[JLilly]

Hi all,

In looking at the General Convention Chart of the ACBL, it seems the standard 6-card weak 2♦ isn't permitted. Since I know that it is how almost every ACBL-player plays 2♦, I must be misreading the chart. But I don't see how. . .

Quote

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of: a) a strong hand.
b) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.
4. STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that
asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses
thereto.
5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) a strong hand.
b) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.
6. 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.
7. OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with
a four-card or longer minor.

http://web2.acbl.org...ntion-Chart.pdf

[1eyedjack]

I have never played in an ACBL event (with the exception of a very rare ACBL BBO robot tourney) but simply observe that by the same logic and reference a standard weak 2 in an major is also barred, and any 3-suit opener is barred because it makes no reference to 3-suit openers at all, and in the pre-amble it says that anything not expressly permitted is disallowed.

I am speculating, but my guess is that the chart only regulates artificial conventions, and an opening bid that is natural, shows length in that suit, and makes no reference to another suit, is allowed being not a "conventional" opening.

No doubt some lawyer will confirm.

[paulg]

The simple answer is that the GCC only regulates conventional and artificial calls. Natural calls are permitted and so natural weak two opening bids are not regulated.

The more complex answer includes that the GCC does regulate certain partnership understandings with respect to natural bids: for example, you are not permitted to play conventional or artificial responses to weak two-bids which, by partnership agreement, are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

[nullve]

Can "strength showing" ever mean "range showing"?

In Norwegian, "strength" is "styrke", "showing" is "visende" and "styrkevisende" is what a bid would be if it just showed a hcp range, like some fert openings (e.g. 1♦ showing 0-7 hcp and not saying anything about shape) do. So for a Norwegian like me it's tempting to read 4. as implying that two-level ace-asking ferts are allowed.

[barmar]

nullve, on 2017-April-16, 02:32, said:

Can "strength showing" ever mean "range showing"?

I think the intent is that this means "showing strong hands", so there's a minimum to the range, but no upper limit.

[SteveMoe]

The GCC does not prohibit 2-level preempts aka Weak 2's. The Alert Chart specifically allows them. See: http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf for explicit permission to use without alert. The regulations are split among several documents. Not that the GCC does not mention opening 3-level preempts either and they are not prohibited.

[johnu]

The problem is that the ACBL convention charts are exceptionally poorly written. Apparently it was too difficult to find somebody to rewrite them to be more clear and to eliminate ambiguities. (there is a committee that is in the process of proposing completely new convention charts)

You have to look at the alert chart (bottom of PDF under Treatment) so see where 2 and 3 level "natural" openings are addressed. (Why nothing about 4 level and higher openings?)

[blackshoe]

The alert chart neither allows nor disallows any bid. It merely specifies what bids require an alert.

[msjennifer]

The New WBF rules 2017 of Bridge are already circulated to all national associations,They are supposed to be strictly implemented from latest by September 2017. Is BBO going to implement them and when? I request them to issue a clarification to that effect.Thanking them in advance.

[GrahamJson]

I'm not familiar with this chart, but it does state that it refers to conventional bids. As a weak 2C is natural it is not mentioned. Neither are opening bids of 1H and 1S, which I assume are allowed.

[GrahamJson]

As a weak 2D is natural.....

[barmar]

msjennifer, on 2017-April-17, 02:09, said:

The New WBF rules 2017 of Bridge are already circulated to all national associations,They are supposed to be strictly implemented from latest by September 2017. Is BBO going to implement them and when? I request them to issue a clarification to that effect.Thanking them in advance.

I don't think any of the changes in the new Laws affect how BBO games are run. What do you think we need to change to implement them?

Did you mean to ask when ACBL is going to adopt the new Laws?

[mycroft]

There is an implied (because the last time the GCC was massively overhauled was before the Laws allowed regulating of natural Special Partnership Understandings) allowance of anything considered natural.

6-card weak 2s are natural, so they're allowed.

Note this also is the reason for DISALLOWED, 7 - which in the revisions I've seen of the convention charts has been removed in exchange for regulating the SPU itself. They couldn't regulate the natural SPUs, so they simply made them "impossible" to play.

[1Wishbone1]

GrahamJson, on 2017-April-17, 02:16, said:

As a weak 2C is natural it is not mentioned.

Ahh, but in your mistake, you are onto something. A 2 Club opening, if Natural, is Alertable. Precision 2 Clubs may guarantee 6 Clubs and 11 - 15 HCPs but it must be alerted since the Standard or SAYC reserves 2 Clubs as the Artificial Bid for a Strong Opening.

