Is this legal
A pair I play against use 2 Diamonds as: Three suited hand Either with Diamonds or with clubs. (in effect 4=4=4=1 or 4=4=1=4.)
So far I have allowed this as "two suits, neither of which are diamonds, are specified to be 4-4". (The majors) - in other words as a non-natural 2-suiter - with a further restriction. i.e. the other two suits must be 4-1.
Am I being too generous?
Comments
Why can't their description include 4144 hands? Or are they using "or" in the sense of "but not and"?
I assume this is a question about whether this agreement is legal at level 4? Assuming that the three-suiters always have both majors, this is the same sort of hole in the rules that Wilkosz fell into under the previous rules: it's illegal if interpreted as "three 4-card suits" (BB 7C1d) because it could have the suit opened, but legal if interpreted as "4-4 majors with a side 4-card suit" (using BB 5E to allow putting an additional restriction on a bid that's otherwise legal due to BB 7C1c).
I think the Blue Book is self-contradictory in this regard, and as such, I don't know whether the agreement is legal or not.
For what it's worth, banning the suit opened in 3-suiters may be overly restrictive anyway – IIRC, for Precision partnerships, it's semi-common for the 2H opening to show a three-suited hand with H+S+C, and that doesn't seem to be legal under the current rules despite not being all that different from 2H showing a hand with 4-4 majors. Having at least two known suits feels like it should be enough to come up with a viable defence?
It's also interesting to note that 2D to show 11-15 points and any 3-suiter is pretty common in the USA (I don't think this is a particularly good method – just common), despite being banned here. It sounds like the system discussed in the OP may be a variant of that?
The 3rd bulletpoint of 7C1 appears to prohibit this use of 2D.
I could be wrong of course, but it looks like the specified shape of the hand falls outside the caveat, “…except that non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings cannot be combined.”
4441 non-strong shows the suit, whilst 4414 non-strong is artificial.
That would appear to be the very definition of combined meanings.
Well I wouldn't allow 4=1=4=4 since then there aren't two specified 4-card suits.
My point is that this is consistent with their description of what they play, though not with your interpretation of it.
An excellent and very descriptive bid. Do we think this is no longer allowed? Or is it the possible switching of Diamonds and Clubs which is the problem.
Steve
The 2D bid described in the OP combines a natural and artificial meaning. The 2 examples you highlight only show an artificial meaning and so comply with the restriction and are therefore legal understandings.
The partnership understanding in the OP is not allowed to be ‘that the diamond might be natural or it might be artificial’. The partnership has to be able to describe precisely which one it means because combining both meanings into a partnership understanding is not allowed, in the given scenario.
Would be interested to know the definitive answer as we have 1 or 2 pairs playing a Roman 2D in clubs I direct at but my understanding was (when we had the rule of 25) that the 2D (any 4441) had to have 17hcp but under the new rules has to have 16.
You appear to be talking about a strong 2D opener, so this particular caveat wouldn’t apply to that particular system.
No, I am talking about a 4441 4414 4144 or 1444 Roman 2D
Well, basically 'any 3 suiter' has to fall under the "any number of strong options" clause. This is indeed now 16+HCP as defined in the Blue Book, or 13+ HCP in two suits, which would include a few extra hand types. You could in theory add weaker options for some of the 3 suiters I suppose.
The convention described by weejonnie does fall into a slightly strange place in the regulations, since 2D to show 4-4 in the majors and happening to have 4 diamonds isn't in itself a problem if it's not a feature of the bid. But adding a specific option including a 4 card diamond suit probably is technically illegal. I probably wouldn't be very concerned if a pair played it against me.
This is fine: under 7C1(d), you can play a three-suiter short in the suit opened, and "any strength is permitted if 4441 or 5440".
But it gets a bit weird if you allow 3-4-1-5 and/or 4-3-1-5 patterns as well, which a lot of Precision pairs do. 7C1(d) says "if 5431 it must satisfy the Rule of 20". While this makes sense on its own, the weird thing is that at Level 2, you can play a 2-level opening as "a three-suited hand with a specified shortage and opening bid strength" (6D1(c)), and opening bid strength is defined as "11+ HCP, or 8+ HCP and Rule of 19" (6B2/6C1). So we seem to have a strange situation where there are bids permitted at Level 2 which are not permitted at Level 4.
Thanks David.
