[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2014-March-08, 02:09, said:

That's on the agenda for the new millennium.

You mean the 22nd century?

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2014-March-08, 12:22, said:

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

Quote

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]

mycroft, on 2014-March-10, 11:46, said:

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]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 14:29, said:

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]

Cascade, on 2014-March-10, 14:43, said:

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?

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-10, 17:29, said:

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?

If you are suggesting that the term "weak two bid" can be used to describe a natural call on a suit of less than 5 cards in length, I suggest that you provide some precedent other than random flights of fancy.

There is nothing in the history of bridge that suggests that it is remotely normal to open a natural weak 2 bid with only 4 cards in the suit bid. The term "Weak 2 Bid" has been around for well over 50 years, and it has never been used to describe a 2 level opening bid on a 4 card suit. To suggest anything to the contrary is, for lack of a better term, silly.

We can rely upon the normal everyday meaning of common bridge terms when referring to the Convention Chart.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 16:37, said:

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.

I can't imagine that argument being very persuasive, even for a lawyer.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 19:19, said:

If you are suggesting that the term "weak two bid" can be used to describe a natural call on a suit of less than 5 cards in length, I suggest that you provide some precedent other than random flights of fancy.

There is nothing in the history of bridge that suggests that it is remotely normal to open a natural weak 2 bid with only 4 cards in the suit bid. The term "Weak 2 Bid" has been around for well over 50 years, and it has never been used to describe a 2 level opening bid on a 4 card suit. To suggest anything to the contrary is, for lack of a better term, silly.

We can rely upon the normal everyday meaning of common bridge terms when referring to the Convention Chart.

There are methods that open at the two level on weak hands with four card suits - usually two suited. "Weak Two" seems a perfectly reasonable description of such methods.

[johnu]

Cascade, on 2014-March-10, 20:59, said:

There are methods that open at the two level on weak hands with four card suits - usually two suited. "Weak Two" seems a perfectly reasonable description of such methods.

This discussion was based on the ACBL. In the Alert Definitions, among other places, it says:

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are:
Suit bids:
3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses.
4+ for an overcall at the one level, 5+ for higher levels.
5+ for a weak two-bid.
6+ for a weak three-bid.

I don't see a 4 card weak two bid defined anyplace.

[Cascade]

johnu, on 2014-March-10, 22:09, said:

This discussion was based on the ACBL. In the Alert Definitions, among other places, it says:

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are:
Suit bids:
3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses.
4+ for an overcall at the one level, 5+ for higher levels.
5+ for a weak two-bid.
6+ for a weak three-bid.

I don't see a 4 card weak two bid defined anyplace.

These are expected lengths not allowed lengths.

[johnu]

Cascade, on 2014-March-10, 22:49, said:

These are expected lengths not allowed lengths.

For more clarification, on the Alert Chart Definitions,

"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.
....
2. A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit."

If your 2 level opening doesn't promise 5 cards or more, it is a convention. I think it may be playable at the Superchart level if you provide a written defense.

[straube]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 19:19, said:

If you are suggesting that the term "weak two bid" can be used to describe a natural call on a suit of less than 5 cards in length, I suggest that you provide some precedent other than random flights of fancy.

There is nothing in the history of bridge that suggests that it is remotely normal to open a natural weak 2 bid with only 4 cards in the suit bid. The term "Weak 2 Bid" has been around for well over 50 years, and it has never been used to describe a 2 level opening bid on a 4 card suit. To suggest anything to the contrary is, for lack of a better term, silly.

How about Marty Bergen and the 5-5 rule? For a time he caused havoc opening 4-cd suits...

http://www.gabrial-u...ns/MARTYBER.HTM

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2014-March-10, 20:59, said:

There are methods that open at the two level on weak hands with four card suits - usually two suited. "Weak Two" seems a perfectly reasonable description of such methods.

Art's point is that - though you may think that "weak two" is a perfect description (it's weak and it's two) - (practically) nobody before you in the 50 years of weak twos has gotten the idea to call these bids "weak twos". In fact, they are known by another name (Lorenzo twos). This indicates that the originator of these bids thought it was evident that they weren't weak twos. All these things together make that these are not weak twos.

One and a half year ago, I played a social tournament with a very good friend of mine, who hand never played bridge before (but knew how a trick taking game worked). We decided on a bidding system with natural 4 card openings, an Acol 2♣ and weak twos (since I think weak twos are easy to play). I told him a weak two was a bid with 5-10 HCPs, concentrated in the six card suit. We got an absolute top when he decided to open 2♦ on something like ♠Jxxxx ♥- ♦AJTxxx ♣xx. I made a preemptive raise to 5♦ and the opponents were stuck and he was declaring 5♦. During the auction I knew this was potentially going to be a good board since most pairs wouldn't have a weak two in diamonds (with everyone playing Multi). When I saw during the play that he held a five card spade suit I was sure that not even those who don't play Multi would open 2♦.

No matter what the definition that I gave my friend said, his hand was not a weak two. My fault, obviously.

Rik

[Cascade]

johnu, on 2014-March-10, 23:12, said:

For more clarification, on the Alert Chart Definitions,

"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.
....
2. A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement, guarantees five or more cards in the named suit."

If your 2 level opening doesn't promise 5 cards or more, it is a convention. I think it may be playable at the Superchart level if you provide a written defense.

This also doesn't follow. There is a definition of convention and it doesn't say non natural or non treatment or the like. It needs to relate to a denomination other than that named hence by definition 2s 4+ spades is not conventional.

[Cascade]

Further this seems to cover four card weak twos as being natural

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