[Cascade]

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-11, 02:48, said:

Art's point is that - though you may think that "weak two" is a perfect description (it's weak and it's two) - (practically) nobody before you in the 50 years of weak twos has gotten the idea to call these bids "weak twos". In fact, they are known by another name (Lorenzo twos). This indicates that the originator of these bids thought it was evident that they weren't weak twos. All these things together make that these are not weak twos.

One and a half year ago, I played a social tournament with a very good friend of mine, who hand never played bridge before (but knew how a trick taking game worked). We decided on a bidding system with natural 4 card openings, an Acol 2♣ and weak twos (since I think weak twos are easy to play). I told him a weak two was a bid with 5-10 HCPs, concentrated in the six card suit. We got an absolute top when he decided to open 2♦ on something like ♠Jxxxx ♥- ♦AJTxxx ♣xx. I made a preemptive raise to 5♦ and the opponents were stuck and he was declaring 5♦. During the auction I knew this was potentially going to be a good board since most pairs wouldn't have a weak two in diamonds (with everyone playing Multi). When I saw during the play that he held a five card spade suit I was sure that not even those who don't play Multi would open 2♦.

No matter what the definition that I gave my friend said, his hand was not a weak two. My fault, obviously.

Rik

Art used the word "never". To refute that I need only provide one instance of the term being so used. Given my own experience has been that I have heard such usage Art's reasoning is flawed. Aside from other times where i have heard the term I have some friends that I am pretty sure played a four card weak two in spades for quite some time. I have had partners open 2maj on for. I have done so myself. I would call these deviations not psyches.

Not sure why 2d is not a weak two with 5062. Again I have seen partners make similar bits and have opened 65 hands weak twos myself.

[kenrexford]

GCC disallowed #7. Why does no one arguing against us explain ths?

[Cascade]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-11, 04:38, said:

GCC disallowed #7. Why does no one arguing against us explain ths?

Indeed by inference this implicitly acknowledges that weak twos with fewer than five cards exist.

Isn't this wording still dodgy with regard to their use of "and". It reads like you need both to be outside the range of 7 hcp and fewer than five cards before the restriction applies.

[johnu]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 03:23, said:

Further this seems to cover four card weak twos as being natural

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

You could argue that a 4 card weak two is natural, but it is clear on the alert chart that it is not an approved treatment, so it is treated as a convention. If it's not an approved convention, it's not legal.

[kenrexford]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 05:02, said:

Indeed by inference this implicitly acknowledges that weak twos with fewer than five cards exist.

Isn't this wording still dodgy with regard to their use of "and". It reads like you need both to be outside the range of 7 hcp and fewer than five cards before the restriction applies.

Yes. As is typical, we are able to get silly if we want to.

[johnu]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 05:02, said:

Indeed by inference this implicitly acknowledges that weak twos with fewer than five cards exist.

Isn't this wording still dodgy with regard to their use of "and". It reads like you need both to be outside the range of 7 hcp and fewer than five cards before the restriction applies.

Inexact writing. That's why the ACBL is supposed to be looking for a technical writer to clean up the text.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2014-March-11, 10:22, said:

Inexact writing. That's why the ACBL is supposed to be looking for a technical writer to clean up the text.

Are they actually doing that? I assumed it was just someone's sarcastic commentary on the poor quality of the alert procedures and GCC.

[barmar]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-10, 14:43, said:

That definition also does not define that you need to open in your long suit. So by definition, you are arguing that I would be allowed to open 2♦ to "show a long suit" in spades etc.

And in fact, people who play Multi-2♦ often describe it as "weak 2 in an unspecified major".

But the way I interpret this is not that 2♦ is itself a weak 2 bid, but that its meaning is that you hold a hand that would have bid a weak 2 in a major if you weren't playing this convention. The latter is a well-understood term among bridge players, and this simply describes the artificial bid by referencing a well-known concept.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2014-March-11, 10:30, said:

Are they actually doing that? I assumed it was just someone's sarcastic commentary on the poor quality of the alert procedures and GCC.

It on the list of board motions for Dallas.

[Cascade]

 johnu, on 2014-March-11, 10:14, said:

You could argue that a 4 card weak two is natural, but it is clear on the alert chart that it is not an approved treatment, so it is treated as a convention. If it's not an approved convention, it's not legal.

You can't treat something as a convention when it does not meet the definition of convention. In this case a four card weak two does not come close to any simple reading of the definition of convention.

"A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a
meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a
pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named."

In particular it is plainly obvious from this definition that it is independent of the level of the opening bid. So if four card majors are non conventional at the one level then they must also be non conventional at the two level etc.

