[awm]

A while ago we had some discussion over whether it's legal in ACBL tournaments to play an opening 2M showing 5+ in the major and 4+ in an undisclosed minor, with a weak hand. I sent an email to ACBL rulings about this and got the following reply:

Dear Adam,

Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically mentioned is allowed.

A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed.

Hope this answers your questions.

Mike Flader

So it looks like Muiderberg is okay. This seems to imply that Frelling-style two bids are also allowed, although the followups will be severely restricted (as for any "weak two" bid that could be a four-card suit).

[pbleighton]

I'm not entirely sure he answered your question. Is it OK to have spades and a minor, or must it be spades and a specific minor. His sentence:
"If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed."
is worrisome, since this refers to the "10+ hcp and at least 5-4 in two known suits" exception.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Hi Adam

I'm gonna drop an email to Memphis as well...

If you look back to my original post I noted that it would probably take 2-3 tried to find someone who actually understood the regulations in question.

Mike Flader correctly notes that a Muiderberg 2 is a natural bid. However, he doesn't not comment whether this is a convention is is the point under contention. (Actually, he does claim that Muiderberg is NOT conventional because it is an offer to play in the named denomination. However he's wrong. Natural and Conventional are not mutually exclusive. This is basic stuff)

It will be quite interesting if the ACBL rules that Muiderberg is permissable at the GCC level. This would also mean that Frelling 2 bids are legal at the GCC level, which in turn means that its no longer necessary to get a official defense approved by the Conventions Committee...

Potentially, we might be able to get Fred as an ex member of the Coventions Committee to comment on this. Alternatively, it might be possible to get Jan Martel to twist Chip's arm. However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that they will state that both Muiderberg and Frelling 2s are convention al openings.

[awm]

I think the first paragraph of this response is particularly cogent. Mike Flader indicates that conventional calls are not an offer to play in the denomination named and that natural openings are allowed.

This implies that the use of "conventional" on the GCC essentially means the opposite of "natural." Several people on these forums have indicated that they consider many natural bids to also be conventional if they carry additional implications about suits other than the one named. I think Mike Flader's response indicates that this is not the interpretation in use by ACBL.

And I agree, Frelling twos would seem to be general chart and not require a suggested defense. This is not particularly "weird" because weak twos which, by agreement, show four card suits are in fact also general chart and do not require suggested defense. In either case the follow-ups would be substantially restricted.

[awm]

As another point, it is essentially nonsensical for ACBL to try to disallow Muiderberg. The issue is:

(1) 5-card major preempts are clearly allowed. There's a huge amount of evidence for this.

(2) It's certainly permissable to disallow certain shapes for a weak two bid. In fact many players do this, refusing to open a weak two with four cards in an unbid major, or with a side void.

(3) Combine 5-card preempts with "no side 4-card major" and "not 5332", both of which are certainly reasonable constraints (that some players even use) and voila, you have Muiderberg.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 02:32 AM, said:

I think the first paragraph of this response is particularly cogent. Mike Flader indicates that conventional calls are not an offer to play in the denomination named and that natural openings are allowed.

This implies that the use of "conventional" on the GCC essentially means the opposite of "natural." Several people on these forums have indicated that they consider many natural bids to also be conventional if they carry additional implications about suits other than the one named. I think Mike Flader's response indicates that this is not the interpretation in use by ACBL.

And I agree, Frelling twos would seem to be general chart and not require a suggested defense. This is not particularly "weird" because weak twos which, by agreement, show four card suits are in fact also general chart and do not require suggested defense. In either case the follow-ups would be substantially restricted.

Actually, I think that its a sign that Mike Flader doesn't understand the regulations...

I've received any number of "official" comments from ACBL headquarters which got overturned VERY quickly when the higher ups found out about the travesty d'jour.

There are some minor deviations between the ACBL's view on the laws and the international standards. To my knowledge this isn't one of them.

If the ACBL is now claiming that conventional and natural are mutually exclusive this would represent a VERY significant change to the regulatory structure.

[inquiry]

awm, on Jan 4 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

As another point, it is essentially nonsensical for ACBL to try to disallow Muiderberg. The issue is:

(1) 5-card major preempts are clearly allowed. There's a huge amount of evidence for this.

(2) It's certainly permissable to disallow certain shapes for a weak two bid. In fact many players do this, refusing to open a weak two with four cards in an unbid major, or with a side void.

(3) Combine 5-card preempts with "no side 4-card major" and "not 5332", both of which are certainly reasonable constraints (that some players even use) and voila, you have Muiderberg.

Actually, unless they have CHANGED the GCC, Muiderberg is not legal.

The GCC specifically states.....

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.

