[awm]

The idea that 1♣ showing 3+ is natural doesn't seem to be just ACBL's doing -- as I understand it the WBF also treats the bid this way, at least to the degree that you can play any defense you want over an artificial 1♣ showing 2+, whereas many unusual defenses to 1♣ 3+ are brown sticker.

[NickRW]

hotShot, on May 13 2008, 08:01 AM, said:

NickRW, on May 13 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

That's the generally perceived wisdom - except that it isn't really true.  SAYC has natural 1H/1S openings - but 1C/1D don't actually promise a suit of 4 or more cards.

Around here a minor suit call is considered natural if showing 3+ cards.

Around here (EBU land), the authorities apparently go even further than ACBL in allowing "phoney" club bids. This is the definition of what is allowed at level 2 (only just up from "simple systems"):

"A 1♣ opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Diamonds or 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a Club suit of equal length or longer)."

In other words people graduating from beginners classes can play and be expected to play against people who play 5 card majors and 5 card diamonds as well and who open 4=4=4=1 shape 1♣.

One diamond, strangely enough, has an even looser definition:

"A 1♦ opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer)."

In other words 1♦ doesn't need to guarantee any diamonds whatsoever - it could be 4=4=0=5 shape, for example.

I am not necessarily saying this should not be allowed (well, actually I think it is crazy) - but anyone saying this is natural is resorting to the historically allowed perspective as opposed to being truly honest in my opinion.

<grump mode on> - and people pay the EBU their membership fees to write this jibberish <grump mode off>

Nick

[helene_t]

Lol Nick, what you write is that EBU allows short minor suit openings, not that they consider them natural. Tons of articial methods are allowed (Stayman, for example). OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

Lol Nick, what you write is that EBU allows short minor suit openings, not that they consider them natural. Tons of articial methods are allowed (Stayman, for example). OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Yeah, but if I remember correctly, they used to go under the labels "natural". "prepared" etc under several different definitions in the older Orange book - the newer one simply amalgamated these into one cleverly worded definition and dropped the word natural. Well, gee, they don't pretend they are natural anymore. They do pretend that these things are OK to play against graduates of beginners courses because they are licensed for use at level 2.

Compare this to how AUC is treated. Entirely natural 1D/1H/1S/2C and the 1C opening is, what, well - it could be clubs fully natural (allowed at level 2), prepared clubs with 2+ and 15-17 (also allowed at level 2) or strong (also allowed at level 2 provided that "strong" conforms to their "extended rule of 25"). Yet because these types are mixed in one bid (arguably more of an impediment to the opening side than the defenders) this is only allowed at level 4. Where is the logic in that?

And, to take this thread totally off topic, the EBU now wants to impose a "pay to play" tax on all affiliated clubs - thus I will be obliged to fund and be a member of this silly organisation as well when I actively do not want to endorse this insanity.

Nick

[1eyedjack]

The cut-off is entirely arbitrary and wherever you choose to define it

[NickRW]

1eyedjack, on May 14 2008, 06:29 AM, said:

The cut-off is entirely arbitrary and wherever you choose to define it

Well, precisely. It is arbitrary. I support the idea of different levels of play. I don't support aribtrary definition of what each level is - it is possible to be more logical than it is.

Nick

[gerry]

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Hi,

I assume that there is a more recent Orange Book than the one on the ebu website? I have a copy that is 2006 with 2007 amendments included and it says:
11G3b "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid"

Cheers Gerry

[Echognome]

gerry, on May 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Hi,

I assume that there is a more recent Orange Book than the one on the ebu website? I have a copy that is 2006 with 2007 amendments included and it says:
11G3b "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid"

Cheers Gerry

Discussed in depth on the bridgetalk forum...

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=1826

[gerry]

Echognome, on May 14 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

gerry, on May 14 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Hi,

I assume that there is a more recent Orange Book than the one on the ebu website? I have a copy that is 2006 with 2007 amendments included and it says:
11G3b "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid"

Cheers Gerry

Discussed in depth on the bridgetalk forum...

