[waubrey]

Is Jammer 2 Diamonds (three suiter with 4-9 HCP) legal? If not, would it be legal if you changed it slightly, making it show a balanced hand with 4-9 HCP.

[hrothgar]

waubrey, on Apr 25 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

Is Jammer 2 Diamonds (three suiter with 4-9 HCP) legal? If not, would it be legal if you changed it slightly, making it show a balanced hand with 4-9 HCP.

I suspect that this is legal in most parts of the world in most events.

In the ACBL, the bid isn't sanctioned until you hit superchart events. You might run into trouble even there, since the bid is often opened on 4-4 patterns and could be deemed destructive.

[waubrey]

I should have been more specific. I was referring to ACBL events. Would it be legal in ACBL events if it was defined as balanced and 4-9 HCP?

[hrothgar]

waubrey, on Apr 25 2010, 07:45 PM, said:

I should have been more specific. I was referring to ACBL events. Would it be legal in ACBL events if it was defined as balanced and 4-9 HCP?

That would definitely be classed as intrinsically destructive

[CarlRitner]

I forget the difference(s) between obstructive and destructive.

[hrothgar]

Carl, on Apr 25 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

I forget the difference(s) between obstructive and destructive.

If members of the C+C committee or people who spend lots of money hiring pros play it, its obstructive...

[CarlRitner]

Yes of course. That makes sense.
In a weird, nonsensical perspective.

[peachy]

ACBL SUperchart says:

1. Artificial weak bids at the two or three level (including those with
strong adjuncts) must possess,
a) a known suit or
one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit
bid.

It is not legal in GCC or Mid Chart. Even in Superchart, " Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." is not allowed so if you can convince the C&C Committee that this would not be the primary purpose, you can make an application to have that convention allowed.

Read it all yourself
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[CarlRitner]

If Richard's suspicions are true, and this is legal in most parts of the world in most
events, would that be considered a fair argument for it being not primarily for
destructive purposes?

Or is that non-applicable logic in this case?

[Free]

hrothgar, on Apr 25 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

waubrey, on Apr 25 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

Is Jammer 2 Diamonds (three suiter with 4-9 HCP) legal? If not, would it be legal if you changed it slightly, making it show a balanced hand with 4-9 HCP.

I suspect that this is legal in most parts of the world in most events.

In the ACBL, the bid isn't sanctioned until you hit superchart events. You might run into trouble even there, since the bid is often opened on 4-4 patterns and could be deemed destructive.

If it is "ANY 3-suiter" then it won't be allowed very much because it's a BSC. If there's a known suit it will indeed be allowed pretty much everywhere except the land of the free. 4-9 balanced wouldn't be allowed either, again BSC.

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Apr 25 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

In the ACBL, the bid isn't sanctioned until you hit superchart events. You might run into trouble even there, since the bid is often opened on 4-4 patterns and could be deemed destructive.

No, it's not even SuperChart legal, regardless of whether you judge it to be "destructive" or not (which IMO is far from clear). The problem is that basically weak artificial bids must have or deny the suit bid even at SuperChart level. Here this means that you can play 2D as some weird weak bid, but only if

1) it shows a specific suit, or
2) it denies D and shows 1-2 other possible suits

On the other hand, I think it was generally found that playing the "long spade Jammer" version was much more sound (4+ spades is a known "suit"), so you could at least play that.

[helene_t]

So if my 2♦ multi shows a 6-card major but doesn't deny four diamonds (I might have a bad 4-card diamonds along my 6-card major) I can't play it in the superchart?

[rbforster]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

So if my 2♦ multi shows a 6-card major but doesn't deny four diamonds (I might have a bad 4-card diamonds along my 6-card major) I can't play it in the superchart?

Well, SuperChart incorporates the MidChart, which has a specific provision allowing multi. But even without that, you can still play it since it promises 1 of 2 suits (majors), neither the suit bid (♦). You could not play 2♥ or 2♠ as "multi" however, nor can you play Wilkcoz 2♦, which shows a 2 suiter with a major (since it could have diamonds). Here's the relevant part of the SuperChart:

Quote

1.  Artificial weak bids at the two or three level (including those with strong adjuncts) must possess,
    a)  a known suit or
    b)  one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit

[peachy]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

So if my 2♦ multi shows a 6-card major but doesn't deny four diamonds (I might have a bad 4-card diamonds along my 6-card major) I can't play it in the superchart?

Best to read the regulation. There have been a couple incorrect statements presented here, including the "land of the free" by Free.

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[helene_t]

I suppose I am an annoying pedantic, but I just don't get how multi can be allowed when Wilcosz isn't. Both show a an unknown major. Both may or may not have diamond length.

I suppose the difference is that Wilcosz has the possible diamond suit as part of it's specification, while multi just might have it incidentally. It's just that I don't think such a distinction makes sense, as one can always rephrase a definition so a specified feature becomes negative inference. But I am probably wrong.

Peachy, your link doesn't work.

[peachy]

hope this link works
http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[Free]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

I suppose I am an annoying pedantic, but I just don't get how multi can be allowed when Wilcosz isn't. Both show a an unknown major. Both may or may not have diamond length.

I suppose the difference is that Wilcosz has the possible diamond suit as part of it's specification, while multi just might have it incidentally. It's just that I don't think such a distinction makes sense, as one can always rephrase a definition so a specified feature becomes negative inference. But I am probably wrong.

Peachy, your link doesn't work.

Here in Belgium Wilkosz is also not allowed in most tournaments. Wilkosz is a BSC, while the multi (only if it shows a 6 card Major) is an exception. Playing multi with 5 card Majors is also not allowed, again BSC.

[gwnn]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

I suppose I am an annoying pedantic, but I just don't get how multi can be allowed when Wilcosz isn't. Both show a an unknown major. Both may or may not have diamond length.

Huh? Pedantic is not the proper word to use in that paragraph. Pedantic is someone who needlessly corrects other people's posts, most often incorrect by some minor detail or an inaccurate synonym.