CW

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2017-April-16, 15:21, said:

The alert chart neither allows nor disallows any bid. It merely specifies what bids require an alert.

The GCC specifically says

>>> Conventional agreements permitted by the ACBL Convention Charts are subject
to the regulations documented in the ACBL Alert Pamphlet. For a complete list
of definitions see Alert Pamphlet-Definitions.

If a bid isn't classified as natural in the Alert definitions, in effect it is disallowed unless specifically allowed in the convention charts. Why couldn't the ACBL put all the definitions on the convention charts? Maybe somebody thought there was a size restriction on PDF files

[mycroft]

I think we're a bit confused here.

• The CCs tell you what you may or may not play, provided you disclose your agreements correctly. It also defines natural.
  
• The Alert Procedure (mostly - grumble) tells you how you disclose your agreements. This may include special procedures for unexpectedly natural calls (which are allowed by inference on the CC). "The regulations in the Alert Procedures" are simply those regulations that allow you to meet your Law 40 obligations in the ACBL. They don't (that I can see) affect the CC regulations in any way.
  
• The Alert Chart is a handy short guide that will get you through 90% of the issues. If it doesn't, see the Procedure, which should get you through 90% of the rest.

The definitions in the Alert Procedure are used to assist explanation; I'm not sure any of them are actually used in the CCs (except for Convention, which the last time the GCC was overhauled, was a definition in the Law Book). You will be pleased to note that the revisions to the CCs being proposed are all-in on Definitions. Or not - there are people saying you need a Law Degree to understand the new charts already...

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2017-April-17, 12:54, said:

I think we're a bit confused here.

• The CCs tell you what you may or may not play, provided you disclose your agreements correctly. It also defines natural.
  ...

The definitions in the Alert Procedure are used to assist explanation; I'm not sure any of them are actually used in the CCs (except for Convention, which the last time the GCC was overhauled, was a definition in the Law Book). You will be pleased to note that the revisions to the CCs being proposed are all-in on Definitions. Or not - there are people saying you need a Law Degree to understand the new charts already...

Who is confused and who is not confused?

Getting back to the premise of OP's question. Suppose the question was whether I could have an agreement to open a weak 2♦ showing 3+ diamonds. If you only read the GCC this should be perfectly legal since minor suit openings with 3+ cards are natural.

The alert chart specifically mentions requiring having 5+ cards for a 2 level opening bid to be an allowable treatment (and 6 for a 3 level opening bid). I asked ACBL rulings about this and they said that interpreting the GCC as allowing 2 or 3 level preempts on 3 card suits was (BS, my words).

[1eyedjack]

johnu, on 2017-April-17, 14:04, said:

Who is confused and who is not confused?

I am certainly at least a bit confused. I would expect the "GCC chart" (the subject of this thread) to define what conventions are permitted, and then separately an "alert chart" to define, of those which are permitted (by the GCC chart), which are to be alerted (or prealerted, or announced, or whatever). Have I got that wrong?

[mycroft]

I would, again, remind us all of DISALLOWED, 7.

Yes, I do believe somewhere that you need 4 cards at the two level, and 5 at the 3. Oh well, that makes me technically incorrect, but practically, we're good. As far as I am concerned, go ahead and play your 3+ 2♦ openers with no conventional responses, rebids, or defences to defences. That includes blackwood, takeout or "I want to sacrifice" or "I have one trick, how about you?" doubles, "strong raise" cues, fit jump shifts, Goldman Raises/X, "I'm not sure about this" redoubles of 3NTx,...

Also note that all of these DISALLOWED, 7 issues are currently scheduled to go out the window once the new overhaul hits. You just won't be able to play them (and yes, that's because "natural" is better defined, and because *most-but-not-all* natural calls are explicitly allowed on the charts).

1eyedjack: as long as you extend your "definition" for Alerting to all calls (and some plays, at least for pre-alerting), conventional or not, no, you're not wrong. Almost everybody plays an Alertable natural call (Announceable, but that's a special kind of Alert) - their 1NT opener. Playing EHAA, I get the weak, but natural 2♣ call and the NF, natural (but may be offshape) 2NT response to a weak 2. You people in the UK get a bunch more!

[Caitlynne]

The ACBL convention charts regulate CONVENTIONAL bids, not natural bids. A weak 2D opening, such as that integrated into SAYC, is a natural non-conventional opening that is permitted.

All natural opening bids with constructive benefits - i.e., those not deemed to have a primary purpose of destroying the opponents's methods (e.g., a 1NT opening on a balanced hand with fewer than 10 HCP) - are permitted.