[johnu]

 RipFlow, on 2017-January-05, 16:03, said:

Let's say your authority to state that a 1 level major response is not natural is Definition 1 of the GCC. The GCC, however, in Definition 6 leads me to believe it is NOT conventional either. That definition states that a convention is a bid or a call not necessarily related to the denomination named. In the sequences we are interested in, 1♥ means hearts and 1♠ means spades. It is not like 1♥ means spades. Therefore, I feel that since it is not a convention, but rather a treatment (unless you have another word for it), it is not subject to GCC, but it must be alerted as it is rather unusual.

A convention could either be completely artificial (your example, 1♥ shows spades), or have a natural component (1♥ shows hearts, and also shows 5+ clubs). An example of a "natural" conventional bid in the GCC is "OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card or longer minor." What makes it conventional is that it promises a minor suit. The GCC specifically allows this convention.

Also note that there is a definition of treatment at the bottom of the alert chart, "Treatment - A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart."

A 3 card major suit bid or response is not recognized as a natural call so this definition does not apply.

[RipFlow]

One other quick point - the GCC statement that unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed seems not to hold true for certain bids. Under Responses and Rebids, #2, it says that a 1NT response to a major suit opening forcing for one round. Nowhere does it say that it can be semi-forcing, or non forcing. So should they be disallowed? Certainly not. Yet there is no definition of what a "natural" 1NT response should be. And if I have to look into the Alert Procedures handbook to find it, why can't I look at that same book to help me understand a 3+ card major response?

[Kelvinator]

I am the author of the book BFUN: Bridge For the UNbalanced. In the Author's Note section, I discuss the issue of responses in 3-card majors. I cite a Usenet posting from Kurt Schneider, dated sometime in 2006, in which he cites an official response from Official ACBL Tournament Directors Mike Flader and Rick Beyes:

"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."

I have confirmed with Kurt that this is accurately reported correspondence between him and the ACBL.

In my BFUN system, the 1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠ sequences are very frequent. They are natural (but alertable as 3+) in that BFUN is a canape system in which a 5+-card primary major suit often accompanies an opening of a 4+-card secondary suit. The response is natural in the sense that it relates to the suit bid and suggests it as a trump suit.

Unless the ACBL has retracted this stand since 2006 (which I doubt), I don't think there is any ACBL constraint against use of this treatment.

BTW, I have heard that the upcoming version of the ACBL Convention Charts will indicate that treatments and conventions are to be allowed unless specificially disallowed. I believe this will help with resolving some of this type of ambiguity or lack of clarity.

[hrothgar]

 Kelvinator, on 2017-January-05, 17:16, said:

Unless the ACBL has retracted this stand since 2006 (which I doubt), I don't think there is any ACBL constraint against use of this treatment.

For the record, more most of the last decade you could ask the precise same question to three different people in Memphis and get three different answers.

Please note: I agree that the ACBL almost certainly did not retract this stand because it has now way to track the decisions that various employees have rendered not does it have any (real) way to retract any of its decisions...

[johnu]

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

For the record, more most of the last decade you could ask the precise same question to three different people in Memphis and get three different answers.

Please note: I agree that the ACBL almost certainly did not retract this stand because it has now way to track the decisions that various employees have rendered not does it have any (real) way to retract any of its decisions...

Agree, there have been many instances in these forums where somebody has said that they were told one interpretation of the regulations, and somebody else has received an entirely different interpretation.

One example was that somebody was saying that e.g. opening 3♣/3♦ on a 3 card suit was GCC legal because the GCC definition appeared to say that and they had checked with the ACBL. I wrote to the ACBL rulings email and the response I got is that opening on a 3 card suit was "hogwash".

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2017-January-05, 23:29, said:

Agree, there have been many instances in these forums where somebody has said that they were told one interpretation of the regulations, and somebody else has received an entirely different interpretation.

One example was that somebody was saying that e.g. opening 3♣/3♦ on a 3 card suit was GCC legal because the GCC definition appeared to say that and they had checked with the ACBL. I wrote to the ACBL rulings email and the response I got is that opening on a 3 card suit was "hogwash".

