Responding 1H with 3 card Major

[Shugart23]

We are having a big discussion at the club on this topic.....

 

Opener bids a natural or precision or canape 1D and Responder bids 1H which is alerted and explained as 'may only have 3 Hearts'. We think Responder's 1H bid is GCC legal. When we look at the alert chart, at the bottom is gives the 'safe harbor' definitions of natural calls of which the 1H response does not fall into...However, the first entry in the chart refers to OTHER natural calls which do not fall into the 'safe' harbor. Hence, ACBL contemplates there are other natural calls that do not fall into the ones listed and if there is unusual/unexpected length or strength an alert is necessary...In other words, having 4 plus Hearts is NOT a requirement to be a natural bid....Thus, it is proper to alert the 1H Response as it has the unexpected length ( potentially only 3 cards).

Furthermore, this 1H Response is considered a treatment and not a convention and NOT regulated by the GCC.

 

I am looking to the community on this for input. Thank you

[helene_t]

I can't find the thread but some time about 8 years ago or so, it came up that a 1M response on a 3-card suit is considered a "treatment" and therefore allowed under GCC.

[Shugart23]

I can't find the thread but some time about 8 years ago or so, it came up that a 1M response on a 3-card suit is considered a "treatment" and therefore allowed under GCC.

 

Thanks...I am hoping to hear more responses....I am in this camp......Not to muddy the waters, but if this is logical, it also seems one might be able to develop a system where 3 card Majors are opened with an alert, and be GCC legal as well ( not that this would necessarily be a good idea)....

[hrothgar]

Thanks...I am hoping to hear more responses....I am in this camp......Not to muddy the waters, but if this is logical, it also seems one might be able to develop a system where 3 card Majors are opened with an alert, and be GCC legal as well ( not that this would necessarily be a good idea)....

 

One might even call it "Roman Club" [which used to be GCC legal]

 

As I recall, it was the Herbery negative that caused the real problems rather than the 3 card major openings...

[Shugart23]

One might even call it "Roman Club" [which used to be GCC legal]

 

As I recall, it was the Herbery negative that caused the real problems rather than the 3 card major openings...

 

Well, I didn't really want to sidetrack my main question....which is, "when one responds 1H or 1S over 1D, is there a GCC requirement that there be a 4-plus card holding in the Major" ?

[hrothgar]

Well, I didn't really want to sidetrack my main question....which is, "when one responds 1H or 1S over 1D, is there a GCC requirement that there be a 4-plus card holding in the Major" ?

 

This is debatable.

 

The GCC contains language that states "**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed**"

 

The section of the GCC describing RESPONSES AND REBIDS does not include any language that explicitly sanctions a 3+ card 1H or 1S response to a 1m opening.

 

however, that same section of the GCC doesn't explicitly sanction a 4+ card 1H or 1S response to a 1m opening.

 

Here's what I think is going on:

 

The GCC regulates conventions, not natural bids.

 

Furthermore, the GCC states that "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in

that suit."

 

I believe that the intent of the GCC is that anything that they do not explicitly define as natural must be explicitly sanctioned, however, they never actually state this, nor do that state that there might not be other bids beyond the ones that they describe that are also natural.

 

So, if you are going by the spirit of the Laws, I'd say that this is not allowed. If you are going by the letter, a case can be made that it might be permissable.

 

If you are willing to hide behind poor disclosure and claim that your agreement is 4 cards with a bunch of deviations... Well, that wouldn't be my choice, but the ACBL has done a lot worse so....

[barmar]

The GCC regulates conventions, not natural bids.

Exactly -- notice that it never explicitly sanctions any natural openings.

 

Remember, the previous version of the Laws only allowed regulators to regulate conventions. The 2007 version changed this to special partnership understandings, and allows the RA to define what it considers "special", essentially giving them carte blanche. But ACBL never rewrote the GCC to take advantage of this, so it still just lists conventions that are allowed/disallowed, and doesn't bother to state all the natural calls that are implicitly allowed.

[Zelandakh]

however, that same section of the GCC doesn't explicitly sanction a 4+ card 1H or 1S response to a 1m opening.

Why would it when it has already stated that:

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.

It seems quite clear that agreeing to respond with a 3 card major is not allowed but doing so as a deviation with the agreement that it is actually 4+ cards is perfectly ok. Which only goes to highlight, once again, just how ridiculous the whole thing is. As hrothgar suggests, the easy answer is just to lie blatantly about the whole thing but I hope you will choose to steer clear of that (highly unethical) route.

