[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2019-November-24, 08:36, said:

What makes calls alertable is local systems regulation -- arbitrary, chauvinist, and (usually) daft. A typical example:

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

Simpler would be to scrap all the dreadful alert rules, reducing the strain on players' memories, and avoiding some controversial rulings,

Instead, insist that you announce all partner's calls (preferably by pointing to relevant boxes on a card on the table). This would speed up the game and improve disclosure.

I think that your assumption about the genesis of the ACBL's regulation regarding "short club" openings is incorrect. My understanding is that it was done to prevent people from using those horrible conventional defenses against Aunt Gladys.

As to your last, why not just eliminate the fifteen words of the language of bridge and just require players to say what they have in the common language of the people playing the game? "I have 5 spades and 12 to 21 points"... "I have 3 spades and 6 to 9 points"... "I think this is a good spot." End. Of course, some auctions are more complex than that, and there may be "unintended consequences" to this simple change.

[pilun]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-24, 05:24, said:

Don't many of these things depend on where you are ?

There are also some things that are covered by this but are so normal that they don't need alerting like 1♥-P-1♠(may have a longer minor) which should technically be alertable. In the UK if there is something unexpected about the bid you need to alert it so this covers natural bids if they convey unexpected range info like where you had lebensohl available but you didn't use it.

Both of yours I believe are alertable here, and unless it's changed from when I played canape a long time back, the "possible canape" is enough to make it alertable here.

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)
The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.
Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2019-November-24, 08:36, said:

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

barmar, on 2019-November-24, 12:31, said:

This is not true. It's only considered "natural" if you only bid a short club with the specific shape 4=4=3=2, but you still have to announce "could be short".

OK. You announce but don't alert it -- for defensive purposes, it's considered natural.

nige1, on 2019-November-24, 08:36, said:

Instead, insist that you announce all partner's calls (preferably by pointing to relevant boxes on a card on the table). This would speed up the game and improve disclosure.

blackshoe, on 2019-November-24, 13:35, said:

... As to your last, why not just eliminate the fifteen words of the language of bridge and just require players to say what they have in the common language of the people playing the game? "I have 5 spades and 12 to 21 points"... "I have 3 spades and 6 to 9 points"... "I think this is a good spot." End. Of course, some auctions are more complex than that, and there may be "unintended consequences" to this simple change.

Blackshoe seems to have misinterpreted my suggestion. Reminds me of when players used to sign-off by saying "Content" instead of "Pass". And "I double that" would distinguish a penalty double

[pran]

pilun, on 2019-November-24, 14:51, said:

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)
The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.
Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

Definitions said:

Artificial call
1. A bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named or last named.
2. A pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength.
3. A pass that promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

So for instance: 1♥-P-1♠ (which may have a longer minor) is not artificial while 1♥-P-1♠ (that promises another suit) is artificial.

[sanst]

pilun, on 2019-November-24, 14:51, said:

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)
The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.
Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

Because they come under the first point of the definition in the Laws ( see pran’s answer #24).

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2019-November-24, 15:55, said:

So for instance: 1♥-P-1♠ (which may have a longer minor) is not artificial while 1♥-P-1♠ (that promises another suit) is artificial.

It's also the unexpected part.

A 1♥ (4+cards, canape may contain a longer minor) opener was always alertable here, not sure if it still is
The equivalent but 5+ cards which you might do on a 5-6 was never alerted, it's just assumed it could happen

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-November-24, 11:58, said:

I think it was an attempt to ironise on my affirmation that a weak 2 opening can be considered not truly natural.
But there are reasons why a 2 level suit opening was strong for much of the history of bridge and is still played that way by some.

I think you are misunderstanding the word “natural”.

As for the ACBL redefining the word natural, well, the ACBL does what it wants.

Other countries too, actually. For example Italy’s ban on psyches. Why doesn’t the WBF crack down on these and the probable others who flout the laws? I think the WBF is more concerned with collecting its dues and attempting to punish those who report cheaters. You don’t receive dues from countries you kick out.

EDIT: I believe that the ACBL also ban psyches. It’s not a blanket ban, but if I am not mistaken there are some restrictions on what actual bids you can psyche.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-24, 13:35, said:

I think that your assumption about the genesis of the ACBL's regulation regarding "short club" openings is incorrect. My understanding is that it was done to prevent people from using those horrible conventional defenses against Aunt Gladys.

