BBO Discussion Forums: Responding 1H with 3 card Major - BBO Discussion Forums

barmar, on 2017-January-09, 10:50, said:

And by extension, a "natural" 4+ card one of a major is not specifically allowed if you want to go down that road, as well as 3+ card minor bids.

The top of the GCC says

The conventions listed below must be allowed in all ACBL sanctioned tournament play (other than in events with an upper restriction of 20 or fewer masterpoints and events for which the ACBL conditions of contest state otherwise) and at club-level events with multiple-site overall masterpoint awards."

Note the text "The conventions listed below ...." There is no mention of natural bids being allowed because they were allowed by Law 40.

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 03:02, said:

I actually agree with you that the "if" is not "if and only if". However, if a 3 card heart suit is supposed to be natural, where is the bullet point that says "A response is considered natural if in a major it shows three or more cards in that suit. There is nothing that says a 3 (or 2 or 1 or zero) card major suit is natural.

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 03:02, said:

That's a matter of disagreement.

Shugart23, on 2017-January-09, 03:02, said:

I could claim that a 1♥ response holding a void is an offer to play the contract in hearts. I don't claim it will be a good contract , but an offer to play in 1♥. By the wording in definition 6, it would not be a convention because it directly relates to the denomination named.

johnu, on 2017-January-10, 01:28, said:

At the risk of having Mr. Z laugh and fall off his chair.....We all agree a 4 card M is natural and as someone noted above, we don't have a definition of what is NOT natural. We have a definition that appears to suggest that may exist other bids that are natural that have shorter length than 4. I would suggest that singletons and doubletons are excluded from consideration. because they don't have about the expected length and strength ( everyone expects 4+.). This leaves the universe of possible 3 card Major hands as candidates of additional natural bids . Now here, I don't claim that all 3 card M are natural; If All 3 card M suits were natural, they would have said so in the definition. Therefore we are left with some 3 card M responses might be natural.
I think this is where TD discretion comes in..I think 'some' 3 card M are natural and more specifically, I think only in the canapé system can a 3 card M response be considered as natural, because the partnership is clearly seeking out the 8 card fit. Since we are dealing with poorly written rules which must be interpreted, there is my interpretation (whilst others interpret them as not A implies not B).
The ACBL allow3s for canapé systems to be played. Surely they don't intend that canapé players have to search for 9 card Major fits...or if that is their intention, then they may as well ban canapé systems from tournament play vs. hobbling it

(Not to get distracted, but playing 5 card Majors, if one opens 1M and is raised to 2M by partner, why is responder not required ro have 4 cards by the GCC definition ?)

Shugart23, on 2017-January-10, 06:01, said:

please refer to the link I gave some moments before. In particular, this point is discussed in the comments section underneath. You can a. treat it as your mythical long lost exception and stop looking for it in the 1M responses, b. see raises as not showing length in a suit directly rather than support for partner, c. use this as justification for 1M as 3+ as Ken did, or d. conclude that SAYC, 2/1, etc are illegal systems and immediately report any opps using them to the TD. I am confident you will choose c, not because it is right but because you want it to be so. That you reject b along the way says more about you than the regs (as bad as they are).

helene_t, on 2017-January-05, 08:20, said:

I'm the individual who approached Flader and Beyes in OCT 2006 and asked them if playing 1M over 1m and 1S over 1H with 3+cards was legal IN THE CONTEXT OF A CANAPÉ SYSTEM. After 4 weeks of internal review (Beyes acknowledged that it was a very difficult decision with strong feelings on both sides), I received this reply from Mike Flader in NOV 2006:

"Here is the official answer. This response in a three card major is a treatment, not a convention. As such, it is legal with the
appropriate alerts and explanations in all ACBL-sanctioned play.

Regards,
Mike Flader"

I think that it is important to recognize that:
a) it is legal if there is a reasonable expectation that opener could have an unbid 5+cM
b) it is fully alertable, despite being natural as it is unexpected

I carry my formal confirmation email with me to all ACBL events to support my position if it ever comes up. Which it doesn't...

Kurt Schneider

PS - for those wanting a copy of the original ACBL correspondence, please contact me directly at schneider.kurtatcomcastdotnet.

