[kenrexford]

The ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee has a strange discussion topic for the Fall 2013 agenda:

"Discussion about the GCC legality of Opening 2D with 11-15 4441 with a singleton Diamond or 16+ 4441 with any singleton."

This seems odd to me, because it seems like the GCC has for years allowed a 2♦ opening to show 10+ with any three suits. However, one possible reading of the GCC would mean that the call must show a three-suited hand such that all three suits are known. This would of course eliminate out Mini-Roman, because the stiff is unknown. I wonder if that is the intended discussion point.

This of course also has importance to the 2♣ opening, which also has the same definition. This personally would be rather frustrating, to find out that the C&CC might take out 2♣ as a weak 4-4-4-1 with any shortness, as that is a critical part of M.I.C.S. and of the core I prefer for natural strong club (as well as Roman Club).

Does anyone know what has prompted this, or what the thinking is?

[RunemPard]

It is not SAYC friendly. It must be exterminated.

[ArtK78]

If any of my opponents want to play a 2♦ opening as showing either of these possible hands, then let them. In my experience, opening 3 suited hands with 2♦ may be one of the worst ideas ever thought of by serious bridge players.

[aguahombre]

If Ken has quoted the agenda item verbatim, it sounds like they are talking about a 2-way 2♦ opening which shows either the lower range with a specific shortness or the higher range with an unknown shortness....not two different conventions.

Anyway, I doubt they are considering taking anything out of GCC at the same time a couple new 2-bids are being put into it. That would smack of personal preferences of the members themselves. Art's personal preferences, on the other hand, should be all written into law.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-25, 16:17, said:

If any of my opponents want to play a 2♦ opening as showing either of these possible hands, then let them. In my experience, opening 3 suited hands with 2♦ may be one of the worst ideas ever thought of by serious bridge players.

Are you talking about Roman, or Mini-Roman, or Precision, or all three?

There are many ways to use a 2♦ opening. I suppose most of them have been described by somebody at one time or another as "one of the worst ideas ever thought of by serious bridge players". Or even as "an odious, petty little bid". Okay, that one had nothing to do with 2♦ openings. Still, it's quite a nice turn of phrase, don't you think?

Anyway, if people want to "try something" with 2♦, more power to 'em. I expect they'll get themselves in trouble more often than not.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-25, 16:17, said:

If any of my opponents want to play a 2♦ opening as showing either of these possible hands, then let them. In my experience, opening 3 suited hands with 2♦ may be one of the worst ideas ever thought of by serious bridge players.

I played a mini-Roman for a short time over 20 years ago. It may not be a good idea, but it was fun.

[CamHenry]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-25, 19:49, said:

I played a mini-Roman for a short time over 20 years ago. It may not be a good idea, but it was fun.

I used to play 2♣ as "3+ clubs, in a 4441, 4450, 5431, 5530 or 4432 hand, 4-11 HCP". It worked well until oppo learned they should just double for penalties.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-25, 19:45, said:

Or even as "an odious, petty little bid". Okay, that one had nothing to do with 2♦ openings. Still, it's quite a nice turn of phrase, don't you think?

The phrase was "petty little odious bid." And it was the way that Alphonse Moyse referred to new minor forcing. The acronym "PLOB" stands for "petty little odious bid," and is the basis for the name of the convention referred to as "Extended PLOB," which I play with a couple of partners. In Extended PLOB, the last bid of the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 2♣ - 2♦* or 1♦ - 1M - 2♦ - 3♣* is artificial and requests more information, in a similar manner to New Minor Forcing.

[Siegmund]

Now, if they would lower the bottom limit below 10 HCP, we could actually use 2D for some fun conventions.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-25, 13:36, said:

However, one possible reading of the GCC would mean that the call must show a three-suited hand such that all three suits are known. This would of course eliminate out Mini-Roman, because the stiff is unknown. I wonder if that is the intended discussion point.

"ALLOWED:......
5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.(See #6 below)
b) a strong hand.
c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP."

What possible reading of that item could mean that the 3-suited 2♦ opening must have 3 known suits?

Item #6 below mentions 2-suiters with known suits. Nothing mentions 3-suiters with known suits.

[barmar]

Maybe the discussion is about adding a fourth case to that list?

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-26, 09:40, said:

The phrase was "petty little odious bid." And it was the way that Alphonse Moyse referred to new minor forcing. The acronym "PLOB" stands for "petty little odious bid," and is the basis for the name of the convention referred to as "Extended PLOB," which I play with a couple of partners. In Extended PLOB, the last bid of the sequence 1♣ - 1M - 2♣ - 2♦* or 1♦ - 1M - 2♦ - 3♣* is artificial and requests more information, in a similar manner to New Minor Forcing.

I thought it was too, Art, but a while back I read somewhere what purported to be a direct quote of what Moyse wrote, and it was worded as I wrote it. <shrug> Maybe the claim was bogus, but I suspect not, as my understanding is that Moyse was a better grammarian than that.

[Zelandakh]

I suspect it is the 2-way possibility that has already been mentioned that they want to discuss. Perhaps someone "important" wants to be able to use it.

To Art, the first system I played/designed was like Reverse Benji but with the 2♦ opening showing either an Acol 2 in any suit or a strong 3-suited hand (instead of the normal Acol 2 or a strong balanced hand). I loved it and whenever the 3-suiter came up (not often granted) it was always a good result. Indeed that is still my favourite structure from the various Benji possibilities. Not to mention that Meckwell played their 2♦ opening as semi-3-suited with short diamonds last I saw their CC. So I guess it cannot be that bad.

