[hrothgar]

I was (gasp) playing in an ACBL sectional over the weekend. I ran into a pair playing a convention that I hadn't seen before. Their 2D opening was defined as either

1. A two suited hand with 5 Hearts and 4 Spades ( ~ 11-15 HCP)

or

2. A three suited hand 4+ Hearts, 4+ Spades, and 0-1 Diamonds. (~ 11 - 15 HCP) (4=4=1=4 and 4=4=0=5 shapes are both legal)

The ACBL GCC explicitly sanctions

Quote

5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
B) a strong hand.
c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

I'm curious how the phrase "both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP" should be interpreted. Are 4-4 patterns legit or is a 5-4 required?

[han]

I think 4-4 is legal but not 100% sure.

The fact they further restrict the hand patterns and disclose this properly should not make it illegal.

[ralph23]

The "both majors" item is, it seems, clearly meant to allow (ugh) Flannery 2♦, but it is written more broadly than that. I would rule, if asked, that 4-4 is within the meaning of the definition of "both majors."

There are a couple of reasons.

1. ACBL defines a major bid as "natural" if it is 4+ cards. There is nothing in the item at hand that suggests that more should be required.

2. If you hold 5♥-4♠ then clearly you hold "both majors" -- that is the Flannery pattern and we know a 2♦ opening for this is permitted in GCC.

THerefore, the 5 card suit and the 4 card suit in the Flannery pattern both qualify as a "major" within the definition.

Therefore the 4-card suit in the pattern (♠)qualifies as a "major". So it would be very peculiar to hold that two 4-card suits do not qualify as "both majors." We already decided that a 4-card ♠ suit could be a "major" .....

3. If it were desired to require 5-4 for GCC qualification, it would be easy enough to say so, rather than use the language "both majors."

Anyway, that was the question you asked.

You didn't ask "Was their convention GCC legal?" but I believe the answer to that is NO it is not. The GCC expressly by the languge you quote says that 2♦ may be used to convey "one of the following". ("indicating one of ...")

As I understand it (but maybe I didn't??), they were not using it that way, but a 2♦ opening could show EITHER a OR b. If that were intended to be sanctioned as GCC-legal, the GCC language on the artificial 2♦ opener would be "one or more of the following".

But it isn't. So, you can pick one of the three. You can't use 2♦ to show either a or b or c. Or to show either a or b. You must pick one.

I'm sure they were just confused and not trying to circumvent the rules.... After all, they like Flannery!

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-09, 11:44

[han]

I played against a pair that played Flannery this summer, they ended up winning the Spingold. So I think we can do without comments like "they must have been confused because they like Flannery".

Also, it seems to me that both meaning of their bid fall under (a) so there is no problem.

[ralph23]

Hannie, on Sep 9 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

I played against a pair that played Flannery this summer, they ended up winning the Spingold. So I think we can do without comments like "they must have been confused because they like Flannery".

Also, it seems to me that both meaning of their bid fall under (a) so there is no problem.

A. Well.... Spingold is a team event, so a pair couldn't win it...

The Nickell team won the Spingold. Which pair among them plays Flannery? I wasn't aware that any of them do....

And hey, if you can't pick on Flannery, for heaven's sake, what's the fun anyway?

B. The argument that category c is subsumed under a (to some extent anyway) is interesting, and indeed a nice bit of lawyering imo.

This argument is, that the pair is just using a system whereby a 2♦ opening shows "both majors". Every hand that they open with 2♦ will necessarily show "both majors" -- either 4-4 or 5-4. So the hands all qualify under a. Item a doesn't specify what the minors are like ..... all that matters is that you hold "both majors."

But ... that is not what 2♦ shows in their system.

It conveys more information than that. It may be either

(1) a 5-4 hand in the majors, or

(2) a hand with 4 (or 5)♠, 4 (or 5)♥, 0 or 1♦, and 4 (or 5)♣. A 3-suited hand. To hold this hand, you must hold 4♠, 4♥ and 4♣, and your thirteenth card may be any suit.

That is a 3-suited hand. And there is a specific rule addressing 3-suited hands. Yes, of course the hand does contain "both majors." It also contains ♣, by agreement. And there is a special item on 3-suited hands.

So while it is indeed an interesting argument with some merit, I would still hold that their agreement is not simply one that shows "both majors", even though all hands they open 2♦ will indeed contain "both majors." It is an agreement that specifically promises either a 2-suited (majors) or a 3-suited (majors + ♣) hand.

The intent of the rule, imo, is -- by its language "indicating one of" as well as by its express consideration of both 2-and-3-suited-hands -- to disallow such systems in the GCC.