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-10, 07:08, said:

You are correct. I will continue with my system and hopefully obtain the supporting documentation from kurt s if I should ever need it ( haven't needed it yet). I really don't reject your case 'b';I am actually viewing the 1H or 1S as a raise and support for partner. I just don't know if he has a 5 card Major until his second bid (although I have a reasonable expectation that he does when he opens 1D). Thanks for the link. I will go read it.

blackshoe, on 2017-January-09, 19:35, said:

I suspect their responsibility is mainly writing the regulations, and they don't get together often enough to be able to handle routine questions about them.

blackshoe, on 2017-January-09, 19:27, said:

You are asking me to identify a person. My claim is that the problem is the lack of a consistent process.

The ACBL requires the equivalent of case law, it needs to be discoverable, and it needs to be applied consistently.

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 08:18, said:

Why is the original decision rendered by the ACBL definitive rather than a later decision that reached a different decision?
In general, one would consider the decision that was rendered most recently to be the one that is in effect.

This is especially true since there was a revision to the Laws that took place after this decision was reached.

hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 09:50, said:

To what "later decision" are you referring?

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 09:55, said:

See post number 46 in this thread

hrothgar, on 2017-January-05, 17:38, said:

I think that it is important to understand the presentation of my case in 2006, and the significant review it went through at ACBL. It was NOT a decision by one individual, but by many senior TDs.

Here is the text of my original email to rulings@ACBL.org (which apparently was the wrong place to send my question, see below).

=====================================
Preamble

We play a strong club with a canapé front end. With any canapé system, it is preferable to keep the auction forward-going with a constructive bid of 1M over 1D (1S over 1H as well) on a 3+ major (alerted). Failure to bid 1M announces to opener that he should not canapé reverse with his 5card suit since responder has less than 3 cards. This allows a non-forcing 1N to be passed by opener with a longer major - knowing that responder does NOT have 3 or more cards in the canapé major.

For example - over 1D (either long diamonds or 4+d5major) - responder bids 1H with 3+h - failure to do so by bidding 1S, 1N (non-forcing) or 2m indicates 0-2 hearts. This allows opener to pass 1N with 5hearts instead of a mandatory reverse into 2H when responder's heart length has not been clarified. This would also apply to a 1H opening when responder has 3+ spades.

We pre-alert the canapé bidding and alert all of the canapé bids as mandated in the pre-alert rules.

From the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" American Edition (As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the AMERICAN CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE) effective May 27, 1997

Definitions - http://web2.acbl.org...definitions.htm

Convention
1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.
2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

There can be no argument from the above definition that responding constructively with 3+ in the major with the intent of playing there (specific to canapé) is NOT a convention - and hence cannot be regulated as such. Law 40D does not apply (it is neither a convention nor a partnership understanding relating to weak openings) and hence the ACBL cannot regulate the bid.

Summary & Discussion
In our canapé system, we play 1D-1M and 1H-1S as 3+ in the responding major and alert. They are 1-round forcing bids, no different than their counterparts with 4+ cards. Because opener can [and often does] have a 5-card major in a canapé system, the bids specifically offer a willingness to play in the denomination named. We can see no reason, whatsoever, for this to be disallowed NOR have we had any reason thus far to presume that they are disallowed.
However, in an attempt to be proactive, we would prefer to have a confirming "official" ruling on this [i.e. a positive position statement by the ACBL] because it carries more weight than an analysis of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge should we find ourselves with a Director call. We ultimately want to see the GCC codified to allow it specifically.
=====================================


It should be noted that the LAWS do not define "natural". They define "conventional" (or "partnership understanding" in the 2007 version). That which is NOT conventional is by extension "natural" or a "treatment" (alertable). Artificial is a subset of conventional.

It should ALSO be noted that the GCC DEFINITIONS have not changed since then. The ACBL definition of 4cM as "natural" was in place at the time of this decision. So it simply means that 3+M over a canapé opening does not apply to "natural", as it is a treatment.

And in support of the depth of the review process...


=================================
Kurt,

This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox.

That aside, we are considering our reply carefully. Your original message was sent to several senior TDs for their views. These individuals work ACBL tournaments virtually every week. It often takes some time to come to a consensus opinion that all are comfortable with. You will receive an 'official' response to your statements as soon as we reach that consensus.

Rick for Mike who is on assignment
==================================

Note: BOLD is mine. And moreover...

==================================
KWS: For future reference, is there a more appropriate channel for communication of this type of question?

