[helene_t]

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 07:03 AM, said:

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

No but so what? Why should the criterion be that artificial methods (like stayman and transfers) need to be filed while natural methods (like 4-card preempts) need not?

I was not arguing that a short club opening need not be filed because it is inherently obvious how to defend it. Just that everybody is accustomed to it so it is in nobody's interest to get it filed.

[the hog]

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

Every man and his dog would readily understand, anticipate and expect to play against "short club" systems, but the same could not be said about "short spade". As far as I can recall, I've never seen anyone playing a "short spade" system with the possible exception of an alcohol-fueled late-night speedball.

But ask yourself "why", Dave and the answer you will most likely come up with is because of lack of exposure. Technically there is no difference.

[mrdct]

You are missing my point Ron. In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

Where you and I learnt our bridge, opening a suit with less than four cards would've been unequivocally un-natural and it would've been most improper for a pair playing "better minor" not to at least pre-alert their alien methods or go a step futher and alert whenever these strange 1♣ and 1♦ openings crop up as any self-respecting bridge player at that place and time would not in their wildest imaginations expect to come across someone opening a suit with less than four cards in it.

[the hog]

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

You are missing my point Ron. In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

Where you and I learnt our bridge, opening a suit with less than four cards would've been unequivocally un-natural and it would've been most improper for a pair playing "better minor" not to at least pre-alert their alien methods or go a step futher and alert whenever these strange 1♣ and 1♦ openings crop up as any self-respecting bridge player at that place and time would not in their wildest imaginations expect to come across someone opening a suit with less than four cards in it.

Showing our age.
Good luck in Philly btw.

[helene_t]

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

You are missing my point Ron.  In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players.

I don't think so.

If we try to re-engineer the philosophy underlying the policy of treating 3-card major suit openings as unnatural, 3-card minor suit openings as natural and 2-card minor suit openings usually, but with the exception of some regulations like those that applied in Beijing, as unnatural, then I think it boils down "it is natural if an adequate defense would be to treat it as natural". If opps play 3-card majors we need to consider methods to reach a contract in "their" suit while not losing too much of the cuebids' utility. The same is not true for 3-card minors (unless they play canape, maybe, but then again I am not sure if regulators would consider 3-card minors canape to be "natural").

Of course, the word "natural", in folk language, often means "what I am used to", i.e. if you announce that you play "natural", opps will assume you play the same notrump range and jump overcall strength as they learned when they took bridge classes. I have heard some players calling Blackwood "natural", as opposed to the alien quanty. But I don't think that is the usage of the word "natural" in regulations. (One of my pet peeves is the expression "natural leads and carding", what the heck does that mean).

Anyway, this thread is about filing of systems. I don't know why we are discussing the semantics of "natural".

[Cascade]

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

And that makes it less natural how?

Other posters in this thread have argued that 'short club' is 'fairly natural'.

By symmetry the same argument must be valid for a 'short spade'.

They have used this 'fairly natural' argument to suggest that the regulations do not apply to them.

The argument that a short spade is not readily understood and anticipated is weak.

1. Such agreements need to be designated as 'Special Partnership Understandings'. As far as I am aware such a bid has not been so designated.

2. If 1♣ short is understood then it seems that 1♠ short would be just as easily understood.

3. If 1♠ short is not anticipated then that can be easily solved by making an announcement in advance that such a method is being played. Now clearly it will be anticipated.

It is plainly not fair when the regulations are manipulated to favour certain players methods.

I am increasingly of the opinion when these sort of twisting of the regulations are used to allow a certain type of method that the only fair system regulation is no regulation at all.

Anything else necessarily gives some players an unfair advantage.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

I am increasingly of the opinion when these sort of twisting of the regulations are used to allow a certain type of method that the only fair system regulation is no regulation at all.

Yeah, but I can think of better arguments for getting rid of the system regulations. After all, how many people play 3-card majors? And of those who do, how many have serious issues with the fact that opps are allowed to play any defense against it?

A bigger problem is that strong-club players are handicapped in the same way, but even that isn't much of a problem in practice. Most opps play vanilla defense against our strong club and those who play crazy defenses are (on average) just as likely to harm themselves as they are to harm us.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 5 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

I mean can anyone really argue that "short spade" is less natural than "short club"?

Yes one can.

In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament".

And that makes it less natural how?

By regulation. A key part of the test of whether or not something is natural is whether or not it is readily understood and anticipated. A "short spade" would not satisfy that test but a "short club" would (in most places).

The Laws, in fact, go a little bit further with the definition of natural by tying it in to the "opinion of the regulating authority". Some regulating authorities do better than others in having a sensible and tight set of regulations defining the concept of natural.

[nige1]

Duplicate sorry

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Sep 20 2010, 02:59 AM, said:

Interestingly the system submission deadline for RED (artificial) systems has passed even though the entry deadline has not, so presumably no-one entering now will be playing a RED system.

WBF, on 19 May 2010, said:

"I am told to ask you to have a look at the Systems Policy, a copy of which is attached, Paul. "You will see there that a 1C opener that can be two cards is artificial. Artificial systems are Red category."

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 06:39 AM, said:

The Laws, in fact, go a little bit further with the definition of natural by tying it in to the "opinion of the regulating authority".  Some regulating authorities do better than others in having a sensible and tight set of regulations defining the concept of natural.

The WBF aims to devolve legal responsibilities (even in such basic matters) to local regulators and directors. This leads to an incoherent Tower of Babel and prevents a level international playing field. But this debate (like the debate on consulting unofficial written-defences to Multi at the table) is academic. The rule that Cardsharp quotes would inconvenience so many ACBL members who did not submit their systems early that the WBF is bound to change the Coc or to turn a blind eye