Hmm, it does seem like the GCC says that. The first item in the list of natural calls doesn't say that it's talking about 1-level openings.

On the other hand, it definitely needs to be pre-alerted and alerted because it's a "highly-aggressive method". An example given in the Alert Procedure is:

Quote

preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits

I'd argue that preempting with any 3-card suit, even AKQ, falls into this category.

[mycroft]

So, if it were legal, trust me, I'd be playing it. Yes, there are many places where the GCC is unclear. Yes, it would be "reasonable" for it to be a legal, rare deviation, just like "1NT with a stiff K" was until last year. It may even be ruled that way, especially by directors who follow "just bridge". If you think you want a definitive ruling on this (and other things right on the edge), think how much we who have to rule on it when it happens want a definitive ruling.

What happens - it always happens, trust me, just look at the Other Site right now - is that when we put down a definitive ruling, "experts" (some of whom are, in fact, experts) say "but of course, [hand that violates ruling] needs to be bid [in violation], it's clearly the best call, if I'm not allowed to do that, the ruling is stupid and the ACBL is taking away judgment from the game, and the directors enforcing this would know that if they could, in fact, play bridge." But, you know, only for the calls *they think* are reasonable, or deal with holes in *their system*, or are "tactics" *they* would pull...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't *have* these definitive rulings, that the directors can point to, that they can say "judgment or no judgment, if your feet cross the blue line before the puck, and you then handle the puck, you're offside, and we're calling it."

Having said all that, what I can tell you is that the ruling I have been given, by National TDs, is the bald reading of the GCC I gave. I am almost sure that if you asked experts, including experts on the C&C committee, you would find that they can think of hands that would respond 1♥ with 3 to 1♦, agreement or no. There are many, I'm sure, who would say that the regulation that disallows this agreement (as opposed to undiscussed, occasional deviations) is stupid - including experts on the C&C committee. Given that there is a subset of that committee that is currently revamping (completely!) the convention charts, I would strongly suggest thou hie thee to said subset and make thy case. If not now, then likely not for another 15 years.

[blackshoe]

The only place the word "treatment" appears on the convention charts is in the super-chart. It doesn't appear on the GCC, so is not relevant to that chart.

added: I missed the statement on the alert chart that treatments are not regulated on the convention charts. This is another example of how screwed up these regulations are. I hope the upcoming new charts, convention and otherwise, fix this stuff.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-06, 10:25, said:

If you think you want a definitive ruling on this (and other things right on the edge), think how much we who have to rule on it when it happens want a definitive ruling.

Hear, hear!

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2017-January-06, 09:55, said:

I'd argue that preempting with any 3-card suit, even AKQ, falls into this category.

Why wait for AKQ? 432 should be ok

[Shugart23]

Natural Call: An opening bid of one club is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly 4-4-3-2
with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major. Otherwise:
1. An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more
cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.
2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced. (generally, no
singleton or void and no more than two doubletons)
3. A simple overcall in a suit is natural if, by agreement, it shows four or more cards in the
denomination named.
4. Doubles and Redoubles are natural if, by agreement, partner is requested to pass.

I would still like someone to offer up a natural call that is not otherwise noted in the above ....It is clear that they must exist. I remain in the camp that the 3 card Major response is a natural call and a treatment which must be alerted.

[mycroft]

"Well, actually"...what you are trying to do is say "clearly what I want to do must be legal, so I'm going to read the documents in the only, even if counterintuitive, way they can be read so that it could possibly be legal."

I get it, it's what you want, because your system is such that it would be much better to be able to bid 1♥ on certain hands with only 3 hearts because of the distortion it would otherwise give to your other (likely 1NT) responses.

But the quote you are giving is a category on the Alert Chart that refers to the other categories on the Alert Chart, clearly, not to an exception to the definition of Natural also on the Alert Chart (because it's relevant to Alerting) that happens to be the same definition as is used on the Convention Charts (where there is an implied "if it's natural, it's legal, because we can't [at the time this was written] regulate calls that are natural").