[Shugart23]

Here is the counter argument. You are describing the safe harbor. If a suit has 4 or more cards, it is a natural suit.....this does not mean a 3 card suit is not natural. It is not an if and only if statement. If you drive on main street you can get to the theater in time does not mean if you drive on Elm Street you wont...if you look at the alert chart the very first entry contemplates that there exist natural bids that dont meet the definition you are referring to (and must be alerted ). I dont want to be unethical but i think the first line of the alert chart allows the 3 card suit to be considered a natural suit that doesn't fall in the safe harbor..the alert chart goes on to say 4 cards are 'expected'

[Shugart23]

I would also add that if bidding goes 1D-1H alert, May have as few as 3, the heart bid is a natural legitimate offer to play in hearts. I play canape. No way is the heart bid artificial....hence the alert chart governs

[mycroft]

As currently stated, if you systemically must respond 1M on a three card suit, you are playing just as illegal a system as if you systemically must open (on the GCC) all 4441s in range a 12-14 NT. You are allowed to *deviate* from your *agreement* that 1M is 4+cards, provided that is the best call for the hand, it is not expected (or required), and provided that said deviations are not common enough that your partner starts to expect them (because now your implicit agreement is that the response is 3+ (for certain 3s), and that agreement is not legal).

 

Yes, there are holes in any system. If you build the system such that the holes are such that to patch them you are required to do something not permitted, then it is not "just bridge" when you do it; you've made your choices, and those choices have backed you into a corner. I, too, would like 1♦-1NT in my K/S system to show the same extra strength that 1♣-1NT does; but because that means I don't have a call for the 6-7 balanced, I don't bid 1♥ on the three-card suit, I don't make that agreement.

 

Note, things are likely to change with the suggested new charts; this does come under the heading of "bids that experts Just Know To Make" that led to the softening of the "natural for NT" last year.

 

I'm not terribly happy about this; but one thing I'm not willing to be lenient on is "I happy to play against this system, but only if *I'm* allowed to play it. But I'm not, and I know I'm not."

[Shugart23]

I read and understand your first paragraph but what is your authority for your opinion. The very first section in the alert chart talks to natural bids not specifically noted. Therefore there are clearly natural bids comtemplated that are outside of the safe harbor. They can't be talking about a Major that has more than 4 cards because that is noted....as I stated above, the definition of a natural suit is not an if and only if statement...it says If you have 4 or more cards in the Major it is natural...it doesn't say a 3 card Major is not natural I believe the alert chart allows for this...

[mycroft]

Neither the Alert Chart nor the Alert Procedure say anything about legality of agreements, nor should they. They simply state whether your agreement is Alertable or not. Note that illegal agreements may (or may not) be Alertable, just like legal ones. "Natural calls not specifically noted" applies to the Alert Chart/Procedure and nothing more. Evidence is in the Procedures, and where all Highly Unusual and Unexpected Natural calls are sold.

 

The relevant convention chart is the only thing that regulates whether an agreement is legal. On the current charts, there is an implied (because it was written pre-2008) "if it's natural it's legal" statement (as at the time, only conventional calls were able to be regulated), and a definition of "natural". And it ABSOLUTELY IS an if and only if statement - for the purposes of the implied "natural bids are allowed" regulation on the chart. In fact, that is its entire purpose.

 

A 1♥ response that is 3+ is not Natural to the GCC. No conventional 1♥ response to a natural 1♦ that is not game forcing and does not "ask for A,K,Q,singletons, void, or trump quality" is allowed on the GCC. "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

 

If you have such an agreement, it is illegal if you play GCC. Many many people do - and many many people get away with it. If they were called on it more often, and if we regulated consistently and by providing annual casebooks of interpretations, then more people would know it's illegal and either call people on it (if they don't play it) or lobby to have an exception carved out (as the NT-with-a-singleton people did, and as, eventually, the issues over "what not-natural, but "natural" short minor calls are protected from COMPETITIVE, 7a were).

 

We all wait with bated breath for the release of the proposed Silver Chart. I trust that a fair number of discussions will be had at that point.

[Shugart23]

Neither the Alert Chart nor the Alert Procedure say anything about legality of agreements, nor should they. They simply state whether your agreement is Alertable or not. Note that illegal agreements may (or may not) be Alertable, just like legal ones. "Natural calls not specifically noted" applies to the Alert Chart/Procedure and nothing more. Evidence is in the Procedures, and where all Highly Unusual and Unexpected Natural calls are sold.

