[paulg]

NickRW, on Oct 22 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

Well, I'm a critic of the EBU orange book regulations - but, whatever its faults may or may not be, it is one hell of a lot better than the dog's breakfast that the ACBL regulations would seem to be.

I'm not trying to defend the current ACBL regulations, which are a mess, but it seems that they are trying for a simple one-pager rather than the tome that is the EBU Orange Book. I expect that this is an objective, in part, due to the homogeneous nature of bridge in the ACBL.

The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee does an excellent job with the Orange Book. You may not like what is in it, but you can work out what is permitted almost all the time. But it does take 30 pages as opposed to the 3 pages for the ACBL charts.

And the EBU committee is approachable and answers questions promptly. And publishes its meeting minutes more promptly than any other EBU body.

Paul

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on Oct 22 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

The 2007 Laws define the word artificial as follows

Quote

Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information
(not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than
willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass
which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises
or denies values other than in the last suit named.

Well, as I read it, part of the problem then is not the ACBL, but the 2007 Laws.

The key bit of that law is, according to how I understand it, the semi colon - which I take it to signify a separator giving 2 definitions.

Definition 1 = "a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named"

Definition 2 = "a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named"

Clearly, under definition 1, a 2♥ opening that promises hearts and another unspecified suit, but which is, self evidently, willing to play in hearts is not an artificial bid.

Let me get this straight:

RHO opened 2♥. By partnership agreement, this 2♥ opening explictly promises 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in some other suit.

It seems blinding obvious that this opening convery information other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

The same holds true if the 2♥ opening promises a 4+ card minor

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

Therefore, these 2♥ openings are all artificial. The fact that the bids all show willingness to play in the denomination named is irrelevent. So long as the bid conveys other information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) the bid is artificial.

[paulg]

I see the principal problem with the ACBL regulations is the definition of natural which, in its current form, permits many conventional bids to meet the criteria.

The SBU definition is not much longer, but more natural ... so to speak.

SBU Directives said:

A call is natural if it is any of the following:

• A no-trump bid that shows nothing other than a willingness to play in no-trump
  
  
• A suit bid that shows nothing other than
    willingness to play in the suit or
    high card strength in the suit or
    at least three cards in the suit
  
  
• A double (or redouble) that shows nothing other than a willingness to defend (or play in) play in the doubled (or redoubled) contract
  
  
• A pass that shows nothing other than willingness to play in the last-named contract.

The 'nothing other' qualifier is fundamental to the definition.

The EBU eschews the whole argument by providing regulations that do not use the terms natural, artificial or conventional.

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Oct 22 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

By your reasoning, the same would hold true if the 2♥ opening denied 4+ spades. Guess what - this means that almost everyone in the US who opens a normal 6 card "weak 2♥", but who won't do this when they also have 4 spades, is using an illegal method! Agreements not to have a side 4 card major for any weak two apply similarly.

Good luck convincing everyone that under your interpretation all the standard weak two bids are illegal!

[david_c]

cardsharp, on Oct 22 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

The EBU eschews the whole argument by providing regulations that do not use the terms natural, artificial or conventional.

They haven't quite reached that stage yet. I would like the EBU to get rid of the remaining instances of the word "natural" in its system regulations, but there are plenty still there at the moment. For example, a 1M opening has to be "natural" - which means that RobF's system is technically not allowed in the EBU.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Oct 22 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

Let me get this straight:

RHO opened 2♥. By partnership agreement, this 2♥ opening explictly promises 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in some other suit.

It seems blinding obvious that this opening convery information other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

Well, you clearly want to use the fact the 2 suited opener shows willingness to play in another suit to outlaw it. I use the fact that it has willingness to play in the suit named as evidence that it is a perfectly natural call - and we're both reading the same text!!!

Your position would be more consistent if you also wanted to outlaw the opening 1♥ bid mentioned elsewhere in the thread that happened to also show another suit. I don't really see how you - or any regulatory authority - can logically permit one and outlaw the other. It would be a totally arbitrary decision and, though arbitraries are possibly permitted, one which is going to be a continual source of complaint.

Using your interpretation, as someone else pointed out, a "normal" weak 2♥ denying 4 spades is also an artificial call - and therefore also subject to the same law. Surely you don't want to adopt this absurd position???!

Good luck to all you guys over in the U.S of A.