The quote you're trying to use does not mean what you want it to mean; it clearly does not mean what you want it to mean; even if it did mean what you wanted it to mean, it would have no relevance to the convention chart, where the wording does not exist; and if you are going to continue to ignore that, then you get to join the rest of the "but the regulations shouldn't apply to ME, MY case is special" brigade.

Your argument could just as easily [and have been] made for "Clubs or balanced" 1♣ openers, Precision 2+ 1♦ openers, KJT9 AJT9 T8 T64 1NT (10-12), Zia control bids, and many others. They're currently being made for 8,Axx,Q87x,AKQJx, which is "clearly, all experts would make this call" a 1NT opener.

I absolutely agree that you *should* be able to have an agreement to do this - because "everybody" is going to do it anyway, and will live in the "won't discuss it, won't mention it, won't notice it" world they have to to continue to be "legal" - just like they used to do with 444K 1NT hands. And it's just as impossible to "not have an agreement" as that was. But what *is* and what *should be* are not the same.

[RipFlow]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-06, 14:42, said:

"Well, actually"...what you are trying to do is say "clearly what I want to do must be legal, so I'm going to read the documents in the only, even if counterintuitive, way they can be read so that it could possibly be legal."

The document that bears some looking into is the Alert Procedure Handbook. On page 7, you will find this: "When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents." Is it right for me to assume then, in general, canape is allowed in the GCC?

Second, as far as a 3+ card major being a natural bid - I only have to go to Page 8 of the same handbook: "Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted." The wording specifically says promises ABOUT the expected shape. How much closer to a 4-card suit can a 3-card suit be. Is that not "about" the expected length? Could I argue that my 3+ major response does not need to be alerted? Maybe, but I will continue to Alert until I get a director telling me I should not Alert. I alert as I consider it to be a treatment as explained in the very next sentence above.

Summarizing, it appears that the intent of the ACBL, by the various wording in the Alert Handbook, is not to discourage use of a canape system, just to provide full disclosure.

[mycroft]

Again, using the Alert Procedure (which neither says anything about legality nor should it (note that it applies equally to pre-Screens Vanderbilt and the random club game), just about Alertability) to try to get around what the Convention Charts (which, oddly enough, don't say anything about Alertability - note that the new sample did, and they got stick for it) say is a cute trick, but as useful as saying that because Precision in the 90s says that a flat 12 with 2=5 in the minors is opened 1♦ means that you should do that with your K/S partner.

Canape systems, if legal, are legal (yeah, I know, tautology); Pre-Alertable (per the Alert Procedure), and rebids that show or imply longer length in the second suit than the first are Alertable when made; but you can't open 1♥ with 3=3=5=2 out of NT range so you can canape into diamonds any more than you can respond 1♥ on three because 1NT would promise more (as it does over 1♣, where you *can* respond 1♦ with 3). Yes, it makes it difficult to play pure Canape at GCC, which is why I've never done it. I know several pairs who do, however.

If you play an illegal system, I hope you *do* alert it properly. If not, you're committing two infractions; if you're committing the second one to hide the first, that's an Conduct and Ethics issue, not a TD issue.

Note that the "new" Gold Chart v0.1 allows the 1♥ response - because it allows *all* responses; but that the definition of Natural does not include a 1♥ response with 3. And the definitions are intended for all charts, not just the one none of us are going to play - so it is quite possible that that global allowance will *not* apply on Silver. So if you want this to change, get your request in now!

[barmar]

Mycroft is correct, you can't use the language of the Alert Procedures to determine which agreements are legal. There are 3 different Convention Charts, each defining different legal agreements. But there's just one Alert Procedure, which is intended to be used regardless of which Convention Chart is in force.

The way to read these two documents together is that the Convention Chart takes priority, it defines what agreements are allowed. Assuming your agreement is legal in the event you're playing in, you check the Alert Procedure to determine which of your calls need to be alerted.

