Responding 1H with 3 card Major

[hrothgar]

Not remotely the same question.

 

"Hey Mike, can I respond with 3+M whenever I feel like it..."

"Oh, and I think I'll announce that it may be short..."

 

 

Oh sorry, I see. What you are saying is

 

"Hey Mike, can I respond with my 3+M whenever I feel like it... CANAPE!"

 

That makes all the difference.

[kwiktrix]

Oh sorry, I see. What you are saying is

 

"Hey Mike, can I respond with my 3+M whenever I feel like it... CANAPE!"

 

That makes all the difference.

Wrong again. This was NOT a ruling question, as Rick made very clear to me. It was a request for a method interpretation. I quote from his email: "This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox." This was a clear message to NOT send a question like this to RULINGS, so all of my further correspondence was directly with Rick and Mike through their ACBL mailboxes.

 

So what did I ask? I asked for a method decision (did you not read the history and the preamble?). Which the ACBL did and made a CONSENSUS decision - not just Mike, but Rick Beye and multiple other senior directors. If it was a ruling question, as Senior Rules Director, Mike had the ability to simply say "yes or no" on his own. And he didn't.

 

So why would I choose to go back and have a fully vetted decision re-reviewed (a decision which took 4 weeks to make) because some ACBL member threw out a random RULING question with no context? It is not surprising at all that Mike simply sloughed it off.

 

Why are you so vehemently against something that has been approved in writing? Why do you care? And where do you get off judging a legitimately ruled method interpretation? Frankly, what you think is totally irrelevant to our playing this style, as it has been documented as legal.

 

 

Kurt

[hrothgar]

Wrong again. This was NOT a ruling question, as Rick made very clear to me. It was a request for a method interpretation. I quote from his email: "This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox." This was a clear message to NOT send a question like this to RULINGS, so all of my further correspondence was directly with Rick and Mike through their ACBL mailboxes.

 

So what did I ask? I asked for a method decision (did you not read the history and the preamble?). Which the ACBL did and made a CONSENSUS decision - not just Mike, but Rick Beye and multiple other senior directors. If it was a ruling question, as Senior Rules Director, Mike had the ability to simply say "yes or no" on his own. And he didn't.

 

So why would I choose to go back and have a fully vetted decision re-reviewed (a decision which took 4 weeks to make) because some ACBL member threw out a random RULING question with no context? It is not surprising at all that Mike simply sloughed it off.

 

Why are you so vehemently against something that has been approved in writing? Why do you care? And where do you get off judging a legitimately ruled method interpretation? Frankly, what you think is totally irrelevant to our playing this style, as it has been documented as legal.

 

 

Kurt, my frustration is not with you, but rather with a regulatory system that allows one to go fishing for interpretations, finding one that you like, and using this as justification to do whatever you want.

 

As I said, if you are so confident with the ruling you got, ask them again.

Specifically point to the inconsistency in rulings.

Ask for clarification in light of the 2008 law changes.

 

With this said and done, I think that the mental contortions that Shugart23 is performing is a travesty.

The following is absolutely ridiculous.

 

I really don't reject your case 'b';I am actually viewing the 1H or 1S as a raise and support for partner.

I just don't know if he has a 5 card Major until his second bid (although I have a reasonable expectation

that he does when he opens 1D).

[kwiktrix]

Kurt, my frustration is not with you, but rather with a regulatory system that allows one to go fishing for interpretations, finding one that you like, and using this as justification to do whatever you want.

 

But that is the system. And I used it accordingly.

 

As I said, if you are so confident with the ruling you got, ask them again.

Specifically point to the inconsistency in rulings.

Ask for clarification in light of the 2008 law changes.

 

I'm happy with my answer, it meets my needs, and it's documented as legal. Why would I go back and ask again? And the 2007 LAWS changes did not impact "treatments".

 

Kurt

[kwiktrix]

I don't play this treatment. And neither do I play in the ACBL. But if I did, I think I would be a little bit nervous of relying on a decision which seems rather specifically to be based on concluding that this is a treatment rather than a convention, since as I understand it that distinction is no longer relevant to the issue of whether or not the ACBL regulations can affect the legality of this agreement.

To your first point, in my opinion this treatment only makes sense if one is playing a canapé style. There is no reason to show a 3cM unless opener can have a 5+cM.

 

To your 'distinction' point. One must recognize that this was a GROUP decision. Mike et al had the power, as well as the precedent of the "definitions" in the ACBL GCC to impose a strict 4cM requirement. And yet they didn't. They voluntarily chose to call it a treatment despite having the power and rule precedents to ban it.

 

What has changed since then? And if you suggest the 2007 LAW, how does that impact their thinking? They ALWAYS had the right to impose the 4cM rule. All the 2007 LAW does is support their rights.

