[steve2005]

new ACBL GCC reads:
OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

Does anyone else find this dumb?

you have to have a 4-card minor if you use for 5-card minor its on the mid-chart
Your allowed to have a 5 or 6 card major why not a 4 or 5 card minor? Why not a 5-card minor?


also if you play this convention what do you do with a normal pre-empt without a 4-card minor. The way the GCC reads you play the convention then you have a 4-card minor.

[Cyberyeti]

It may be dumb in the US, in the UK some people play a multi for the one suiters, and 2M 2 suited

[hrothgar]

steve2005, on 2014-March-06, 17:53, said:

new ACBL GCC reads:
OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

Does anyone else find this dumb?

you have to have a 4-card minor if you use for 5-card minor its on the mid-chart
Your allowed to have a 5 or 6 card major why not a 4 or 5 card minor? Why not a 5-card minor?


also if you play this convention what do you do with a normal pre-empt without a 4-card minor. The way the GCC reads you play the convention then you have a 4-card minor.

There is a motion in front of the ACBL BOD to hire a copy editor to assist with drafting the convention charts.

[kenrexford]

I just now noticed something hilarious. The discussion to date has been why the ACBL would bother with the 5-4 2M opening. However, that's not what the GCC says.

What it literally says is not clear, but it seems to mean either that I can open 2H to show a weak hand with 4 clubs, or perhaps I am showing 4 of either minor. What I need not have is a heart suit.

for example, if I have xx-xx-xxxxx- KQxx, I can open 2S, alerted as 5-11 HCP with four clubs. Or, maybe partner needs to bid 2NT to ask which 4-card minor I have. I am playing this immediately.

[barmar]

It's obvious to me that they mean "with a side 4-card minor."

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-06, 18:31, said:

There is a motion in front of the ACBL BOD to hire a copy editor to assist with drafting the convention charts.

Post of the year.

It probably doesn't mean that natural weak twos in majors don't have to deny a four-card minor since this was already the case. Might it mean that a natural weak two in a major which can be a five card suit must either deny or promise a minor side suit? Sounds bizarre but who knows.

It might refer to transfer preempts but given that multi is not allowed I doubt that I could open 2♥ with 4+ clubs and an unspecified 5-card other suit which may or may not be hearts. I also doubt that I could open a 4333 at the two level, especially if I transfer to the 4-card suit instead of bidding it naturally.

It probably doesn't mean that you can play Muiderberg or Polish since it doesn't make sense to play those when multi is not allowed. However, it might be difficult to find an interpretation that is less dump than this.

Of course there is the possibility that it must be a specific minor suit. That would be even dumper than the above. But who knows.

[paulg]

I think you are all being a little unfair in this case since this is one case where the GCC is clearer than normal. I concede that it is pretty unbelievable what they have done and hard to understand why they might do it, but the meaning is clear to me and rulings@acbl.org.

If your 2M opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+M with no guarantees about other suits, then it is natural and may be played at GCC.

If your 2M opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+M and guaranteeing precisely a four-card minor suit, then it is permitted at GCC.

If your 2♠ opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+ spades and guaranteeing a 5-card or longer minor, then it is explicitly permitted at Mid-Chart despite no defence being available in the Defense Database.

If your 2M opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+M and guaranteeing a four-card or longer minor suit, then it is permitted at Mid-Chart only because a defense is published in the Defense Database.

If your 2♥ opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+ hearts and guaranteeing a 5-card or longer minor, then it is not permitted at Mid-Chart (not explicitly allowed and no specific defense published). I recommend that you change your methods to only guarantee a 4+ minor and then you can play this at Mid-Chart.

If your 2♥ opening bid is a weak two bid, showing 5+ hearts and guaranteeing any 5-card or longer suit, then it is explicitly permitted at Mid-Chart despite no defence being available in the Defense Database.

I presume that this level of clarification will be the job of a copy editor. I doubt that the BOD and Conventions and Competitions Committee will be looking for the editor to amend the charts, but just to provide such a succinct and clear summary of approved and prohibited methods.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2014-March-06, 23:27, said:

It's obvious to me that they mean "with a side 4-card minor."

Is not obvious from anything they have written. What makes it obvious to you?

[Zelandakh]

Cascade, on 2014-March-07, 03:42, said:

Is not obvious from anything they have written. What makes it obvious to you?

It is obvious because this is the ACBL and anything beyond this would be far too radical. Having said this, there is another interpretation not given already, that a 2M opening might show a weak 2 in any suit with a side 4 card minor. Paul's summary will be very helpful if I ever visit America and pop into a bridge club. To be honest, until they allow more options for a 2♦ opening, the possibilities for creativity will remain in the slim to none range. And I assume that is precisely the intention.

