by one HCP or one card changing suit. So your proposal would mean that all agreements would be treated the same.

 

So I believe the borderline must be somewhere. Treating 2+m and 3+M as artificial but 3+m and 4+M as natural is simple, and as reasonable as anything.

I suppose you have caught me being a little lazy in my wording but I think you might have realized what I meant. I'm not suggesting some logical induction where every shape is treated identically since it's different by one card from the next closer hand to the regulation, etc. I'm referring to instances where there is a regulation and your system includes exactly one shape that differs by exactly one card from the shape specifically governed by the regulation.

 

So if a 1♣ opening bid that shows 3+ clubs differs by regulation from a 1♣ opening bid that shows 2+ clubs (such as one being conventional and one not), I would treat a system in which the 1♣ opening is 'either 3+ clubs or exactly 4432' as a 3+ 1♣ system. However if the 1♣ opening was 'either 3+ clubs or balanced without a 4 card major' so 1♣ could be 4432, 4342, 3442, or 3352 then I would not treat that system as a 3+ 1♣ system.

[kevperk]

As a tournament director, I have been told and rule that a could be short 1♣ or 1♦ is not considered conventional in applying the General Chart regulation. Allowing any defense occurs only when the bid is truly artificial, not when it is ostensibly natural and only sometimes includes some catchall hands.

[Cascade]

As a tournament director, I have been told and rule that a could be short 1♣ or 1♦ is not considered conventional in applying the General Chart regulation. Allowing any defense occurs only when the bid is truly artificial, not when it is ostensibly natural and only sometimes includes some catchall hands.

That seems a weird interpretation of the written regulation to me.

[kevperk]

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural.

 

Kevin

[peachy]

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural.

 

Kevin

I would be interested to know by whom you were "told" . The ACBL regulation itself seems clear enough, when it defines 3+ minor natural; that makes 2+ minor *not natural*. If there is some ACBL originated interpretation somewhere that says the non-forcing catchall 2+ club should be treated the same as 3+ club, then perhaps you can give a link or copy.

[Cascade]

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural.

 

Kevin

I am not very good on intentions - jdonn will tell you.

 

It is very hard to know the "intention" when all you have to go on is the written words in the regulation.

 

If the intention is different from the written regulation then the regulators have a responsibility to rewrite the regulation.

 

Directors are by law "bound" by the announced regulations. As a director I would be very uncomfortable ruling contrary to those announced regulations.

[Gerben42]

It is very hard to know the "intention" when all you have to go on is the written words in the regulation.

 

If the intention is different from the written regulation then the regulators have a responsibility to rewrite the regulation.

 

Directors are by law "bound" by the announced regulations. As a director I would be very uncomfortable ruling contrary to those announced regulations.

 

I think this is right. It's not the thought that counts, it's the law.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL clearly does not have a good way of getting the word out to the 'hoi-polloi', including club-level directors, or at least not a good track record on doing so.

 

I agree, in principle, with the premise that one should rule according to what the law says rather than according to some rumored interpretation that "everybody knows" but nobody can put a finger on an official statement to that effect. However, in practice, if a club level TD rules that a "could be short" opening is not natural (which is in fact what the regulation says*) so that any defense is allowed, and the pair(s) who receive that ruling then go to a tournament where the TD "knows" that the regulation doesn't mean what it says, but that "could be short" openings are to be taken as natural, in spite of what the regulation says, then those players are going to be very unhappy when the ruling does not match their expectation.

 

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case. :wacko:

[Gerben42]

*One could argue that this is in fact not the case. The regulation states that openings in a minor on 3 or more cards are considered natural. It doesn't say anything about openings in a minor on fewer cards. So an opening on fewer than three cards might or might not be natural. Of course, this kind of ambiguity is deplorable in a regulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't the position of the RA (ACBL) that this is the case. wacko.gif

 

No, if opening a minor on 3 or more cards is considered natural, then anything outside this set like opening a minor on 2 or more cards, is NOT considered natural. So anything goes against that. There is no possible discussion about that. If I were a player who got this ruling, I would appeal and write the relevant part of the regulations in Bold and doubly underlined so that the AC at least gets it right. With 10 copies for the TD so he doesn't mess up next time.

 

Many players don't really know the rules they are playing under. I couldn't play like that. I want to know what I am allowed to do and more important what opponents are allowed to do.

 

Josh wrote:

 

So if a 1♣ opening bid that shows 3+ clubs differs by regulation from a 1♣ opening bid that shows 2+ clubs (such as one being conventional and one not), I would treat a system in which the 1♣ opening is 'either 3+ clubs or exactly 4432' as a 3+ 1♣ system. However if the 1♣ opening was 'either 3+ clubs or balanced without a 4 card major' so 1♣ could be 4432, 4342, 3442, or 3352 then I would not treat that system as a 3+ 1♣ system.

 

You can do this in defense of such an opening bid, after all you can agree with your partner whatever you like. The regulations don't care about such distinctions. If it did, you would be able to read about it.