Short suit 1-level responses

[Flem72]

I like to play a WNT system in which a 1D response to 1C or a 1M response to 1D may be made on 3 cards. I say "may," but this kind of sequence will occur when R is weak, 4-8 HCP, and flat. This distinction between "may" and "will" could be the key to resolving the apparent conflict between these two pieces of correspondence (the first posted to r.g.b):

 

| Having spent an hour or so pondering the mysteries of the General

| Conditions and Midchart, and looking at ACBL's alertable calls

| pages, I have concluded that it is General Conditions-legal to

| respond 1D to 1C, and 1M to 1D, with fewer than 4 cards so long as

| the call is alerted as a "may be short" kind of thing.

|

| Anyone have certain knowledge regarding this issue?

|

| Regards and Happy Trails,

|

| Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

 

I have "certain" knowledge in the form of an email from Flader. Both

he and Beyes reviewed. A 3card major response to a minor suit opening

is considered a treatment and, as such, is legal in all GCC events

provided it is alerted.

 

A 1D response to 1C can be anything you want...

 

**********************************************************

| [mailto:jsn_colorado@comcast.net] To: Rulings@acbl.org Sent: Mon,

| 18 Jul 2011 15:30:09 -0600 Subject: 1C-1D and 1D-1M

|

| Having spent an hour or so pondering the mysteries of the General

| Conditions and Midchart, and looking at ACBL's alertable calls

| pages, I have concluded that it is General Conditions-legal to

| respond 1D to 1C, and 1M to 1D, with fewer than 4 cards so long as

| the call is alerted as a "may be short" kind of thing and is not

| part of a relay structure.

|

| Am I correct?

|

| Regards and Happy Trails,

|

| Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

 

Dear Scott,

 

You are correct about a 1D response to a 1C opening, but, a 1 of a

major response that may be fewer than four cards is a convention and

not permitted. Note that conventional responses are permitted as long

as they show game going values and are not part of a relay system. 1D

is allowed because it is specifically describred on the GCC.

 

Regards,

 

Mike Flader

**********************************************************

 

Anyone with experience that might help me understand how to put the point more finely for resubmission to Rulings/Flader?

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Finch]

Why did you post this in 'general bridge discussion'?

[Flem72]

Why did you post this in 'general bridge discussion'?

 

OK, breach of decorum I guess -- where would you put it?

[barmar]

Laws and Rulings is the common place to have legal discussions like this.

[Flem72]

T'anks. Due to inexplicable inhibition of the scrolling action, I hadn't even seen that forum. Moving there.

 

Is it possible to delete the thread from this forum?

Edited September 6, 2011 by inquiry
moved to correct forum - duplicate deleted

[blackshoe]

I like to play a WNT system in which a 1D response to 1C or a 1M response to 1D may be made on 3 cards. I say "may," but this kind of sequence will occur when R is weak, 4-8 HCP, and flat.

 

[snip]

 

I have "certain" knowledge in the form of an email from Flader. Both

he and Beyes reviewed. A 3card major response to a minor suit opening

is considered a treatment and, as such, is legal in all GCC events

provided it is alerted.

 

A 1D response to 1C can be anything you want...

 

[snip]

 

Dear Scott,

 

You are correct about a 1D response to a 1C opening, but, a 1 of a

major response that may be fewer than four cards is a convention and

not permitted. Note that conventional responses are permitted as long

as they show game going values and are not part of a relay system. 1D

is allowed because it is specifically describred on the GCC.

 

Regards,

 

Mike Flader

**********************************************************

 

Anyone with experience that might help me understand how to put the point more finely for resubmission to Rulings/Flader?

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

 

Your assertion that Mike Flader and Rick Beye agree that a three card major response to 1♦ is legal under the GCC (first paragraph quoted above), is directly contradicted (correctly) by Flader's response (also quoted above). The GCC defines as "natural" a bid in a major suit which shows at least four cards. Your response, showing only three (even if it's "three or more") is therefore conventional. As such, it is governed by item 3 under "Responses and Rebids" on the GCC, which says that such a bid is legal only if it's game forcing. Your suggested meaning is not game forcing, therefore it is illegal.

 

The legality of an agreement, and whether a call requires an alert, are two different things, handled by two different and independent regulations. Whether a call requires an alert is irrelevant if it's illegal.

 

Sorry, but I don't think re-wording the question will get you a different answer.

