2C Legal?

[glen]

Would an opening 2♣ bid be ACBL GCC legal if it had exactly the same hand types and points as that of a standard 1♣ opening?

[TylerE]

Would assume so. They can't ban natural bids, much as they'd like. I've had a 4+♣ + 5other 2♣ opening ruled legal.

[hrothgar]

It should be...

 

The ACBL maintains that the sanction for 1 level openings is based on the fact that these are "natural" bids.

The definition of natural is based on denomination, rather than level.

 

Therefore, a 2♣ opening that shows exactly the same hand type as a 1♣ opening should be every bit as natural as a 1♣ opening.

 

None-the-less, I strongly recommend that you contact the ACBL for clarification.

 

Not that I expect them to provide a useful answer, or even a coherent answer.

Rather, watching that group of yahoos tying themselves into logical knots some of the best humor available on the internet this side of "The Guild"

[Cascade]

I doubt this should be legal.

 

There is a specific licence for 1♣ (and 1♦) as an all purpose bid.

 

There is no such licence for a 2♣ opening.

[dake50]

I think the "may be short" fails (eg. 4s4h3d2c).

Whereas 3+C works as natural for minor suit.

[awm]

Any logical interpretation of the general chart would imply that such a 2♣ opening is allowed.

 

However, I'd be somewhat surprised if ACBL ruled that way. I'd be very surprised if the exact same 2♣ opening on lighter values (like say 6-10 hcp) were allowed, even though again the logical interpretation is that it would be.

[Cascade]

Any logical interpretation of the general chart would imply that such a 2♣ opening is allowed.

 

However, I'd be somewhat surprised if ACBL ruled that way. I'd be very surprised if the exact same 2♣ opening on lighter values (like say 6-10 hcp) were allowed, even though again the logical interpretation is that it would be.

 

What logic is that?

 

This is the first hurdle "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

[glen]

What logic is that?

 

This is the first hurdle "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

and by that logic, standard openings of 1♥, 1♠, and 1NT which are not specifically allowed (by your view of licences), are disallowed. Likewise a Precision 2♣ opening is disallowed.

[rbforster]

Natural bids are allowed, and possibly beyond the reach of the ACBL to regulate (which is why you can open 1♥ with 4+, etc). Natural for a minor is defined as 3+. Feel free to open any number of a minor with 3+. Note however that while they can't regulate you opening 2♣ or 3♣ on a 3 card suit, they can and do ban conventional responses and defenses to weak two's that may not have 5 cards in length. I hear Marty Bergen was a fan of preempting with chunky 4 card suits in his younger days and sufficiently annoyed the establishment that they tried to force people to play at least 5 weak twos.

[hrothgar]

I doubt this should be legal.

 

There is a specific licence for 1♣ (and 1♦) as an all purpose bid.

 

There is no such licence for a 2♣ opening.

 

The licenses that you describe are intended to allow people to play systems with a "short" club opening and Precision (which uses a short Diamond).

 

A more apt comparison would be between:

 

A "standard" 1♠ opening and

This 2♣ opening.

[campboy]

They can't ban natural bids, much as they'd like.

This is no longer true (a change for the 2007 laws).

[hrothgar]

Would assume so. They can't ban natural bids, much as they'd like. I've had a 4+♣ + 5other 2♣ opening ruled legal.

 

Whoever issued that ruling was on crack

[Free]

Hehe, try to get frelling two's approved again Richard!!

[Cascade]

The licenses that you describe are intended to allow people to play systems with a "short" club opening and Precision (which uses a short Diamond).

 

A more apt comparison would be between:

 

A "standard" 1♠ opening and

This 2♣ opening.

 

The regulation says:

 

"ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening

bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points."

 

The all-purpose nature can be "artificial or natural".

 

I would have thought dual meaning bids like "Long club suit or Balanced" were all-purpose whether the balanced options was restricted to 3+ clubs (natural) or 2+ clubs (artificial) or even 1+ club (artificial).

 

The fact that there exists an all purpose natural licenced option for 1♣ but not for 2♣ suggests strongly to me that the latter is not intended to be allowed.

 

A standard 1♠ opening is fundamentally different than the proposed dual purpose 2♣ opening.

[TimG]

Natural bids are allowed, and possibly beyond the reach of the ACBL to regulate (which is why you can open 1♥ with 4+, etc).

Natural bids are no longer beyond the reach of regulation. All the ACBL has to do is declare a method a "special method" or some such and it can be regulated. This, I believe, is a recent change, approximately 2007 with the latest revision of the Laws.

