1club on 2 cards/wonder bids

[d***@aol.com]

Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.

Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

[Larry]

Post by d***@aol.com
Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.
Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

Yes, I remember having an e-mail this year from ACBL saying that
conventional defenses are allowed over 1 club bids that could be
shorter than 3-cards.

I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Larry Lowell
Knoxville, TN, USA

[John Crinnion]

<big SNIP>

Post by Larry
I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Errrr . . . Why would that be?

Post by Larry
Larry Lowell
Knoxville, TN, USA

[Peter Leighton]

Post by John Crinnion
<big SNIP>

Post by Larry
I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Errrr . . . Why would that be?

The ACBL bans destructive bids at the option of the director. It's
fine to preempt in the third seat NV with total garbage, but if a
director wants to ban a non-standard preempt, he can. Or not,
depending on his mood.

Peter

[John Crinnion]

Post by Peter Leighton

Post by John Crinnion
<big SNIP>

Post by Larry
I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Errrr . . . Why would that be?

The ACBL bans destructive bids at the option of the director. It's
fine to preempt in the third seat NV with total garbage, but if a
director wants to ban a non-standard preempt, he can. Or not,
depending on his mood.

Hmmm. It's not bridge. Just as poker without the option to
"check-and-raise" is not poker.

Post by Peter Leighton
Peter

[Peter Leighton]

Post by John Crinnion

Post by Peter Leighton

Post by John Crinnion
<big SNIP>

Post by Larry
I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Errrr . . . Why would that be?

The ACBL bans destructive bids at the option of the director. It's
fine to preempt in the third seat NV with total garbage, but if a
director wants to ban a non-standard preempt, he can. Or not,
depending on his mood.

Hmmm. It's not bridge. Just as poker without the option to
"check-and-raise" is not poker.

...

Tell it to the judge.

Peter

[Will in New Haven]

Post by John Crinnion

Post by Peter Leighton

Post by John Crinnion
<big SNIP>

Post by Larry
I don't know about wonder bids, bidding has to be constructive, not
destructive.

Errrr . . . Why would that be?

The ACBL bans destructive bids at the option of the director. It's
fine to preempt in the third seat NV with total garbage, but if a
director wants to ban a non-standard preempt, he can. Or not,
depending on his mood.

Hmmm. It's not bridge. Just as poker without the option to
"check-and-raise" is not poker.

...

That reminds me of my friend and sometimes bridge partner Ed. He told
me about a poker game he played in a few times when he came back to
Connecticut from college. They didn't allow check-raises and they had a
few other little idiosyncacies he didn't like. So he quit playing there
once he found the poker game where I met him.

The game he left was a friendly, fairly low stakes affair with free
food. He beat the game for fifty or sixty dollars a visit and he quit
to join the game at the Yale Law Schol lounge where he usually dropped
about a hundred, sometimes more, although he won a couple of times over
the years. This was a tough, fairly serious game where only one or two
of us ever spoke to him much.

He said he was glad that he changed because "those guys didn't know
what they were doing." I said to myself, "yep he's a bridge player."

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

Post by John Crinnion

Post by Peter Leighton
Peter

[Gerben Dirksen]

Post by d***@aol.com
Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.

Yes, and this is a good reason to play a short Club as most people applying
these artificial defenses mess them up so that you end up with a top score
:)

Post by d***@aol.com
Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

Ask the director. The ACBL rules say that if the director likes your face
and is convinced you don't know what you are doing, then it's probably
allowed. So how should anyone be able to answer that question? I guess it's
allowed as a defense to art. openings...

Gerben

[David Stevenson]

Post by Gerben Dirksen

Post by d***@aol.com
Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.

Yes, and this is a good reason to play a short Club as most people applying
these artificial defenses mess them up so that you end up with a top score
:)

...

Oh? Feel free to play them against me, then. I wonder how many times
My partners and I mess our defence to short clubs up.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by d***@aol.com
Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.

