Negative Response

[relknes]

Two questions about artificial 1m openings in ACBL regulations.

1. After an artificial 1♦ opening bid, can 1♥ be used as a negative response, similar to a 1♣-1♦ sequence?

2. After an artificial 1m opening, can a response be defined as "negative or natural", for instance after 1♣ can 1♦ be either negative or natural diamonds?

[blackshoe]

1. No.

2. In general, no, although 1♣-1♦ might be legal so defined, as long as it's forcing.

 

Caveat: Conventional (read "artificial") responses which guarantee game forcing or better values are legal, so long as they aren't the start of a sequence of relays (which is, basically, how the ACBL defines a "relay system").

[ddrankin]

Q.1 depends on whether or not 1♦ is strong (15+ HCP) and forcing. If so, then artificial and conventionals calls are allowed, including 1♥. (See point 7 under reponses & rebids on the GCC.) Otherwise, no.

[mycroft]

more on 1: which means "don't cheat with anything but exceptional 14s" as well as "not 'strong or diamonds'" 1D calls.

 

I only mention that because I have a pair locally whose Precision club includes "6 AK controls" (which they often forget to mention), and they will open on 12s if the 12 are A, A, A - and that doesn't give them the "Responses and Rebids, 7" protection).

[blackshoe]

If they open on three aces empty, they aren't playing Precision.

[wank]

If they open on three aces empty, they aren't playing Precision.

 

why not? regulations and disclosure aside, they can play precision despite displaying an absurd lack of judgement if they like. in fact, when i'm playing with partners who have no judgement, i try to make them play precision to restrict their opportunities to perpetrate an absurdity.

[blackshoe]

If we're in Wonderland, words can mean whatever the user wants them to mean at the time he uses them. In that case, they can call their system whatever they like. But we're not in Wonderland, and "Precision" has a defined meaning which does not include hands like that opening 1♣.

[wank]

If we're in Wonderland, words can mean whatever the user wants them to mean at the time he uses them. In that case, they can call their system whatever they like. But we're not in Wonderland, and "Precision" has a defined meaning which does not include hands like that opening 1♣.

it's defined as strong. in principle 'strong' is whatever you consider it to mean. assume you're playing it as 16+, most people would still open a strong club on AKQJxx AJT xxx x because they judge it to be equivalent to a random 16 count. these people evidently consider AAA to be the equivalent of the random 14, 15, or 16 count they would normally require to open 1♣. you and i may consider that to be terrible judgement, but it doesn't mean they're not playing precision.

 

if they were playing a 14 point version, i wouldn't even be surprised to see people open that - aces are well known to be under-valued on the normal point scale.

 

perhaps you consider anything other than precision exactly as in CC Wei's book to be a different system, but that would be a rather perverse attitude. i'm sure you don't criticise people calling their system 2/1 because it's got a different version of jacoby to that specified in whoever wrote about the first book [hardy?]

[blackshoe]

it's defined as strong. in principle 'strong' is whatever you consider it to mean. assume you're playing it as 16+, most people would still open a strong club on AKQJxx AJT xxx x because they judge it to be equivalent to a random 16 count. these people evidently consider AAA to be the equivalent of the random 14, 15, or 16 count they would normally require to open 1♣. you and i may consider that to be terrible judgement, but it doesn't mean they're not playing precision.

 

There is no book on Precision of which I'm aware which defines the 1♣ opening simply as "strong".

[Vampyr]

Caveat: Conventional (read "artificial") responses which guarantee game forcing or better values are legal, so long as they aren't the start of a sequence of relays (which is, basically, how the ACBL defines a "relay system").

What are the requirements in the ACBL for a "relay system" to be legal?

[WellSpyder]

in principle 'strong' is whatever you consider it to mean. assume you're playing it as 16+, most people would still open a strong club on AKQJxx AJT xxx x because they judge it to be equivalent to a random 16 count.

Not in England, I hope, since it is illegal to have an implicit agreement to open this hand with a strong 1♣. (Some regular readers will no doubt recall I have gone on about this before :( )

[blackshoe]

What are the requirements in the ACBL for a "relay system" to be legal?

 

The GCC defines a "relay system" as a sequence of relay bids that after a one of a suit opening bid, starts before opener's rebid. Such systems are illegal on the GCC, legal on the Mid-Chart if they promise GF values, and legal on the Superchart so long as opener's first bid is not a forcing pass (forcing pass systems are banned at all levels in the ACBL).

[mycroft]

I have made it quite clear to this pair that the explanation had better be "16+ HCP or 6 controls" if that's what they play. Given that they self-destruct quite regularly (mostly because the husband is a slightly better player than the wife, but thinks he's much better - and after a couple of comments about what she did/didn't do, he is. I'd be very happy to play with her, but not him) this additional oddity isn't much.

 

When does Acol stop being Acol - 5-card majors? All-strong NT? Promises-a-rebid 2/1s? Benji 2-bids? No? So, for Precision?

[relknes]

Since 1♥ cannot be a negative response to an artificial 1♦, is it legal to require game forcing values to jump to the 2 level and invitational values to respond 1NT? This would require a person to bid 1M with 0-9 points, which might not be technically "natural" if both majors are less than 4 cards. Then again, these sorts of manufactured bids are common in other systems, like "forcing 1NT" when opener dosn't have enough values to reverse and dosn't have enough length to rebid their suit.

