[rbforster]

johnu, on 2014-September-17, 23:55, said:

There are several places in the ACBL alert documentation where opening bids on the 2 level are only considered "natural" if they contain 5+ cards, and 6+ cards on the 3 level. This is contradicted by your definition where a minor suit opening only needs 3 cards. This leads to the ridiculous interpretation that an opening 3♣ is natural on a 3 card suit. If there is no actual definition of "weak", just like there's no definition of "strong", then "constructive" is even less defined. There are a couple of places where 10 points are specifically mentioned for opening 1 bids, so it seems reasonable to me that "weak" 2's would have a lower range less than 10 points, but what do I know

Weak two bids that may be on fewer than 5 cards suits are alertable as they are unusual, not because they're illegal (or what, the alert would be "this bid is illegal, call the director"?). Yes, you can open 3♣ on a 3 card suit, just like you can open 1♣ or 1♦ naturally (noting that these don't require the 10 point "all purpose" opening clause to be legal; you can open a natural 1m on 8 HCPs if you want). If you want to understand why natural bids are allowed and why it's important that GCC defines what natural means for openings and overalls, ask yourself whether you're allowed to open 4 card majors 1M, and if so, where is it allowed on the GCC.

As for strong, weak, etc, "strong" is referenced several times together with the requirement of 15+ HCPs, even though it's not explictly defined that way. Recalling that 10 hcp is average, you would think that a 9-11 range for example would be a hand of average strength, not "weak", since it's almost as likely to be stronger than weaker than 10 HCPs. Normal weak twos typically have a 5-11 range as played in standard, so something with 8-11 is a lot closer to "average" strength than weak. Not as issue we can resolve since they don't define "weak", but it sounds like Anthony's ruling referenced this issue referring to his opening as semi-constructive rather than weak.

[johnu]

rbforster, on 2014-September-18, 06:52, said:

Weak two bids that may be on fewer than 5 cards suits are alertable as they are unusual, not because they're illegal (or what, the alert would be "this bid is illegal, call the director"?). Yes, you can open 3♣ on a 3 card suit, just like you can open 1♣ or 1♦ naturally (noting that these don't require the 10 point "all purpose" opening clause to be legal; you can open a natural 1m on 8 HCPs if you want). If you want to understand why natural bids are allowed and why it's important that GCC defines what natural means for openings and overalls, ask yourself whether you're allowed to open 4 card majors 1M, and if so, where is it allowed on the GCC.

As for strong, weak, etc, "strong" is referenced several times together with the requirement of 15+ HCPs, even though it's not explictly defined that way. Recalling that 10 hcp is average, you would think that a 9-11 range for example would be a hand of average strength, not "weak", since it's almost as likely to be stronger than weaker than 10 HCPs. Normal weak twos typically have a 5-11 range as played in standard, so something with 8-11 is a lot closer to "average" strength than weak. Not as issue we can resolve since they don't define "weak", but it sounds like Anthony's ruling referenced this issue referring to his opening as semi-constructive rather than weak.

The alert chart says that 2 level bids without at least 5 cards is not an accepted treatment.

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.

Admittedly, there is a disconnect between this and the language on the GCC which seems to equate opening bid with 1 level opening bid, but I attribute that to laziness and lack of interest on the people who are in charge of updating the GCC.

[antonylee]

GCC exegesis is always a bit silly, but for me, the fact that conventional methods after "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit" (item 7) are explicitly prohibited means that the openings themselves are not prohibited.

[blackshoe]

antonylee, on 2014-September-18, 22:02, said:

GCC exegesis is always a bit silly, but for me, the fact that conventional methods after "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit" (item 7) are explicitly prohibited means that the openings themselves are not prohibited.

You are correct. However, keep in mind that the regulation was written under laws that did not permit the regulation of natural bidding. That is no longer the case - the ACBL could re-write the regulation to say "weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit are prohibited". Or "allowed: Weak two openings which by partnership agreement show at least five cards in the suit and a range of at least 7 HCP." But that would require them to actually do something.

[antonylee]

Yes. Fortunately, I don't think they will :-)

[johnu]

johnu, on 2014-September-17, 23:55, said:

There are several places in the ACBL alert documentation where opening bids on the 2 level are only considered "natural" if they contain 5+ cards, and 6+ cards on the 3 level. This is contradicted by your definition where a minor suit opening only needs 3 cards. This leads to the ridiculous interpretation that an opening 3♣ is natural on a 3 card suit. If there is no actual definition of "weak", just like there's no definition of "strong", then "constructive" is even less defined. There are a couple of places where 10 points are specifically mentioned for opening 1 bids, so it seems reasonable to me that "weak" 2's would have a lower range less than 10 points, but what do I know

I wrote to rulings@acbl.org who confirmed that weak 2's on less than 5 cards are not acceptable, in particular a 3 card minor suit 2♣ or 2♦ bid. Somewhat perversely, the answer noted that some directors might allow a 10+ hcp 4423 2♣ or 2♦ opening bid under the 3 suited option. My personal opinion of considering 4432 hands as 3 suited is one of amazement, and not in a good way.

[helene_t]

johnu, on 2014-October-03, 00:43, said:

Somewhat perversely, the answer noted that some directors might allow a 10+ hcp 4423 2♣ or 2♦ opening bid under the 3 suited option.

But that is presumably if the opening shows specifically a 3-suited hand. The mini-roman 2♦ opening could have a singleton diamonds. But you can't (presumably) open 2♦ showing "either diamonds or a 3-suiter with at least three diamonds".

Anyway, this is a ridicolous problem. Just allow all minor suit openings that promise N walrus points, regardless of shape constraints and regardless of level. It's not like the information that our 1♦ opening is "all-purpose" and that our 2♦ opening promises "three suits" helps the opponents much with respect to sorting out what defense they play against it.