[johnu]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 12:45, said:

You can't treat something as a convention when it does not meet the definition of convention. In this case a four card weak two does not come close to any simple reading of the definition of convention.

The language in the alert chart is crystal clear to me. If you guarantee 5 cards for a 2 level bid, it is a not a convention and not governed by the convention chart. Simple logic says if you don't guarantee 5 cards, it is governed by the convention chart, ie it is a convention. Have you read the section on Treatments in the Alert Chart?

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 12:45, said:

"A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a
meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a
pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named."

This could have been worded better, but initial bids which do not meet suit length requirements have already been defined as conventions, so these are additional catch-all cases.

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 12:45, said:

In particular it is plainly obvious from this definition that it is independent of the level of the opening bid. So if four card majors are non conventional at the one level then they must also be non conventional at the two level etc.

No, it's plainly obvious that the 4 cards in a major requirement only applies to 1 level bids. Why would they have different suit length requirements for 2 and 3 level bids if the 4 card requirement applied at all levels? Because it only applies for 1 level bids.

[mycroft]

There is a definition of convention - which is wholly inadequate. Attempts to make a complete one have been tried (I think there's one of my attempts on rec.games.bridge from 1990, for instance). The WBF have abandoned the concept of convention, at least where regulation of system is concerned, in favour of "special partnership understandings", which can be anything the SO chooses to designate as such. The fact that the GCC hasn't caught up with 2008 is sort of the same reason it's so inexact - it just doesn't matter to the people making the regulation (for reasons we've discussed to death here, also, in the past few years), and it doesn't matter to at least three nines of the ACBL population (who both won't hit any borders of the GCC nor will meet "anyone" who does).

Again, my problem is not with the 5-4 or even 4-4 potential, it's where "weak" stops. If it's "less than an opening bid", what about the pair that come in with a 13+ 1♣ call, and everything else is 8-12? Not "less than an opening bid", can't use it. But the pair playing standard openers *can* do it 8-12, because it is "less than (many at least) opening bid". And then, what if we had some kind of FanTunes system, but with more distributional requirements to fit. Now 2♥ is "less than an opening bid", but still "could be a bad 14".

If we're going to allow that, even if for this pair, it's "same range as an opening bid", then what about 8-13? 11-14? 10-15? Where do we draw the line? And are you more likely than not to have two TDs who haven't talked to each other give the same ruling on it, two separate weekends?

There's a time and a place for "Potter tests" (as a US Lawyer, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about), and that place is "when no other sane definition can be used, and when it's likely there is broad agreement where the line is" - and I note that even there, jurisprudence has provided the same kind of assistance to making that test that I'm asking for in the GCC.

[Cascade]

 johnu, on 2014-March-11, 13:42, said:

The language in the alert chart is crystal clear to me. If you guarantee 5 cards for a 2 level bid, it is a not a convention and not governed by the convention chart. Simple logic says if you don't guarantee 5 cards, it is governed by the convention chart, ie it is a convention. Have you read the section on Treatments in the Alert Chart?




This could have been worded better, but initial bids which do not meet suit length requirements have already been defined as conventions, so these are additional catch-all cases.



No, it's plainly obvious that the 4 cards in a major requirement only applies to 1 level bids. Why would they have different suit length requirements for 2 and 3 level bids if the 4 card requirement applied at all levels? Because it only applies for 1 level bids.

For alerting purposes.

[Cascade]

 mycroft, on 2014-March-11, 13:55, said:

The WBF have abandoned the concept of convention, at least where regulation of system is concerned, in favour of "special partnership understandings", which can be anything the SO chooses to designate as such.

That is not what the law says. There are significant caveats on what can be treated as a special partnership understanding.

[ArtK78]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 12:45, said:

You can't treat something as a convention when it does not meet the definition of convention. In this case a four card weak two does not come close to any simple reading of the definition of convention.

"A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a
meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a
pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named."

In particular it is plainly obvious from this definition that it is independent of the level of the opening bid. So if four card majors are non conventional at the one level then they must also be non conventional at the two level etc.

I am sorry, your argument is so patently absurd as to almost defy description.

Throughout the history of bridge, bids above the level of one have conveyed special meanings. In the Official System (from the 1930s, I believe), the stronger the hand one had the higher one bid. The idea behind the Official System was soon discarded for bids above the 2 level, so that bids at the 3 level and upward showed progressively longer suits but less than opening values - in other words, what we now know as preemptive openings. 3 level opening bids were typically 7 card suits with less than opening values. 4 level opening bids were typically 8 card suits with less than opening values, and so on. Until the 1950s, nearly everyone played 2 level opening bids as game forcing and natural, typically showing 5+ card suits (but sometimes 4, usually when opener had a very strong 4441 hand, as no one opened 2NT with a singleton). Eventually, strong two bids gave way to weak 2 bids, which were typically based on a good 6 card suit with less than opening values. Now, for most players, the only remaining strong 2 bid is 2♣.

