Weak 2 with 4-card minor in new GCC

[johnu]

any opening bid can be 5-4 as long as suits known the most obvious example is flannery

 

quote from gcc

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known

suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits.

 

Yes, for 10+ high cards, the 2 suits have to be known, and they can be 5-4 either way so that's less restrictive. Does the 4 card side suit in the weak 2 bid have to be known, or can it be either minor?

[steve2005]

Obviously ACBL should have said showing a weak two bid in the named suit.

 

Weak 2's are defined elsewhere in the GCC, 5+ card suit with a range of 7 hcp

 

but the ACBL's semantics isn't the issue. It's is this a usable convention?

 

and if not can something be done to make it playable? (Hint multi 2♦)

[kenrexford]

Repeating myself, but it seems to need repeating. If the GCC specifically says that systems are only allowed over weak two's if the suit is 5+ and a natural bid in a major is 4+, then a 4-card weak two is GCC legal as natural. And it is called a weak two. For that matter, a weak 2D is 3+. But only the major 4-card has plausible value that I have thought of so far, the two suiters.

[johnu]

Repeating myself, but it seems to need repeating. If the GCC specifically says that systems are only allowed over weak two's if the suit is 5+ and a natural bid in a major is 4+, then a 4-card weak two is GCC legal as natural. And it is called a weak two. For that matter, a weak 2D is 3+. But only the major 4-card has plausible value that I have thoug

 

The Alert Pamphlet Definitions says "5+ for a weak two-bid".

 

The Alert Chart says an acceptable treatment (therefore not a convention) is "A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit."

[kenrexford]

The Alert Pamphlet Definitions says "5+ for a weak two-bid".

 

The Alert Chart says an acceptable treatment (therefore not a convention) is "A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit."

Does that somehow negate what the GCC says? Or, does that tell you what's alerted? I bet the alert charts and alert rules also require an alert if 1NT shows 8-15 hcp. But the is GCC legal with natural bidding.

[johnu]

Does that somehow negate what the GCC says? Or, does that tell you what's alerted? I bet the alert charts and alert rules also require an alert if 1NT shows 8-15 hcp. But the is GCC legal with natural bidding.

 

The beginning of GCC says "Conventional agreements permitted by the ACBL Convention Charts are subject to the regulations documented in the ACBL Alert Pamphlet. For a complete list of definitions see Alert Pamphlet-Definitions.". So the GCC is explicitly tied into the alert chart and pamphlet.

 

The alert chart and pamphlet says that 1NT only requires an Announcement of range, not an alert, assuming 1NT meets the definition of natural.

[blackshoe]

Ken, your P.J. Painter quote is certainly germane here. We're trying to untangle gibberish. But the "systems are only allowed" bit doesn't have anything to do with whether the bid is natural. Note that under current law, the RA can regulate anything it likes, natural or otherwise.

 

The GCC tells us what "special partnership understandings" are allowed. The alert chart/procedure tells us what partnership understandings, special or not, require us to alert opponents (or to make an announcement). An alert (including an announcement) is a notification that we might want to ask about the partnership understanding.

[paulg]

If their taking it up at Dallas i hope its not to squash it.

This was not suggested.

 

they should add multi 2♦ to actually make it useful

That's on the agenda for the new millennium.

[helene_t]

I think I was in a bit of a bad mood when I wrote my previous comment. Art is right. There can be little doubt that the convention they consider allowing is a weak 2M opening showing 5+ cards in the major and 4+ cards in an unknown minor. And that conventional responses will be allowed. It remains a puzzle why anyone would want to play that when multi is not allowed. But maybe in 3rd seat nonvul it makes some sense to open 3M freely on 6-card suits and use 2M for Muiderberg.

[steve2005]

Does that somehow negate what the GCC says? Or, does that tell you what's alerted? I bet the alert charts and alert rules also require an alert if 1NT shows 8-15 hcp. But the is GCC legal with natural bidding.

 

You seem like a smart person but like most people don't know the GCC\

 

but a natural 1N must be 10+ hcp ( so 8 disqualifies) and a range of 5 hcp (so 8-15 7 hcp disqualifies)

 

if you do use a range outside the limits you cant use any convention including Stayman Transfer Gerber, rescues from doubles etc.

 

and artificial 1NT has to be 15+ hcp forcing, this is a leftover from Romex but don't know anyone who plays it

[ArtK78]

and artificial NT has to be 15+ hcp forcing, this is a leftover from Romex but don't know anyone who plays it

 

I do.