[Flem72]

T'anks for the response. Slight correction: The first quoted portion immediately below the first "snip" is not my assertion, but a third-party response to a post I made. I realize this does not qualify your response; nothing explains the contradiction in responses from Rulings/Flader, except perhaps differences in the way the question was framed by me as opposed to the third-party.

 

SN

[bluejak]

Unfortunately decisions passed down by ACBL HQ have often been inconsistent. I am playing something which Flader has told me is legal, though I know that someone has received a different view from someone else at HQ.

 

Perhaps the answer is to look at the GCC ourselves. As I remember it, fewer than 4 cards in a major is a convention, and thus the 3-card major response is illegal unless allowed by the GCC - and I do not think it is.

[Phil]

Don't Meckwell respond 1♥ to 1♦ with 3 with certain hand types?

[aguahombre]

3-card minor suit bids seem to be covered and described as natural, therefore not alertable in the ACBL Alert Procedures:

 

"3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses."

 

Of course the Alert Procedures are talking about agreements to do something, not what a responder might do. So, without agreement, if responder might for some reason choose to bid 1h with 3 over 1D and opener is unaware, that is a different story.

Edited September 7, 2011 by aguahombre

[ggwhiz]

Don't Meckwell respond 1♥ to 1♦ with 3 with certain hand types?

 

I may be wrong but thought that was where support doubles (and redoubles) came from as they were getting to the occasional 3-3 fit.

 

When I open 1♦ on a 3-1-5-4 and pard responds 1♥ I'm prone to bidding 1♠ next. Not alerted and the last thing pard expects me to have but we are alergic to bidding 1nt with singletons and it's usually mp's.

 

I thought (think?) that the ACBL regulations are still allowing this on the principle of "within 1 card length wise and 3 HCP's" but interested in other views.

[blackshoe]

The definition of "natural" major suit bids in the GCC covers openings and responses. Doesn't say anything about rebids. Item 8 under "responses and rebids" makes legal "all constructive calls starting with the opener's second call". So a 1♠ rebid on 3 is legal as long as it's constructive.

 

I have no idea what Meckwell do, but I hope they're not using their stature to get around the rules.

[Flem72]

Don't Meckwell respond 1♥ to 1♦ with 3 with certain hand types?

 

Meckwell don't play in GCC events, now, do they? However, when I discussed these emails with some of our very experienced local players, including a couple of directors, they were all a bit perplexed, saying that they often respond 1M to 1D on 3 when playing inverted minors. Is this one of those "so long as partner must assume it's intended as natural" things, like bidding the unbid minor when not playing NMF in 1m-1M/1N-2om?

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[helene_t]

Meckwell also used to play multi 2♦. So they would have needed a different system for GCC events anyway. Or do they actually respond 1M on three in GCC events?

[blackshoe]

Meckwell don't play in GCC events, now, do they? However, when I discussed these emails with some of our very experienced local players, including a couple of directors, they were all a bit perplexed, saying that they often respond 1M to 1D on 3 when playing inverted minors. Is this one of those "so long as partner must assume it's intended as natural" things, like bidding the unbid minor when not playing NMF in 1m-1M/1N-2om?

 

If you (or your partner) responds 1M to 1m on 3 cards frequently enough to establish an implicit agreement to do so, that agreement will be illegal under the GCC. Until that time, your deviation from your agreement that it will be four cards is legal. This is true no matter who does it, and no matter if they've never received an adverse ruling for doing it. Note, however, that what constitutes sufficient frequency to establish an implicit agreement is a matter for TD (not player) judgement. The same applies to your example sequence regarding 2om.

[barmar]

I've heard of pairs that don't have an immediate forcing raise of a minor. What do you do if you have 1=3=5=4 or 1=3=6=3 shape, game forcing values, and partner opens 1♦?

 

And in Meckwell's case they play a strong club system, and 1♦ is nebulous. I suspect that's why they don't raise it, they need to find out what opener's actual shape is before continuing.

 

Temporizing bids go back at least as far as Goren, but the GCC doesn't make any mention of them.

[paulg]

And in Meckwell's case they play a strong club system, and 1♦ is nebulous. I suspect that's why they don't raise it, they need to find out what opener's actual shape is before continuing.

Meckwell play 1♦-P-2♦ as game forcing with six diamonds. I expect, but don't know, that the 2♣ response may cover a range of other game forcing hands.

 

However these are not the interesting hands. It is what you respond with weaker 3=1=4=5 and, especially, 1=3=4=5 hands where a tendency to bid the three-card major can develop into a partnership agreement.