[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-March-17, 19:38, said:

I believe that you are mis reading the charts.

Under definitions:



Therefore, a 2♣ opening which promises 5+ Clubs is defined as natural, regardless of whether it might also contain a side 4 card major.

Furthermore, the Basic Chart sanctions

1. Any opening bid in a suit that is Natural, as long as it shows at least Near-Average Strength.

Thank you, I did miss that.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-March-17, 16:05, said:

I'm not confusing myself at all, but if that's how it is intended to be interpreted, fine and thanks.
I would be quite happy to play in a place where one could experiment with things like 1-level majors being 8-14 and 2-level being 15+, I just couldn't look Culbertson in the face and call it natural

In general, "natural" in this context just refers to whether bidding a suit shows that suit, and strength requirements are treated separately. Culbertson might have considered it natural that higher levels show more strength, but that concept was mostly abandoned decades ago.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-March-19, 12:59, said:

In general, "natural" in this context just refers to whether bidding a suit shows that suit, and strength requirements are treated separately. Culbertson might have considered it natural that higher levels show more strength, but that concept was mostly abandoned decades ago.

I understand and agree to a certain extent. Using a higher level to show less strength was around before Culbertson and does little to undermine the original logic of bridge, 1-level openings remaining the same. But there is a fundamental question of semantics (with implications for the rights of players): whether natural indicates an inherent logic of bridge (the rules have changed little since Culbertson, but the types of competition more) or just whatever has proved more effective and is widely played today, perhaps in your own country. Whichever side of the fence you are on, I would postulate that excessive liberty to define strength levels (see my examples) puts at risk the very concept of naturality.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-March-19, 15:17, said:

I understand and agree to a certain extent. Using a higher level to show less strength was around before Culbertson and does little to undermine the original logic of bridge, 1-level openings remaining the same. But there is a fundamental question of semantics (with implications for the rights of players): whether natural indicates an inherent logic of bridge (the rules have changed little since Culbertson, but the types of competition more) or just whatever has proved more effective and is widely played today, perhaps in your own country. Whichever side of the fence you are on, I would postulate that excessive liberty to define strength levels (see my examples) puts at risk the very concept of naturality.

Althought the ACBL chart doesn't specify this correlation, the more common tendency is that higher bidding levels show extra length in natural systems, not extra strength. E.g. weak 2's usually have 6 cards in the suit, 3-level openings have 7, etc. I suspect this was true in Culbertson's day as well; 3-level and higher preempts were normal long before weak 2 bids gained popularity.

The definition of "natural" in the new chart simply says that an opening on the 2 level or higher is natural if it shows 5+ cards in the suit bid.

[barmar]

perko90, on 2018-March-26, 17:24, said:

I'd like to steer this thread back to the changes themselves...
What do you think are going to be the most popular changes to systems/bidding based on these changes?

Does this question really belong here? It seems like it would be more appropriate in a more general forum. Yes, it's related to law changes, but it's not really about the legal issues but bridge playing.