[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2007, 03:08 AM, said:

JanM, on Aug 15 2007, 05:18 AM, said:

The WBF rules are not clear on this point, turning on whether a 1♣ opening that is non-forcing, either long clubs or a balanced hand which may have 2 clubs, is "natural" or "conventional" - I think it's somewhere in between, and therefore these unusual overcalls might be considered BS or might not.

The WBF regulations are very clear that natural is the opposite of conventional. There is no "in between".

I would hope that an opening bid that could be made in one's shortest suit is conventional. I actually think it meets the definition of HUM - either short in clubs or long in clubs - but some how this definition gets twisted to exclude a "short" artificial 1♣ opening.

I need to disagree with both Wayne and Jan.

First and foremost: Natural is not the opposite of conventional. There are plenty of bids that are both natural and convention. This is a well established precedent.

Second: I think that the regulatory authorities have an obligation to avoid ambiguities in the legal structure. If they use standard vocabulary, they damn well need to stick with the established definitions.

A 1♣ opening that could be made on a 2+ card suit is clearly conventional. If you pass a regulation sanctioning any defense versus a conventional opening, then you need to permit people to play BSC's over a short club.

For what its worth, I really don't have a problem if the Systems Committee wants to pass a regulation that ban BSCs over a short club. I just want them to follow an appropriate proceedure and write the rules properly.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

I need to disagree with both Wayne and Jan.

First and foremost: Natural is not the opposite of conventional. There are plenty of bids that are both natural and convention. This is a well established precedent.

Richard usually I like to read your posts and you make many interesting - at least to me - comments from perspectives that I have not always considered.

However here I am afraid you are plain wrong. We have probably had discussions in the past where you have made a similar statement and I have agreed to it but that was in a different context. Most likely that context was the ACBL regulations. In that context 'natural' is most definitely not the opposite of 'conventional'. However here we are talking about the WBF regulations and those regulations define, yes define, 'natural' as the opposite of 'conventional'.

"Natural a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws) "

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

I need to disagree with both Wayne and Jan.

First and foremost:  Natural is not the opposite of conventional.  There are plenty of bids that are both natural and convention.  This is a well established precedent.

Richard usually I like to read your posts and you make many interesting - at least to me - comments from perspectives that I have not always considered.

However here I am afraid you are plain wrong. We have probably had discussions in the past where you have made a similar statement and I have agreed to it but that was in a different context. Most likely that context was the ACBL regulations. In that context 'natural' is most definitely not the opposite of 'conventional'. However here we are talking about the WBF regulations and those regulations define, yes define, 'natural' as the opposite of 'conventional'.

"Natural a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws) "

Wow...

I definitely stand corrected. I had assumed that the WBF and the sponsoring authorities agreed on this one. For what its worth, I sent out the following email to the Bridge Laws Mailing list:

Quote

I'd like to get clarification regarding WBF regulations.

WBF System Policy defines the word "Natural" as follows:  "Natural:  A call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)".  This quote can be found in the 2000 edition of the WBF Systems Policy.

It was my (long standing) impression that Natural and Conventional are NOT mutually exclusive.  For example, I've often seen the example where a Flannery type 2D opening is considered to be both natural AND conventional.

I'd appreciate clarification on this point:  Does the WBF define "Natural" and "Conventional" differently than some local sponsoring authorities.

I'll let folks know if I get any interesting responses.

[cherdano]

Did you mean to "Flannery 2H opening"?

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2007, 02:18 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 15 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

I need to disagree with both Wayne and Jan.

First and foremost:  Natural is not the opposite of conventional.  There are plenty of bids that are both natural and convention.  This is a well established precedent.

Richard usually I like to read your posts and you make many interesting - at least to me - comments from perspectives that I have not always considered.

However here I am afraid you are plain wrong. We have probably had discussions in the past where you have made a similar statement and I have agreed to it but that was in a different context. Most likely that context was the ACBL regulations. In that context 'natural' is most definitely not the opposite of 'conventional'. However here we are talking about the WBF regulations and those regulations define, yes define, 'natural' as the opposite of 'conventional'.

"Natural a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws) "

Wow...

I definitely stand corrected. I had assumed that the WBF and the sponsoring authorities agreed on this one. For what its worth, I sent out the following email to the Bridge Laws Mailing list:

Quote

I'd like to get clarification regarding WBF regulations.

WBF System Policy defines the word "Natural" as follows:  "Natural:  A call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)".  This quote can be found in the 2000 edition of the WBF Systems Policy.

It was my (long standing) impression that Natural and Conventional are NOT mutually exclusive.  For example, I've often seen the example where a Flannery type 2D opening is considered to be both natural AND conventional.

I'd appreciate clarification on this point:  Does the WBF define "Natural" and "Conventional" differently than some local sponsoring authorities.

