[RipFlow]

 kwiktrix, on 2017-January-10, 15:34, 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.

Kurt

Having read both the original ruling to Kwiktrix, and the later ruling issued in 2011 (post#46), it appears that they are unrelated. They may be referring to the same calls, but Kurt's context was specific to canapé, and the later ruling appeared to be quite general. We do not know the context that the later ruling was made, and none was offered - if it was asked in the context of a 2/1 system or Standard, the 1M response promising only 3+ cards is something most folks have never heard of, nor probably ever considered, so it makes sense that it would be considered conventional.

[blackshoe]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 09:38, 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.

Am I? Actually, I would be satisfied with a position. Perhaps "the guy in charge of responding to questions sent to 'rulings'", or the group who now seems to have replaced him. However, AFAIK neither Mike Flader nor that group works in Memphis.

I do agree with your last sentence.

[blackshoe]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 15:34, said:

Self respect...

I'm letting this one go, but take care, hrothgar.

Note, your message wherein the "c" word was inappropriately used, and some subsequent back and forth on that subject, have been removed. You took hyperbole a bit too far.

[johnu]

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

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+.).

There are 2 cases,

1) major suit >= 4 cards
2) major suit < 4 cards

If you have less than 4 cards, you don't have the expected length. I don't see why you want to discriminate against doubletons, singletons and voids. They should have respect.

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

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

I play Blue Team Club which uses canape and I have no problems playing in tournaments. I don't open 3 card majors and in fact, 3 card majors was never a part of BTC, although it was a feature of Roman Club. I'm pretty sure I read about Roman club being legislated out of existence (in its original form) by the prohibition against opening 3 card majors. You don't need to open 3 card majors to play BTC, and you sure don't need responder to bid 1♥ on a 3 card suit to find a 5-3 major suit fit. If opener bid 1♦ with 5+ hearts, they would show hearts over any response.

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

(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 ?)

As you have noticed, the GCC is very poorly written. My guess is that nobody considered that a raise was also a response (which requires 4 cards in a major) and then forgot to specifically mention raises. Suppose opener opens with 3♠. Certainly you would have no problem raising to 4♠ with a singleton or even a void with

---

Also, what about raising a NT opener, e.g. 1NT - 3NT Notrump raises are undefined.

[hrothgar]

 RipFlow, on 2017-January-10, 18:55, said:

Having read both the original ruling to Kwiktrix, and the later ruling issued in 2011 (post#46), it appears that they are unrelated. They may be referring to the same calls, but Kurt's context was specific to canapé, and the later ruling appeared to be quite general. We do not know the context that the later ruling was made, and none was offered - if it was asked in the context of a 2/1 system or Standard, the 1M response promising only 3+ cards is something most folks have never heard of, nor probably ever considered, so it makes sense that it would be considered conventional.

Why does it matter that this is in the context of a canape system?

We don't live in a world in which basic pieces of the regulatory structure are depended on what system someone is playing.

Suppose I invented a bidding system like the following

1♣ = 0-1 Clubs
1♦ = 0-1 Diamonds
1♥ = 0-1 hearts
1♠ = 0-1 Spades
1N = All balanced hands
2♣ = 6+ Clubs
...

Do I get to claim that my 1♣ opening is natural? Of course not.

Nor does a person's decision to use a canape bidding style mean that basic definitions about what bids are / are not natural changes.

[Shugart23]

 johnu, on 2017-January-10, 23:49, said:

There are 2 cases,

1) major suit >= 4 cards
2) major suit < 4 cards

If you have less than 4 cards, you don't have the expected length. I don't see why you want to discriminate against doubletons, singletons and voids. They should have respect.




I play Blue Team Club which uses canape and I have no problems playing in tournaments. I don't open 3 card majors and in fact, 3 card majors was never a part of BTC, although it was a feature of Roman Club. I'm pretty sure I read about Roman club being legislated out of existence (in its original form) by the prohibition against opening 3 card majors. You don't need to open 3 card majors to play BTC, and you sure don't need responder to bid 1♥ on a 3 card suit to find a 5-3 major suit fit. If opener bid 1♦ with 5+ hearts, they would show hearts over any response.


As you have noticed, the GCC is very poorly written. My guess is that nobody considered that a raise was also a response (which requires 4 cards in a major) and then forgot to specifically mention raises. Suppose opener opens with 3♠. Certainly you would have no problem raising to 4♠ with a singleton or even a void with

---

Also, what about raising a NT opener, e.g. 1NT - 3NT Notrump raises are undefined.

