[JoAnneM]

I have been asked by the owner of a non-sanctioned online bridge club for an opinion on a bid made in their club. The opening bid was 2C and was alerted as 2C = weak BOTH majors, OR any GF hand. This question is whether this is a "legal" bid in any santioning body, and at what level. The hand in question was

97432
A1063
Q94
2

MP vul unknown

I need help, the convention charts are very confusing. Thanks, Jo Anne

[mgoetze]

Well yes, the ACBL convention charts are very confusing, and indeed very open to interpretation. That has been pointed out very often on these forums.

Meanwhile, the convention you ask about is not a BSC, since in its weak meaning it promises 4+ cards in a known suit. Therefore it would be legal at pretty much any club game in Germany (category C), and no doubt many other countries.

[JoAnneM]

Thanks, do you think this is a bid that would require a written defense to be provided?

[wank]

this would be permissible in any random bridge club in England. we don't have written defences at all here.

in America where you need a written defence for even standard multis then this would definitely need one. did the organiser mention anything about written defences in her tournament preview spiel? most of the world don't use them, so it would be ridiculous to expect a customer to provide one unless the rules specify it.

[mgoetze]

Just as in England, there are no written defenses in Germany. Generally speaking, I would consider it completely impractical to require the provision of written defenses in any BBO tournament.

[Siegmund]

In the ACBL, I think a lot of directors would rule it as Superchart. I'd like to allow it under (7) of the Mid-chart - it's not quite a transfer to hearts, or a transfer to spades, but it shows a known suit if it is weak, so showing two known suits seems like a bonus, not a setback. You'd have to ask somebody (a few somebodies, preferably) who directs at that level what they think.

As you've already heard, it's already widely allowed elsewhere in the world.

[gnasher]

It's plainly not allowed in ACBL Mid-chart events. It's not a "Transfer opening bids at the two level or higher showing a weak bid in the suit being transferred to." - it is a two-way bid, and one of the meanings doesn't specify any suit.

[Siegmund]

Let's quote the entire item, gnasher: "A transfer opening bid at the two-level or higher showing a weak bid in the suit being transferred to or a type or types of strong hand." A two-way 2C that e.g. shows either a weak hand with hearts or any strong hand, is Mid-chart legal, regardless of what types of strong hands are included. The only question before us here is what to do when the weak hand promises both hearts and spades rather than one. To not allow it on the Midchart, you have to be the type of person who believes that "bidding X on a set of a hands S is allowed, but restricting bidding X to a subset of S is not allowed." We know the ACBL has done this to kick things up from GCC to Midchart -- claiming that weak twos that promise a second suit are not GCC but weak twos that might contain a second suit are -- but I don't recall them doing the same for Mid to Super.

[gnasher]

We must be reading two different documents. This is the one I'm looking at:

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

That doesn't contain the text that you quoted, so far as I can see.

[campboy]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-18, 17:09, said:

The only question before us here is what to do when the weak hand promises both hearts and spades rather than one. To not allow it on the Midchart, you have to be the type of person who believes that "bidding X on a set of a hands S is allowed, but restricting bidding X to a subset of S is not allowed."

Even setting aside the question of what the regulation actually says, this line of argument doesn't hold up. This is not restricting to a subset. If my weak option is a weak two in hearts then hearts will be the longest (or equal-longest) suit, but if my weak option is both majors (and as we see from the hand given, 5-4 is acceptable) either major may be longer.

Anyway, as you say yourself, the people who wrote the convention charts evidently don't agree with your subset principle, so it hardly matters whether such a regulation would violate it.

[the hog]

JoAnneM, on 2010-December-18, 13:49, said:

Thanks, do you think this is a bid that would require a written defense to be provided?

Perhaps, if you are a total beginner.

[JoAnneM]

the hog, on 2010-December-18, 18:49, said:

Perhaps, if you are a total beginner.

I asked the question so I could give a complete answer. I don't plan on being condescending in my reply to them.

[blackshoe]

As far as I can see, the only weak/strong opening allowed on the mid chart is 2C showing a strong hand or weak with diamonds. So this would be Superchart. Reading that chart, it appears that suggested defenses are required for any convention not on the general chart, including mid chart conventions which don't require a defense. I can't believe even the ACBL intended that, though. In any case, this isn't even mid chart, so it should require a defense. Note: I have no idea how thoroughly the requirement for a defense is enforced in Superchart events, or even if it's enforced at all.

[Siegmund]

Sorry, gnasher; it looks like I was looking at the previous iteration of the chart, the one before they added the twelves, sixes, and twos to it. Does indeed appear to be Superchart now. I keep trying to forget just how little is left on the Midchart after the last revision...sigh...

[hrothgar]

JoAnneM, on 2010-December-18, 13:19, said:

I have been asked by the owner of a non-sanctioned online bridge club for an opinion on a bid made in their club. The opening bid was 2C and was alerted as 2C = weak BOTH majors, OR any GF hand. This question is whether this is a "legal" bid in any santioning body, and at what level. The hand in question was

97432
A1063
Q94
2

MP vul unknown

I need help, the convention charts are very confusing. Thanks, Jo Anne

Hi Jo Anne

As you can see, various national regulatory bodies use an extremely wide range of different regulations.

Asking whether "any" sanctioning body permits a given treatment is pretty silly.
For all intents and purposes, the answer is always going to be yes.

This bid is (essentially) banned at anything but the Superchart level in ACBL-land.

The bid is clearly not GCC legal
There is no sanctioned defense in the Defense database.
Therefore you can't play it

The question regarding providing a defense is moot.
(The bid itself isn't legal)

If you look at the WBF convention charts, the bid in question is neither a HUM nor a BSC.
There don't appear to be any restrictions on using this bid.

[Free]

It's very popular in Belgium and is allowed at every level. Most play it as at least 4-4 in the Majors which makes it much more common and agressive.

Since at least 1 suit of 4+ cards is known in the weak version, it's not BSC, it's also not HUM, it's just Red according to WBF I guess.

Imo nothing should require a written defense to be provided. Everyone should come up with their own defenses. If this is something strange in your country it should definitely be pre alerted so you can agree on a defense on the spot (based on similar openings for example). Afterwards you can come up with a good defense when you're at home and you'll be prepared for next time.