[dickiegera]

I play mini roman with several partners.

We play it as 10-12 pts promising 4♠.
after opening 2♦ if partner bids 2♥ we say "pass or correct".

Recently I have come across players who say nothing and when you ask for an explanation of their 2♥ bid
they just say he has Hearts, not saying if it is forcing or not, even if you ask.

IS THIS CORRECT?

Also is there any rules on number of pts needed. Can it be less than 10 pts?
Or as some say "weak" when asked about points?

Thank you

[aguahombre]

What you say is adequate, IMO. What those others do is inappropriate.

We say, "pass or correct, could have a longer suit elsewhere." If they then start asking about points, it gets awkward. You don't want to play any higher if opener has hearts, but might have some goodies that make game in a minor possible opposite a stiff heart. You can't describe the possibilities in terms of "points".

[barmar]

I think his question about points was about the minimum number of points allowed for the mini-Roman opening, not how many points responder is showing.

[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2014-August-10, 21:25, said:

I think his question about points was about the minimum number of points allowed for the mini-Roman opening, not how many points responder is showing.

If that is the case, and if the ACBL is the regulating authority in question, then 10 hcp are needed for this bid when playing in general convention chart or mid convention chart. When playing in superchart you can have less, but only because you always have spades (if there was no known suit even at super chart you'd need 10+). In practice, I don't think players get in trouble about upgrading good 9 or even 8 counts the way a 10-12 nt range would (I certainly see a fair number of 9 hcp mini-roman or flanery openings), but I think that is not supposed to be allowed either.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2014-August-11, 00:50, said:

In practice, I don't think players get in trouble about upgrading good 9 or even 8 counts the way a 10-12 nt range would (I certainly see a fair number of 9 hcp mini-roman or flanery openings), but I think that is not supposed to be allowed either.

What makes you think that?

[pran]

FWIW

My experience is that when HCP is declared as minimum or maximum for the partnership understanding of a particular call then "upgrading" or "downgrading" the HCP value for reason is normally accepted.

However, when a regulation stipulates that for instance a particular call is illegal unless the hand contains at least a specific HCP strength then that limit is absolute and not subject to "upgrade" because of extra values or similar.

So if ACBL requires 10+ HCP for a particular call to be legal then I would be very surprised if a player can be heard on the argument that he had 9 "very good" HCP.

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-11, 10:11, said:

What makes you think that?

I'm not sure which part you are asking about. If you are asking about why I think a 9 hcp flannery or mini-roman hand is against ACBL rules at general chart it is what Pran says about not being able to upgrade from a range that is below the regulatory permission, and those bids require 10+ points according to the chart (mini-roman is allowed because "a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP" and flannery is allowed because "two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits"). If it is why people don't seem to consider it a big deal, it is just my observation and experience.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-August-11, 12:30, said:

FWIW

My experience is that when HCP is declared as minimum or maximum for the partnership understanding of a particular call then "upgrading" or "downgrading" the HCP value for reason is normally accepted.

However, when a regulation stipulates that for instance a particular call is illegal unless the hand contains at least a specific HCP strength then that limit is absolute and not subject to "upgrade" because of extra values or similar.

So if ACBL requires 10+ HCP for a particular call to be legal then I would be very surprised if a player can be heard on the argument that he had 9 "very good" HCP.

Mbodell, on 2014-August-11, 14:08, said:

I'm not sure which part you are asking about. If you are asking about why I think a 9 hcp flannery or mini-roman hand is against ACBL rules at general chart it is what Pran says about not being able to upgrade from a range that is below the regulatory permission, and those bids require 10+ points according to the chart (mini-roman is allowed because "a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP" and flannery is allowed because "two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits"). If it is why people don't seem to consider it a big deal, it is just my observation and experience.

Sven is a very experienced director and while I don't know his playing history, I would be surprised if he's not an experienced player as well. However, unless that experience includes significant time playing in the ACBL, I don't see how it's relevant.

