[TimG]

Suppose the following was added to the ACBL General Convention Chart in the OPENING BIDS section

Quote

OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER showing five or more cards in the suit named (possibly with additional distributional requirements).

What dastardly, exotic, diabolical, or otherwise difficult to defend against openings would you be able to unleash on the masses? Get creative. But, also remember that no conventional responses, follow-ups, etc. are permitted over weak two-level opening bids with a range greater than 7 HCP.

Also, if you are from a jurisdiction other than ACBL, are there restrictions on these types of bids where you play?

[kenrexford]

Try suggesting the obvious, that this is brainlessly natural, and you get no response.

[awm]

Well we can try a 3♣ opening showing 5+♣ and a 5+ major. This might be annoying in the sense that the opponents are unlikely to have the right shape for a real "takeout double" because of the side major and potentially would be better off to play double as "diamonds and a major" or general values or something. And it's easily passed.

Of course, this preempt is not necessarily very sound and some of the "annoyance" is just because the bid is so high rather than exactly hard to defend. And the bidding side might just go for a number sometimes.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Try suggesting the obvious, that this is brainlessly natural, and you get no response.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor.

[kenrexford]

TimG, on Jul 17 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Try suggesting the obvious, that this is brainlessly natural, and you get no response.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor.

That's not a convention. That's a treatment.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 17 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Try suggesting the obvious, that this is brainlessly natural, and you get no response.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor.

That's not a convention. That's a treatment.

You've suggested as much before. What are your definitions of "treatment" and "convention" and where did you find them?

[kenrexford]

TimG, on Jul 17 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 17 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Try suggesting the obvious, that this is brainlessly natural, and you get no response.

Some bids that would fall under this rule would also be conventional. For instance, a 2♠ opening which shows spades and a minor.

That's not a convention. That's a treatment.

You've suggested as much before. What are your definitions of "treatment" and "convention" and where did you find them?

Not sure. I'll look later.

[goodwintr]

Calling something a "treatment" isn't very helpful, at least if the Glossary published by The Bridge World is correct that the term just means "a partnership's interpretation of an action." A treatment might be natural, artificial, conventional, common, uncommon, wise, idiotic, whatever: the term doesn't tell you anything about whether a specific call is subject to regulation.

Of course, a particular treatment may be subject to regulation under the Laws as a Special Partnership Understanding -- one deemed by the regulating authority to be "not readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament."

That same BW glossary defines "convention" and "natural."

A convention is "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation." (Notice that there is nothing in the definition that says a convention must be artificial.)

A natural call is "one that indicates a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain."

If those definitions are accepted, it appears that a call might be both conventional and natural -- and that in either case, it may be subject to regulation as a Special Partnership Understanding.

Getting down to cases, a 2S opening bid that shows 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor is a natural treatment (because it doesn't offer information about a specific different strain), but still subject to regulation. A 2S opening bid that shows 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds is a conventional treatment, subject to regulation. You could argue that a 1S opening bid that shows 5+ spades is a natural treatment that is not subject to regulation, because it is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of the contestants; and you could argue (maybe not successfully) that "4-card-majors" is a natural treatment that is subject to regulation, because it won't be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of the contestant.

[blackshoe]

The key datum about special partnership understandings is that the RA must explicitly designate them as such. Particularly when the call is "natural".

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Jul 18 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

The key datum about special partnership understandings is that the RA must explicitly designate them as such. Particularly when the call is "natural".

A quick search of the ACBL Convention Charts turns up no specific mention of "special partnership understanding". I don't think ACBL has explicitly designated any.

But, it seems to me that inclusion of a method on a chart is an implicit designation.

For instance, a 2M opening showing 5+ in the major and 4+ in a minor is specifically permitted on the mid-chart. To me, this constitutes designation of this natural call as a special partnership understanding.

Whether this is the way it should be doesn't really matter. No director is knowingly going to allow this method in a GCC event based upon the technicality that ACBL has not designated it as a special partnership understanding.

[xcurt]

OK, serious question. What about 2S showing exactly 5S, and either unbalanced, or suitish 5332 any doubleton. In response to the asking bid, opener would have a way to show the suitish 5332. Is this GCC ok?

Basically the idea here is that playing Eastern Scientific, you're going to end up in 2S most of the time anyway, and this way you can play a majors-always-first Canape strong club with 1D=4+ diamonds unbalanced. Also, you aren't forced to open 1NT on Axxxx, KQx, Axx, xx, which I think is terribly losing bridge even if your system says you open 1NT on 5M332 11+-14.

[PrecisionL]

xcurt, on Jul 18 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

OK, serious question.  What about 2S showing exactly 5S, and either unbalanced, or suitish 5332 any doubleton.  In response to the asking bid, opener would have a way to show the suitish 5332.  Is this GCC ok?

