[kenrexford]

I hear that the ACBL is considering allowing a 2M call, even if weak, to show 5+ in the major and either 4+ minor.

If that happens, this would be really good news for system design, IMO.

Consider, for example, canapé systems. By enabling 2M as that major plus either minor, you have the option of eliminating the delay in showing the major after an initial 1♦ opening. You also then purify the 1♦ opening into some minor-suit collection. For example, 1♦ could easily show one or both minors and deny any 4-card major. That would allow 2♦ as a major two-suiter of equal length (which solves a delay of establishing a true 5-5 in most systems) or even as a second strong forcing opening.

An alternative structural design would have a purified 2♥ (hearts and clubs) but a flexible 2♠ (spades and a minor). You then add in 2♦ as both red suits, eliminating out the canapé 1♦ and purifying that to the minor(s) hand. Or, purify the spade situation but flexible the heart situation.

If the 1♦ call is limited to normally either or both minors, then you can add on (in theory) some elements of Polish Club thinking to take off pressure from the 1♣ opening, such as 1♦ with one or both minors and not as limited (maybe opening up to 21 or even more?).

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-04, 12:35, said:

I hear that the ACBL is considering allowing a 2M call, even if weak, to show 5+ in the major and either 4+ minor.

....................

That would allow 2♦ as a major two-suiter of equal length (which solves a delay of establishing a true 5-5 in most systems) or even as a second strong forcing opening.

An alternative structural design would have a purified 2♥ (hearts and clubs) but a flexible 2♠ (spades and a minor). You then add in 2♦ as both red suits, eliminating out the canapé 1♦ and purifying that to the minor(s) hand. Or, purify the spade situation but flexible the heart situation.

All of this is very interesting, but in my experience most people who play Lucas Twos or similar are unwilling to give up the chance to open with weak-two hands; so I think that the take-up of this new permission will be limited if a Multi is not also permitted.

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-04, 12:55, said:

All of this is very interesting, but in my experience most people who play Lucas Twos or similar are unwilling to give up the chance to open with weak-two hands; so I think that the take-up of this new permission will be limited if a Multi is not also permitted.

True. Canape also would gain from an ability to use Multi, BTW. But, maybe Multi is around the corner? Trot out the easy one first?

[jeffford76]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-04, 13:08, said:

Canape also would gain from an ability to use Multi, BTW. But, maybe Multi is around the corner?

I think it is very unlikely that Multi will be put on the GCC ever. I am more encouraged by the proposal to make it clear that Midchart is the expected level for Flight A events. I hope this is eventually extended to open events. The GCC is appropriate for limited events and many clubs.

I think it's a lot more likely that eventually the written defense will be pitched which would then allow a move from Midchart-6 to Midchart-2.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I am more encouraged by the proposal to make it clear that Midchart is the expected level for Flight A events.

I hope I live long enough to see that pass. (Quite the opposite was the expectation of every unit and district board I ever heard address the subject. Let us hope times are changing.)

2M 5+4 is very, very far down the list of things I would like to see added to GCC, but seeing anything at all added is good news of a sort.

[hrothgar]

What I find surprising about this whole thing is that line item changes to the GCC need to be approved by the BoD...

[mycroft]

I don't. That's the way it's always been - the C&C make suggestions, BoD approves them (or not). Frequently there is discussions between the two. You can thank the BoD for standing firm on "allowing WeaSeL vs Strong NTs" (althought I guess that C&C wouldn't go for it either).

Ken, the text of the suggestion is that 2M can be a *weak two* with a guaranteed 4-card minor. So you don't get to put opening hands into it (as written). Luckily I haven't sent off my email-to-my-DD yet, so I'll add that to the clarification needed section I have with the call (could it be 4+m? could it be 5=5 min guaranteed? etc.)

It will be interesting to see if this works without the Multi for the one-suited weak 2s.

Siegmund, IIRC, D18 decision is that Mid-Chart is available for Separated Flight A unless specified already. You might check with S.B. next time he's running a sectional in your area. D19 is still "only as advertised", I believe. I hope that one passes, because that way it doesn't involve reading a district's bylaws and decisions when I go to play there ("cupboards", "disused lavator[ies]", seem to be involved here; "leopard" is optional).

[kenrexford]

mycroft, on 2013-November-05, 12:37, said:

Ken, the text of the suggestion is that 2M can be a *weak two* with a guaranteed 4-card minor. So you don't get to put opening hands into it (as written). Luckily I haven't sent off my email-to-my-DD yet, so I'll add that to the clarification needed section I have with the call (could it be 4+m? could it be 5=5 min guaranteed? etc.)

I assumed that a "weak two-bid" meant something relatively "weak" with a range of not more than 7 HCP. While 5-11 is an allowed 7-poiint range and clearly "weak," I would imagine that 6-12 or 7-13 would be OK on the same reasoning. I would need a maximum of 15 and thus a range of 9-15. As a 9-count is less than the normal 10 HCP for an intermediate opening, that seems "weak." But, I agree that the wording is weird. Why limit it to only weak hands and not a specified range?

[jeffford76]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-05, 13:49, said:

Why limit it to only weak hands and not a specified range?

Because it is assumed that everyone understands "just treat it as a weak 2", but there is not as simple a defense if it can be weak or intermediate. Yes, I know, it's not much more complicated.

[kenrexford]

jeffford76, on 2013-November-05, 14:34, said:

Because it is assumed that everyone understands "just treat it as a weak 2", but there is not as simple a defense if it can be weak or intermediate. Yes, I know, it's not much more complicated.