 

Kurt

[RipFlow]

To your first point, in my opinion this treatment only makes sense if one is playing a canapé style. There is no reason to show a 3cM unless opener can have a 5+cM.

 

Kurt

 

Having read both the original ruling to Kwiktrix, and the later ruling issued in 2011 (post#46), it appears that they are unrelated. They may be referring to the same calls, but Kurt's context was specific to canapé, and the later ruling appeared to be quite general. We do not know the context that the later ruling was made, and none was offered - if it was asked in the context of a 2/1 system or Standard, the 1M response promising only 3+ cards is something most folks have never heard of, nor probably ever considered, so it makes sense that it would be considered conventional.

[blackshoe]

You are asking me to identify a person. My claim is that the problem is the lack of a consistent process.

 

The ACBL requires the equivalent of case law, it needs to be discoverable, and it needs to be applied consistently.

Am I? Actually, I would be satisfied with a position. Perhaps "the guy in charge of responding to questions sent to 'rulings'", or the group who now seems to have replaced him. However, AFAIK neither Mike Flader nor that group works in Memphis.

 

I do agree with your last sentence.

[blackshoe]

Self respect...

I'm letting this one go, but take care, hrothgar.

 

Note, your message wherein the "c" word was inappropriately used, and some subsequent back and forth on that subject, have been removed. You took hyperbole a bit too far.

[johnu]

I would suggest that singletons and doubletons are excluded from consideration. because they don't have about the expected length and strength ( everyone expects 4+.).

 

There are 2 cases,

 

1) major suit >= 4 cards

2) major suit < 4 cards

 

If you have less than 4 cards, you don't have the expected length. I don't see why you want to discriminate against doubletons, singletons and voids. They should have respect.

 

 

The ACBL allow3s for canapé systems to be played. Surely they don't intend that canapé players have to search for 9 card Major fits...or if that is their intention, then they may as well ban canapé systems from tournament play vs. hobbling it

 

I play Blue Team Club which uses canape and I have no problems playing in tournaments. I don't open 3 card majors and in fact, 3 card majors was never a part of BTC, although it was a feature of Roman Club. I'm pretty sure I read about Roman club being legislated out of existence (in its original form) by the prohibition against opening 3 card majors. You don't need to open 3 card majors to play BTC, and you sure don't need responder to bid 1♥ on a 3 card suit to find a 5-3 major suit fit. If opener bid 1♦ with 5+ hearts, they would show hearts over any response.

 

(Not to get distracted, but playing 5 card Majors, if one opens 1M and is raised to 2M by partner, why is responder not required ro have 4 cards by the GCC definition ?)

 

As you have noticed, the GCC is very poorly written. My guess is that nobody considered that a raise was also a response (which requires 4 cards in a major) and then forgot to specifically mention raises. Suppose opener opens with 3♠. Certainly you would have no problem raising to 4♠ with a singleton or even a void with

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shak32dak32cak432]133|100[/hv]

 

Also, what about raising a NT opener, e.g. 1NT - 3NT Notrump raises are undefined.

[hrothgar]

Having read both the original ruling to Kwiktrix, and the later ruling issued in 2011 (post#46), it appears that they are unrelated. They may be referring to the same calls, but Kurt's context was specific to canapé, and the later ruling appeared to be quite general. We do not know the context that the later ruling was made, and none was offered - if it was asked in the context of a 2/1 system or Standard, the 1M response promising only 3+ cards is something most folks have never heard of, nor probably ever considered, so it makes sense that it would be considered conventional.

 

Why does it matter that this is in the context of a canape system?

 

We don't live in a world in which basic pieces of the regulatory structure are depended on what system someone is playing.

 

Suppose I invented a bidding system like the following

 

1♣ = 0-1 Clubs

1♦ = 0-1 Diamonds

1♥ = 0-1 hearts

1♠ = 0-1 Spades

1N = All balanced hands

2♣ = 6+ Clubs

...

 

Do I get to claim that my 1♣ opening is natural? Of course not.

 

Nor does a person's decision to use a canape bidding style mean that basic definitions about what bids are / are not natural changes.

[Shugart23]

There are 2 cases,

 

1) major suit >= 4 cards

2) major suit < 4 cards

 

If you have less than 4 cards, you don't have the expected length. I don't see why you want to discriminate against doubletons, singletons and voids. They should have respect.

 

 

 

 

I play Blue Team Club which uses canape and I have no problems playing in tournaments. I don't open 3 card majors and in fact, 3 card majors was never a part of BTC, although it was a feature of Roman Club. I'm pretty sure I read about Roman club being legislated out of existence (in its original form) by the prohibition against opening 3 card majors. You don't need to open 3 card majors to play BTC, and you sure don't need responder to bid 1♥ on a 3 card suit to find a 5-3 major suit fit. If opener bid 1♦ with 5+ hearts, they would show hearts over any response.