Let's take a look at the GCC. If the supposition that you can't upgrade a hand where the regulation specifies a minimum then:

1. You can't open a "general purpose" (whatever that means) 1♣ or 1♦ on less than 10 HCP.
2. You can't open a forcing 1NT on less than 15 HCP.
3. You can't open a three-suiter with less than 10 HCP 2♣ or 2♦.
4. You can't open a two suiter with less than 10 HCP, even if it has two known suits with at least 5-4 distribution.
5. You can't agree artificial or conventional methods after an opening 1NT on less than 10 HCP or with greater than a five point range.
6. You can't agree artificial or conventional methods after an opening weak 2 bid with has a range greater than seven points or a suit length shorter than five.

I don't know who upset TPTB in the first four cases, but in the last two it was "people playing the so-called 'kamikaze NT'" and "people playing weak 2s 'Marty Bergen' style". IAC what this interpretation says is "you are not allowed to use your judgement to upgrade these hands". That's insane — bridge is a game of judgement. If you can't use your judgement, why play?

Aside from that, I've never seen a ruling against anyone playing any of the first four methods (well, I've seen one about the forcing 1NT, but that was at a club, and the ruling was 'that bid is banned in this club'). If the "way to rule" against mini-NT (if you open with 9 HCP, that is conclusive evidence that you're violating the rules - and I suspect there have been cases where the directors simply assume the pair are playing some form of artificial responses, they don't check. After all, who would give up Stayman?)

If the ACBL's TDs are not ruling against people in cases 1-4, then whatever you think the rule is, it isn't "you're not allowed to use your judgement to upgrade these hands".

Edit: maybe #6 doesn't belong here. After all it says nothing about HCP.
Edit 2: I suspect some people who complain about an opening 1NT on 9 HCP do so because they know it'll mess up their opponents. After all, that particular regulation has been widely publicized. The others haven't.

[f0rdy]

Purely out of interest, is Mini-Roman (with no anchor suit) the only BSC allowed on the GCC?

[blackshoe]

"Brown sticker convention" is a meaningless term in the ACBL. That said, and noting that I'm not an expert on WBF regulations, it does not appear to me that mini-Roman is brown sticker (assuming the point range is something like 11-15, which is how I've seen it played here).

Given the above, a quick look at the WBF regulation leads me to believe that no BSCs are allowed on the GCC.

[awm]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-11, 21:51, said:

"Brown sticker convention" is a meaningless term in the ACBL. That said, and noting that I'm not an expert on WBF regulations, it does not appear to me that mini-Roman is brown sticker (assuming the point range is something like 11-15, which is how I've seen it played here).

Given the above, a quick look at the WBF regulation leads me to believe that no BSCs are allowed on the GCC.

I'm pretty sure that the 1NT overcall for takeout (commonly played as part of "the overcall structure") is brown sticker and also allowed on the general convention chart. As far as I know, it's the only such example. The relevant rules:

General Convention Chart (Competitive, Allowed):

3. Notrump overcall for either
.... b. three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

Brown Sticker:

b) An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
EXCEPTION: A natural overcall in no trumps.
EXCEPTION: any cue bid suit that shows a strong hand.
EXCEPTION: a jump cue bid in opponent's known suit that asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in that suit.

I don't see an exception for a 1NT overcall that promises at least three cards in each of three known suits.

[blackshoe]

I guess I missed that one.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-11, 18:36, said:

I don't know who upset TPTB in the first four cases, but in the last two it was "people playing the so-called 'kamikaze NT'" and "people playing weak 2s 'Marty Bergen' style". IAC what this interpretation says is "you are not allowed to use your judgement to upgrade these hands". That's insane — bridge is a game of judgement. If you can't use your judgement, why play?

The thing is that possible point ranges for bids are not discrete. If your mini-Roman range is 10-12 but you upgrade 9-counts from time to time, you are playing a lower minimum opening than someone who doesn't. If their minimum is 10, yours might be 9.9 or something. Now the ACBL has decided that 10 is the minimum, and 9.9 is too low. They make it 10 rather than 9.9 for the obvious reason that it is very difficult to distinguish between 9.9 and 9.8. Of course there is still scope for judgement if you are willing to go above the minimum by downgrading some 10-counts.

But surely it is obvious that if you want to play the absolute minimum permitted by the regulation then you constrain yourself to using that regulation, rather than your own judgement, to decide what to open.

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2014-August-12, 02:43, said:

But surely it is obvious that if you want to play the absolute minimum permitted by the regulation then you constrain yourself to using that regulation, rather than your own judgement, to decide what to open.