But it's an interesting argument with some force. Want to submit it to Mike Flader at ACBL? I wonder if it's been ruled on before.

[TimG]

In response to Ralph: Hamman-Soloway play Flannery.

I think I see where Richard is going with this. For weak openings that show two-suits, the two suits often must be at least 5-4. At least that is the way the committee which approves mid-chart conventions and defenses seems to view things.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Sep 9 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

I'm curious how the phrase "both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP" should be interpreted.  Are 4-4 patterns legit or is a 5-4 required?

Well, let me put it this way...

We play 2♦ as 4/4 in the majors or better, 11-15 hcp. This includes 4441. We even use it rarely with 4432!

As for why, we play Precision. We have the same problems all Precision players have with 5 hearts & 4 spades, and 4-4-4-1 with a singleton diamond. But then we decided, as long as we're going to do that, why not put the more distributional hands in there as well?

Trust me, this is legal. I've used it in high level events, and got it approved by Flader & Company.

Edited to add: Note #6: Opening bid at the 2 level or higher indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP, and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

So 5-4 in the majors was made legal by #6. If they'd meant #5a to mean 5-4, then it would be redundant. #5a must be looser than #6, otherwise why have it at all? You could just have #3 and #5 look identical.

[han]

ralph23, on Sep 9 2007, 01:38 PM, said:

A. Well.... Spingold is a team event, so a pair couldn't win it...

Thanks for clarifying Ralph .

Arend and I had a long discussion the evening before we played Nickell about our defense against Flannery. We came up with an interesting structure that I don't remember. But then we played only one session against Hamman-Soloway and I think Flannery didn't come up.

I understand that people like to joke about Gerber and Flannery but seriously suggesting that people who play these conventions don't know what they are doing goes too far.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Sep 9 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 9 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

I'm curious how the phrase "both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP" should be interpreted.  Are 4-4 patterns legit or is a 5-4 required?

Well, let me put it this way...

We play 2♦ as 4/4 in the majors or better, 11-15 hcp. This includes 4441. We even use it rarely with 4432!

As for why, we play Precision. We have the same problems all Precision players have with 5 hearts & 4 spades, and 4-4-4-1 with a singleton diamond. But then we decided, as long as we're going to do that, why not put the more distributional hands in there as well?

Trust me, this is legal. I've used it in high level events, and got it approved by Flader & Company.

Edited to add: Note #6: Opening bid at the 2 level or higher indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP, and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

So 5-4 in the majors was made legal by #6. If they'd meant #5a to mean 5-4, then it would be redundant. #5a must be looser than #6, otherwise why have it at all? You could just have #3 and #5 look identical.

I'm surprised by this ruling. About 13 years ago, in the context of a strong club system, we tried something similar and were told that a 5-4 minimum was required to meet the definition of "two-suited." The ACBL seems to be inconsistent with various rulings, so I'd suggest checking and re-checking each time you play tournament bridge, at least at the beginning of the week.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Sep 9 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

I'm surprised by this ruling.  About 13 years ago, in the context of a strong club system, we tried something similar and were told that a 5-4 minimum was required to meet the definition of "two-suited."  The ACBL seems to be inconsistent with various rulings, so I'd suggest checking and re-checking each time you play tournament bridge, at least at the beginning of the week.

I don't know if you can say that different rulings made 13 years apart are inconsistent. Were the same convention regulations in place in both instances?

IAC, my take, on reading the regulation, is that the stated agreement is not legal under the GCC. While I agree that "both majors" would include 4-4, which means that the 4=4=1=4 and 4=4=0=5 hands meet the definition, the stated agreement specifically excludes 4=4 hands that do not have a singleton or void in diamonds, and so the agreement is not made under regulation 5{a} but under a combination of 5{a} and 5{c}, which is specifically prohibited by the words "one of".

[Blofeld]

I think this is a restriction of option (a); a proper combination of (a) and © would include some three-suiters missing a major suit (or count 5431s as 3-suiters, allowing a trebleton in a major).

Showing "both majors" doesn't seem to specify that the hand must be "two-suited" (whatever that means).

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Sep 9 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

I'm surprised by this ruling. About 13 years ago, in the context of a strong club system, we tried something similar and were told that a 5-4 minimum was required to meet the definition of "two-suited."

That's correct, two-suited is defined as 5-4 or better.

However, 'showing both majors' is not the same thing as 'two-suited'. Again, if they were the same, then it would be redundant, since any two-suiter at the two level promising at least 10 HCP is legal.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 9 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

I'm surprised by this ruling.  About 13 years ago, in the context of a strong club system, we tried something similar and were told that a 5-4 minimum was required to meet the definition of "two-suited."

That's correct, two-suited is defined as 5-4 or better.