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=1826

Ah of course. I have so little imagination as to the lengths regulators will go to to take all the fun out of this (what used to be) great game (i learnt in the late 80s and played forcing pass at a young age when auctions after a fert really were about judgment and flair rather than following the prescribed formulas).

As an aside, apparently despite the new laws pointedly NOT saying "regulating authorities have the power to regulate partnership agreements without restriction", that is exactly what ROs are going to do.

Cheers Gerry

[helene_t]

gerry, on May 15 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Hi,

I assume that there is a more recent Orange Book than the one on the ebu website? I have a copy that is 2006 with 2007 amendments included and it says:
11G3b "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid"

Cheers Gerry

The problem is that they are mandatory, thereby defining a pass as 8-11 points. That is not allowed in EBU land.

[Free]

helene_t, on May 15 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

gerry, on May 15 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 13 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

OTOH the perfectly natural Lorenzo 2-openings are not allowed in EBU-land.

Hi,

I assume that there is a more recent Orange Book than the one on the ebu website? I have a copy that is 2006 with 2007 amendments included and it says:
11G3b "any single meaning that includes at least four cards in the suit bid"

Cheers Gerry

The problem is that they are mandatory, thereby defining a pass as 8-11 points. That is not allowed in EBU land.

Play them as 'not 4333' and they're not obligatory anymore

[FrancesHinden]

NickRW, on May 13 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

In other words people graduating from beginners classes can play and be expected to play against people who play 5 card majors and 5 card diamonds as well and who open 4=4=4=1 shape 1♣.

One diamond, strangely enough, has an even looser definition:

"A 1♦ opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer)."

In other words 1♦ doesn't need to guarantee any diamonds whatsoever - it could be 4=4=0=5 shape, for example.

I am not necessarily saying this should not be allowed (well, actually I think it is crazy) - but anyone saying this is natural is resorting to the historically allowed perspective as opposed to being truly honest in my opinion.

No-one is saying these are 'natural'.

They are allowed at level 2 (I imagine) because there are plenty of people still around who learnt their bridge 40 years ago and play things such as 'nottingham club' which need these permissions.

Quote

Ah of course. I have so little imagination as to the lengths regulators will go to to take all the fun out of this (what used to be) great game

As I'm now one of the dreaded regulators, I feel obliged to point out that we're not trying to take all the fun out of the game. The problem is that what some people consider to be 'fun', others consider to be ruining their fun.

There's a convention doing the rounds at the moment where a 2C opening shows a weak hand with at least four cards in any of diamonds, hearts or spades. This has generated two letters of complaint (that I'm aware of) saying it should be banned. It hasn't been banned yet, because so far more people seem to be having fun playing it than object to it being played against them.

If you care enough to look at the history of methods regulation in England, you would see that restrictions have generally been getting looser over time.

Quote

<grump mode on> - and people pay the EBU their membership fees to write this jibberish <grump mode off>

There's no such word as 'jibberish', I assume you mean gibberish?
The Orange book could be better written. But I promise you that it is remarkably difficult - far harder than most people realise - to write regulations that are all of
- easy to understand
- mean what you want them to mean
- can cope with players lawyering them to play their own pet methods

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on May 13 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

<grump mode on> - and people pay the EBU their membership fees to write this jibberish <grump mode off>

Nick

You have no clue how good you have it across the pond...

I'd be ecstatic to play under the EBU regulatory system where there is a working process rather than a random hodge podge of contradictory semi-official missives.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on May 15 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

You have no clue how good you have it across the pond...

Yeah, I do understand about ACBL regulations and am glad I am where I am - it is just that I'd rather be in Oz to play bridge.

Also, Frances, I do understand that it is a thankless task writing regulations and I see the need for some. I just don't agree with them. Frankly I wouldn't probably have objected if I hadn't also recently seen the EBU "pay to play" proposal - which I do think is genuinely ludicrous.

Nick