Help
mikestar, on Nov 22 2004, 01:02 PM, said:
Ben,
I read the original post -- the question was about a 1 heart opening that is only opened on 2-suited hands, promising an unspecifed second suit. In the system in question, one suited heart hands are not opend 1 heart, they are openend 2 hearts. The guarantee of the existence of a second suit it what makes the bid a convention, not the fact that it is longer. (A non-canape version which promisedised 5+ hearts and an unspecified 4+ side suit would be equally conventional.)
You and Jimmy had a miscommunication or your interpretation of the law does not agree with Richard's and mine. The question of normal canape, where one heart could have a longer side suit but might be a heart one suiter was not asked in the post. If that is what Jimmy asked you in your private communication, worrying than canape itself might not be legal, it was a different question than the one he asked in the original post.
OK--we've all had a failure to communicate. I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?
I read the original post -- the question was about a 1 heart opening that is only opened on 2-suited hands, promising an unspecifed second suit. In the system in question, one suited heart hands are not opend 1 heart, they are openend 2 hearts. The guarantee of the existence of a second suit it what makes the bid a convention, not the fact that it is longer. (A non-canape version which promisedised 5+ hearts and an unspecified 4+ side suit would be equally conventional.)
You and Jimmy had a miscommunication or your interpretation of the law does not agree with Richard's and mine. The question of normal canape, where one heart could have a longer side suit but might be a heart one suiter was not asked in the post. If that is what Jimmy asked you in your private communication, worrying than canape itself might not be legal, it was a different question than the one he asked in the original post.
OK--we've all had a failure to communicate. I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?
Yes Jimmy asked me if this thread meant that canape was illegal. I told him no, that canape was legal as a treatment (open one of suit may or maynot have longer second suit).
Jimmy communicated my comments, which were correct reflection of what I said, as it related to canape. I never questioned the issue issue of whether opening 1H with a known or unknown second suit (or even a different suit and not hearts) was illegal (it is). I only wanted to address the communication between jimmy and me (he asked me about canape being illegal under GCC).
Since I thought there was a failure of understanding, I pointed out what jimmy was worried about (in my conversation with him, and in reply here quoting me) was something QUITE different from what richard was discussing.
So to quote you....
Quote
I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying... a 1♥ opening bid that may or may not have a second suit, and may or may not be your longest suit, but which DOES show hearts is perfectly legal and is not a convention. A 1♥ bid that promises anything other than just hearts and opening values is a convention, and may or may not be legal depending upon rather or not such convention is allowed. For the ACBL, no such 1♥ conventions are allowed. So your assertions are 100% correct.
Ben