My experience with Muiderberg is that it is a PREEMPTIVE bid frequently (most commonly) with less than 10 hcp. Who plays it as promising 10 or more points (to put this in zar perspective 10 hcp, 5-4-3-1 would be 23 zar points BEFORE counting for any controls. It is that pesky "a minimum of" that makes it illegal imo.

And as for freeling 2 bids.. it fails two test. It doesn't promise a five card suit, and it is made with less than 10 hcp. Doubly DOA.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 02:35 AM, said:

As another point, it is essentially nonsensical for ACBL to try to disallow Muiderberg. The issue is:

(1) 5-card major preempts are clearly allowed. There's a huge amount of evidence for this.

(2) It's certainly permissable to disallow certain shapes for a weak two bid. In fact many players do this, refusing to open a weak two with four cards in an unbid major, or with a side void.

(3) Combine 5-card preempts with "no side 4-card major" and "not 5332", both of which are certainly reasonable constraints (that some players even use) and voila, you have Muiderberg.

As I've commented in the past, I'm not impressed by this kind of sophistry.

Lets assume that you are submitting a 2♦ for consideration to the Conventions Committee.

I would argue that the legality of the convention should be based on the set of hands that map on to the 2[♠] opening, not the specific language that you use to describe the 2[♠].

I agree that its nonsensical to

1. Ban a 2♠ opening that shows 5+ Spades and 4+ cards in either minor

2. Allow a 2♠ opening that promises 5+ Spades, but denies any 5322 shape, any 6322 shape, any 6331 shape, or any two suited hand with 5+ Spades and 4+ Hearts

The two bids are identical in every way except for verbiage. If the first means of expression is held to be conventional (and it is) than the second must be as well.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jan 5 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

Actually, unless they have CHANGED the GCC, Muiderberg is not legal.

The GCC specifically states.....

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.

My experience with Muiderberg is that it is a PREEMPTIVE bid frequently (most commonly) with less than 10 hcp. Who plays it as promising 10 or more points (to put this in zar perspective 10 hcp, 5-4-3-1 would be 23 zar points BEFORE counting for any controls.  It is that pesky "a minimum of" that makes it illegal imo.

And as for freeling 2 bids.. it fails two test. It doesn't promise a five card suit, and it is made with less than 10  hcp. Doubly DOA.

Ben

I think that you are also mis-interpreting the regulations:

The GCC is based on very basic principles:

1. All natural bids are allowed
2. Any conventional bid that is specifically sanctioned is allowed
3. Any conventional bid that is not specifically sanctioned is banned

The regulation that you cite is designed to make Flannery and other such openings legal. However, I'm quite sure that the ACBL did not envision sanctioning a Muiderberg 2M opening when they wroite this. (Also, as you note, Muiderberg is too weak to qualify under this reg)

Adam and I are discussing a very different point:

Adam is claiming the following

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Natural bids are not conventional
3. Muiderberg is legal because all natural bids are legal

I am claiming some slightly different

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Some natural bids are both natural and conventional
3. Muilderberg is conventional
4. Muiderberg is not legal because is not explictly sanctioned

[awm]

If you read the general chart, you might come to the conclusion that because a 2♥ opening showing 6+♥ is not specifically allowed, it must be disallowed. There is obviously some exception being made here that is not specifically stated.

I think the question is exactly how this exception is to be formalized. There are several conceivable ways, but I think the most obvious is that natural bids are always allowed, unless specifically disallowed. Of course you could disagree with me here, but Mike Flader's reply (cited above) seems to agree with my interpretation.

There is a general problem at ACBL headquarters that it's very difficult to get any answers which are "authoritative" and that different people who appear to have some level of authority frequently contradict each other. In fact I've had a single person who appeared to have some level of authority at ACBL contradict himself in a single email before.

So who knows? You're all welcome to write ACBL and post whatever replies you receive here.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

If you read the general chart, you might come to the conclusion that because a 2♥ opening showing 6+♥ is not specifically allowed, it must be disallowed. There is obviously some exception being made here that is not specifically stated.

I think the question is exactly how this exception is to be formalized. There are several conceivable ways, but I think the most obvious is that natural bids are always allowed, unless specifically disallowed. Of course you could disagree with me here, but Mike Flader's reply (cited above) seems to agree with my interpretation.

There is a general problem at ACBL headquarters that it's very difficult to get any answers which are "authoritative" and that different people who appear to have some level of authority frequently contradict each other. In fact I've had a single person who appeared to have some level of authority at ACBL contradict himself in a single email before.

So who knows? You're all welcome to write ACBL and post whatever replies you receive here.

Well, it looks like we do agree on one thing:

The way the ACBL Convention Charts are written no one actually knows what's going on...

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

If you read the general chart, you might come to the conclusion that because a 2♥ opening showing 6+♥ is not specifically allowed, it must be disallowed. There is obviously some exception being made here that is not specifically stated.