OK, but then what is the definition of a "weak two" for purposes of the GCC? When I look over the documents for all convention charts, it seems that there is no good definition of "weak" except that the call is "weak" if the lower range of possible holding is lower than 10 HCP. And, the range must be a maximum of a 7-HCP range. Hence, 9-15 seems ok.

[steve2005]

GCC already allows 5-4 with 10+ if known suits. the most common of which would be Flannery

"OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known
suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits"

is it that much of stretch to have only one suit known?

[Siegmund]

Quote

Siegmund, IIRC, D18 decision is that Mid-Chart is available for Separated Flight A unless specified already. You might check with S.B. next time he's running a sectional in your area. D19 is still "only as advertised", I believe

Is there not still an ACBL-wide requirement that an event may only be non-GCC if it is advertised that way? (On which basis I have believed for the past 3 years that D18 usually allows no Mid-Chart conventions period at regionals -- and so far, I have yet to meet anyone playing a Mid-Chart convention on Gold Rush pairs day or in the Sunday Swiss.) D18 did so advertise for the GNT finals.

I was there when the D19 top-bracket-only policy passed -- a counter-proposal to a motion I introduced, asking for a day or two of midchart for everyone at a regional on a trial basis (bearing a list of mostly California players who promised to come for the week if we gave them a day of Midchart). I was told in no uncertain terms to go back and tell them that 'their kind' was not welcome, by a few very influential folk from Seattle. The ringleader is no longer with us, and I do expect to outlive the others involved, so perhaps times have changed.

[kenrexford]

steve2005, on 2013-November-05, 20:35, said:

GCC already allows 5-4 with 10+ if known suits. the most common of which would be Flannery

"OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known
suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits"

is it that much of stretch to have only one suit known?

In all fairness, you could really mess with people by playing that a 2♦ opening shows 4+ diamonds and an unknown second suit, with at least 5 cards in one of the two suits. Not that this would make any sense.

[mycroft]

I believe the text is as it is because that is the text of the current Mid-Chart regulation they would like to make GCC.

Given that it would only have been allowed with a defence, they didn't have to be as careful about limitations as they would with a "no defence required GCC" call. That's why I made it clear to my district director that if this is accepted, it needs to be clear what it's allowing and what it can't be stretched to allow.

I think there is a *huge* difference between 6-12 and 9-15, especially given that intermediate calls are usually stated as "11-15" or thereabouts, and "who makes a weak 2 (opposite an unpassed hand, anyway) with 12 any more, really?" (well, we do, but it's EHAA, so...) I can't imagine the regulators thinking different (about the size of the difference, at least). Of course, I've been *very* wrong about their opinions before, so...

Siegmund, all I can say is that I played in a "nothing special" sectional in Edmonton a while back, and caught a couple of people speeding with Mid-Chart defences to our 12-14 NT on Stratified Saturday, and did confirm at the time that on Flighted Sunday, were we playing in Flight A, they would be allowed. (well, I can say more than that, but without confirmation from someone who does this more full time than I, I can't guarantee I'd be correct). One of those people was *really* annoyed that he couldn't play a "multi-meaning" 2♠ (clubs or the reds) over our NT, but we could play a "multi-meaning" 2♣ (diamonds or about half of INV+ hands) over it. We know what's allowed, who needs to read anything?

[jeffford76]

Siegmund, on 2013-November-06, 09:46, said:

I was there when the D19 top-bracket-only policy passed -- a counter-proposal to a motion I introduced, asking for a day or two of midchart for everyone at a regional on a trial basis (bearing a list of mostly California players who promised to come for the week if we gave them a day of Midchart). I was told in no uncertain terms to go back and tell them that 'their kind' was not welcome, by a few very influential folk from Seattle. The ringleader is no longer with us, and I do expect to outlive the others involved, so perhaps times have changed.

I don't know what the "old days" were like, but the Seattle unit is now one of the most open about allowing midchart in its sectional events. Basically as long as there's at least a 0-750 event available (and there usually is) then the main event is midchart. At the regional level things are more restrictive, but I don't think that's because of Seattle any longer.

[ArtK78]

There was a period of time in the late 1970's when the ACBL had an almost "anything goes" policy. It was at that time I played Romex with the Dynamic Notrump and won my first regional open pairs. Not that Dynamic Notrump was a destructive convention by any means, but when the ACBL rescinded its "anything goes" policy a short time later, Dynamic Notrump was among the conventions that was not permitted (it is now a GCC allowed convention).

[blackshoe]

I want to find a partner willing to play Romex so I can play it in Regionals and Sectionals here. It'll drive the Luddites crazy.

[steve2005]

I cant see any use for a 5-4 pre-empt without a multi and would vote against this half measure (if I had a vote)

is anyone out there willing to give up 6-card pre-empts?

[hrothgar]

steve2005, on 2013-November-06, 17:14, said:

I cant see any use for a 5-4 pre-empt without a multi and would vote against this half measure (if I had a vote)

is anyone out there willing to give up 6-card pre-empts?

yes

[Vampyr]

steve2005, on 2013-November-06, 17:14, said:

I cant see any use for a 5-4 pre-empt without a multi and would vote against this half measure (if I had a vote)

is anyone out there willing to give up 6-card pre-empts?

You should wish you could vote for it, not against. If a new thing becomes allowed, people will try it. Those people will eventually say "this is great but I want to bid when I have a weak two. Give me a multi". Increasing the demand for more relaxed regulations only makes it more likely that TPTB will listen.