That is certainly what everyone tells me about not being allowed to upgrade a good 15-count to a strong 1♣ opening in England.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-11, 18:36, said:

IAC what this interpretation says is "you are not allowed to use your judgement to upgrade these hands". That's insane — bridge is a game of judgement. If you can't use your judgement, why play?

FWIW I think it makes a lot of sense. It makes the rulings a lot simpler and more consistent if the minimum hand strength is defined in some objective way. Maybe K&R or ZAR would be better than crude HCP, but HCP is a well-known concept. Saying that the minimum hand strength is "the equivalent of 10 HCPs according to the player's judgement" sounds like a recipe for incosistent rulings.

If you want to give yourself room for upgrades and the minimum legal strength of a 1NT opening is 10 HCP, it just means that you have to agree to play it as 11+ or maybe even 12+.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2014-August-12, 03:34, said:

FWIW I think it makes a lot of sense. It makes the rulings a lot simpler and more consistent if the minimum hand strength is defined in some objective way. Maybe K&R or ZAR would be better than crude HCP, but HCP is a well-known concept. Saying that the minimum hand strength is "the equivalent of 10 HCPs according to the player's judgement" sounds like a recipe for incosistent rulings.

If you want to give yourself room for upgrades and the minimum legal strength of a 1NT opening is 10 HCP, it just means that you have to agree to play it as 11+ or maybe even 12+.

Well, you may be right, but then why do we (in the ACBL) have "strong means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means" in regard to a strong 2♣ bid? That quote, btw, is direct from Horn Lake (Gary Blaiss, iirc).

[barmar]

It's pretty well known that in ACBL you're not allowed to upgrade 9 counts when playing 10-12 mini-NT. However, it's not clear that this applies across the board -- it's pretty much the only example ever given where ACBL prohibits using judgement to treat a hand outside the allowed range as if it were within the range.

Perhaps the issue is when the type of call already stipulates the hand shape. In general, you upgrade and downgrade hands based on distribution. But since the definition of mini-Roman specifies a particular distribution along with the point count, can you really justify upgrading a hand when it has the expected distribution? On the other hand, the specification of the bid doesn't require that all the points be prime and in the long suits -- ATxx ATxx T ATxx is a far different hand from Kxxx Kxxx K QJxx.

[aguahombre]

Of no particular relevance to the matter of legality:

I believe those who advocate being able to upgrade into range for this particular (4-4-4-1, unknown singleton) pattern are hurting themselves by doing so.

This array plays awkardly, and bodes ill for competition where all suits will break badly for the opponents. Using it as a preemptive tactic is ill-advised.

We bear the insults of the bashers (some highly respected) and employ mini-Roman because:

a) We don't like having to pass with our range (11-14) but see no purpose in opening lighter at all.
b) We get rid of that pattern and range as a consideration in other auctions.
c) We can handle the continuations for slam vs. game with an efficient follow-up scheme (suit-below stiff after 2NT).

In fact, the 4X1's with AAKK are upgraded "out"...too powerful.

ACBL should not be lumping this bid in with Muiderberg (sp?), multi, or other preempts of that nature when doing their regulating, when the range of MR is opening-bid +.

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-12, 08:10, said:

Well, you may be right, but then why do we (in the ACBL) have "strong means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means" in regard to a strong 2♣ bid? That quote, btw, is direct from Horn Lake (Gary Blaiss, iirc).

Because the chart for 2♣ doesn't say strong (19+ hcp) or whatever but instead just says "a strong hand". Elsewhere 15+ hcp is used as strong (forcing 1nt opening and also for when artificial and conventional calls are allowed after strong (15+ hcp) one level openings and any opening of 2♣ or higher), but the 2♣ opener is just "a strong hand" no hcp given.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2014-August-12, 12:54, said:

Because the chart for 2♣ doesn't say strong (19+ hcp) or whatever but instead just says "a strong hand". Elsewhere 15+ hcp is used as strong (forcing 1nt opening and also for when artificial and conventional calls are allowed after strong (15+ hcp) one level openings and any opening of 2♣ or higher), but the 2♣ opener is just "a strong hand" no hcp given.

My point was that I have no freaking idea what the ACBL thought it was doing when it defined the strong option of the 2♣ opening as "strong", and I'm not sure the ACBL does either.