I think the question is exactly how this exception is to be formalized. There are several conceivable ways, but I think the most obvious is that natural bids are always allowed, unless specifically disallowed. Of course you could disagree with me here, but Mike Flader's reply (cited above) seems to agree with my interpretation.

And I'd argue that the the logicial interpretation is that

1. All natural bids are allowed
2. All conventional bids are disallowed unless specifically allowed

I spent a couple monthes having VERY ugly fights with the Conventions Committe trying to get suggested defenses allowed to my Frelling Two assumed fit preempts. I would surprise me enormously if the Conventions Committee were now to say

"Sorry about that. You don't actually need to provide any suggested defense because this is a GCC legal method"

In a similar vein, the ACBl has a suggested defense to Muiderberg in the Defensive database, once again suggesting that this is a Midchart method

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jan 4 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jan 5 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

Actually, unless they have CHANGED the GCC, Muiderberg is not legal.

The GCC specifically states.....

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.

My experience with Muiderberg is that it is a PREEMPTIVE bid frequently (most commonly) with less than 10 hcp. Who plays it as promising 10 or more points (to put this in zar perspective 10 hcp, 5-4-3-1 would be 23 zar points BEFORE counting for any controls.  It is that pesky "a minimum of" that makes it illegal imo.

And as for freeling 2 bids.. it fails two test. It doesn't promise a five card suit, and it is made with less than 10  hcp. Doubly DOA.

Ben

I think that you are also mis-interpreting the regulations:

The GCC is based on very basic principles:

1. All natural bids are allowed
2. Any conventional bid that is specifically sanctioned is allowed
3. Any conventional bid that is not specifically sanctioned is banned

The regulation that you cite is designed to make Flannery and other such openings legal. However, I'm quite sure that the ACBL did not envision sanctioning a Muiderberg 2M opening when they wroite this. (Also, as you note, Muiderberg is too weak to qualify under this reg)

Adam and I are discussing a very different point:

Adam is claiming the following

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Natural bids are not conventional
3. Muiderberg is legal because all natural bids are legal

I am claiming some slightly different

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Some natural bids are both natural and convention
3. Muilderberg is conventional
4. Muiderberg is not legal because is not explictly sanctioned

Actually, i think the rule that makes FLANNERY legal is the one before this one which says, in part,

TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.

But i will allow that the wording of the one i quoted allows (among others) both 2H as "flannery 2H", and it allows the french type 2 bids I use (2H and 2S shows the bid major and clubs and a minimum opening hand).

Second, i think you are working on a misconception. You guys are quoting a "fact" for which there is ample evidence against. You are misquoting or mis-represnting the implication of the statement that natural bids are always allowed, unless specifically disallowed .

An opening bid a natural bid of 1♣ or 1♦ must promise at least 10 hcp. Can we agree that we can not routinely open a natural 1♦ on five hcp? I think the answer is yes. This means that the natural opening of 1♣ or 1♦ on this value is a forbidden.

So if the minimum of 10 hcp applies to 1♣, 1♦ opening then in fact, the requirement that an opening bid at the two level (or higher) promising 5-4 in two suits and a minimum of 10 points demonstrates that such an opening with less than 10 hcp is against the rules.

IF you have questions about the interpetation, all you have to do is compare the wording of general chart to the wording of the mid chart to see the meaning clearly. Let's look at the 5-4 opening versus natural 4-4 opening as an example.

Midchart says this is allowed...
Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that
weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits
must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

So mid chart makes muilderberg legal (5-4), but keeps freeling off the books.

This seems to be plain english .. I suspect you could use mulderberg and the semantics that it will not be 5332 and it will not include a side 4 card major and it will not have a void... but, then you could not use 2NT as a conventional response, nor 3C as pass/correct. Is that really still muilderberg?

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jan 5 2007, 03:28 AM, said:

An opening bid a natural bid of 1♣ or 1♦ must promise at least 10 hcp. Can we agree that we can not routinely open a natural 1♦ on five hcp? I think the answer is yes. This means that the natural opening of 1♣ or 1♦ on this value is a forbidden.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. You're quoting and interpreting this part of the chart incorrectly.

The ACTUAL quote is that "1♣ or 1♦ may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) showing a minimum of 10 HCPs"

Note the word "all-purpose". This is (pretty much) a blanket authorization for any one of a variety of different 1♣ / 1♦ openings

Polish Club
Short club
Phony club
Precision 1♦ openings promsing 0+ Diamonds
You name it

However, this authorization does not allow me to play a Polish type 1♣ opening that could be opened on an eight count.

I can, however, play a natural / non conventional 1♣ opening that promises 8+ HCP. The 8 HCP floor comes from the actual Laws...