I'll let folks know if I get any interesting responses.

Here http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfin...definitions.asp

The definition is as I stated above. It says that this is the 2002 regulations but they are on the page for the 2007 Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai.

[JanM]

I agree that the WBF Systems Policy defines "natural" as "not conventional" - when I said that to me it seemed as if the 2+ non-forcing, no strong option, club was somewhere in between, I meant that I could see how some people could think it is natural and some could think it is conventional, and therefore the WBF Systems Committee might come down either way on whether Brown Sticker-like overcalls are permitted over it.
There's obviously a whole spectrum of possible 1♣ openings, with a 1♣ bid in a 4 card Major, bid Majors first, system being the most "natural" and a 1♣ opening in a Strong Club system being the most conventional. There are plenty of bids along that spectrum - 1♣ in a 5 card Major, longer minor system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamond system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, unbalanced diamond system, 1♣ in a Polish or Swedish system (forcing and includes strong hands but can also be minimum opening with clubs the longest suit). I've probably left some out.
I don't know where the line between "natural" and "conventional" should be drawn on that spectrum, although I've been told by someone who should know that the WBF draws it just before the Polish/Swedish club. At any rate, I've asked, with reference to Shanghai, so I guess I'll know the "official WBF policy" soon.
I don't think the Laws Commission is going to change the definition of "convention," not because it's a good one but because it's really not possible to write a good one.

[Gerben42]

I am 100% sure that "Holo Bolo" is allowed after a short 1♣ opening (even if you only agree to open 1♣ on 4432). In the junior championship in Prague (2004), we played such a system and the Italian juniors played Bocchi-Duboin's old canape overcalls over that.

I agree that the ordinary club players will not have agreements over these Holo Bolo bids, which was the reason why a nonforcing 2+♣ opening was considered as natural. I'm not sure why they changed it back, probably to have the same rules as the international standard again.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Basic Methods

"Standard": 5 card majors, Strong Notrump = 41 pairs
"Precision": Strong Club and 5 card majors = 11 pairs
"Polish Club" = 6 pairs
"Carrot Club" = 2 pairs
"Blue Club" = 1 pair
F+N = 1 pair
5 card majors and weak Notrump = 1 pair
Dutch Doubleton = 2 pairs

2♦ Openings

Multi = 35 pairs
Weak 2 = 12 pairs
Ekrens = 6 pairs
Precision = 3 pairs
Long Diamonds or 2 suited = 2 pairs
Flannery = 2 pairs
6+ Hearts = 2 Pairs
Game Force = 1 Pair
F+N = 1 pair
5/5 in majors or strong = 1 pair

Richard, thanks for the breakdown here - some questions:

1) Would you want to have Multi by Multi-just-weak, and Multi-with-strong-options?

2) Do all Ekrens have no strong options, so the "5/5 in majors or strong" is the only pair using the bid as two-way?

3) It may be interesting to do a breakdown of 2♥ openings - I can do this if you don't intend to.

4) Would you consider doing same thing for Venice Cup?


Also did you already edit the 2♦ numbers to reflect the LV use?

[Gerben42]

Funny how few "standard + weak NT" there is in the list.
Brink - Drijver play a mixed NT (usually strong, but mini 1st 2nd NV)

Martens & Jassem can be counted twice (Polish Club V; Precision NV)

[glen]

Don't forget our 10-12 NT guys!

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Aug 15 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Basic Methods

"Standard": 5 card majors, Strong Notrump = 41 pairs
"Precision": Strong Club and 5 card majors = 11 pairs
"Polish Club" = 6 pairs
"Carrot Club" = 2 pairs
"Blue Club" = 1 pair
F+N = 1 pair
5 card majors and weak Notrump = 1 pair
Dutch Doubleton = 2 pairs

2♦ Openings

Multi = 35 pairs
Weak 2 = 12 pairs
Ekrens = 6 pairs
Precision = 3 pairs
Long Diamonds or 2 suited = 2 pairs
Flannery = 2 pairs
6+ Hearts = 2 Pairs
Game Force = 1 Pair
F+N = 1 pair
5/5 in majors or strong = 1 pair

Richard, thanks for the breakdown here - some of questions:

1) Would you want to have Multi by Multi-just-weak, and Multi-with-strong-options?

2) Do all Ekrens have no strong options, so the "5/5 in majors or strong" is the only pair using the bid as two-way?

3) It may be interesting to do a breakdown of 2♥ openings - I can do this if you don't intend to.

4) Would you consider doing same thing for Venice Cup?


Also did you already edit the 2♦ numbers to reflect the LV use?

Folks are more than welcome to extend / double check this offering.

