[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2007, 10:37 PM, said:

Many people - including one or two posts here - assume 'natural' and 'conventional' are opposites, an unjustified and unwarranted assumption. The opposite of 'conventional' [being a law-book definition] is 'non-conventional'. A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is 'non-conventional' [even though it was alertable until recently in England and Wales] but a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is 'conventional'.

Hi David:

Welcome to the BBO forums.

Here's the catch. As Wayne pointed out, the WBF seems to have explictly defined that "Natural" is the opposite of "Conventional". I agree completely with your comments. This decision strikes me as both un-necessary and un-warranted. As you point out, the precise same effect could have been achieved without polluting the vocabulary. I would very much prefer if the WBF had followed in the EBU's footsteps.

Unfortunately, if and when we are discussing WBF events, we need to ensure that our use of these expressions are consistent with the way that organization has chosen to define things.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on Aug 23 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 23 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

This is the exact problem: Mr. Wignall doesn't follow the rules that apply but makes up his own on the fly.

Please look at the wording of Wignall's original statement on this matter:

It is far from clear whether Wignall was responsible for this decision. It is entirely possible that the Conventions Committee reached a decision that Wignall doesn't happen to agree with and he is merely conveying this decision.

My apologies to Mr Wignall.

hrothgar, on Aug 23 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

From my perspective, this decision is farcical.  However, its unclear who (specifically) should be tarred with this brush.

It seems like I was shooting the messenger. Nevertheless, we completely agree that farcical is the right word for this decision.

Rik

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Aug 23 2007, 07:35 PM, said:

[.....] the new policy regarding that short Club and 0+ Diamond openings are natural [.....]

OK, so 1♦ promising 0+ diamonds is natural. I think I got it. Just one more question: is KenRexfords Xango system considered natural now? After all, in the Xango system all bids (including insuficient and out-of-turn bids) promis 0+ diamonds as well.

[Onno]

JanM, on Aug 23 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

The rule that a 2+ 1♣ opening is to be treated as natural as long as it is not forcing is not new - it was made at least 3 years ago. The current statement clarified that it still applied and applied to 1♦ as well. The Netherlands pairs knew about it since it had been the rule in the Netherlands in the past, although it's now been changed there apparently.

Not entirely correct. Up until now in international competition the 2+ 1♣ opening was treated as conventional. Members of the Dutch team have played Holo-Bolo in all international championships in the last few years. In Holland the 2+ 1♣ is treated as conventional since the nineties; there haven't been any recent changes in that regard.

I assume the rule you are referring to ('at least 3 years ago') is an ACBL rule.


Brink-Drijver were denied to play any BSC after the committee decided (not unreasonably) that they filed five BSC's instead of maximum 3. They might have decided to ask them to remove 2 of the 5 and file a new cc, but the committee of course took the easiest road.

Muller-De Wijs had filed a cc mentioning Holo-Bolo against all <3 1♣ openings. They were allowed to change that and file a new cc with "<3" replaced by "artificial".

[JanM]

Onno, on Sep 3 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

I assume the rule you are referring to ('at least 3 years ago') is an ACBL rule.

Well, no, it's the WBF rule that Wignall has been applying for several years. Probably it hasn't previously been considered by the Systems Committee because no-one has complained or asked for clarification. I was told that the WBF rule was that a 2+ club that is so defined in order to allow 1♦ to promise 4 or an unbalanced hand would be considered natural. To be certain, I asked for a specific ruling about whether the Holo Bolo overcalls would be allowed over such a 1♣ opening bid. Mr. Wignall informed me (and everyone else of course) that they would not.

In fact, the current ACBL rule is that a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card club suit is conventional and "anything goes" over it.

Jan Martel, who should probably state that she is not speaking on behalf of the USBF, the ACBL, the WBF Systems Committee, or any member of any Systems Committee or Laws Commission.

[cherdano]

JanM, on Aug 20 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

Just to make this topic complete, John Wignall, the Chair of the WBF Systems Committee has now ruled that Brink-Drijver submitted too many Brown Sticker Bids and therefore will not be allowed to play any of them. He further ruled that DeWijs-Muller, who play BS overcalls of 1♥, 1♠, 2♥ and 3♥ over 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids could play them all, because:

"The one level major suit overcall of one of a minor is one B/S convention, the 2 heart and 3 heart overcalls of one of a minor are also B/S . That is three in all so the card is acceptable for the K O stages. In my opinion the conventions etc are properly explained and the proposed defences are satisfactory."

Mr. Wignall also responded to my question about whether the "Holo Bolo" overcalls are allowed over a 1♣ opening bid that can be made on a 2 card suit, that if it is non-forcing (does not include a strong option) it is to be treated as "natural" and the overcalls are therefore not permitted.

I don't know whether this will be the final word on either question.

Was there ever an update to this? I just saw Brink overcalling Lauria's 1♣ with 1♥ = spades or H+minor.

[Gerardo]

There is a note in page 20 of the 6th Bulletin says there is a revised CC for Brink-Drijver with allowed BSCs.

[hrothgar]

Gerardo, on Oct 5 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

There is a note in page 20 of the 6th Bulletin says there is a revised CC for Brink-Drijver with allowed BSCs.

Does anyone know whether a 2+ card 1♣ opening is a convention or not?

[Onno]

It officially is artificial.

[hrothgar]

Onno, on Oct 5 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

It officially is artificial.

Sanity has prevailed...