Also, if these are legal, would they have to be forcing?

[bluejak]

A system has certain basics. 2/1 without Jacoby is still 2/1. Precision 1♣ in which the 1♣ is not strong is not Precision, but as proved many times a definition of strong is tricky. Acol with 5-card majors is not Acol, but it can be played with almost any form of 2-bids.

[relknes]

I have made it quite clear to this pair that the explanation had better be "16+ HCP or 6 controls" if that's what they play. Given that they self-destruct quite regularly (mostly because the husband is a slightly better player than the wife, but thinks he's much better - and after a couple of comments about what she did/didn't do, he is. I'd be very happy to play with her, but not him) this additional oddity isn't much.

 

When does Acol stop being Acol - 5-card majors? All-strong NT? Promises-a-rebid 2/1s? Benji 2-bids? No? So, for Precision?

My understanding is that there are bidding systems and there are families of bidding systems.

Acol is a family of bidding systems, the main ones being Benji and English Standard, but including other less popular systems as well.

The Strong Club family is a different family, containing several systems, of which Precision is one. The system that these people are playing is clearly in the strong club family, but that alone does not make it Precision. Blue Team Club, or even Moscito are also strong club systems. They are related, but to call them Precision would be misleading.

You encounter simmilar confusion over the Polish Club family of bidding systems. There is a range of systems that fall into this family, but some people restrict Polish Club to WJ (Polish Standard). This is another case of confusing the family of systems with a particular system. Not all Polish Club systems are WJ, and not all Strong Club systems are Precision.

[Vampyr]

Acol with 5-card majors is not Acol, but it can be played with almost any form of 2-bids.

Don't see the reasoning here.

[gordontd]

When does Acol stop being Acol - 5-card majors? All-strong NT? Promises-a-rebid 2/1s?

I've heard players say they're playing Acol with a strong NT and five-card majors, but but I've never heard any Acol player say their 2/1s promise a rebid.

[RMB1]

I've heard players say they're playing Acol with a strong NT and five-card majors, but but I've never heard any Acol player say their 2/1s promise a rebid.

 

Online players from far and wide (outside British Isles :)) say they play "acol" but play strong NT and/or 5 card majors. I have wondered what bit of Acol they are refering to, but perhaps the only thing left is weak 2-over-1.

[AlexJonson]

I've heard players say they're playing Acol with a strong NT and five-card majors, but but I've never heard any Acol player say their 2/1s promise a rebid.

 

If 2/1 promises a rebid, what should the 'Acol' player call their system.

[Finch]

Three of the things that make Acol Acol are 4-card majors, limit bidding and light 2/1s. A fourth is strong twos, although personally I think you can play Acol without playing strong twos but I don't think you can abandon the other things. NT strength can be whatever you agree it to be (originally Acol was a strong NT, then a variable NT).

 

In one partnership our system doesn't have a name, the top of the card just says "5-card majors, Acol-style 2/1s"

[gordontd]

If 2/1 promises a rebid, what should the 'Acol' player call their system.

I'll leave it for them to decide - as I said, I've never met such a player.

 

The whole "2/1 promises a rebid" concept is in my mind a standard American thing, though there may be other strong NT systems that define their 2/1s the same way.

[Cyberyeti]

Had an incident this weekend where opponents had on their card "reverse benji", so they opened 2♣. Partner bid 2♠, I looked at the "system description" on their card and gave the explanation as for the brand of randomness we play over strong bids, had a pile with a 6 card suit, bid 3♣, played there and then discovered that what they actually played was that 2♣ was strong, or a weak 2 in diamonds, prominently on the front of the convention card under "bits of system opps should note" but under the bidding box as I looked at it.

 

I said "That's not reverse Benji then, so don't call it that". Opinions ?

[mjj29]

Had an incident this weekend where opponents had on their card "reverse benji", so they opened 2♣. Partner bid 2♠, I looked at the "system description" on their card and gave the explanation as for the brand of randomness we play over strong bids, had a pile with a 6 card suit, bid 3♣, played there and then discovered that what they actually played was that 2♣ was strong, or a weak 2 in diamonds, prominently on the front of the convention card under "bits of system opps should note" but under the bidding box as I looked at it.

 

I said "That's not reverse Benji then, so don't call it that". Opinions ?

I would certainly consider that MI, the rest of the card not withstanding. What did they have under the "2C opening bid" line on the front of the card (which is the correct place for this), or wasn't it an EBU 20B card?

 

Matt

[RMB1]

I said "That's not reverse Benji then, so don't call it that". Opinions ?

 

Misinformation, what ever the rest of the card says.

 

[pompous]

Telling opponents what to do tends to get their backs up and TD's start reaching for their orange DP forms.

 

Better would be:

"That's not reverse Benji then, we'd better have the TD."

TD "What seems to be the problem"

"They opened 2C = strong or weak with diamonds, but their card says reverse Benji"

TD "Does it give the correct explanation on the card"

"Yes, but the top of the card says reverse Benji"

TD "OK that is misinformation, I will consider if you have been damaged"

TD to opponents "That's not reverse Benji: so don't call it that" :)

[/pompous]