 

The relevant convention chart is the only thing that regulates whether an agreement is legal. On the current charts, there is an implied (because it was written pre-2008) "if it's natural it's legal" statement (as at the time, only conventional calls were able to be regulated), and a definition of "natural". And it ABSOLUTELY IS an if and only if statement - for the purposes of the implied "natural bids are allowed" regulation on the chart. In fact, that is its entire purpose.

 

A 1♥ response that is 3+ is not Natural to the GCC. No conventional 1♥ response to a natural 1♦ that is not game forcing and does not "ask for A,K,Q,singletons, void, or trump quality" is allowed on the GCC. "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

 

If you have such an agreement, it is illegal if you play GCC. Many many people do - and many many people get away with it. If they were called on it more often, and if we regulated consistently and by providing annual casebooks of interpretations, then more people would know it's illegal and either call people on it (if they don't play it) or lobby to have an exception carved out (as the NT-with-a-singleton people did, and as, eventually, the issues over "what not-natural, but "natural" short minor calls are protected from COMPETITIVE, 7a were).

 

We all wait with bated breath for the release of the proposed Silver Chart. I trust that a fair number of discussions will be had at that point.

 

 

Can you provide me a bidding example of a natural bid that is not otherwise noted? (Please)

[mycroft]

One thing I just noted: I am not sure that Namyats overcalls are legal (and if so, we'll have to take them off our card) - even though they're allowed as an opening, or in response to 1NT, or...

 

Does "SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS...to force to game" apply because 4♣ forces to 4♥, even though it's not "game forcing" on power (or expectation to make)?

 

Well, I have a tournament this weekend where I'm already going to be asking a lot of questions. One more for the pile, I guess.

[mycroft]

Can you provide me a bidding example of a natural bid that is not otherwise noted? (Please)

Sure. Natural Preempts at the 3 or higher level. If you want an Alertable one, EHAA 3-bids (NV vs V, could be 8xxxx Kx Qxx xxx - clearly Highly Unusual and Unexpected).

[Shugart23]

Sure. Natural Preempts at the 3 or higher level. If you want an Alertable one, EHAA 3-bids (NV vs V, could be 8xxxx Kx Qxx xxx - clearly Highly Unusual and Unexpected).

I am not home to look at the alert chart to see if these are not already noted. ...I think they are both noted as natural with atleast 4 cards in a major from memory

[johnu]

Can you provide me a bidding example of a natural bid that is not otherwise noted? (Please)

 

??? "Not otherwise noted" refers to the rest of the alert chart, eg "One-level major-suit responses to 1♣ that may bypass longer diamonds" does not need an alert. This is catch-all category for anything that isn't specifically listed. A natural bid as a response in a major is defined as being 4+ cards. If the ACBL wanted it to be 3+ cards, they would have a different definition.

 

One example:

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hdp2s]133|100[/hv]

 

Expected meaning of 2♠ is better than a minimum response, but not forcing. 2♠ showing 4+ spades is a natural bid but it should be alerted if 1) shows a bust hand (e.g. 0-3 HCP) or 2) shows a game forcing hand.

[mycroft]

Yes, they're defined as "natural" (badly). But they're not "noted on the chart" - which has "NT Openings", "NT Overcalls", "Responses to NT...", "Opening Suit Bids at 1-level", "Responses to One-Level Opening Suit Bids", "Opener's and Responder's Rebids", "Opening Two-level Suit Bids and Responses", "Other Constructive calls", "Doubles, Redoubles and Passes", "Cue Bids", and "Defensive Bids".

[RipFlow]

A 1♥ response that is 3+ is not Natural to the GCC. No conventional 1♥ response to a natural 1♦ that is not game forcing and does not "ask for A,K,Q,singletons, void, or trump quality" is allowed on the GCC. "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

 

If you have such an agreement, it is illegal if you play GCC. Many many people do - and many many people get away with it. If they were called on it more often, and if we regulated consistently and by providing annual casebooks of interpretations, then more people would know it's illegal and either call people on it (if they don't play it) or lobby to have an exception carved out (as the NT-with-a-singleton people did, and as, eventually, the issues over "what not-natural, but "natural" short minor calls are protected from COMPETITIVE, 7a were).

