[blackshoe]

DrTodd13, on Jan 5 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

Personally, I think it would be difficult to write a good definition for what we mean by a convention.

You're not alone there, as a recent, inconclusive, and very long thread on the bridge laws mailing list shows.

[PetteriLem]

Hello.

2♦=6+♦, 2♥=5+♥unbal, but not 4+♠, 2♠=5+♠unbal, but not 4+♥ seems to be allowed in gcc (I have heard that 5 card pre-emps are allowed). But combine this with multi it becomes forbidden. Have I understood correctly?

[hrothgar]

I just fired off the following email to rulings@acbl.org
Its going to be quite amusing to see what falls out from this.

Dear Mr Flader:

I am writing regarding an email that you recently sent to Adam Meyerson regarding the Convention Licensing process and the nature of the ACBL's General Convention Chart. Adam's email specifically dealt with the question whether a 2S opening that promised 5+ Spades and 4+ Cards in either minor was allowable at the GCC level. I believe that the principles that you describe in this email represent a significant change in the ACBL's policy. Furthermore they deviate sharply from standard usage in other parts of the world. For convenience, I am attaching a copy of your original email:

>Dear Adam,

>Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed,
>the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to
>play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically
>mentioned is allowed.
>
>A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed
>since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which
>shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would
>be allowed.
>
>Hope this answers your questions.
>
>Mike Flader

I agree with your assessment that the 2S is natural. However, you seem to be assuming that a bid can not be both natural and conventional. I would argue that

1.The 2S opening in question is natural
2.The 2S opening in question is also conventional
3.The GCC does not specifically license a preemptive 2S opening that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor.
4.The 2S opening in question may not be used in GCC events.

I will note in passing that the ACBL's Defensive Databased contains a suggested Defense to “2H or 2S showing a 5+ card major and a 4+ card minor”. Furthermore, the Defense indicates these bids are rated as “2 Boards per segment/round”. http://web2.acbl.org...database/2g.htm

As I understand matters, the Defensive Database only applies to methods found on the ACBL's Midchart. I'm somewhat confused why a GCC legal method required a suggested defense or this type of rating.

I'd very much appreciate some clarification on this topic. Furthermore, if the philosophy that you describe in your letter represent the official policy of the ACBL then I would very much appreciate some form of formal correspondence that I can present to Tournament Directors to justify my choice of methods.

Respectfully

Richard Willey

[hotShot]

DrTodd13, on Jan 5 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

The official convention definition:
A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

Ok...so with that definition everything artificial is conventional. But then an opening of 1♦ showing 3♦ and an outside 6 card suit would be considered natural and not a convention.

Your bid may be natural because it has 3♦, but it "conveys a meaning other than ..." because it promises a 6 card side suit. So it is a convention!

[dake50]

Artificial is opposite to natural; conventional implies additional information to 'I bid to play'

[awm]

It should also be noted that:

(1) The general chart does not say that conventional bids not specifically allowed are disallowed. It says that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed. "Methods" are not defined anywhere as far as I can tell.

(2) Every bid in bridge carries information other than about the denomination named. For example opening a natural 1♦ might imply "no five card major" (okay for Steve Robinson it does). Opening a weak two might imply "no four card side major" or "no void" in many partnerships. Opening 1♦ might imply "not a balanced hand" if balanced hands are opened 1♣/1NT. These messages have no relationship to the denomination named.

(3) There are a number of methods which seem to run afoul of any loose definition of "methods" which are nonetheless deemed legal. A popular example in southern california is "Bailey Twos" where a two bid shows 5-6 cards in the bid suit, 2-3 cards in any unbid major(s), and denies any void, as well as some point range typically around 8-12. Clearly this opening carries a message about suits other than the one bid (in fact I often see people sign off in the other major at the four-level on a bad six card suit or good five-carder opposite a Bailey two). However this has been consistently ruled legal. Other examples include pure canape methods (where opener always has a longer side suit) or precision 2♣ ("if only five clubs will have a side four card major").

Anyways I'll wait and see what response Richard gets from ACBL. Honestly there is virtually no response that he could get which would surprise me at this point, they are so inconsistent at times.