There are actually 5 cases to consider: Major greater than or equal to 4. Major is a void, Major is a singleton, Major is a doubleton , and Major is a triplet. It is not my view that a Major containing less than 3 cards is a natural bid under any circumstances. I have only been concerned with the very specific case where Major contains precisely 3 cards and moreover, only as a Response to partner's Opening in a canapé system

The expected length of the response is 4 plus. The alert chart talks to natural calls having unexpected length need to be alerted. What is an example of a natural call that has unexpected length that needs to be alerted ?

I am under the impression that BTC is not allowed under ACBL GCC (but don't really know the reason). I do not suggest that Opening a 3 card Major should be allowed

[hrothgar]

 Shugart23, on 2017-January-11, 07:45, said:

I am under the impression that BTC is not allowed under ACBL GCC (but don't really know the reason).

Most of Blue Club is legal under the ACBL GCC

The Major exceptions are the tradition BTC 1N opening which showed either

12 - 17 HCP balanced with 4-5 clubs and 2-3 Diamonds OR
16 - 18 HCP balanced

(In this case, the range of the 1NT opening is too large to allow conventional responses)

and the Neopolitan 2C/2D responses to a 1M opening

The Blue Club 2/1 sequences do not guarantee game forcing values. As such, convention sequences like

1S - 2C
2S - 4D

are not licensed.

However, I think that you can sacrifice these sequences without much problem and retain most of the good characteristics of the system...

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-11, 07:56, said:

Most of Blue Club is legal under the ACBL GCC

The Major exceptions ....

Everybody has their own version of BTC, and my version doesn't use the wide range 1NT opening, the canape (sometimes with "fake" first suits) 2/1 responses, or the special control showing raise 2/1 and jump to 4m sequences.

I'm pretty sure these were ACBL legal when I started years ago, but I either never played them (1NT) or quickly abandoned them as being very sub optimal.

Definitely allowed under the GCC

Strong 17+ 1♣
Control responses to 1♣
Possible canape opening 1 bids (with at least 4 cards in major)
"Natural" 2♣ opening bid

IMO, if you play the above 4 features, you are playing some kind of Blue Team Club.

[johnu]

 Shugart23, on 2017-January-11, 07:45, said:

The expected length of the response is 4 plus. The alert chart talks to natural calls having unexpected length need to be alerted. What is an example of a natural call that has unexpected length that needs to be alerted ?

My partnership pre alerts that we are playing canape, and alert opening 1 bids to let the opponents know that we might have a longer side suit. A sequence like

1♠ 2♣
2♥

The 2♥ bid is also alerted because it shows 5+ hearts.

I can't think of any non-canape sequence that warrant an alert just on unexpected length.

Maybe if you systemically open a 3 bid with a 5 card suit, if legal, would be an alert, or making up an example,

1NT 2♥ Natural where hearts may be a 4 card suit (5+ would be expected).

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2017-January-11, 13:27, said:

I can't think of any non-canape sequence that warrant an alert just on unexpected length.

In the case of canapé, what's being alerted is the overall approach of bidding suits in reverse order of length, not just that any particular bid shows unexpected length. So when you alert the opening bid, it's not the length of that suit that's unexpected, but the likelihood that some other suit is even longer.

[blackshoe]

Folks, do I have to lock this thread? Let's stop with the references to unethical behavior and similar comments - on both sides.

Some posts have been removed. Again.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2017-January-11, 21:00, said:

Some posts have been removed. Again.

You also seem to have removed my post referring to the change of regulations Ed - I suppose it is my reputation for being a hot-headed flamer . If that is not relevant to the discussion then I am not sure you would consider anything "on topic".

[kwiktrix]

 blackshoe, on 2017-January-11, 21:00, said:

Folks, do I have to lock this thread? Let's stop with the references to unethical behavior and similar comments - on both sides.

Some posts have been removed. Again.

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.
I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.
Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

[hrothgar]

 kwiktrix, on 2017-January-12, 07:37, said:

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.
I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.
Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die.

[barmar]

 kwiktrix, on 2017-January-12, 07:37, said:

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above.
I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared.
Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2017-January-12, 09:42, said:

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

Does that mean I am officially on the BBF troublemaker list?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2017-January-12, 09:42, said:

I think your response was removed because it was in reply to Zel's post, so didn't make sense on its own.

Yes.

 Zelandakh, on 2017-January-12, 09:46, said:

Does that mean I am officially on the BBF troublemaker list?

I have no control over that.