 

We all wait with bated breath for the release of the proposed Silver Chart. I trust that a fair number of discussions will be had at that point.

 

Let's say your authority to state that a 1 level major response is not natural is Definition 1 of the GCC. The GCC, however, in Definition 6 leads me to believe it is NOT conventional either. That definition states that a convention is a bid or a call not necessarily related to the denomination named. In the sequences we are interested in, 1♥ means hearts and 1♠ means spades. It is not like 1♥ means spades. Therefore, I feel that since it is not a convention, but rather a treatment (unless you have another word for it), it is not subject to GCC, but it must be alerted as it is rather unusual.

[johnu]

Let's say your authority to state that a 1 level major response is not natural is Definition 1 of the GCC. The GCC, however, in Definition 6 leads me to believe it is NOT conventional either. That definition states that a convention is a bid or a call not necessarily related to the denomination named. In the sequences we are interested in, 1♥ means hearts and 1♠ means spades. It is not like 1♥ means spades. Therefore, I feel that since it is not a convention, but rather a treatment (unless you have another word for it), it is not subject to GCC, but it must be alerted as it is rather unusual.

 

A convention could either be completely artificial (your example, 1♥ shows spades), or have a natural component (1♥ shows hearts, and also shows 5+ clubs). An example of a "natural" conventional bid in the GCC is "OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card or longer minor." What makes it conventional is that it promises a minor suit. The GCC specifically allows this convention.

 

Also note that there is a definition of treatment at the bottom of the alert chart, "Treatment - A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart."

 

A 3 card major suit bid or response is not recognized as a natural call so this definition does not apply.

[RipFlow]

One other quick point - the GCC statement that unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed seems not to hold true for certain bids. Under Responses and Rebids, #2, it says that a 1NT response to a major suit opening forcing for one round. Nowhere does it say that it can be semi-forcing, or non forcing. So should they be disallowed? Certainly not. Yet there is no definition of what a "natural" 1NT response should be. And if I have to look into the Alert Procedures handbook to find it, why can't I look at that same book to help me understand a 3+ card major response?

[Kelvinator]

I am the author of the book BFUN: Bridge For the UNbalanced. In the Author's Note section, I discuss the issue of responses in 3-card majors. I cite a Usenet posting from Kurt Schneider, dated sometime in 2006, in which he cites an official response from Official ACBL Tournament Directors Mike Flader and Rick Beyes:

 

"Here is the official answer. This response in a three card major is a treatment, not a convention. As such, it is legal with the appropriate alerts and explanations in all ACBL-sanctioned play."

 

I have confirmed with Kurt that this is accurately reported correspondence between him and the ACBL.

 

In my BFUN system, the 1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠ sequences are very frequent. They are natural (but alertable as 3+) in that BFUN is a canape system in which a 5+-card primary major suit often accompanies an opening of a 4+-card secondary suit. The response is natural in the sense that it relates to the suit bid and suggests it as a trump suit.

 

Unless the ACBL has retracted this stand since 2006 (which I doubt), I don't think there is any ACBL constraint against use of this treatment.

 

BTW, I have heard that the upcoming version of the ACBL Convention Charts will indicate that treatments and conventions are to be allowed unless specificially disallowed. I believe this will help with resolving some of this type of ambiguity or lack of clarity.

[hrothgar]

 

Unless the ACBL has retracted this stand since 2006 (which I doubt), I don't think there is any ACBL constraint against use of this treatment.

 

 

For the record, more most of the last decade you could ask the precise same question to three different people in Memphis and get three different answers.

 

Please note: I agree that the ACBL almost certainly did not retract this stand because it has now way to track the decisions that various employees have rendered not does it have any (real) way to retract any of its decisions...

[johnu]

For the record, more most of the last decade you could ask the precise same question to three different people in Memphis and get three different answers.

 

Please note: I agree that the ACBL almost certainly did not retract this stand because it has now way to track the decisions that various employees have rendered not does it have any (real) way to retract any of its decisions...

 

Agree, there have been many instances in these forums where somebody has said that they were told one interpretation of the regulations, and somebody else has received an entirely different interpretation.

 

One example was that somebody was saying that e.g. opening 3♣/3♦ on a 3 card suit was GCC legal because the GCC definition appeared to say that and they had checked with the ACBL. I wrote to the ACBL rulings email and the response I got is that opening on a 3 card suit was "hogwash".