[kenrexford]

I love 2H as 4 clubs and either 5+ spades or 5+ diamonds. This is my new "ACBL Multi. "

[mycroft]

it does not say "a weak *hand* with a four-card minor." It says "a weak two with a four-card minor." It would take more than typical misreading of the massively imprecise GCC to read it as not requiring the suit bid.

Having said that, when it came up, I posted several issues with moving it as it read, most of which are still there.

- What's a weak 2? could it be 8-12 (say, in a 13+ 1C system, so it's no weaker than 1M?) How about 8-13 or 11-15?
- Obviously from the Midchart we can't use it to guarantee a 5-card minor, but is it alright to have one? Is 5+M, 4+m allowed, in other words, or just 5+M, 4=m?
- Why can't we just state specifically "a weak 2 in the bid suit?"

When it required a defence (which implies a complete description of the call) on the Mid-Chart, all of this was moot. On the GCC, less so.

Having said all of this, it's time to hit up my district Director with my comments about the Dallas motions. Maybe I'll throw this one in as well.

[paulg]

This topic is now on the C&CC agenda for their meeting in Dallas later this month.

[kenrexford]

mycroft, on 2014-March-07, 11:58, said:

it does not say "a weak *hand* with a four-card minor." It says "a weak two with a four-card minor." It would take more than typical misreading of the massively imprecise GCC to read it as not requiring the suit bid.

Having said that, when it came up, I posted several issues with moving it as it read, most of which are still there.

- What's a weak 2? could it be 8-12 (say, in a 13+ 1C system, so it's no weaker than 1M?) How about 8-13 or 11-15?
- Obviously from the Midchart we can't use it to guarantee a 5-card minor, but is it alright to have one? Is 5+M, 4+m allowed, in other words, or just 5+M, 4=m?
- Why can't we just state specifically "a weak 2 in the bid suit?"

When it required a defence (which implies a complete description of the call) on the Mid-Chart, all of this was moot. On the GCC, less so.

Having said all of this, it's time to hit up my district Director with my comments about the Dallas motions. Maybe I'll throw this one in as well.

The GCC from a lawyer's perspective is a joke. I mean, if you read it carefully, a weak two is not specifically allowed, because it is a convention to some degree. But, assuming it is inferentially allowed, a weak two is allowed to be based on a 4-card suit as long as the response structure is natural. Thus, even with some logic used, the new bid does not require 5-4 as suggested. Rather, it requires 5-4 or 6-4 Or longer in the major) if you want to use conventional responses, while 4-4 is allowed if you use simply natural responses.

Hence, with ♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣Jxxx, I could open 2♥ in third seat.

For that matter, if either minor is possible, I could open 2♥ with any number of holdings that feature four hearts and one minor of 4-card length.

If 4+ is implied, I could open a canapé weak two, assuming natural continuations. Actually, artificial continuations might be allowed, perhaps, if the minor is 5+.

[jeffford76]

I agree that the GCC could be better written. But my experience is that directors will generally rule that it means what they think it was meant to say, even if there are loopholes in what it actually says.

[barmar]

The BoD, and the GCC authors, generally assume common bridge terminology. In this case, everyone already knows what a "weak 2" is. Pairs may differ on some details (the precise strength range, minimum length of the suit), but everyone understands that it shows length in the suit bid and less strength than an opening 1-bid. "weak 2" does not just mean "a bid on the 2 level that shows a weak hand" -- it's a well-known idiom that means more than just the literal words denote.

We can live with the sloppy wording in the GCC and Alert Procedures by depending on this common understanding to fill in the gaps.

[ArtK78]

And they say that lawyers are bad. Here is what the new entry on the GCC says about this bid:

7. OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

It should be plain to everyone that the new bid that is now allowed on the GCC is a weak 2 bid in a major that promises a 4 card minor suit. What is so difficult to understand about that?

One does not have to define terms that anyone reading the GCC should know. This is not a statute. In any event, the definition of a weak two bid is well defined elsewhere, and the GCC has to be interpreted within the parameters of those other definitions.

I cannot believe that mine is post #16 on a subject that merits next to nothing.

Maybe we can have a new thread on what forcing means in "1NT forcing."

[kenrexford]

There can be no understanding that a weak two promises a 5 - card suit if the GCC specifically says otherwise. If the GCC now means something other than what it actually and clearly states, then the thing needs redone.