 

Not all natural bids are allowed in ACBL GCC events. A 2♥ opening bid which shows 5+-5+ in the majors is specifically allowed on the mid-chart. There would be no need for this if it were also allowed in GCC events. Likewise, "an opening 2♥ or 2♠ showing a weak two bid, with a 4-card minor", is also specifically allowed on the mid-chart. If natural bids were allowed, neither of these would require special mention on the mid-chart.

 

Some natural bids are allowed without being "specifically allowed", some are not. One can guess at which natural bids are allowed, but it really can't be logically determined from the actual wording of the ACBL convention charts.

[awm]

To Cascade's point, when the convention chart says "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed" the point is that not every agreement is considered a method.

 

For example, there is no specifically allowed 1♥ opening on the convention chart. But it's pretty obvious that a standard american 1♥ (or acol 1♥ for that matter) would be allowed.

 

The question which arises is which agreements qualify as a method and which agreements don't. As best I can tell, the rule is that it's a method if the director thinks it's a method. Past email exchanges with ACBL headquarters have indicated that: (1) Natural bids are not considered methods, and are always allowed (2) Some natural bids are considered methods, and therefore disallowed or restricted to the mid-chart. Obviously this is somewhat contradictory!

 

In any case, ACBL has determined that a 1♣ opening which shows 3+♣ is a natural bid. This definition is made quite clearly on the general chart, and while I understand that Cascade disputes the principle behind this (it does seem weird that opening your third-longest suit is considered natural), that's the choice ACBL has made. The section Cascade mentions about "all-purpose" bids is designed to legalize a non-natural 1♣ or 1♦ opening (like in a strong club system).

 

Of course, one could argue that even though 1♣ showing 3+♣ is natural, it might still be a method. But I don't think this would get much of a following from ACBL directors. Of course, a 2♣ opening containing exactly the same hand patterns might be considered a method -- they don't have to be very consistent. Similarly, a 1♥ opening which shows 5+♥ and a 4+ side suit (i.e. suppose you play strong club, weak notrump, and intermediate two bids) would not be considered a method, even though a 2♥ opening which shows 5+♥ and a 4+ side suit seems to be considered a method. ACBL has chosen to further muddy the waters, by apparently deciding that some bids which are clearly not natural (i.e. 1♣ showing 2+♣) are actually not methods either.

 

Again, I don't find this particularly logical and would like to see a formal definition of method that ACBL directors will use in such decisions. But this seems to be the status quo. In fact, people at ACBL headquarters will argue vehemently that the current system is well-defined and "obvious" even while contradicting their own points in a single email.

[gordontd]

the point is that not every agreement is considered a method.

Some might be considered madness :D

[mycroft]

The GCC is still a pre-2007 document, where "non-conventional bids" were unregulable by the Laws. Therefore, "if it's non-conventional, it's legal" was, and is, implicit in the GCC. Unfortunately, there is a confusion (which is perpetrated in the GCC) between the concept of "natural vs artificial" and "conventional vs non-conventional". I'm sure we'll get to that sometime before the next law book comes out. *

 

The problem is that a bid can very easily be "natural" and "conventional" - a weak 2 that has significant shape restrictions (that basically boil down to "two-suiter including this suit guaranteed") is the classic case.

 

1C "3+" is natural according to the GCC and not conventional; 1C "3+; promises at least one 4-card major" while "natural" according to the GCC, is also conventional and (through case law, at least) regulable (if it promises 10 HCP, it's allowed, of course). 2C with the same requirement would be conventional, and it isn't allowed.

 

But that's not the original question - I think the original question 2C would be fought, but be legal. Why anyone would want to do that I don't know, though. Watch out, as others would say, for the "weak 2s that aren't 5, or limited to 7HCP range, are fine, but no conventions allowed after" bit.

 

* Note that when the C&C committee goes to the trouble of writing the GCC to match the new laws, expect them to disallow the odd legal call - you know, Bergen 2 bids, 9HCP 1NT openers, that sort of thing...

[blackshoe]

The lawmakers attempted, in the last revision, to move away from use of the term "conventional" (although they didn't entirely succeed). The ACBL C&C Committee will do well to do the same — but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I've often thought that the convention charts are deliberately written in a vague and confusing manner, to allow TDs to make whatever rulings they like at the time they make them. OTOH, it's probably more likely that the regulations are just poorly written. Very poorly written. IAC it seems the ACBL sees the current state of the convention charts as either a "non-problem" or one that's too thorny to even think of tackling — and they don't seem to have any desire to discuss which it may be. Personally, I think my great-grandmother could write a better set of regulations, even though she's been dead for 22 years, and as far as I know she was not a bridge player.