Yes and yes.

Post by d***@aol.com
Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

They're allowed over any conventional bid by the opponents. Whether
it's wise or not is another matter. As I recall, a Wonder bid is a
simple overcall that either shows that suit or the other three. They
were designed for use over strong 1C openings. Over a 1C opening that
could be weaker, when there's a much better chance that the contract
belongs to your side, I would think that a Wonder bid would severely
hamper your constructive bidding for not much gain. If you're
referring to a *jump* overcall as a Wonder bid---I think the proper
term for that convention is a "please-give-us-a-minus-eight-hundred"
bid. :)

As for comments that the bid might be "destructive": I don't think
so---at least in the GCC sense. My understanding is that "destructive"
bids that are banned by the GCC are mostly bids that just use space
without showing anything about your hand---like a 1S overcall of a
strong club to show any 13 cards, or a 2C opening that shows 0-10
points and any distribution. You could argue that Wonder bids, or the
Multi, or weak preempts are destructive in a looser sense. I've seen
arguments (from Bob Hamman) that the Multi should be banned because of
its destructive nature. But I don't think that this use of the term
"destructive" really has any bearing on what the GCC means when it bans
destructive bids. It may be the case that the ACBL hasn't done a good
enough job clarifying what the term means, and that some directors may
be using this vagueness to ban things they shouldn't. I don't know.

-- Adam

[the keylime]

I'm of the view that if it's a "short club" and not a "prepared club"
that you can't play conventional items over it so to speak.

With regards to the "destructive/constructive" I agree with my national
pard here. The WBF under the guises of "fan friendly" bridge started
getting after yellow sticker and brown sticker treatments a couple of
years ago - I firmly believe the Wilkosz's demise was due to the strong
resistance to it. There are some defenses that I have felt before that
were borderline destructive (Suction comes to mind readily - that's a
bear to prepare against). If you wanted to play wonder bids against us,
we wouldn't mind...we'd just ask for your red double cards before we
started play. :-)

I do tho agree with the fact that the ACBL's language about this topic
is incredibly vague and in serious need of definition.

[Peter Leighton]

Post by the keylime
I'm of the view that if it's a "short club" and not a "prepared club"
that you can't play conventional items over it so to speak.

I don't see how the GCC can be interpreted this way.

The exception is for "conventional" bids, which a short club certainly
is,
since natural minor openings are defined as three or more in the suit.

Peter

[Will in New Haven]

Post by d***@aol.com
Is the artificial 1C opening usu on 4=4=3=2, a convention in ACBL. Does
that 'convention' open up defenses reserved to what used to be termed
strong forcing artificial openings? The language has changed since
early precision years. It seems by my reading that conventional
defenses to artificial openings apply here.

I think that the language has changed in a way that would allow these
defenses against this use of a 1C bid. However, I would imagine most
opponents would not do so, not if they were wise. The conventional
defenses are often very bad in a constructive sense, finding games and
slams. The ones we use, at any rate, are aimed at getting as high as we
judge safe in our best fit before the opening bidder can start bidding
suits.

If the 1C opening is simply a one-bid, we will often be right to play
in a game or slam or in NT, none of which are considered likely over a
Strong Club.

When my friend Van and I used to play Roman in club games with very
tolerant directors and players who were too vain to complain, we used
to TELL people our 1C bid was more likely a Weak NT than anything else.
They still preempted, psyched, took phantom saves against games we
didn't have and otherwise fell on their faces. I am sure people do
that against Polish Club also.

Post by d***@aol.com
Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

I think that they are allowed over Strong Club and other strong
artificial. So the new wording might make them usable, although
ill-advised in my opinion, against the short Club.

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

[[e-mail]]

The ACBL provided extremely broad lattitude in the choice of defensive
methods over artificial club openings. With a few notable exceptions,
anything goes. The only things that I've every seen rejected are
so-called "random" overcalls.