[mycroft]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-07, 12:35, said:

The GCC from a lawyer's perspective is a joke. I mean, if you read it carefully, a weak two is not specifically allowed, because it is a convention to some degree.

For definition of convention that includes "completely natural, only showing the suit bid, with some range and length issues that are defined as treatments rather than conventions." Which I don't think anyone actually does.

But having said that, the definition of convention is so difficult to do past a "Potter test", that we've just given up and said "the ZO can regulate what they want, and we won't bother to define convention any more." The ACBL, and in particular the GCC, hasn't caught up with 1998 yet, but from the point of view of system liberalists, this is a good thing (assume that DISALLOWED, 7, will become a blanket ban on those SPUs, rather than the current "Endicott fudge" when this happens, for instance).

Quote

But, assuming it is inferentially allowed, a weak two is allowed to be based on a 4-card suit as long as the response structure is natural. Thus, even with some logic used, the new bid does not require 5-4 as suggested. Rather, it requires 5-4 or 6-4 Or longer in the major) if you want to use conventional responses, while 4-4 is allowed if you use simply natural responses

Hence, with ♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣Jxxx, I could open 2♥ in third seat.

Yep, that sounds right. You'd better be Alerting this Highly Unusual and Unexpected treatment (well, besides the need to Alert it because of the 4cm), and you'd better not have any conventional defences to a conventional defence - so no non-lead-directing doubles or conventional runouts if they happen to double; no 2NT "bid your minor" call; ...

Quote

If 4+ is implied, I could open a canapé weak two, assuming natural continuations. Actually, artificial continuations might be allowed, perhaps, if the minor is 5+.

I doubt the artificial continuations, especially if the minor is unknown. But that does assume "4+ is allowed for the minor", it also assumes "promises 4" allows "promises 5", which the stuff still on the mid-chart doesn't tend to imply.

[mycroft]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-07, 14:03, said:

And they say that lawyers are bad. Here is what the new entry on the GCC says about this bid:

7. OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

It should be plain to everyone that the new bid that is now allowed on the GCC is a weak 2 bid in a major that promises a 4 card minor suit. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Well, just my questions.

Is 8-12 "weak"? How about "8-13"? What if it's part of a "13+ strong 1C" system, so it's no weaker than 1♥? How about "11-15", then, in a 16+ strong 1C system?
Does "promise 4" mean "can't be 5?" Does it mean "mine promises 5, so it promises 4?"

Even at the level of the GCC, this is poor. On the Mid-Chart it was fine, as it came with a defence that included a fuller description of the bid (as required by the Mid-Chart).

[ArtK78]

mycroft, on 2014-March-07, 15:21, said:

Well, just my questions.

Is 8-12 "weak"? How about "8-13"? What if it's part of a "13+ strong 1C" system, so it's no weaker than 1♥? How about "11-15", then, in a 16+ strong 1C system?
Does "promise 4" mean "can't be 5?" Does it mean "mine promises 5, so it promises 4?"

Even at the level of the GCC, this is poor. On the Mid-Chart it was fine, as it came with a defence that included a fuller description of the bid (as required by the Mid-Chart).

How did you get by before this bid became a part of the GCC? Did you know what a weak 2 bid was then?

Under Terms and Definitions, the ACBL has a link to a glossary provided by The Bridge World. In that glossary, the definition of "weak two bid" is as follows:

An opening two-bid used to show a long suit and values below those for an opening one-bid.

There are also links to articles from the ACBL Bulletin on Weak Two Bids:

http://web2.acbl.org...weaktwobids.pdf

http://web2.acbl.org...eaktwobids2.pdf

These are all "official" descriptions of what constitutes a weak two bid, pursuant to the ACBL website. And all of them make sense.

What constitutes a weak two bid may vary depending on what your system defines as an opening one bid. For example, I play a light opening system in which all 10 HCP hands are opened in 1st & 2nd position nonvulnerable. When a one-bid is defined as a 10 HCP hand, my weak two bids have a range of 3-9 HCP. In other situations my weak two bids are defined as a more traditional 5-11 HCP.

The length of the suit for a weak two bid is traditionally 6 cards, but it can vary by vulnerability, situation, partnership agreement, etc. I won't go into the regulation of weak two bids on less than 5 cards by partnership agreement, but suffice it to say that such a weak 2 bid would be considered highly irregular.

By the way, any suggestion that "promising 4" means "promising exactly 4" is an incredibly ingenuous comment, but certainly in keeping with the overall tone of this thread. When you tell your opponents that you play 5-card majors, does that mean you can't open 1♠ if you have 6 spades?