One might say that these "special meanings" are conventional as they don't necessarily relate to the denomination named. There is nothing inherent in an opening 3 bid that says that it relates to a long suit and a weak hand. The same can be said about a weak 2 bid. But since these bids have such a long history and the treatment of the bids is so universally understood, they are not considered to be conventional. As has been pointed out previously, the ACBL has set suit length criteria for "natural" opening bids at various levels of opening bids - 3+ cards for one of a minor, 4+ cards for the one of a major, 5+ cards for the 2 level, 6+ cards for the 3 level. Anything not meeting these criteria will be considered not to be a "natural" opening bid, and, therefore, it will be considered to be a convention if the partnership opens these bids by agreement. Just because you don't believe that a below length 2 bid (or 3 bid, etc.) is not conventional doesn't make it so.

Given the long history of weak two bids in the ACBL, applying the "Potter Test" - "I know a weak 2 bid when I see one" - is actually reasonable. The criteria for a weak two bid are understood by the tournament playing public quite well. The definition quoted from The Bridge World is a workable definition. The ACBL criteria for expected minimum suit length for opening bids at various levels quoted in previous posts is pretty much universally followed. I understand, Wayne, that you are from New Zealand. Perhaps it is common in New Zealand for players to open "weak 2 bids" on 4 card holdings by partnership agreement. That is not the case here, and I suspect that if you tried to make your arguments before an ACBL appeals committee that you would be laughed out of the room.

[johnu]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 14:10, said:

For alerting purposes.

The GCC specifically references the alert-pamphlet, and by extension the alert chart and other alert chart documents. The GCC and alert system are very much tied together.

Hypothetical question: What does it mean when you alert an illegal convention (e.g. A superchart convention in a GCC or mid-chart game)? Is is legal just because you alerted it, or do you still have to go to the convention charts and make a determination?

[Cascade]

 ArtK78, on 2014-March-11, 14:31, said:

I am sorry, your argument is so patently absurd as to almost defy description.

Throughout the history of bridge, bids above the level of one have conveyed special meanings. In the Official System (from the 1930s, I believe), the stronger the hand one had the higher one bid. The idea behind the Official System was soon discarded for bids above the 2 level, so that bids at the 3 level and upward showed progressively longer suits but less than opening values - in other words, what we now know as preemptive openings. 3 level opening bids were typically 7 card suits with less than opening values. 4 level opening bids were typically 8 card suits with less than opening values, and so on. Until the 1950s, nearly everyone played 2 level opening bids as game forcing and natural, typically showing 5+ card suits (but sometimes 4, usually when opener had a very strong 4441 hand, as no one opened 2NT with a singleton). Eventually, strong two bids gave way to weak 2 bids, which were typically based on a good 6 card suit with less than opening values. Now, for most players, the only remaining strong 2 bid is 2♣.

One might say that these "special meanings" are conventional as they don't necessarily relate to the denomination named. There is nothing inherent in an opening 3 bid that says that it relates to a long suit and a weak hand. The same can be said about a weak 2 bid. But since these bids have such a long history and the treatment of the bids is so universally understood, they are not considered to be conventional. As has been pointed out previously, the ACBL has set suit length criteria for "natural" opening bids at various levels of opening bids - 3+ cards for one of a minor, 4+ cards for the one of a major, 5+ cards for the 2 level, 6+ cards for the 3 level. Anything not meeting these criteria will be considered not to be a "natural" opening bid, and, therefore, it will be considered to be a convention if the partnership opens these bids by agreement. Just because you don't believe that a below length 2 bid (or 3 bid, etc.) is not conventional doesn't make it so.

Given the long history of weak two bids in the ACBL, applying the "Potter Test" - "I know a weak 2 bid when I see one" - is actually reasonable. The criteria for a weak two bid are understood by the tournament playing public quite well. The definition quoted from The Bridge World is a workable definition. The ACBL criteria for expected minimum suit length for opening bids at various levels quoted in previous posts is pretty much universally followed. I understand, Wayne, that you are from New Zealand. Perhaps it is common in New Zealand for players to open "weak 2 bids" on 4 card holdings by partnership agreement. That is not the case here, and I suspect that if you tried to make your arguments before an ACBL appeals committee that you would be laughed out of the room.

I didn't say anything was "common". Quite the contrary you argued that these things "never" happened. As stated earlier one instance disproves that assertion. You don't get anywhere from twisting the argument from "never" to "common".

