BBO Discussion Forums: is it legal? - BBO Discussion Forums

I'm posting this in the non-natural forum even though the question is about a "natural" bid, since the people that that read this forum know the problems

For where you are, let us know which options are not legal where you play:
a) two club opening to show 10-15, 6+♣s or 5♣s with a four card major
b) two club opening to show 10-15, 7+♣s or 5+♣s with a four card major
c) two club opening to show 10-15, 7 solid ♣s or 5+♣s with a four card major
d) two club opening to show 6-10, 7 solid ♣s or 5+♣s with a four card major
e) two club opening to show 6-10, 7 solid ♣s or 5+♣s with a four card or longer major
f) two club opening to show 6-10, 7 solid ♣s or 4+♣s with a four card or longer major

In ACBLand, these are ALL legal (since they resemble a Precision 2♣ opener).

But the bid can only have one strength range and if weak can not be more than 7 hcp range.

PrecisionL, on 2013-July-30, 16:50, said:

In the ABCL, you can open 2♣ on any hand with 3+ clubs and any strength. If weak and wide ranging, there are restrictions on conventions after the opening bid.

Every one of these openings is legal in Belgium. The constructive openings are always allowed, the weak openings need a known suit (to avoid being BSC). In each case opener has ♣.

Note though that in the highest competition BSC's are allowed as well, but most of the time BSC's and HUM's aren't allowed.

All of these promise at least 4 cards in the bid suit (♣) and are therefore legal, subject to full disclosure, in the EBU. My reading of the Blue Book is that they are not permitted in beginners' event, but that seems reasonable.

Please define what you mean by "legal".

For the moment, I am going to assume that you are "Am I allowed to use this opening in the ACBL in GCC events" in which case the answer is:

Some of these bids are clearly legal.
Others may be legal, but its unclear whether they are.

As an example, the first bid is a "standard" Precision 2♣ opening. While this is not explicitly sanctioned by the GCC,its clearly established that this bid is legal in the GCC,
The other bids are much less clear.

In the ACBL, the decision to exclude certain hand types from an otherwise legal opening will often render this opening illegal.

As a classic example, at the GCC level, I am permitted to play an 2S opening that shows 6-10 HCP and either 6+ spades or 5+ spades and a 4+ card minor.
I am not permitted to play a 2S opening that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor.
The decision to apply an additional constraint render's the bid illegal.

In a similar vein, I am permitted to play a nebulous 1D opening showing "any" hand. I can not play a nebulous 1D that any hand with 4+ Hearts.

It's also worth commenting about the restriction involving 7 solid clubs.

It is also well established that you can't use extremely rare hand types to an otherwise illegal bid in order to make this bid legal.

As an example, the GCC allows one to use a one NT response to a 1M opening as "forcing one round, can not guarantee game invitational or better values." I am not permitted to say that a 1NT response promises either (game invitational or better values) or (a 4333 hand with no cared higher than a 5...). The weak hand type is so rare as to be non operational.

Its unclear whether the 7 solid clubs requirement is a sufficiently rare hand type that it would fall into this category.. The reason that this is of interest is that the ACBL has a bug-a-boo about canape type methods as well as assumed fit openings.

You can't play a weak 2♣ opening that shows 5+ clubs and (4 Hearts or 4 Spades). The fact that you are multiplexing in a exceptionally rare hand type is an obvious attempt at making an end run around the regulations. I suspect that this opening would be ruled illegal in most cases.

Please understand that I don't necessarily like or agree with this situation.
I particularly don't like the complete inability of players to get consistent guidance from Memphis on these types of issues.

FWIW, I would like to be proven wrong on this...

I would like it is I could play a weak 2S opening bid that shows either 6+ spades or (4+ spades and 5+ clubs)...
(I'd like it even more if I could play assumed fit preempts). However, that's not the world that we live in.

Regretfully, I think that the only way to get a decent ruling would be to play in a real event with National Level Directors and see what they have to say...
The folks that they have manning the phone in Memphis are worse than useless...

One last point worth making:

I know that there is some debate whether or not a Muiderberg 2M opening is legal at the GCC level.
Memphis has provided highly contradictory guidance on this front.

