BBO Discussion Forums: Weak 2 with 4-card minor in new GCC - BBO Discussion Forums

http://www.englishfo.../cpznr/post.htm

http://www.englishpa...mas-before-with

These two links infer that a comma that is inserted before a "with" implies that non-critical information is to follow. So

"OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor."

means something different from...

"OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid with a four-card minor."

which reads differently from...

"OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid of a four-card minor."

So I'd take the ACBL reading to imply that one may or may not have a four-card minor on the side. Pretty bad writing though to include such unnecessary information especially as it opens the door for questions such as whether a side four-card major is also possible or prohibited.

ArtK78, on 2014-March-07, 15:24, said:

For many, weak twos in third seat have a wider ranger (stronger and weaker than 1st and 2nd seat) and in fourth seat many play that a weak two ranges from the top of their 1st/2nd range to say 13 hcps or so. I.e. their fourth seat can range from a maximum weak two to a medium intermediate two.

Here are two examples from a book by Root and Pavlicek of "weak twos" that they would make in either 3rd or 4th seat.

93
AKJ962
K92
43

KQJ96
3
A62
9843

So they open 2H for the first hand in third or fourth, but open 1H in 1st and 2nd. In third I think that they open 2H for tactical reasons and not because they don't have the values for an opening bid; most pairs have lower opening requirements for third after all. In fourth, in order to comply with the requirement that a weak two bid must have fewer values than an opening bid, they would have to argue that with 2H they are showing an opening hand and not a weak two bid at all.

Now go to the second hand. It qualifies for a weak two bid in third seat. But in fourth seat, would they be able to successfully argue that this bid is also an opening hand when they don't open it in first and second? It doesn't feel right.

I think it's just more straightforward to say that the range they choose for 2M varies based on chair position and that it sometimes overlaps (i.e. can have more values than) a 1-level opening bid.

In 1st and 2nd I think that some like to play a more constructive range...6-11 or 7-12 such that opening 1M and rebidding 2M shows not only a sixth card but a slightly better hand. I don't understand why the ACBL would specifically ban this practice when it is arguably good bridge and while many pairs are opening 2M with 10-13 or 10-15 and other pairs are allowed to preempt 6-11 or 7-bad 12 just because they may have more conservative opening requirements. I mean imagine a team game and one side effectively is allowed to play 2M as 6-11 and the other side wants to play 6-11 but is disallowed because they open 11s routinely. I don't think this was an intended consequence..

Art, your logic is flawed.

Obviously, the 4 card weak two doesn't meet any of the three definitions from your quote, which is why you default to one or two that seem to be close somehow, largely by process of biased elimination.

The same biased elimination gets me to the opposite conclusion, because I can eliminate out artificial and conventional first with great ease.

so, can we resolve the issue?

The context of the 5 card 2 bid as natural is juxtaposed with the comment about alerts not needed for natural bids that have expected length. Next is alertable natural bids, which have often unexpected shortness. I believe the solution is simple. 4 card 2 bids are natural by definition but not "considered" by most people when anticipating the bid, such that an exception to the no alert need arises.

you can view this as a stretch, except that I also have disallowed 7 from the GCC as guidance in unwinding the problem. The d-7 verbiage only makes sense in my unwind, not in yours. Technically, d-7 could be there in case someone modified other sections of the GCC later, in anticipation of a possible new idea, but that's more than too much to imagine.

Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 15:29, said:

Sometimes the meaning of a term depends on the context.

When they use "weak 2" as a name, without qualifying it, it refers to the common understanding of weak 2 bids.

But when they use it in a context where they're defining what's allowed or what's alertable, it would be circular to refer to the common meaning. So in that case, it just means a weak bid on the 2 level.

Assertion: Some calls are natural.
Assertion: Some calls are artificial.
Assertion: Some calls are conventional.
Assertion: All calls are either natural or artificial, but not both.
Assertion: Conventional calls may be either natural or artificial.

Are any of these assertions false? If so, which one(s) and why?

Venn diagram: draw a circle, write "natural" in it to label it. Draw another circle, write "artificial" in it to label it. These circles cannot overlap anywhere. I think now you need two circles labeled "conventional" each completely inside one of the two previously drawn circles. Why? Because if you try to draw a circle which intersects each of the first two ("natural" and "artificial") circles, it would also encompass calls that are outside both circles — IOW neither natural nor artificial, and that's not possible by the fourth assertion above.

Conclusion: there are conventional artificial bids (this one is easy) and conventional natural bids (examples, noting that a treatment is not a convention?)

What is the definition of "opening bid"? Sometimes I see it in the context of "a bid which is the first in a series of calls, any previous calls having been 'pass'". Sometimes I see it in the context of "a bid showing the high card values normally associated with an opening bid (previous context) at the one level". In the second context, is a hand with 30 (or 26, or 22) HCP an "opening bid"? After all, the high card values it shows are more than "an opening bid at the one level".

Our terminology is sloppy. The ACBL's terminology is sloppy. Is it any surprise that we run afoul of the GIGO law?