RICK: Usually Mike would acknowledge your note and send it on to me. He is in a very busy phase right now, so that just didn't happen. Our error. Please accept my apology for that delay.

This box will work, with Mike acting as the distributor to others when appropriate. Normally we can get something like this finished in a week or so. Your note has generated some interesting comments amongst the senior staff. Some now even want to move canape to the Mid Chart. While that isn't going to happen, in the end we'll be able to better educate the junior staff if a canape problem comes up.
==================================
Again BOLD is mine.


And finally the 'official answer'.


==================================

KWS: Many folks are still waiting on an "official response" to this question that I submitted originally on October 10th. How is it coming?

Dear Kurt,

Here is the official answer. This response in a three card major is a treatment, not a convention. As such, it is legal with the appropriate alerts and explanations in all ACBL-sanctioned play.

Regards,
Mike Flader
===================================


This was not a simple call to the ACBL, or to Memphis. It was a thoroughly reviewed and reasoned decision by multiple senior TD's, as well as Beyer and Flader, who CAME TO A CONSENSUS.

Could we get off this topic and understand that it is LEGAL within a canapé framework. Please?

Kurt

sure...let me herd my goats first

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 10:31, said:

I don't play this treatment. And neither do I play in the ACBL. But if I did, I think I would be a little bit nervous of relying on a decision which seems rather specifically to be based on concluding that this is a treatment rather than a convention, since as I understand it that distinction is no longer relevant to the issue of whether or not the ACBL regulations can affect the legality of this agreement.

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 10:31, said:

I reject the assertion that your choice whether or not to play canape should have any bearing on what bids are / are not legal.

Canape is a style of bidding in which one choses to show a shorter suit before a longer suit.
Given a set of bidding regulations players may or may not chose to adopt a canape style.

However, it seems ridiculous to claim that bedrock definitions in the regulatory framework should have dependencies on one's bidding style...

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 10:50, said:

Oh sorry, I see. What you are saying is

"Hey Mike, can I respond with my 3+M whenever I feel like it... CANAPE!"

That makes all the difference.

hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 11:34, said:

Wrong again. This was NOT a ruling question, as Rick made very clear to me. It was a request for a method interpretation. I quote from his email: "This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox." This was a clear message to NOT send a question like this to RULINGS, so all of my further correspondence was directly with Rick and Mike through their ACBL mailboxes.

So what did I ask? I asked for a method decision (did you not read the history and the preamble?). Which the ACBL did and made a CONSENSUS decision - not just Mike, but Rick Beye and multiple other senior directors. If it was a ruling question, as Senior Rules Director, Mike had the ability to simply say "yes or no" on his own. And he didn't.

So why would I choose to go back and have a fully vetted decision re-reviewed (a decision which took 4 weeks to make) because some ACBL member threw out a random RULING question with no context? It is not surprising at all that Mike simply sloughed it off.

Why are you so vehemently against something that has been approved in writing? Why do you care? And where do you get off judging a legitimately ruled method interpretation? Frankly, what you think is totally irrelevant to our playing this style, as it has been documented as legal.


Kurt

kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 13:33, said:

Kurt, my frustration is not with you, but rather with a regulatory system that allows one to go fishing for interpretations, finding one that you like, and using this as justification to do whatever you want.

As I said, if you are so confident with the ruling you got, ask them again.
Specifically point to the inconsistency in rulings.
Ask for clarification in light of the 2008 law changes.

With this said and done, I think that the mental contortions that Shugart23 is performing is a travesty.
The following is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote

hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 14:03, said:

But that is the system. And I used it accordingly.

hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 14:03, said:

I'm happy with my answer, it meets my needs, and it's documented as legal. Why would I go back and ask again? And the 2007 LAWS changes did not impact "treatments".

Kurt

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-10, 11:17, said:

To your first point, in my opinion this treatment only makes sense if one is playing a canapé style. There is no reason to show a 3cM unless opener can have a 5+cM.

To your 'distinction' point. One must recognize that this was a GROUP decision. Mike et al had the power, as well as the precedent of the "definitions" in the ACBL GCC to impose a strict 4cM requirement. And yet they didn't. They voluntarily chose to call it a treatment despite having the power and rule precedents to ban it.

What has changed since then? And if you suggest the 2007 LAW, how does that impact their thinking? They ALWAYS had the right to impose the 4cM rule. All the 2007 LAW does is support their rights.

Kurt