Basically the idea here is that playing Eastern Scientific, you're going to end up in 2S most of the time anyway, and this way you can play a majors-always-first Canape strong club with 1D=4+ diamonds unbalanced.  Also, you aren't forced to open 1NT on Axxxx, KQx, Axx, xx, which I think is terribly losing bridge even if your system says you open 1NT on 5M332 11+-14.

I have been playing 2M = 5332 and 10-14 hcp for 7 years. It is GCC and we use 2NT for a weak doubleton (xx) or strength showing. Major suit should be KQxxx or better.

We play strong club and canape when not both majors or both minors.

Larry

[TimG]

PrecisionL, on Jul 18 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

I have been playing 2M = 5332 and 10-14 hcp for 7 years. It is GCC and we use 2NT for a weak doubleton (xx) or strength showing. Major suit should be KQxxx or better.

This is very much like a Bailey two-bid (5332 and 8-12 along with a suit quality requirement, I believe) which is commonly allowed in GCC events.

[awm]

Bailey twos are:

Some point range (typically narrow like 8-11)
Five or six cards in the suit opened
Two or three cards in every unbid major
No voids

So while they include 5332 hands, it's not just that distribution.

Bailey twos are commonly allowed in practice in ACBL events, but it's not exactly clear to me why they are "not conventional" since they promise length in a specific other suit (i.e. the unbid major). Of course, they are a natural opening, but so is 2♠ showing "five or more spades and a four card or longer minor" and the latter does not promise length in any specific suit other than the one opened.

[TimG]

AMW is correct, I was mixing up methods. From a September 1998 Bridge World article by L. Andrew Campbell:

Quote

Opening bids of two diamonds, two hearts, and two spades show: 8-11 HCP, either a five-card suit headed by at least the queen or any six-card suit, exactly two or three cards in any unbid major, and no more than nine cards in any two suits.

Sorry for my confusion.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jul 18 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 18 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

The key datum about special partnership understandings is that the RA must explicitly designate them as such. Particularly when the call is "natural".

A quick search of the ACBL Convention Charts turns up no specific mention of "special partnership understanding". I don't think ACBL has explicitly designated any.

But, it seems to me that inclusion of a method on a chart is an implicit designation.

For instance, a 2M opening showing 5+ in the major and 4+ in a minor is specifically permitted on the mid-chart. To me, this constitutes designation of this natural call as a special partnership understanding.

Whether this is the way it should be doesn't really matter. No director is knowingly going to allow this method in a GCC event based upon the technicality that ACBL has not designated it as a special partnership understanding.

The term "special partnership understanding" (SPU), while it existed in the old laws, became much more important when in the new laws RAs were authorized to designate pretty much anything as an SPU, and then regulate it. The convention charts have not, to my knowledge, been updated to reflect this change in the laws. AFAIK, they haven't been updated at all since last September, when the new laws came into effect. Certainly one could argue that inclusion of a particular agreement on a convention chart implicitly designates that agreement as an SPU, and in practice I would be very surprised if they were not treated as such. But it does not follow that other agreements, even if similar, are designated SPUs.

Come to think on it, I don't believe that other RAs with which I'm reasonably familiar (EBU, WBF) have revised their convention regulations to reflect the new terminology either.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 19 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 18 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 18 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

The key datum about special partnership understandings is that the RA must explicitly designate them as such. Particularly when the call is "natural".

A quick search of the ACBL Convention Charts turns up no specific mention of "special partnership understanding". I don't think ACBL has explicitly designated any.

But, it seems to me that inclusion of a method on a chart is an implicit designation.

For instance, a 2M opening showing 5+ in the major and 4+ in a minor is specifically permitted on the mid-chart. To me, this constitutes designation of this natural call as a special partnership understanding.

Whether this is the way it should be doesn't really matter. No director is knowingly going to allow this method in a GCC event based upon the technicality that ACBL has not designated it as a special partnership understanding.

The term "special partnership understanding" (SPU), while it existed in the old laws, became much more important when in the new laws RAs were authorized to designate pretty much anything as an SPU, and then regulate it. The convention charts have not, to my knowledge, been updated to reflect this change in the laws. AFAIK, they haven't been updated at all since last September, when the new laws came into effect. Certainly one could argue that inclusion of a particular agreement on a convention chart implicitly designates that agreement as an SPU, and in practice I would be very surprised if they were not treated as such. But it does not follow that other agreements, even if similar, are designated SPUs.

Come to think on it, I don't believe that other RAs with which I'm reasonably familiar (EBU, WBF) have revised their convention regulations to reflect the new terminology either.

Last I looked the WBF have not e.g. I think they still define 'natural' as not conventional as defined in the laws.