So if bidding a 3-card major naturally were allowed, you wouldn't have to alert it because it's just a "treatment". But the question is still whether it's legal in the first place.

[Shugart23]

 barmar, on 2017-January-07, 15:07, said:

Mycroft is correct, you can't use the language of the Alert Procedures to determine which agreements are legal. There are 3 different Convention Charts, each defining different legal agreements. But there's just one Alert Procedure, which is intended to be used regardless of which Convention Chart is in force.

The way to read these two documents together is that the Convention Chart takes priority, it defines what agreements are allowed. Assuming your agreement is legal in the event you're playing in, you check the Alert Procedure to determine which of your calls need to be alerted.

So if bidding a 3-card major naturally were allowed, you wouldn't have to alert it because it's just a "treatment". But the question is still whether it's legal in the first place.

good response....certainly the 1H or 1S response in the canapé system is an offer to play in the suit and not an artificial bid and it has about the expected length. ...I also know the definition in the GCC is not stated as an IF and Only IF statement..It does NOT say A Natural bid REQUIRES 4 cards in the Major or 3 Cards in the Minor...It merely says that IF you have 4 or more cards in the Major, it is natural. Someone can claim it is an 'If and only if statement', but the fact of the matter is , I can read English, and this is not what it says

[barmar]

 Shugart23, on 2017-January-07, 16:22, said:

good response....certainly the 1H or 1S response in the canapé system is an offer to play in the suit and not an artificial bid and it has about the expected length. ...I also know the definition in the GCC is not stated as an IF and Only IF statement..It does NOT say A Natural bid REQUIRES 4 cards in the Major or 3 Cards in the Minor...It merely says that IF you have 4 or more cards in the Major, it is natural. Someone can claim it is an 'If and only if statement', but the fact of the matter is , I can read English, and this is not what it says

By that logic, everything is natural, since the GCC never says what isn't natural. That's obviously not how it was intended to be read.

[Shugart23]

 barmar, on 2017-January-08, 12:05, said:

By that logic, everything is natural, since the GCC never says what isn't natural. That's obviously not how it was intended to be read.

I don't go that far..."A liquid is a wine if it is produced by a winemaker in California" doesn't mean there aren't other wines produced elsewhere...and it doesn't mean all liquids not produced in California ( milk in Wisconsin) are wines....

It is clear that the 1H response in the canapé system is not artificial. I don't even think it is conventional by definition 6 of the GCC...

I can't presume what the ACBL intentions are; I can only go by what they wrote. They didn't throw in the word 'required' anywhere in the definition. Maybe the organization is so insightful, that they intended the definition to allow for sound canapé systems to be developed

[lamford]

There are hands in most systems that are unbiddable. In our system, we have an awkward problem with 4-4-4-1 (14-16) with a singleton club. If the singleton is an honour, we might open 1NT. If the four-card heart suit is chunky, we might open 1H. If the diamond suit is chunky we might open 1D and rebid a four-card suit after (1M overcall)-2C. We tell our opponents all this, and they get told that we might have to breach the EBU Blue Book or the ACBL mid-chart or whatever. We cannot sit there and not bid. That does not mean we have an illegal agreement. All our agreements cause us to not have a call, and that is what we tell the opponents. Similarly with a three-card major. Needs must.

[johnu]

 Shugart23, on 2017-January-07, 16:22, said:

good response....certainly the 1H or 1S response in the canapé system is an offer to play in the suit and not an artificial bid and it has about the expected length. ...I also know the definition in the GCC is not stated as an IF and Only IF statement..It does NOT say A Natural bid REQUIRES 4 cards in the Major or 3 Cards in the Minor...It merely says that IF you have 4 or more cards in the Major, it is natural. Someone can claim it is an 'If and only if statement', but the fact of the matter is , I can read English, and this is not what it says

Good to know. I'm creating a system where 1♠ can be a singleton or void, so I'm glad this is considered to be a natural bid.