Hm. Defined where?

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Sep 10 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 10 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 9 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

I'm surprised by this ruling.  About 13 years ago, in the context of a strong club system, we tried something similar and were told that a 5-4 minimum was required to meet the definition of "two-suited."

That's correct, two-suited is defined as 5-4 or better.

Hm. Defined where?

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/units...vChart12_03.pdf

Openings, #6.

Also Competitive #3 and #4.

[joshs]

This is Alan Sontag's 2D opening from his matchpoint precision. I have asked for clarification about this bid in the past. I was even told that
2D showing flannary OR a precision 2D (can be 4-3 in the majors if 5 clubs) was GCC legal. I still wonder about that one....

[blackshoe]

There are several places on the GCC where "at least 5-4" is specified in conjunction with "two- suited". I don't believe that constitutes a definition of the term "two-suited". Rather it indicates that the two-suited hands in question must be at least 5-4 in the two suits. Since the rule in question here (#5a) doesn't make that distinction, I don't believe it applies.

I wonder about "Flannery OR Precision" 2D myself, Josh. I suspect somebody sold you a bill of goods.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Sep 10 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

There are several places on the GCC where "at least 5-4" is specified in conjunction with "two- suited". I don't believe that constitutes a definition of the term "two-suited". Rather it indicates that the two-suited hands in question must be at least 5-4 in the two suit.

OK, you're right. Still, I think if you say "two suited" to an ACBL director, and he thinks "5-4".

But the 2♦ definition doesn't mention "two suited" or "five-four". It says "Shows both majors", which clearly must have some other definition.

Quote

I wonder about "Flannery OR Precision" 2D myself, Josh. I suspect somebody sold you a bill of goods.

There's a number of nudge-nudge wink-wink rules, where things which obey the spirit but not the letter of GCC are allowed. Forcing 1NT may not be invitiational or better, a 2 clubs response of 1 spade must show either 3+ clubs or be absolutely game forcing, and the opening 2 club bid are the three biggies I can think of.

The letter of the law clearly bans what you saw, Josh, but it wouldn't shock me if it was another of those little winks.

[awm]

This reminds me of a time some friends of mine were playing precision in a regional. They were using 2♦ opening to show a three-suiter short in diamonds, but including (43)15 shapes. Opponents called the director because this is "not a three suited hand" as it doesn't show 4+ cards in each of three suits. The director initially ruled against my friends. Their response was to mention a number of top American pairs (i.e. Cohen-Berkowitz, Meckstroth-Rodwell) who play the 2♦ opening in this way... to which the director changed his mind and said their 2♦ opening was fine on the general chart!

Seems ACBL regulations are left deliberately vague in order that individual directors have the latitude to rule based on the identity of the players involved. Combined with the often contradictory responses by Flader and Beye when these questions are put to them, I don't think it's even all that useful to discuss "what the general chart allows" on a forum like this.

[joshs]

blackshoe, on Sep 10 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

There are several places on the GCC where "at least 5-4" is specified in conjunction with "two- suited". I don't believe that constitutes a definition of the term "two-suited". Rather it indicates that the two-suited hands in question must be at least 5-4 in the two suits. Since the rule in question here (#5a) doesn't make that distinction, I don't believe it applies.

I wonder about "Flannery OR Precision" 2D myself, Josh. I suspect somebody sold you a bill of goods.

Well I wasn't sold on anything. I don't think it should be GCC legal by the rules, but the director said it was. Do I think directors usually underswtand the convention charts? Well maybe not...

[rbforster]

joshs, on Sep 10 2007, 06:26 PM, said:

Do I think directors usually understand the convention charts? Well maybe not...

HAHAHAHAH!

oh seriously, even the most careful readers of the convention charts around here (who spend WAY more time thinking about weird conventions and the rules) don't understand what the rules mean in many cases. Sure you know what the rules say, but what they say is often so vague as to be quite difficult to interpret definitively. This ambiguity, together with the lack of expert knowledge of most directors in this area of the rules, means you can basically play any convention you can convince the local director is ok.

As for the original question about 2♦ Precision or Flannery, I think it's pretty clear that it is allowed under the "both majors (4/4+) 10+ points" rule. There is no rule that says you have to open ALL hands with both majors a particular way, if you have a better systemic bid available. There are negative inferences here (since certain balanced hands with 2+ diamonds would open 1♦ precision) which were correctly volunteered by the players in describing which types of "both majors" hands would be opened this way.

After all, nobody complains if your weak 2M bids promises a 6 card major and NO 4 card other major. Yet the majority of players use this restriction, choosing an alternative systemic option ("pass" typically) as preferable to bidding 2M with these 64 shapes.