Three-card Majors?

[tomlgoodwi]

There is in another thread a discussion about permitted defenses to "could be short" minor-suit openings. It appears that the ACBL, or at least one faction of it, has deemed that an opening suit bid of one in a two-card minor suit is a "treatment," not an artificial convention, so that "anything goes" defensive methods are not applicable.

 

Well, what about an opening suit bid of one in a three-card major suit? Is this also a "treatment" that is permitted under the General Convention Chart? If not, why not? Is there a principled reason to distinguish between the two cases?

 

TLGoodwin

[helene_t]

There is in another thread a discussion about permitted defenses to "could be short" minor-suit openings. It appears that the ACBL, or at least one faction of it, has deemed that an opening suit bid of one in a two-card minor suit is a "treatment," not an artificial convention, so that "anything goes" defensive methods are not applicable.

 

Well, what about an opening suit bid of one in a three-card major suit? Is this also a "treatment" that is permitted under the General Convention Chart? If not, why not? Is there a principled reason to distinguish between the two cases?

 

TLGoodwin

A 1♠ response, showing 3+ spades, to a 1♥ opening, is a "treatment" as well so it's not like there is a distinction between majors and minors per se.

 

But my guess would be that 3-card majors openings would be considered conventional because it is uncommon. I could be wrong of course.

[tomlgoodwi]

A 1♠ response, showing 3+ spades, to a 1♥ opening, is a "treatment" as well so it's not like there is a distinction between majors and minors per se.

 

But my guess would be that 3-card majors openings would be considered conventional because it is uncommon. I could be wrong of course.

 

 

Or maybe they are uncommon because they would be considered conventional . . . .

[ggwhiz]

Uncommon because they don't work.

[hrothgar]

Uncommon because they don't work.

 

Roman Club had quite a good track record before it was (essentially) banned.

 

I find it remarkable how so many "inferior" methods need to banned to protect a supposedly superior system.

[tomlgoodwi]

Roman Club had quite a good track record before it was (essentially) banned.

 

I find it remarkable how so many "inferior" methods need to banned to protect a supposedly superior system.

 

 

As I recall it, Roman Club was banned in large part because of its three-card major openings.

[the hog]

If you look at the Caroline Club - see Dan's system pages, you will see that this is a treatment in this system. that system uses canapé openings.

[mike777]

I learned a version..ok.....a system based on roman clb where one of major promises 4 cards.....many ideas from roman and neo...club.....from early 1980's. It was important to make it acbl legal....

[tomlgoodwi]

Uncommon because they don't work.

 

The original question wasn't whether opening three-card majors is a good idea, but whether there is a principled distinction between saying on the one hand that "two-card minors" is a natural treatment (although a "natural" bid in a minor implies three or more cards), and on the other hand that "three-card majors" is a (banned) convention (since a "natural" bid in a major implies four or more cards). I'm not interested in playing "three-card majors," only in exploring the rationale (if there is one) for these regulations.

[ArtK78]

The "rationale" for allowing 2 card minor suit openings (principally, the "short club") is primarily that they were so common by the time that the ACBL got around to regulating opening bids that it would be impractical to ban them. That is certainly not true for three-card major suit openings.

[blackshoe]

The "rationale" for allowing 2 card minor suit openings (principally, the "short club") is primarily that they were so common by the time that the ACBL got around to regulating opening bids that it would be impractical to ban them. That is certainly not true for three-card major suit openings.

 

Nobody is suggesting banning anything. What is suggested is that these "could be short" openings are artificial because they don't meet the definition of "natural" in the regulation, and so any defense is allowed. What the ACBL is doing is claiming the openings are natural in spite of the fact that they don't meet the criterion in the regulation. OTOH, they don't seem to me to meet the definition of "artificial" in the laws, either. Perhaps what the ACBL needs to do is to edit references to "conventional" out of the regulation, and perhaps add explicit reference to the Laws' definition and the interpretation that "could be short" openings are not artificial.

[gnasher]

OTOH, they don't seem to me to meet the definition of "artificial" in the laws, either.

 

Why not? The definition in the laws is a bid that "conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named".

 

Everybody's 1♣ opening conveys more information than merely a willingness to play in clubs. However, in North America it's generally taken for granted that a 1♣ opening can be a 4333 3433 or 4423 shape, but not that it can be a 4432 shape.

[helene_t]

Roman Club had quite a good track record before it was (essentially) banned.

 

I find it remarkable how so many "inferior" methods need to banned to protect a supposedly superior system.

It may banned at most events in North America, and since 2010 it is banned at most events in England, but I think you can play it (almost) everywhere else in the World.

[Cascade]

Nobody is suggesting banning anything. What is suggested is that these "could be short" openings are artificial because they don't meet the definition of "natural" in the regulation, and so any defense is allowed. What the ACBL is doing is claiming the openings are natural in spite of the fact that they don't meet the criterion in the regulation. OTOH, they don't seem to me to meet the definition of "artificial" in the laws, either. Perhaps what the ACBL needs to do is to edit references to "conventional" out of the regulation, and perhaps add explicit reference to the Laws' definition and the interpretation that "could be short" openings are not artificial.

 

Disagree.

 

A bid that could show the suit bid or could show some other hand type like a weak no trump (or some other range) includes a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

 

Sure we have to accept playing in clubs if partner and everyone passes nevertheless we are not bidding 1♣ with our 4=4=3=2 hand because we are "willing" to play in clubs.

 

I would argue that even a could be short as three bid is artificial as per the definition. Even if another definition defines it as natural.

[wank]

It may banned at most events in North America, and since 2010 it is banned at most events in England, but I think you can play it (almost) everywhere else in the World.

not true. it's not banned in england. even after the reintroduction of level 5 3 card majors are allowed, because 3+ is length according to the EBU. the regulation says that for 1M openers you must be showing the suit opened. obviously that means length in the suit opened.

[NickRW]

not true. it's not banned in england. even after the reintroduction of level 5 3 card majors are allowed, because 3+ is length according to the EBU. the regulation says that for 1M openers you must be showing the suit opened. obviously that means length in the suit opened.

 

By the application of the principles of what is normally applied to minor suit openings, you might have been right. However, sadly it is not true:

 

Allowed at Level 4 only...

 

11 C 15 Openings in a major: general

An opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ is only permitted if it shows at least four cards in the suit bid, forcing or not.

 

Nick