[DrTodd13]

There is nothing in the definition of convention that in plain language says that saying something about another suit in addition to the one you are bidding naturally makes it a convention. In the blml discussion of this matter, someone tried to argue that it did but I just don't see it. As far as I can tell, a 2♥ bid showing 5/5 majors would be natural and non-conventional. It expresses willingness to play in ♥. The rule doesn't say you can't be willing to play somewhere else as well. They could have used the word "only"to say you are _only_ expressing interest in the named suit but they didn't use that word.

What about satisfying more than one of the clauses? Is 1♥ showing 5+♥ and 2 of the top 3 a convention?

You can't define conventional simply as "saying nothing about any suit besides the one bid naturally" because as Adam pointed out, the natural bid tends to deny a longer suit and therefore you are saying something about all the other suits. In 1998, somebody raised this point with the WBF that maybe natural 1♥ is a convention because it says something about the length of other suits. The WBF answer was basically "we both know that is not what is meant by convention" or "that is not what we meant when we wrote the definition." That is some solace. How are we supposed to know what you meant?

[hotShot]

One of the biggest problems of bridge is, that we don't even get our vocabulary properly defined.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

(3) There are a number of methods which seem to run afoul of any loose definition of "methods" which are nonetheless deemed legal. A popular example in southern california is "Bailey Twos" where a two bid shows 5-6 cards in the bid suit, 2-3 cards in any unbid major(s), and denies any void, as well as some point range typically around 8-12. Clearly this opening carries a message about suits other than the one bid (in fact I often see people sign off in the other major at the four-level on a bad six card suit or good five-carder opposite a Bailey two). However this has been consistently ruled legal. Other examples include pure canape methods (where opener always has a longer side suit) or precision 2♣ ("if only five clubs will have a side four card major").

Anyways I'll wait and see what response Richard gets from ACBL. Honestly there is virtually no response that he could get which would surprise me at this point, they are so inconsistent at times.

Here's my take on matters: (I believe that this approach is logically consistant, however, it certainly is not a majority position)

I argue that a Baily type 2♥ opening that specifically promises 2-3 Spades is a conventional bid. I also believe that a "pure" canape 1♠ opening that promises 5+ cards in another is conventional. I'd go so far as to say that a "disciplined" weak 2S opening that denies a side suit void is also conventional. In each of these cases, the opening bid conveys "a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named)". Therefore, the bids are all conventional.

From what I can tell, the ONLY reason that this presents a problem is that the regulatory authorities get real weird whenever conventions get involved. Case in point: When the ACBL created the GCC they barred players from using any convention that wasn't explictly sanctioned. Therefore, people get very excited trying to figure out what is/is not a convention. In a similar vein, the Laws grant authorities the right to regulate "conventions". Here once again, you get lots of fights over what is/is not a convention.

My own belief is that things would progress a lot more smoothly if the "concept" of a conventional bid was de-emphasized in the regulatory structure. If boundaries surrounding conventional bids became less important we'd have a lot less fights about what is/is not a convention and, in turn, we could probably start apply the existing definition in a more consistent manner. No one would get upset if a Bailey 2 bid was ruled to be a convention because the "concept" of a convention would only apply in a few limited cases (for example, insufficient bids and the like)

I will note in passing that the WBF seems to be coming arround to this position. It is rumored that the next version of the Laws with grant Zonal authorities the right to regulate "Agreements" rather than conventions.

[inquiry]

This has actually begun to interest me. I think you need very formal definitions for several words/phrases.

Natural bid
Method (and or treatment and or agreement)
Conventional bid
Conventional responses
Conventional rebids
ohters

Perhaps we could propose in this thread some novel wording such that a language can be developed that will allow the description of what is, and is not, allowed.

For instance, a 1D bid that promises 3D and six spades and non-forcing values. Since 1D could be the final resting place, one might argue that it is natural (but we all know it would not be). So the definition would ahve to include covering things like that.

For instance, 2H weak with five card suit is natural. Two hearts weak with no void and no side four card suit major and "unbalanced" is both natural, but it includes much more. That much more might be a treatment. It would become, perhpas a convention if you have "conventional responses" to it.

[inquiry]

For example any bid with multiple additional requirements (like 2H with 5-4 and 5 in hearts) is a treatment or method or sometihing until you add a "conventional response" and/or a conventional rebid to it.

For example open 2H is just fine as long as there is no 2NT that ask anything about bid the minor, or no 3C bid as pass/correct. But once you have specialized folllow up auctions, then it turns the "natural 2H and assoicated method, or treatment, or agreements" into a convention.

