[johnu]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-07, 12:35, said:

The GCC from a lawyer's perspective is a joke. I mean, if you read it carefully, a weak two is not specifically allowed, because it is a convention to some degree. But, assuming it is inferentially allowed, a weak two is allowed to be based on a 4-card suit as long as the response structure is natural.

Weal two's are allowed because they are not conventions, the same as 1 level opening bids.

The new GCC references the Alert Pamphlet Definitions for definitions. I think it should have referenced definitions in the Alert Chart which are better written and comprehensive (IMO) which clearly state what is not a convention, ie.

___________________________________________________________________________
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. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements. As to length ACBL accepts the following as treatments.

1. All bids listed above as natural.
2. A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit.
3. A three-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees six or more cards in the named suit.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So, 2 level bids which guarantee 5 or more cards in the suit are ACBL approved treatments of natural bids, and not a convention.

The Alert Pamphlet doesn't make clear that 2 level bids with a 4 card suit are regulated by the GCC as a convention.

[johnu]

 steve2005, on 2014-March-06, 17:53, said:

new ACBL GCC reads:
OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

Does anyone else find this dumb?

Why is this opening allowed for a weak 2 but not for a hand with opening bid high card strength? Certainly opening with opening bid strength is a lot more constructive than with weak 2 strength.

[steve2005]

 johnu, on 2014-March-07, 16:02, said:

Why is this opening allowed for a weak 2 but not for a hand with opening bid high card strength? Certainly opening with opening bid strength is a lot more constructive than with weak 2 strength.

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.

[steve2005]

If their taking it up at Dallas i hope its not to squash it.
they should add multi 2♦ to actually make it usefull

[steve2005]

ok here's my system
all 8+ hcp 6 card majors suit preempts opened 1 of the major (must pre-alert light openings)
2M=5-11 hcp 5 card major and side 4 card minor
with a 6-card major suit preempt <8 hcp with pts mostly in the suit and taking into account the vulnerabity consider opening 3M

[johnu]

 steve2005, on 2014-March-07, 16:30, said:

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]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-07, 20:59, said:

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]

 johnu, on 2014-March-07, 21:09, said:

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]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-07, 21:31, said:

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]

 steve2005, on 2014-March-07, 16:31, said:

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

This was not suggested.

 steve2005, on 2014-March-07, 16:31, said:

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]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-07, 21:31, said:

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]

 steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 09:40, said:

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]

 steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 09:40, said:

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]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-08, 09:53, said:

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]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-08, 05:59, said:

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

exactly! makes no sense

[steve2005]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-08, 09:53, said:

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.