[kenrexford]

You seem like a smart person but like most people don't know the GCC\

 

but a natural 1N must be 10+ hcp ( so 8 disqualifies) and a range of 5 hcp (so 8-15 7 hcp disqualifies)

 

 

 

if you do use a range outside the limits you cant use any convention including Stayman Transfer Gerber, rescues from doubles etc.

 

and artificial NT has to be 15+ hcp forcing, this is a leftover from Romex but don't know anyone who plays it

 

You just are wrong. 1NT with 8-11 is a common opening and GCC legal. You just have to use natural response structures.

[ArtK78]

You just are wrong. 1NT with 8-11 is a common opening and GCC legal. You just have to use natural response structures.

Common may be stretching it a bit. I have never run into it at any level of competition.

[steve2005]

It remains a puzzle why anyone would want to play that when multi is not allowed..

exactly! makes no sense

[steve2005]

You just are wrong. 1NT with 8-11 is a common opening and GCC legal. You just have to use natural response structures.

 

that what I said, if you don't use 10+ you cant use conventions. NOT ANY. your gonna play without Stayman. your not going to use a escape system except for clubs means clubs etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

That's on the agenda for the new millennium.

You mean the 22nd century? :D

[blackshoe]

that what I said, if you don't use 10+ you cant use conventions. NOT ANY. your gonna play without Stayman. your not going to use a escape system except for clubs means clubs etc.

No. You said

but a natural 1N must be 10+ hcp ( so 8 disqualifies) and a range of 5 hcp (so 8-15 7 hcp disqualifies)

Okay, I left out the obnoxious formatting.

 

If somebody wants to play this, and not have any conventional followups, it's perfectly legal. I make no comment about how workable it would be.

 

Regarding the artificial 1NT opening: I used to play Romex. I don't at the moment because I can't find anyone around here willing to try it (not to mention there was some friction with one of the club owners here about it, but that was years ago and I wouldn't play in his game again anyway).

[mycroft]

Art: before this came in, I didn't have to care, because natural 2-bids weren't conventions, so I didn't have to worry about their legality (except where DISALLOWED, 7 came into play). If they wanted to play 8-13 and call it weak, they could (as long as they disclosed properly). If they wanted to play 8-13 and call it "an opening bid" (which I've done before - Yes, Alerted, yes, with proper disclosure) they could, too.

 

Once it's a convention, we have to find out what a "weak 2" is, not what people call it - and it has to be somewhere defined in conjunction with the GCC, not some random bulletin article teaching people how to play weak 2s - because we now have to know if the bid someone comes up with is legal. "We all know" what a weak 2 is, but "we all know" that 1NT is 15-17; "we all know" that Flannery promises 4♠5♥; we also know that there are legal bids that aren't those.

 

Re: the weak NT: Playing EHAA, my NT in third seat is 8-"we don't have game"; say 15 or so. Yep, legal. Yep, everything's natural after that - including 3♣ "we might have game; I have 10-12 and 4 clubs" (and by inference from the initial pass, 4441) and 3♦ "we might have game I have 10-12 and 4 diamonds" (almost by inference from the pass and failure to bid 3♣, 4=4=4=1). No, it never came up. Yes, we were prepared with a copy of the GCC when we played it, because someone always called the TD, and that just saved her a trip back for the GCC :-).

[ArtK78]

Art: before this came in, I didn't have to care, because natural 2-bids weren't conventions, so I didn't have to worry about their legality (except where DISALLOWED, 7 came into play). If they wanted to play 8-13 and call it weak, they could (as long as they disclosed properly). If they wanted to play 8-13 and call it "an opening bid" (which I've done before - Yes, Alerted, yes, with proper disclosure) they could, too.

 

Once it's a convention, we have to find out what a "weak 2" is, not what people call it - and it has to be somewhere defined in conjunction with the GCC, not some random bulletin article teaching people how to play weak 2s - because we now have to know if the bid someone comes up with is legal. "We all know" what a weak 2 is, but "we all know" that 1NT is 15-17; "we all know" that Flannery promises 4♠5♥; we also know that there are legal bids that aren't those.

 

Re: the weak NT: Playing EHAA, my NT in third seat is 8-"we don't have game"; say 15 or so. Yep, legal. Yep, everything's natural after that - including 3♣ "we might have game; I have 10-12 and 4 clubs" (and by inference from the initial pass, 4441) and 3♦ "we might have game I have 10-12 and 4 diamonds" (almost by inference from the pass and failure to bid 3♣, 4=4=4=1). No, it never came up. Yes, we were prepared with a copy of the GCC when we played it, because someone always called the TD, and that just saved her a trip back for the GCC :-).

