Prohibition of conventional calls

[antonylee]

The ACBL GCC prohibits conventional calls as a response to (among other things) a weak two that has a range of more than 7HCP AND does not show at least 5 cards.

 

A side question first:

Am I the only one to (be wicked enough to) read this as, I can play conventional responses to a weak two that is 0-10, but promises 5 cards? Or to an "intermediate two" with a small range, say 8-11, but could be as short as four? (I am not interested to discuss the quality of such choices, perhaps that can be the subject for another topic though...) At least that's how I understand the "AND".

 

Now, the main question (assuming that the answer to the previous question is, "well, really they should have used OR instead of AND"):

Say the auction goes

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2hppdpprp]133|100[/hv]

where my 2♥ is, say, 0-10, so no artificial bid (by our side) is allowed over it.

Simple bridge logic tells me that my partner cannot be interested in penalizing (e.g. say that we open light and agreed that he always raises directly with decent support). Can I therefore take the inference that the XX is SOS? Or am I obliged to play there, interpreting it as natural?

[paulg]

The definition in the Laws is:

 

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; ...

 

The argument that this redouble is for rescue, being "information" that most players would expect from a passed hand opposite a weak opener, seems very reasonable to me. But I don't count, as I'm not an ACBL Director.

 

On the side question, I think it is absolutely clear what the intention is even though the ACBL's logic looks flawed #notthefirsttime

[blackshoe]

The regulation says "and". Absent some instruction from the ACBL that says otherwise, directors are bound to rule on that basis, even if they believe it's ridiculous and "they should have said 'or' instead" is completely obvious. AFAIK, there is no such instruction.

[Trinidad]

I would argue that the redouble was not a response to the 2H opening...

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I would argue that the redouble was not a response to the 2H opening...

 

Rik

 

It's a conventional defense to opponents' conventional defense (the takeout double), so it's prohibited.

[mycroft]

The regulation says "and". Absent some instruction from the ACBL that says otherwise, directors are bound to rule on that basis, even if they believe it's ridiculous and "they should have said 'or' instead" is completely obvious. AFAIK, there is no such instruction.

Well, if you don't count RESPONSES AND REBIDS, 7:

(For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)

Okay, so, read logically, there is a paradox. But it's not the only time that people writing English don't understand how to translate de Morgan.

 

Having said that, assuming that you are barred from using conventional "responses, rebids,..." - yeah, illogical though it may be, the only legal use of redouble in that auction is "partner, I want to play 2♥XX".

 

Don't worry, once the C&C committee get around to it, they'll just make DISALLOWED, 7 hands "special partnership understandings" that are "not allowed". And then we won't have to worry about this.

[Phil]

It's a conventional defense to opponents' conventional defense (the takeout double), so it's prohibited.

 

Why? Defenses to conventions aren't prohibited. I would argue xx isn't a 'response' to a weak 2 (which is silly if you think about it) and simply say its a countermeasure.

 

Besides since when have doubles and redoubles ever been regulated? Can someone come up with a a treatment for a x / xx that isn't allowable?

[Cascade]

Why? Defenses to conventions aren't prohibited.

 

Yes they are:

 

"CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL

DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE ..."

 

Bizarrely I just noticed that if the opponent's double is natural then there is no restriction on playing a conventional countermeasure.

[barmar]

That's really weird. If the double is for penalty, you can use an SOS redouble. But if the double is takeout, and his partner CONVERTS it to penalty, you can't. I suspect this is an unintended consequence to a rule that was written too simply.

 

But maybe there's a way out: the redouble could be considered a defense to the penalty pass, not the takeout double.

[mycroft]

So, a natural redouble isn't a "RESPONSE OR REBID"?

 

I may not like the ACBL's decision here, I may not like the way the GCC is written in many ambiguous cases, but this (apart from the oops, de Morgan) is quite clear. If you play one of these "we can't prohibit them because they're not conventional"* calls, you're playing natural afterwards, for[ever [edit: the rest of that hand]. Your choice. You can't play "just natural", because it is a massive loser? Well, then, don't play that treatment. After all, that's why the rule's there - to make it virtually impossible to play them.

 

* Note that since 2008, as I said above, the C&C committee could say tomorrow that these openings (sub-10 HCP natural NT openers and wide-ranging or sub-5-card weak 2s) are "special understandings" and ban them. They haven't seen a need to, yet. I'm actually surprised at that.

 

Phil, the reason you don't remember "doubles and redoubles" being regulated is that since long time, the GCC COMPETITIVE section, #2 has been "CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses thereto." (it's also why you can play transfer responses to 1m-X, but not to 1m-p at GCC). It's such a blanket grant that nobody ever thinks about "is this double conventional?" But DISALLOWED calls trump otherwise legal conventions.