For example, a 1S overcall shows any/all hands. Even here, I expect
that the objection is not so much the meaning of the 1S overcall, but
rather disclosure. (In practice, the definition of 1S is bounded by
the failure to make any one of a variety of other possible overcalls).

The ACBL regulations do not differentiate between a conventional 1C
opening and a strong artificial and forcing 1C opening. If the ACBL
(or individual directors) believe that a conventional short club
opening is substantively different than a convention strong club
opening they should adjust the regulations accordingly rather than
twisting the laws to suit their whim d'jour.

[Larry]

Post by ***@hotmail.com
The ACBL provided extremely broad lattitude in the choice of defensive
methods over artificial club openings. With a few notable exceptions,
anything goes. The only things that I've every seen rejected are
so-called "random" overcalls.

[snip]

Post by ***@hotmail.com
The ACBL regulations do not differentiate between a conventional 1C
opening and a strong artificial and forcing 1C opening. If the ACBL
(or individual directors) believe that a conventional short club
opening is substantively different than a convention strong club
opening they should adjust the regulations accordingly rather than
twisting the laws to suit their whim d'jour.

I have an e-mail from ***@acbl.org stating that only over a strong
artificial 1C (15+ hcp) can most defenses be used. The Gardner 1 NT
overcall can NOT be used over a 1C that may be shorter than 3 if the
hcp can be less than 15.

However, note under GCC Competitive, #7. DEFENSE TO: a) conventional
calls (except for natural NT less than 10 hcp or more than 5 hcp range
- my paraphrase). This seems to allow all defenses to conventional
calls!

Larry

[[e-mail]]

Post by Larry

Post by ***@hotmail.com
The ACBL provided extremely broad lattitude in the choice of defensive
methods over artificial club openings. With a few notable exceptions,
anything goes. The only things that I've every seen rejected are
so-called "random" overcalls.

[snip]

Post by ***@hotmail.com
The ACBL regulations do not differentiate between a conventional 1C
opening and a strong artificial and forcing 1C opening. If the ACBL
(or individual directors) believe that a conventional short club
opening is substantively different than a convention strong club
opening they should adjust the regulations accordingly rather than
twisting the laws to suit their whim d'jour.

artificial 1C (15+ hcp) can most defenses be used. The Gardner 1 NT
overcall can NOT be used over a 1C that may be shorter than 3 if the
hcp can be less than 15.
However, note under GCC Competitive, #7. DEFENSE TO: a) conventional
calls (except for natural NT less than 10 hcp or more than 5 hcp range
- my paraphrase). This seems to allow all defenses to conventional
calls!

...

My point exactly.

The ACBL's written regulations don't seem to match the intentions of
the organization. There are a few ways to resolve this issue. One
option is to ignore the written regulations altogether and do whatever
you damn well please. ***@acbl.org has done so when they state
that a Gardner NT overcall may not be used over a short club.

The other option is to adjust the written regulations so that actually
match the intention of the regulators.

Personally, I have a strong preference that the written rules are
followed. I have no idea how TD's at large are expected to know about
the existence of a personal email between you and ***@acbl.org

[nige1]

[dake50]

Post by d***@aol.com
Also, when are Wonder bids allowed in ACBL? =WJO or 3-suiter short in
bid suit?

[nige1]
Joe Amesbury recommended weak 3-way simple overcalls over artificial
openers...

[A] With the bid suit (pass a double).
[B] With the next two suits (bid the next suit over a double).
[C] With the other three suits (redouble).

You can include non-touching 2 suiters fairly naturally. For example...

[E] With diamonds and spades, overcal 1D (then bid 1S when doubled*)
[D] With clubs and hearts, overcall 1H (then bid 2C when doubled*)

*Anyway, If an opponent places the stop card beside the double card,
switches off his hearing aid, detaches his opening lead, and starts to
write in the contract, you should risk a white feather from partner :)