Likewise should you require 1H to have two of the top three honors, no problem, unless you have a specific asking bid if the missing one is the queen (or ace, or king).

Something like that.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jan 6 2007, 01:12 AM, said:

This has actually begun to interest me. I think you need very formal definitions for several words/phrases.

Natural bid
Method (and or treatment)
Conventional bid
Conventional responses
Conventional rebids
others

Perhaps we could propose in this thread some novel wording such that a language can be developed that will allow the description of what is, and is not, allowed.

For instance, a 1D bid that promises 3D and six spades and non-forcing values. Since 1D could be the final resting place, one might argue that it is natural (but we all know it would not be). So the definition would have to include covering things like that.

For instance, 2H weak with five card suit is natural. Two hearts weak with no void and no side four card suit major and "unbalanced" is both natural, but it includes much more. That much more might be a treatment. It would become, perhpas a convention if you have "conventional responses" to it.

While I agree that this is an interesting topic, I'm not sure whether this forum is the best place to discuss this. Bridge Law is VERY tricky. We don't have many real experts who actively participate on these forums. We're missing a lot of context and history. I'm worried that we'll quickly spiral down a rat hole. There is a LOT of discussion arround this topic on the Bridge laws mailing list. Its esoterica and involved a lot of arguments about minutia, but its fairly well informed.

Few quick comments about your post:

1. "Treatment" is an expression originally coined by Kaplan to describe different flavors of natural bids. For example, a "Constructive raise" is a specific treatment for the auction 1M - 2M. In a similar vein, an inverted minor raise is another example of a treatment. I'm not aware of any linkage between the expression "treatment" and "method" and would suggest that the discussion of the two be separated.

2. Its unclear to me whether the nature of the response structure should be used to define whether or not a bid is "conventional". In the past I've argued that certain bids can be defined by their response structures. In particular, I've argued that relays can be differentiated from asking bids based on the concept of recursion. This has met with some strong opposition. Not sure if you want to open this can of worms.

3. Personally, i think that it usedful to establish a few ground rules for the discussion. Here's how I normally think about things:

Let C be the set of all bids

C is a disjoint Union of the sets (Artificial and Natural). (This is
a formal way of stating the following. All bids can be labeled as
either Artificial or Natural. No natural bids are artificial. No
artificial bids are natural)

The set of "Conventional Bids" is a subset of C.

The set of "Artificial Bids" is a subset of the set of Conventional Bids.

The intersection of "Conventional" and "Natural" is not empty

The set of "Treatments" is a subset of the set of Natural bids

"Treatments" and "conventions" are disjoint.

[joshs]

From The Bridge World:

Artificial

(1) not natural;

(2) (of a call) (a) not indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain; or ( offering information relevant to a specific strain other than the one named (or, if not a bid, the last-named); or both;

(2) (of a bidding system) consisting significantly or more of agreements that actions, or most early-in-the-auction actions, are artificial.

Natural

(1) (of a call) indicating a desire to play in the named (or, if not a bid, in the last-named) strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain;

(2) (of a bidding system) consisting largely or entirely of agreements that most actions, or most early-in-the-auction actions, are natural

Convention

an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.

Treatment

a partnership's interpretaton of an action.


Note: A treatment usually refers to the length or strength shown by a natural call. For instance is 1D-2D:
6-9
11-13
11+
13+
or so on

Or in the auction: 1D-2D(game forcing)-3C-3H
Are 3C and 3H natural (4+ cards?)
Values?
Qbids?
Any of the above?

Which natural meaning a partnership uses for these bids are what is called a treatment.

From these definitions, Muiderberg 2M are artificial and thus not natural. Yes it suggests playing in 2M but it also suggests playing in 3 of openers minor. (Although perhaps the distrinction should be if there was a way to locate and get to opener's minor)

Personally I think Bailey 2's are also ART but some people think that promising 2 or 3 cards in the other majors isn't so much of a suggestion to play in the other major as a control on hand types. I think the distinction should be if the partnership has the ability to stop at the cheapist level of the other suit but not other suits. So if playing Bailey 2's if after a 2S opening you played 2S-3H as non forcing but 2S-3m as forcing than this would certainly be viewed as a suggestion to play in hearts in addition to playing in spades....