From my perspective, the presence of suggested defenses to Muiderberg 2M opening in the Defensive Database is the most compelling datapoint regarding the state of reality.

Quoting the Defense Database:

Quote

The database specifically includes a defense to an Opening 2H or 2S showing 5+ in Major and 4+ in a Minor
http://web2.acbl.org...database/2g.htm

If we set aside Muiderberg, to my knowledge, the database does not include any defenses to methods that are legal at the GCC level...

hrothgar, on 2013-July-31, 03:47, said:

Just curious, what problems have you encountered with canape bids?

johnu, on 2013-August-01, 09:57, said:

I have had NO problems with canape bidding as long as you pre-alert them in ACBLand.

In Latvia you can open all of the following hands, we do not have much restriction to non-brown stickers. I know a pair that has played Ekren 2♦(Both majors from 4+;4+).

I don't think d e & f are allowed under ACBL GCC
reasoning if 2♥/2♠ is not allowed as a preempt if it shows a 4 card minor (Midchart)
I think a 2♣ preempt which probably has a 4 card major is not allowed and taking on a strong hand 7 solid ♣ makes it even less likely to b GCC legal

Item 6 under "Opening Bids" on the GCC says "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". If this governs those bids, none of them are legal, including a) which we know is legal. So at least some of these bids must be considered natural - and if some are, I see no reason why they all should not be. It's the usual ACBL ambiguous mess, so while I agree with Larry, I have to wonder if some TD somewhere might not rule otherwise.

glen, on 2013-July-30, 16:46, said:

None of the above.

In Sweden, any opening bid is legal. Artificial openings are given a point value though, called dots, based on what the bid shows. If the bid shows at least four cards in the suit bid, they are considered natural and does not get any dots. Openings showing at least 15+ hcp does not get any dots either. Also, any continuation over opening bids or over opponent's openings, or later in the auction, is legal and non-regulated.

So the answer: All of the definitions of 2C are legal in Sweden, and does not hinder your ability to use other artificial openings in your system (since all the 2C versions shows at least 4 clubs). You would however need to alert the f) option, since it could be canapé.

FYI Standard American would get 2 dots (the 1m opening gets one each, since they promise only 3 cards), while the system below would get none:

Pass = 15+ any
1X = 8-14, 4+ suit
1NT = 12-14
2X = 0-7, 4+ suit
2NT = 8-11

Kungsgeten, on 2013-August-18, 01:52, said:

What's the downside for having too many dots? Are you allowed only so many? What do you think of the dot system?

straube, on 2013-August-18, 21:06, said:

o
There are three system levels: C-level (max 7 dots), B-level (max 10 dots) and A-level (anything is allowed). Keep in mind that only opening bids get dots, not responses or overcalls etc. A pass opening never get any dots, but the responses are treated as opening bids unless the pass is strong (15+).

The level of which system is allowed depends on the event; mostly how many boards you play against the same opponents (but also the "complexity" of the event).
Nearly all matchpoint club games are C-level. Most team games are B-level. A-level is normally reserved for national competitions or so called "gold events".

In short: If you have too many dots, the rules says that you can not use the system (and if you do you have to change the system and board results where you've used a dotted bid may change).

I think the dot system work pretty well; you have a lot of creativity and the number of dots assigned to a bid depends on how hard it is to defend against (in theory). However, since everything is allowed it is still possible to face every kind of opening bid in a single competition, so you basically need a defense for all of them. If the purpose of system regulations is to defend people from facing strange bids, then it does not work. The dot system does not care about how common an opening is, just the definition and how hard it should be to defend against in theory.

Another downside is that most players do not know the rules for the dot system, since they're pretty complex (you at least have to be interested in system design). This include tournament directors. I would guess that the consequences for cheating would be pretty mild, at least at a local club level.

One last thing: If you have really strange opening bids (4 dots or more in a single bid) you have special obligations. You have to send a summary of the system notes prior to the event, bring copies of these notes etc. The opening bids which have 4+ dots are very uncommon (only opening bids of 1D, 1H and 1S may have 4+ dots). An example would be 1D showing any weak hand (a fert) which gets 5 dots. The same bid, but a major, would get 7 dots. Using one of a major as some kind of multi (like 1S as showing one of the minors) would get 4 dots.