I think the resolution will be to change the level 2 regulations from 'opening bid strength' to 'rule of 20'.
As I have noted before, the Level 2 regulations were more descriptive than prescriptive - this has changed recently, and they Level 2 regulations are taking on the same tone as the Level 4 regulations.
@JamesC
The problem with the OP convention is that it fails to specify which suit is the short suit.
7C2 supports this point:
“…A three-suiter must specify the short suit. Any strength is permitted if 4441 or 5440…”
I would add, just in case someone takes my comment literally, that I’m talking about the principle.
@davidcollier has already covered the applicable rule (7C1d).
7C2 is consistent with the principle that the 3-suit bid must identify the shortage.
Fair enough - but let me also say, I think "rule of 20" is surprisingly strict here. Whenever I've come across a Precision pair playing a 3-suited 2D or 2H opening, the range has always been defined as "11-15" or even "10-15", which corresponds to rule of 19 at best. (Indeed, since Precision pairs commonly open balanced 11-counts, it would be odd to have to pass 4414 11-counts.) And while the traditional Precision 2D opening may have been restricted to 4414 and 4405 shapes, I think all the top Precision pairs these days include (43)15 types, so this combination seems to be illegal. If it was a deliberate decision to make modern expert Precision illegal at Level 4, I think that's a bit surprising.
Some CCs from the Bermuda Bowl which would seem to be illegal at EBU level 4:
http://systems.worldbridge.org/2023WBTBermuda_Bowl/USA%202/Joe%20Grue-Brad%20Moss.pdf
http://systems.worldbridge.org/2023WBTBermuda_Bowl/Ireland/REV%201%20Mc%20Gann%20Hanlon%202023.pdf
http://systems.worldbridge.org/2023WBTBermuda_Bowl/Netherlands/NETH_OPEN_Muller_deWijs.pdf
David
Thanks again. When I wrote up your issue on the Blue Book issues list, I noted that 'rule of 20' does not allow 4414 11HCP which could be a minimum precision 2D opening at https://www.bridgebum.com/precision_2d.php.
Thank you Robin. Apologies for having hijacked the thread a little - the original question seems a good one to me without a clear answer.
@davidcollier
When you say original question, I take it you mean the ‘original question’ about the precision club, not the original question that started the thread.
There is nothing unclear about the answer to the OP question.
Now that is always a dangerous thing to say :)
No I don't think it's clear whether 2D showing 4414 or 4441 is permitted: I could quite happily come up with an argument either way. To be honest I think 7C1 is in a bit of a mess since the BB revision, and this question is just one symptom of the bigger problems.
@davidcollier
Thanks for the gentle retort. I agree with you :-)
This is why I say there no ambiguity…
What follows after 7C1, in 7C1a/b/c/d must comply with the general requirements of 7C1, unless what follows specifically excludes that requirement. 7C1 is simply setting up the ground rules.
There would be no point in having 7C1 ‘general - permitted’ if every sub-section of 7C1 wasn’t subject to what was generally permitted in that clause.
The OP partnership understanding uses combined meanings and that are explicitly prohibited: The prohibition against combined use of non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings.
As this is an explicit prohibition, anything that you wanted to argue against it would have to be equally as explicit, not something that you could infer.
If your argument against this is to be found in 7C1a/b/c/d, then it would be subject to the general requirements of 7C1. 7C1a/b/c/d can’t opt out of the general requirements of its own parent clause, 7C1.
7C1 looks fine. The only misunderstanding i can imagine is that the sub-clauses are being read as though they ‘stand alone’, when they are in fact subject to their parent clause 7C1.
@Jaded I apologise but I'm not going to answer this - I understand that's really annoying of me, but it would take me a couple of pages to properly explain the various things I think are unclear here, and I don't think this would help answer OP's question. If I have some time I might try to explain elsewhere. I do agree, though, that a-d are subject to the "general" requirements at the top of 7C1.
@davidcollier Thanks for the reply.
Didn’t I mention in another thread that bridge was a game prone to absurdities :-)
On the one-hand we have a perfectly reasonable and useable explanation and on the other we have an unspecified objection that could be in the region of 2-pages long :-)
I hope you don’t mind me seeing the humour in this situation :-)
7C1c says that a call is okay weaker if 2-suited and neither of the 2 suits are the opened suit.