 

 

As you have noticed, the GCC is very poorly written. My guess is that nobody considered that a raise was also a response (which requires 4 cards in a major) and then forgot to specifically mention raises. Suppose opener opens with 3♠. Certainly you would have no problem raising to 4♠ with a singleton or even a void with

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shak32dak32cak432]133|100[/hv]

 

Also, what about raising a NT opener, e.g. 1NT - 3NT Notrump raises are undefined.

 

There are actually 5 cases to consider: Major greater than or equal to 4. Major is a void, Major is a singleton, Major is a doubleton , and Major is a triplet. It is not my view that a Major containing less than 3 cards is a natural bid under any circumstances. I have only been concerned with the very specific case where Major contains precisely 3 cards and moreover, only as a Response to partner's Opening in a canapé system

 

The expected length of the response is 4 plus. The alert chart talks to natural calls having unexpected length need to be alerted. What is an example of a natural call that has unexpected length that needs to be alerted ?

 

I am under the impression that BTC is not allowed under ACBL GCC (but don't really know the reason). I do not suggest that Opening a 3 card Major should be allowed

[hrothgar]

I am under the impression that BTC is not allowed under ACBL GCC (but don't really know the reason).

 

Most of Blue Club is legal under the ACBL GCC

 

The Major exceptions are the tradition BTC 1N opening which showed either

 

12 - 17 HCP balanced with 4-5 clubs and 2-3 Diamonds OR

16 - 18 HCP balanced

 

(In this case, the range of the 1NT opening is too large to allow conventional responses)

 

and the Neopolitan 2C/2D responses to a 1M opening

 

The Blue Club 2/1 sequences do not guarantee game forcing values. As such, convention sequences like

 

1S - 2C

2S - 4D

 

are not licensed.

 

However, I think that you can sacrifice these sequences without much problem and retain most of the good characteristics of the system...

[johnu]

Most of Blue Club is legal under the ACBL GCC

 

The Major exceptions ....

 

Everybody has their own version of BTC, and my version doesn't use the wide range 1NT opening, the canape (sometimes with "fake" first suits) 2/1 responses, or the special control showing raise 2/1 and jump to 4m sequences.

 

I'm pretty sure these were ACBL legal when I started years ago, but I either never played them (1NT) or quickly abandoned them as being very sub optimal.

 

Definitely allowed under the GCC

 

Strong 17+ 1♣

Control responses to 1♣

Possible canape opening 1 bids (with at least 4 cards in major)

"Natural" 2♣ opening bid

 

IMO, if you play the above 4 features, you are playing some kind of Blue Team Club.

[johnu]

The expected length of the response is 4 plus. The alert chart talks to natural calls having unexpected length need to be alerted. What is an example of a natural call that has unexpected length that needs to be alerted ?

 

My partnership pre alerts that we are playing canape, and alert opening 1 bids to let the opponents know that we might have a longer side suit. A sequence like

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥

 

The 2♥ bid is also alerted because it shows 5+ hearts.

 

I can't think of any non-canape sequence that warrant an alert just on unexpected length.

 

Maybe if you systemically open a 3 bid with a 5 card suit, if legal, would be an alert, or making up an example,

 

1NT 2♥ Natural where hearts may be a 4 card suit (5+ would be expected).

[barmar]

I can't think of any non-canape sequence that warrant an alert just on unexpected length.

In the case of canapé, what's being alerted is the overall approach of bidding suits in reverse order of length, not just that any particular bid shows unexpected length. So when you alert the opening bid, it's not the length of that suit that's unexpected, but the likelihood that some other suit is even longer.

[blackshoe]

Folks, do I have to lock this thread? Let's stop with the references to unethical behavior and similar comments - on both sides.

 

Some posts have been removed. Again. :angry:

[Zelandakh]

Some posts have been removed. Again. :angry:

You also seem to have removed my post referring to the change of regulations Ed - I suppose it is my reputation for being a hot-headed flamer :unsure: . If that is not relevant to the discussion then I am not sure you would consider anything "on topic".

[kwiktrix]

Folks, do I have to lock this thread? Let's stop with the references to unethical behavior and similar comments - on both sides.

 

Some posts have been removed. Again. :angry:

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.

I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.

Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

[hrothgar]

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.

I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.

Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

 

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time to die.

[barmar]

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.

I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.

Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

[Zelandakh]

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

Does that mean I am officially on the BBF troublemaker list? :P B-)

[blackshoe]

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

Yes.

 

Does that mean I am officially on the BBF troublemaker list? :P B-)

I have no control over that. B-)