To me, Ekrens / Assumed fit type methods don't include any strong hand types. I found it interesting that one pair seemed to be using a 2♦ opening to show a weak two in hearts without any strong hand types. The main reason seemed to be that they wanted to use 2♥ to show 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2007, 05:34 AM, said:

The definition is as I stated above. It says that this is the 2002 regulations but they are on the page for the 2007 Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai.

If anyone cares, the BLML thread is archived at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ust/033825.html

I've already seen a couple posts that I found vaguely surprising.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

Hamway is under "Blue Club" which is how they describe their system on the convention card.

Actually they say "Strong Club - BLUE", where BLUE is the WBF system color ("Blue Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong"). I believe the system name was actually the Orange Club at one point in the Hamman-Wolff years.

[joshs]

JanM, on Aug 14 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

I agree that the WBF Systems Policy defines "natural" as "not conventional" - when I said that to me it seemed as if the 2+ non-forcing, no strong option, club was somewhere in between, I meant that I could see how some people could think it is natural and some could think it is conventional, and therefore the WBF Systems Committee might come down either way on whether Brown Sticker-like overcalls are permitted over it.
There's obviously a whole spectrum of possible 1♣ openings, with a 1♣ bid in a 4 card Major, bid Majors first, system being the most "natural" and a 1♣ opening in a Strong Club system being the most conventional. There are plenty of bids along that spectrum - 1♣ in a 5 card Major, longer minor system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamond system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, unbalanced diamond system, 1♣ in a Polish or Swedish system (forcing and includes strong hands but can also be minimum opening with clubs the longest suit). I've probably left some out.
I don't know where the line between "natural" and "conventional" should be drawn on that spectrum, although I've been told by someone who should know that the WBF draws it just before the Polish/Swedish club. At any rate, I've asked, with reference to Shanghai, so I guess I'll know the "official WBF policy" soon.
I don't think the Laws Commission is going to change the definition of "convention," not because it's a good one but because it's really not possible to write a good one.

Hey Jan,

Hmm, while I agree that there is lots of disagreement as whether to TREAT a "could be short" 1m opening bid as natural or conventional, I do not think there is much doubt that these are conventional according to the rules that have been quoted over and over again in this post....

So I can't understand your claim that these openings are somewhere in between. They may feel like they are something in between but they are not according to the laws. In fact, the existance of an "in between" is probably a bad feature in a set of rules...

As to your "more natural" claim, I don't even have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You seem to claim that natural is a measure of average suit length and thus a continuous measure (I am reading into the logic behind or claims, not quoting a stated methodology). I think natural is a binary measure (something is or isn't) according to a definition, and there is no such thing as more or less natural and the criteria certainly doesn't have to do with average suit length. The laws certainly treat natural and conventional as binary measures.

Please tell me which is more "natural":
a. 1H=4+H, either more hearts than anyother suit or 4 cards and no longer suit or 5+ cards and the same length in a minor, 10-20 points
b. 1H=6+H and 5+C, 10-20 points

I think b is conventional and a is not even though the heart length is much greater in b than in a.

[JanM]

joshs, on Aug 15 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

Please tell me which is more "natural":
a. 1H=4+H,  either more hearts than anyother suit or 4 cards and no longer suit or 5+ cards and the same length in a minor, 10-20 points
b. 1H=6+H and 5+C, 10-20 points

I think b is  conventional and a is not even though the heart length is much greater in b than in a.

That example is another good reason why "natural" and "conventional" aren't really opposites. And also perhaps to some extent explains my problem with calling a 1♣ bid that includes balanced hands with 2+ clubs "conventional." I guess I think of "conventional" as whether the bid carries meaning about another suit. When I open 1♣, even though I don't promise more than 2 clubs, neither do I give my partner any specific information about any other suit. So looking at the (admittedly very flawed) definition of "conventional" as carrying a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination, or length or strength in the named suit, it's hard for me to view the 1♣ bid as meeting that definition - unless somehow carrying the meaning that one has an opening bid is information about suits other than clubs - I suppose it is, but then are all opening bids "conventional."

And to be honest, I think my main feeling here is that there's a difference between being "natural" for purposes of whether artificial overcalls are allowed and being "natural" for other purposes (whatever they might be - obviously I haven't thought this out very completely). I just have a difficult time understanding why BSC bids should be allowed if 1♣ promises 3 but not if 1♣ might be 2. I'm not sure whether I would feel differently if "natural" were being used for another reason (is it? if so, what?).

One of the posts in the thread Richard linked to suggested that a Precision 2♣ bid is conventional. I don't see why that would be so - after all, it carries no meaning other than about clubs. So perhaps I just don't really understand the meaning of "conventional" (and thus, for WBF purposes, "natural").