I don't think negative implications are the same as positive implications unless they enable partner to identify and play in a shown or implied side suit. If 1D opening denied a 5 card major, it might have 2 4 card majors, or voids in both, there is no suggestion or implication that the hand can play in any suit other than diamonds. This is not different than if 1D can be 6D and 5M, just some shapes are excluded.

[awm]

This is all very tricky. Some of the issues:

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

(2) Is it reasonable to allow a bid of X which shows one of a set of hands Y, but to disallow the same bid X showing one of a set of hands Z, when Z is a subset of Y? In other words, is it reasonable to say "five card major preempts are allowed, but five card major preempts that promise a four card minor side suit are not allowed"? I would say probably not, since any such rule runs into serious regulatory/disclosure issues -- can't we claim our agreement is to show Y and then just "use judgement" and in fact only use the bid with hands Z? Especially with preemptive calls people very frequently "use judgement" to pass a hand that might otherwise seem suitable for the bid.

(3) How do "positive" and "negative" inferences differ? It seems obvious -- a negative inference says I can't have something. But you can get positive inferences by combining negative inferences with the fact that people only have 13 cards. For example, an opening of 1♠ that shows "four or five spades, unbalanced" seems like it's just a natural bid with some negative inferences. But looking at this further, we can see that there's an implication of a four-card or longer side suit somewhere (thus another place to play, a positive inference).

In the long run it's probably best to have a simple set of rules people can understand. I'd recommend "any suit bid that guarantees five or more cards in the suit named is legal" as a good starting point. Then again perhaps these bids that show five cards in the suit named are simply too nefarious for the bridge playing population to defend against, especially if one is not absolutely required to make the bid with every hand containing five cards in that suit?

[Echognome]

It's a shame that the ACBL doesn't give their interpretations of this. In the EBU, there is a couple of pages in the Orange Book explaining their rules. I certainly won't quote all of it. The simple definition is:

Orange Book said:

A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits. Note that in the earlier rounds of bidding a natural suit bid usually shows at least four cards.

They then go on to give their interpretations of specific cases (saying e.g. that a 1m opening showing 3 cards is not alertable). The point is that it seems they recognize the definition is murky and then go on to instruct players as to specific cases.

[inquiry]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

I am not sure that is what i am suggesting. I think you can open 2H natural with this "treatment"...

1) five card suit
2) no side four card major
3) 6-11 hcp
4) no void
5) not balanced distribution (so not 5332).

This is effectively muilderberg, but no problem. The minute you make a conventional response to this bid, however (3C as pass/correct being an example) it makes the bid now more than a treatment. So you can play the treatment, but not the "convention"

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jan 6 2007, 04:24 AM, said:

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

(1) Should the responses to an opening dictate whether that opening is, itself, allowed? Josh and Ben seem to be suggesting "yes" (in other words, that a 2M opening showing 5M and a 4-card minor is okay if and only if there's no way to get to the minor). This seems very weird to me, and hard to regulate.

I am not sure that is what i am suggesting. I think you can open 2H natural with this "treatment"...

1) five card suit
2) no side four card major
3) 6-11 hcp
4) no void
5) not balanced distribution (so not 5332).

This is effectively muilderberg, but no problem. The minute you make a conventional response to this bid, however (3C as pass/correct being an example) it makes the bid now more than a treatment. So you can play the treatment, but not the "convention"

As I commented earlier, I think that this sort of sophistry should be punished.

The nature of a bid "convention" / "treatment" / "non-convention" whatever should be determined by the set of hands that map on to that bid, not the specific verbiage that you use to describe it.

[whereagles]

Muiderberg is obviously ok to play because it's really a 5-card weak 2 under disguise. You get to play in the minor less than 1% of the time or so..

[mikestar]

Muiderberg is natural. But it is also conventional because it guarantees the existence of the 4+ minor suit. A weak two which will have a four card minor when it is five cards but might easily be 6 cards with or without a four card minor is not a convention--the existence of the side suit is not guaranteed, merely possible--which it would be if the partnership opened 5-6 card weak twos without any distributional restriction. This usage would be similar to Precision 2♣ but preemptive.

[uday]

I can't understand why it should be so difficult to understand the rules, here (not that I do, either).

Can anyone comprehensively complete this sentence?

A call is permissible under the GCC if ... ?

Don't forget to define any terms you use, please. It seems that we (or the acbl?) can't agree on what "natural" means, or even if "natural" is by definition permissible (and when).