Here 2D open shows 4-4 in the majors (allowed). As an aside, it also shows some shortage in an unspecified suit...
Seems strange to allow a weaker open with 4432/4423 shape, but not 4441/4414.
In addition, as natural suits can be 3 cards long... is 4432 not a 3-suited hand anyway? 7C1d confirms the idea by describing 5431 hands as 3-suited. Looks like this definition of a natural C or D suit being 3+ is confirmed in 4C1a too.
@Martin
The issue in the thread is that a 4441 hand can’t be either non-strong showing the suit or non-strong artificial. It has to be one or the other.
Your 4432/4423 example is subject to the same restriction. You cannot agree to open 2D if the 2D bid could be either non-strong showing the suit or non-strong artificial. Again, the 2D bid has to mean one or the other.
The same applies to your 5431[/5413] example. The 2D opener must mean either non-strong showing the suit or non-strong artificial. Presumably, your specific example (5431) would be 2D non-strong-showing the diamond suit.
Looking at this again, I think "opening bid strength" (6D1(c)) should be read as "11 HCP", which seems the usual lower limit for a "precision 2D opening" in the 'literature' https://www.bridgebum.com/precision_2d.php
In 7C1(d), "if 5431 it must satisfy the Rule of 20", also corresponds to 11HCP.
Ah, perhaps I had misunderstood this. I'd been assuming that wherever "Rule of 20" was mentioned, this would have to be satisfied by the meaning as a whole, not just the individual patterns which cause "Rule of 20" to be required. That is, I'd been reading this sentence as "if 5431 [is included, then] it [ie. the three-suited option] must satisfy the Rule of 20". But I guess you're saying "Rule of 20" only applies to the 5431 patterns, so it's OK to have a bid which includes 11+ HCP 5431s, together with 4441s and 5440s of any strength.
Does the same sort of thing apply if I play 2H as the three-suiter short in diamonds (usually combined with a multi 2D)? In my Precision days I used to play 2H as 11-15HCP, 4414/4405/4315/3415. Could I argue that:
Or is the table saying that when the minimum length is 3 then my bid as a whole must promise rule of 20? If so then this opening would be disallowed.
I do agree that 11-15HCP is the most common range. Though, I don't think 10-15 is particularly unusual either (e.g. the first CC I linked above), and historically has been allowed, but apparently wouldn't be permitted now.
Thanks for fixing the start of 7C1, by the way. It's now clear that you can't play 2H = 6 hearts or 5-5 in the blacks, much as I would have enjoyed trying this out :-)
Ah, maybe I'd misunderstood this. I'd been assuming that whenever "Rule of 20" was mentioned, it would apply to the meaning as a whole, not just to the individual patterns which cause "Rule of 20" to be required. That is, I interpreted this sentence as "if 5431 [is included, then] it [ie. the whole three-suited option] must satisfy the rule of 20". But I think you're saying the Rule of 20 requirement only applies to the 5431 patterns themselves, so that you can have a mixture of 11+ HCP 5431s, together with 4414s and 4405s of any strength.
Does the same apply if you play 2H as the three-suiter short in diamonds (usually combined with a 2D multi)? In my Precision days I used to play 2H as 11-15HCP, 4414/4405/4315/3415. Could I argue that:
Or is the table saying that if the minimum length is 3, then the whole opening bid must satisfy rule of 20? In which case this bid wouldn't be allowed.
I do agree that 11-15 HCP is the most common range. Though I think 10-15 is also not unusual (e.g. the first CC I linked above), and historically has been allowed, but is clearly not permitted now whichever way you read it.
By the way, thanks for fixing the first part of 7C1. It's now clearly not permitted to play 2H = 6 hearts or 5-5 in the blacks, much as I would have enjoyed trying this out :-)
(Reposted because the original seemed to not save correctly - sorry if this turns out to be a duplicate.)
@davidcollier
My reading of 7C1a is that the table is saying, “if the minimum length is 3, then the whole opening bid must satisfy rule of 20.” This table only applies to “showing the suit” bids.
That said, your bid is still allowed because second bullet point of 7C1 allows, “One or two non-strong meanings…” So as your bid doesn’t use an artificial 2H, it isn’t constrained by any of the requirements of 7C1b/c/d.
Just as an after thought, and I’m probably stating the obvious, if your bid is showing 3 suits (the bid suit and 2 others) , you can’t hide that from the opponents :-)