Nick

[TimG]

Rob F, on Oct 22 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 22 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

(and the same holds true if the 2♥ opening denies three spades)

By your reasoning, the same would hold true if the 2♥ opening denied 4+ spades. Guess what - this means that almost everyone in the US who opens a normal 6 card "weak 2♥", but who won't do this when they also have 4 spades, is using an illegal method! Agreements not to have a side 4 card major for any weak two apply similarly.

Good luck convincing everyone that under your interpretation all the standard weak two bids are illegal!

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

[NickRW]

TimG, on Oct 22 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

Er - I am getting punch drunk on just who thinks what - but what does "information taken for granted by players generally" actually mean - who defines it and what national system do you take as a standard to measure by, if any. If you want to take a narrow US only view - then perhaps 2♥ being ♥ and not ♠, but might well have ♦ or ♣ on the side is perhaps "taken for granted". And I guess this is about the ACBL specifically - but such is less obvious in Britain where strong twos are still quite common - and certainly not "taken for granted" in Poland apparently.

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on Oct 23 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

TimG, on Oct 22 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

You missed (or ignored) this part "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" which, imo, covers the absence of a side four-card major.

Er - I am getting punch drunk on just who thinks what - but what does "information taken for granted by players generally" actually mean - who defines it and what national system do you take as a standard to measure by, if any. If you want to take a narrow US only view - then perhaps 2♥ being ♥ and not ♠, but might well have ♦ or ♣ on the side is perhaps "taken for granted". And I guess this is about the ACBL specifically - but such is less obvious in Britain where strong twos are still quite common - and certainly not "taken for granted" in Poland apparently.

There is a world of difference between:

Might have a 4 card minor on the side and

and

Explicitly promises a 4+ cards in a minor

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on Oct 22 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Well, you clearly want to use the fact the 2 suited opener shows willingness to play in another suit to outlaw it.  I use the fact that it has willingness to play in the suit named as evidence that it is a perfectly natural call - and we're both reading the same text!!!

Your position would be more consistent if you also wanted to outlaw the opening 1♥ bid mentioned elsewhere in the thread that happened to also show another suit.  I don't really see how you - or any regulatory authority - can logically permit one and outlaw the other.  It would be a totally arbitrary decision and, though arbitraries are possibly permitted, one which is going to be a continual source of complaint.

Using your interpretation, as someone else pointed out, a "normal" weak 2♥ denying 4 spades is also an artificial call - and therefore also subject to the same law.  Surely you don't want to adopt this absurd position???!

Good luck to all you guys over in the U.S of A. 

Nick

Comment 1: I never said that a 2♥ opening that promises 5+ Hearts and a 4+ card minor should be outlawed. I have always advocated liberalizing system regulations here in the US. However, I also believe that if you're playing a game you have an obligation to follow the rules (even if they have been written in an inane manner).

Comment 2: For what its worth, I also agree that a 1♥ opening that promises a two suited hand with 5+ Hearts is conventional. It isn't sanctioned at the GCC level. Folks shouldn't be allowed to play this in GCC events.

Do I consider the opening in question complete innocuous? Yes.
Do I think that the GCC should be amended to allow this type of bid? Yes.
Do I think that tournament organizers should amend the Conditions of COntest to permit this bid to be played? Once again yes...

However, absent some change in the regulatory structure, you shouldn't be using this 1H opening.

Comment 3: I (obviously) do not speak for the WBF Laws Committee. However, I suspect that the "not being information taken for granted by players generally" clause is meant to handle stylistic issues. For example, in the US many people have an agreement that a first / second seat 2♥ opening denies a void or 4+ card spade suit. I suspect that this sort of agreement would be taken for granted by players generally. Therefore, this agreement would not transform the 2♥ opening into an artificial bid.

I doubt that a Bailey type weak two opening rises to the same standard, so I would consider this to be artificial. (For what its worth, I'd prefer if the rules weren't quite so subjective, but - once again - I'm not the one who made the rules)

[xcurt]

re the argument about whether 2M promising 5M, and 4+ in a minor, is natural.

I expect most pairs playing this have some way for responder to say "I want to play a partscore in your minor."

How is this auction:

2♥* -- 2NT*
3♣ -- Pass

qualitatively different than a Michaels auction

(1♥) - 2♥ -- 2NT
3♣ -- pass.

Are you then saying that a Michaels cuebid is artificial only because it doesn't indicate a willingness to play in the bid suit, and not also because it suggests two places to play?