I would believe that your biggest issue with the 5 assertions is that there is a non-zero group that asserts #4 to be true that also wishes to define Natural as "having the suit you bid" full stop. Usually they have a reason for that mode of thought, that ties to something they want to play that people argue is regulable. In that instance, the change in the Laws to SPU is beneficial, because it short-circuits all of these arguments.

The issue are things like this call we are discussing right now, or Bailey 2s (which guarantee exactly 2-3 cards in any unbid major) or Polish 2s (5+ in bid major, guaranteed 5-card other suit). I guess things like fourth suit in Snapdragon situations (that by inference deny support for partner's suit) is down the continuum from there, as are Fit JS, DONT 2 bids and so on.

Please note that I don't think they're being any more pedantic or litigious than anyone else in these discussions; as we all know, the ideal convention chart for everybody is "what we want to play is legal, but we don't have to face any of that weird stuff other people play."

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 12:24, said:

Try being a bit more flexible. Use shapes other than a circle and there is no problem, or if you like circles, have "natural" as inside a circle and "artificial" as outside the same circle, with "conventional" as an overlapping circle.

I think you are misinterpreting the way venn diagrams work. Do it a different way. Draw a large circle and then a line across the middle. Label one semi-circle Natural and the other Artificial. You can now draw a circle for Conventional within either semi-circle or across the boundary. The point here is that the universe is wholly defined by Natural + Artificial. There are no calls outside of this union. So you cannot draw 2 discrete circles since the space between them is logically not defined. You are making the classic mistake here of allowing the model to define the logic rather the having the model reflect the logic. (Hopefully AI does not read this or he would have a field day applying the principle to another topic). In summary, nothing in the given logic precludes conventional calls from being natural. As an absurd example, does anyone think a 1♣ or 2♣ opening defined as "3 clubs and a 10 card major with 20+hcp" would not be considered conventional? Because these are certainly natural.

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-13, 07:31, said:

I like this. Now we can use the third and fourth dimensions to show the alerting regulations.

paulg, on 2014-March-13, 08:41, said:

Soon we will enter the realm of fractal Venn diagrams!

Rik

I suspect we need the full 10 dimensions of string theory to explain alerting rules (or perhaps even the 11 of the alternative model).

I confess that it has been 50 years or so since I learned about Venn diagrams, and nearly that long since I last used them, except perhaps for dabbling. When I learned of them, the possibilities others have suggested here never came up, and certainly never occurred to me. So thank you for broadening my horizons a bit.

Regarding a hand with 3♣ and a ten card major, I suppose opening 1 or 2♣ with this hand is "natural" if you define an opening bid in a minor as natural if it has at least three cards in the suit (a definition which says absolutely nothing about the rest of the hand), but it seems counterintuitive to me. If I have a ten card major, it's "only natural" for me to bid that major.

blackshoe, on 2014-March-13, 10:55, said:

Coming from an English Acol background it is only natural for me to open a 4 card major when 4432. But it is irrelevant what you or I find natural, what matters is how the ACBL define it:

Quote

Bold is from me and clearly by this definition the 1♣/2♣ opening is natural. It says nothing about the suit shown being the longest and indeed this is often not the case for "natural" bids in North America.

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-13, 11:24, said:

By the same token, an opening bid in a major at the two level is natural if it has at least four cards, irrespective of strength. Unless "opening bid" in that line means "opening bid at the one level", which is I suppose possibly what the drafters of that regulation intended. Hard to tell, though.

paulg, on 2014-March-13, 08:41, said:

I'm afraid this is not the case. By our 5 axioms, all bids lie on the plane. Alerting regulations that are up in the air (other dimensions) have no relevance to real bids. But that's probably true anyway!

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-13, 07:31, said:

FYP. AKQJT98765-(void)-(void)-AKQ is only 19 HCPs.

helene_t, on 2014-March-14, 05:00, said:

Indeed! you are right. Obviously I did not bother to think of a hand and just plucked something silly out of the air. I suppose I could claim that this hand is worth at least 20hcp with adjustments.

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-14, 05:03, said:

LOL. I thought you deliberately picked an impossible hand (the 20 HCP lying exactly over the border was at least very suspicious). Perhaps this was one of those cases where I thought I saw more than there was to see.

Rik

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-13, 07:31, said:

This reminds me of my favorite average result.

Back in about 1993, I was a tad more bizarre than I am now (yeah, really). I was dealt something like this: ♠AKQJxxxxx ♥AK ♦-- ♣10x.

Hoping for something neat to happen, I decided to open a "short club." 1♣, showing 2+ clubs and 11 to whatever HCP. Standard, for the most part.

This was passed out.

The field result was 6♠-1 for -50.

My score was 1♣-1 for -50.

Proof that natural bidding sometimes works, eh? You don't need all those fancy pants conventions like a strong forcing and ARTIFICIAL 2♣ when a simple, slow, and natural 1♣ works just fine.