There would be no need for the 5+ suit length rule under disallowed on the GCC if there was no such thing as a 4-card (or shorter) weak two. I am sure as a lawyer you have made or seen this sort of argument many times. Furthermore its clear from this statement in the GCC that a pair is allowed to play four-card weak twos provided they are willing to not play conventions thereafter.

I am not arguing before an appeal committee. We are discussing what wording means on an internet forum.

Your history lesson is irrelevant in proving your claim of "never". All you have done is established norms not excluded exceptions which is what is required to substantiate your claim of "never".

If everyone played your normal system then we wouldn't need system regulations and alert regulations.

This statement "not to be a "natural" opening bid, and, therefore, it will be considered to be a convention" is fallacious. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It would follow if 'natural' and 'conventional' were complements. The way these two terms are defined this is not so. Arguably a bid can be natural and conventional - for example, 2S showing five spades and four clubs, it is natural with five spades and conventional with a meaning unrelated to spades. Similarly a four-card weak two appears by definition to be not natural and not conventional - it meets neither definition, having too few cards to be a natural weak two and has no meaning other than length in the suit named and no meaning relating to another denomination.

[ArtK78]

Actually, the ACBL does draw a dichotomy between natural and conventional. Yes, it is true that there are natural calls that are considered to be "treatments." However, any call that is not a natural call is a convention.

From the ACBL Alert Pamphlet:

******************************************************

Natural Calls Not Specifically Noted

NO ALERT

 Expected strength and shape.

ALERT

 Highly unusual strength, shape, etc.

Most natural calls do not require an Alert. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

As to length, ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows:

Three or more cards in a minor suit.
Four or more cards in a major suit.
Four or more cards for an overcall in a suit.
Five or more cards for a weak two-bid.
Six or more cards for a three-level preempt.

NOTE: Partnerships whose systems include extremely aggressive methods, such as frequent use of four-card overcalls at the two level or higher, weak two-bids with bad five-card suits or three-level preempts with bad six-card and/or mostly five-card suits must pre-Alert the opponents before the round begins.



A treatment is a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Agreeing to open five-card majors is a treatment – when you open 1♥, partner "knows" you have five or more. This is indeed a message but not an unexpected one, so no Alert is required. Weak jump shifts, on the other hand, are unexpected and therefore Alertable.

CONVENTIONAL/ARTIFICIAL CALLS:

ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED. In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue bids, strong artificial 2C openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes. Some Alerts are delayed until the auction is completed.

NO ALERT

Stayman (next higher level of clubs over a NT opening bid).
Blackwood (4NT) and expected responses.
Gerber (4♣).
Conventional 2NT response to an opening two-level suit bid.
2♦ response to strong artificial 2♣ openings.

ALERT

All other conventional and/or artificial bids. A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

*******************************************************

So, the ACBL states that weak two bids which promise less than 5 cards in the suit bid are not natural calls. The ACBL also defines a "treatment" to be "a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand." Since a weak two bid that promises less than 5 card length in the suit bid is not a natural call, it cannot be a treatment, since a treatment is defined as a special type of natural call.

The only thing left is that a weak two bid that promises less than 5 card length is that it is a conventional and/or artificial bid.

[mycroft]

 Cascade, on 2014-March-11, 14:12, said:

That is not what the law says. There are significant caveats on what can be treated as a special partnership understanding.

Actually, this is what the Law says:

Quote

40B1 a. In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as special partnership understandings. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.
b. Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.
...
B2a. The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding.

Note the "in the opinion of the Regulating Authority" bit. I have on reasonably good authority (the then Secretary of the WBFLC) that explicitly, if a Regulating Authority wishes to state that anything that isn't Standard Moravian is an SPU, and we're going to ban all SPUs in our tournament, they are Lawful.

Before 2008, when Regulating Authorities were only allowed to regulate conventions (and ultra-light initial actions at the one level), the so-called "Endicott Fudge" (hmm, I wonder who that term was named after?) was created and checked to see if it passed muster in the eyes of the WBFLC. It did, and in fact, it was explicitly stated that the power of the Regulating Authority to deliver tournaments they thought were in their best interests to provide was intended to be absolute.

And sure enough, in 2008, the Law was changed to make the "Endicott Fudge" unnecessary. The ACBL LC just hasn't got around to replacing DISALLOWED, 7 yet.

ArtK: yes, I know the ACBL still uses the term convention in a regulatory fashion. That's been several of my points, including "they don't have to, if they don't want to, not any more."

[Cascade]

 ArtK78, on 2014-March-11, 17:07, said:

The only thing left is that a weak two bid that promises less than 5 card length is that it is a conventional and/or artificial bid.

This deduction does not necessarily follow since there is a definition of convention which may not and in this case is not met.