[ArtK78]

I don't really have any problem with handling STRONG 3 suiters with a 2♦ opening. That hand is hard to handle no matter how you deal with it. It seems like a terrible waste of a bid to limit it to strong 3-suited hands. At least your 2♦ opening used a far more frequent alternate meaning as its main purpose.

What I have seen is players playing either mini-Roman or some variant of the original Precision 2♦ opening. Even when used properly, this opening has serious problems. But there is a tendency among these players (even some very good players) to whip out their toy whenever possible, even when the hand is somewhat "offshape" for the opening. This leads to all sorts of problems.

I was playing in a regional KO some time ago against a very good pair. They played Precision with the three suited 11-16 HCP 2♦ opening. After one of these openings, they wound up in an ugly 3♠ contract for -400. And this result is not that unusual for sequences starting at 2♦.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-27, 06:22, said:

I suspect it is the 2-way possibility that has already been mentioned that they want to discuss. Perhaps someone "important" wants to be able to use it.

If the two ways are both 3-suiters, but with different ranges, I still don't see how that 2D opening is currently not GCC. However, if the two ranges are connecting ---as seemingly described in the agenda item, I can see why it might be legislated against by an NBO. The defense against an 11-15 range is simple (most effective is to usually pass and lead trump), and a defense against the stronger variants is unlikely to be needed. However, there could be some concerns about inability to sort out the two connected ranges without illegal communication....especially when one range has an anchor singleton and the other doesn't.

Our two ways, both have no anchor suit or singleton but are split --11-14 or 23-25 -- and easy to sort out by simply assuming the lower range and an "impossible" continuation with the biggie. The hand pattern is always 4-4-4-1, never distorted. The two ranges, in our opinion, solve serious problems in bidding those hands after opening a 1-bid or 2C; and the negative inference from not using it yet showing 3 suits is valuable in other auctions.

There is nothing in the GCC prohibiting our method.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-27, 08:05, said:

I don't really have any problem with handling STRONG 3 suiters with a 2♦ opening. That hand is hard to handle no matter how you deal with it. It seems like a terrible waste of a bid to limit it to strong 3-suited hands. At least your 2♦ opening used a far more frequent alternate meaning as its main purpose.

What I have seen is players playing either mini-Roman or some variant of the original Precision 2♦ opening. Even when used properly, this opening has serious problems. But there is a tendency among these players (even some very good players) to whip out their toy whenever possible, even when the hand is somewhat "offshape" for the opening. This leads to all sorts of problems.

I was playing in a regional KO some time ago against a very good pair. They played Precision with the three suited 11-16 HCP 2♦ opening. After one of these openings, they wound up in an ugly 3♠ contract for -400. And this result is not that unusual for sequences starting at 2♦.

It would not occur to me, playing Precision, to open an "offshape" hand with 2♦. Seems to me if the hand doesn't fit 2♦, it must fit one of the other limited openings. That aside, Art, how would you handle the three suited hands if you don't open 2♦ with them?

[kenrexford]

If the actual discussion is as many interpret it, which seems reasonable, then the discussion seems nonetheless dumb. This ends up being a 3-suiter with 11+ HCP with the minor caveat that the low range has only one possibility, which seems like nothing tricky.

As a perhaps related aside, in the "rosso e nerro system" that I played about 20 years ago, 2♣ was any 4-4-4-1 and 10+, and even relatively workable. After, for example, a 2♥ pass-or-correct bid, Opener would pass with the weaker hand types and a fit (11-15), correct to 2♠ with no fit and the lower range, bid 2NT with the next higher range (16-18) but no fit, bid the shortness (or 3♥ for short spade) with the next higher range and a fit, bid higher with even higher ranges. Similar after 2♠ pass-or-correct. After a 2♦ asking bid, 2♥ showed minimum with hearts, 2♠ minimum without hearts, 2NT the 16-18 (3♣ relay then asks for shortness), 3♦/3♥/3♠/3NT the next higher range and indicating shortness, 3♣ the next higher range with 3♦ asking for shortness, etc.

[aguahombre]

It has been two days since I sent a request for clarification to the CandC; by now, I don't expect a reply. They are all packing up to go.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-27, 08:05, said:

But there is a tendency among these players (even some very good players) to whip out their toy whenever possible, even when the hand is somewhat "offshape" for the opening. This leads to all sorts of problems.

This is true of almost every convention out there. Getting bad results from misusing a convention does not make the convention itself bad. And the shapes for a Precision 2♦ opening are precisely (34)15, 4414 or 4405. Nothing else. The (34)15 hands already represent the "offshape" fudging from a pure 3-suiter, if you like.

And to Ed, you can treat the 4414 hands as balanced and move the hands with 5 clubs and a 4 card major into 2♣ if you like. That works better in a strong club method with a weak NT than modern Precision but it is an option if you want to free up the 2♦ opening for something else without bumping these hands up into 2♥.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-27, 08:37, said:

It would not occur to me, playing Precision, to open an "offshape" hand with 2♦. Seems to me if the hand doesn't fit 2♦, it must fit one of the other limited openings. That aside, Art, how would you handle the three suited hands if you don't open 2♦ with them?

Do you mean how do you handle three-suited hands in a standard system? You bid 1♦ with 4-4 or 4-1 in the minors, or 1♣ with 1-4 in the minors. And you proceed from there.

In Precision, if you don't have a special gadget for 4-4-4-1 hands, you open 1♦, which should show 0+ or 1+ diamonds.