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 15 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

I agree that the WBF Systems Policy defines "natural" as "not conventional" - when I said that to me it seemed as if the 2+ non-forcing, no strong option, club was somewhere in between, I meant that I could see how some people could think it is natural and some could think it is conventional, and therefore the WBF Systems Committee might come down either way on whether Brown Sticker-like overcalls are permitted over it.
There's obviously a whole spectrum of possible 1♣ openings, with a 1♣ bid in a 4 card Major, bid Majors first, system being the most "natural" and a 1♣ opening in a Strong Club system being the most conventional. There are plenty of bids along that spectrum - 1♣ in a 5 card Major, longer minor system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, 4 card diamond system, 1♣ in a 5 card Major, unbalanced diamond system, 1♣ in a Polish or Swedish system (forcing and includes strong hands but can also be minimum opening with clubs the longest suit). I've probably left some out.
I don't know where the line between "natural" and "conventional" should be drawn on that spectrum, although I've been told by someone who should know that the WBF draws it just before the Polish/Swedish club. At any rate, I've asked, with reference to Shanghai, so I guess I'll know the "official WBF policy" soon.
I don't think the Laws Commission is going to change the definition of "convention," not because it's a good one but because it's really not possible to write a good one.

One thing is certain the WBF regulation is symmetrical with respect to suits.

So if you think a short club - longest suit or some range of balanced - might be natural then presumably you would argue that a short spade using a similar criteria might be natural.

[glen]

Some additional BB numbers:

Pairs playing Multi with a strong option: 16
Pairs playing Multi without a strong option: 19
Pairs playing variable NT ranges: 14
Pairs playing Natural with 3+♣s for 1♣: 29
Pairs playing Natural with 2+♣s for 1♣: 10
Pairs playing 1♣ as natural or balanced: 7
Pairs playing 2♥ as natural (weak, constructive, intermediate): 33
Pairs playing 2♥ as ♥+other or ♥+minor: 15
Pairs playing 2♥ as weak majors: 8 (not including pair playing 2♥ as Flannery 11-15 or 5-5 majors weak)
Pairs playing 2♥ as short ♦s: 6

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 16 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

One thing is certain the WBF regulation is symmetrical with respect to suits.

So if you think a short club - longest suit or some range of balanced - might be natural then presumably you would argue that a short spade using a similar criteria might be natural.

From my perspective, the more interesting (aka more perverse) example is the following:

One of the top Italian pairs used to play a 2♠ opening where 2♠ showed either

a classic weak two bid in Spades (6+ Spades, ~ 6-9 HCP) OR
a balanced hand with ~8-10 HCP

If a 1♣ that shows 2+ clubs or a balanced hand is not convention, what about this 2♠ opening?

(Please note, I don't have the slightest desire to play said opening)

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2007, 06:12 AM, said:

From my perspective, the more interesting (aka more perverse) example is the following:

One of the top Italian pairs used to play a 2♠ opening where 2♠ showed either

a classic weak two bid in Spades (6+ Spades, ~ 6-9 HCP) OR
a balanced hand with ~8-10 HCP

If a 1♣ that shows 2+ clubs or a balanced hand is not convention, what about this 2♠ opening?

(Please note, I don't have the slightest desire to play said opening)

Well, your proposed 2♠ bid falls under the definition of BS, and I'd certainly be willing to allow BS overcalls of a BS opening bid . Maybe where all of this is getting us is that deciding whether to allow BS overcalls shouldn't turn on whether the opening bid is "conventional" or not?

[JanM]

officeglen, on Aug 16 2007, 06:11 AM, said:

Some additional BB numbers:

Pairs playing Multi with a strong option: 16
Pairs playing Multi without a strong option: 19
Pairs playing variable NT ranges: 14
Pairs playing Natural with 3+♣s for 1♣: 29
Pairs playing Natural with 2+♣s for 1♣:  10
Pairs playing 1♣ as natural or balanced: 7
Pairs playing 2♥ as natural (weak, constructive, intermediate): 33
Pairs playing 2♥ as ♥+other or ♥+minor: 15
Pairs playing 2♥ as weak majors: 8 (not including pair playing 2♥ as Flannery 11-15 or 5-5 majors weak)
Pairs playing 2♥ as short ♦s: 6

Gee, if you're going to do my work for me , did you make a list of which pairs are playing what?

Seriously, how did you differentiate between Natural with 2+ clubs and 1♣ clubs or balanced? And when you counted "variable NT" did you include minor variations (a lot of people play 14-16 and 15-17 depending on position and vul, ditto 11-14 and 12-14 - I wouldn't call those "variable").

What about 2♦ as both Majors? That's also a fairly popular method.

Another area that always interests me is jump overcalls - how many are playing ambiguous 2-suited jump overcalls (Michaels over a Major) and how many prefer to use an extra bid to avoid ambiguity.

Jan, going back to the salt mines (reading and summarizing the convention cards)