[pbleighton]

"An opening bid a natural bid of 1♣ or 1D must promise at least 10 hcp. Can we agree that we can not routinely open a natural 1D on five hcp? I think the answer is yes. This means that the natural opening of 1♣ or 1D on this value is a forbidden. "

Bad example for your case, Ben, since one bids with less than 8 hcp are specifically disallowed.

Peter

[blackshoe]

I find it interesting that Hrothgar is saying that

Quote

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Some natural bids are both natural and convention
3. Muilderberg is conventional
4. Muiderberg is not legal because is not explictly sanctioned

when earlier he said

Quote

Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive. This is basic stuff

Hrothgar, did you mean to say they are not mutually exclusive?

[blackshoe]

awm, on Jan 4 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

If you read the general chart, you might come to the conclusion that because a 2♥ opening showing 6+♥ is not specifically allowed, it must be disallowed. There is obviously some exception being made here that is not specifically stated.

I think the question is exactly how this exception is to be formalized. There are several conceivable ways, but I think the most obvious is that natural bids are always allowed, unless specifically disallowed. Of course you could disagree with me here, but Mike Flader's reply (cited above) seems to agree with my interpretation.

As it must, since that is what the laws say.

The regulations on the GCC, indeed all convention regulations, are made under the authority granted to sponsoring organizations in Law 40D to regulate "the use of bidding or play conventions". If, as Hrothgar asserted earlier, "Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive," then the authority granted to SOs here does not allow regulating natural bids.

This is the position taken by the lawmakers, as I understand it. Even in the ACBL. Case in point: the ACBL once prohibited, on the GCC, natural opening 1NT bids which by agreement could be made on less than 10 HCP (eg, 9-12). A hue and cry arose, in which it was pointed out that the ACBL was not permitted to do that, because the bid is natural, not conventional. So they changed the GCC so that if a pair has such an agreement, they cannot use any conventions after that opening. This they are permitted to do - the WBFLC says SOs have an unlimited right to regulate conventions.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2007, 05:10 AM, said:

I find it interesting that Hrothgar is saying that

Quote

1. Muiderberg is natural
2. Some natural bids are both natural and convention
3. Muilderberg is conventional
4. Muiderberg is not legal because is not explictly sanctioned

when earlier he said

Quote

Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive. This is basic stuff

Hrothgar, did you mean to say they are not mutually exclusive?

Correct - I made yet another typo

I don't believe that natural and conventional are Mutually exclusive

[pclayton]

To me, natural and conventional have nothing to with each other. The opposite of natural is actually artificial and the other side (but not opposite) of conventional is standard.

A natural bid can be conventional. Premptive jump raises, inverted minors, strong 2's and penalty doubles of overcalls are examples of natural bids that are conventional that actually require alerts, because they arent standard.

All artificial bids are conventional by nature, but many do not require an alert, and are thus considered standard. Examples are stayman, unusual 2N and blackwood.

My take on Flader's comments is that he thinks a dutch 2 is natural, and allowable under the GCC. This seems to run in conflict with the 'unknown suit' concept. However, there should be no doubt it is alertable, since while it is natural, it is not standard. The best comparison I can think of are Bailey Weak 2's that are weak, but have specific distributional parameters.

Is it me, or has the cc become such an internally inconsistent labyrinth of regulations, that there is no defining logic of what should be allowed and what shouldnt?

[DrTodd13]

Artificial and natural are opposites. Conventional I think _should be_ purely orthogonal to both. I don't believe that everything artificial should be considered conventional. If I choose to use 1♦ to show what 1♥ shows in a standard system then this is artificial but how is it conventional just because I assign a different bid for a particular meaning? To me, conventional does not have anything to do with "standard" either. Stayman is standard yet still conventional.

The official convention definition:
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.

Ok...so with that definition everything artificial is conventional. But then an opening of 1♦ showing 3♦ and an outside 6 card suit would be considered natural and not a convention. The whole notion of "willingness to play" is totally vague. If I say I have 2 cards in a suit, I have a willingness to play there if pd has 6 of them. If I say I have 4 then I don't have a willingness to play there if pd has 0. Willingness is always dependent on establishing a fit which is a two way street.

Personally, I think it would be difficult to write a good definition for what we mean by a convention. The first thought that popped into my head is that it has something to do with making bids that convey no information or convey more than one piece of information. I was thinking bids like stayman and blackwood would fall into the "no information" category and two-suited openings fall into the latter. But then I thought realized that pretty much by definition, all bids convey information....maybe not about your hand but about the desire to know something about partner's hand. Then you have to define what "information" is. Isn't saying your hand is balanced the equivalent of limiting each suit to the range 2-5 (or maybe 6 for a minor?) If you express length in any suit that is the equivalent of expressing a maximum length for all the other suits. If you bid your longest suit then again you specify the length of one suit and say that each other suit cannot be longer. I have a gut feeling of what we mean by convention but writing down something concrete is tricky and perhaps reveals that we are using a meangingless term.