Given the authority for the definition of a "weak 2 bid" on the ACBL website, if you don't want to follow "some random bulletin article teaching people how to play weak 2s," then I guess you will have to rely on the definition from The Bridge World glossery referenced on the ACBL website. As I stated in my prior post, that definition is:

 

An opening two-bid used to show a long suit and values below those for an opening one-bid.

 

That seems to me to be a reasonable definition for what consitutes a weak two bid, no matter what system you play. It doesn't defne the point count range (except in reference to whatever you are playing for an opening one-bid) and it doesn't define what is meant as "long" as in "long suit." So there is some leeway for those with less traditional views of what constitutes a weak two bid.

 

So, as long as the regulatory authority does not put any specific restrictions on what is and what is not a weak two bid, the definition from The Bridge World should work. If there are any specific restrictions (can't open a weak two bid on a four (or fewer) card suit, can't open a weak two bid with a range larger than 7 points, etc.), then you have to live within those restrictions.

 

By the way, I added "(or fewer)" just in case there was someone out there who would respond with "What about opening a weak two bid on a three card suit." :)

[Cascade]

Given the authority for the definition of a "weak 2 bid" on the ACBL website, if you don't want to follow "some random bulletin article teaching people how to play weak 2s," then I guess you will have to rely on the definition from The Bridge World glossery referenced on the ACBL website. As I stated in my prior post, that definition is:

 

An opening two-bid used to show a long suit and values below those for an opening one-bid.

 

That seems to me to be a reasonable definition for what consitutes a weak two bid, no matter what system you play. It doesn't defne the point count range (except in reference to whatever you are playing for an opening one-bid) and it doesn't define what is meant as "long" as in "long suit." So there is some leeway for those with less traditional views of what constitutes a weak two bid.

 

So, as long as the regulatory authority does not put any specific restrictions on what is and what is not a weak two bid, the definition from The Bridge World should work. If there are any specific restrictions (can't open a weak two bid on a four (or fewer) card suit, can't open a weak two bid with a range larger than 7 points, etc.), then you have to live within those restrictions.

 

By the way, I added "(or fewer)" just in case there was someone out there who would respond with "What about opening a weak two bid on a three card suit." :)

 

That definition also does not define that you need to open in your long suit. So by definition, you are arguing that I would be allowed to open 2♦ to "show a long suit" in spades etc.

[johnu]

That definition also does not define that you need to open in your long suit. So by definition, you are arguing that I would be allowed to open 2♦ to "show a long suit" in spades etc.

 

If your opening bid doesn't guarantee the suit you bid, it's a convention.

[mycroft]

it doesn't matter what I think the bid means, it doesn't matter what you think the bid means, it matters what some joker who wants to play his fun system thinks he can get away with because there's no definition. And to give him credit, it might be in fact legal, in which case, why shouldn't he get away with it?

 

Falling back to what the BW says, or even what the ACBL says somewhere on some "page for intermediates" that's worth putting on the web site, is insufficient for a regulatory document - even one as imprecise as the GCC. Especially because who can guarantee that what I say today is going to be the same as what Other ACBL TD says next week in Mardunk KS? Or Dallas at the NABCs? Or Gatlinburg?

 

Apart from "why are they so stupid as to not allow {my favourite convention}", this is the biggest slam given against the GCC - "different TDs give different readings of the document." Why, for all that's holy, would we stick something in there that's almost *designed* to cause that to happen? Especially because "well it was safe on the MidChart" is "Yes, because it also required a full description of the bid and an approved defence (which also implies an approved bid)".

 

I'm very glad they're going to look at this, both this specific thing and the structure of the CCs in general. There's a limit to where "Potter rulings" are appropriate, and it's not with the C&C committee members (who either don't play/play against too weird stuff, or wink-and-nod against it because that's how you treat your fellow professionals), it's rank-and-file TDs and rank-and-file players who want to play something other than "2/1, partner?"

[kenrexford]

Definitions can be derived from context. If a weak two is allowed to have conventional responses if 5+, we can assume a reason for that caveat. Otherwise the caveat is redundant. As the definition of a natural opening is also given, four for a major, you have the answer. If you have the answer in the text, you don't need to consult external references. This all seems perfectly logical so far.

If you then add on a new tweak to a defined natural bid, you can understand the meaning as contextual to the already defined terms, also without need to consult external sources. Thus, 2M as now allowed can be 4+ in the major with 4 of a minor. 4441 or 64 might be reasonable, for example.

[ArtK78]

I am a lawyer, and I don't have a problem with the definition of a weak two bid.

 

You really have to be looking for an argument to state otherwise.

[kenrexford]

Art, if a weak two promises 5 cards then what is the GCC meaning of a weak two that doesn't by partnership agreement promise five cards?