What actually happened is the following:

A US team was playing a short club opening in the Bermuda Bowl.
A Dutch team was using an artificial defense against this conventional opening.
The US team worked the ref to get the opening ban.

Folks then noted how ridiculous it was that the US got this passed during the Bermuda Bowl when there isn't any similar res in ACBL Land
And, soon enough...

[pilun]

pran, on 2019-November-24, 15:55, said:

So for instance: 1♥-P-1♠ (which may have a longer minor) is not artificial while 1♥-P-1♠ (that promises another suit) is artificial.

Pran, what about the original examples?

It's clear that
(a) 2♥ = hearts and a minor is ARTIFICIAL because it promises something ADDITIONAL

Less clear is
(b) 1♥ = 4+ hearts, denies 4+ spades.
The promise here is something subtractional, if there were such a word.
Is that enough to make it ARTIFICIAL? The definition in the Laws does not make that clear.

[pran]

pilun, on 2019-November-24, 22:27, said:

Pran, what about the original examples?

It's clear that
(a) 2♥ = hearts and a minor is ARTIFICIAL because it promises something ADDITIONAL

Less clear is
(b) 1♥ = 4+ hearts, denies 4+ spades.
The promise here is something subtractional, if there were such a word.
Is that enough to make it ARTIFICIAL? The definition in the Laws does not make that clear.

Sure it is - it promises something about spades (by denying 4+ spades) in addition to showing hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2019-November-25, 02:48, said:

Sure it is - it promises something about spades (by denying 4+ spades) in addition to showing hearts.

But more important this is unexpected, a 2♥ weak 2 that denies 4 spades nobody ever alerts.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-25, 06:35, said:

But more important this is unexpected, a 2♥ weak 2 that denies 4 spades nobody ever alerts.

I believe "everybody" knows that it is poor bridge (and too risky) to open with a weak two if you have a decent support in a different major suit?

[Tramticket]

pran, on 2019-November-25, 06:47, said:

I believe "everybody" knows that it is poor bridge (and too risky) to open with a weak two if you have a decent support in a different major suit?

This is the key I think.

If you have had a discussion with partner and agreed that you will never open a weak two with with four cards in the other major then I think that it should be on your system card and disclosed in answer to any queries concerning the bid. I think that an opening 2♥ will still be announced as weak (in EBU land) in line with the Blue Book Guidance, but if you are asked for more details you tell the opponents about agreed high-card points, agreed suit length, agreed suit quality, agreed shape constraints ("will not have four spades") and so on.

Most partnerships will not have specifically agreed that the bid denies four cards in the other major and will not need to disclose on the system card. They may of course have an implicit agreement to this effect and should endeavor to disclose if asked.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2019-November-25, 06:47, said:

I believe "everybody" knows that it is poor bridge (and too risky) to open with a weak two if you have a decent support in a different major suit?

Thank you for calling me a nobody, we take the view that 1st and 3rd there are 3 people you might screw up, and you're 2:1 it isn't partner, so we don't have this prohibition at all.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-25, 08:33, said:

Thank you for calling me a nobody, we take the view that 1st and 3rd there are 3 people you might screw up, and you're 2:1 it isn't partner, so we don't have this prohibition at all.

Sorry, but where I am used to play this is "information taken for granted by players generally".

I have seen players opening weak 2M only to discover a disaster because they missed game in the opposite major. They never do it again.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-24, 06:52, said:

Not alertable or announceable in the UK, routine here. "May contain a singleton" is announceable

"May have a 5cM" is now not alertable or announceable in Italy too. "May contain a singleton" remains alertable. As from next year the regulations will also define what shapes are allowed to open 1NT at all (probably no 7222, void or small singleton).

[barmar]

Tramticket, on 2019-November-25, 07:55, said:

Most partnerships will not have specifically agreed that the bid denies four cards in the other major and will not need to disclose on the system card. They may of course have an implicit agreement to this effect and should endeavor to disclose if asked.

That's the key. The choice not to open a weak 2 with a 4-card major is generally a matter of style and judgement, not partnership agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2019-November-25, 08:59, said:

Sorry, but where I am used to play this is "information taken for granted by players generally".

I have seen players opening weak 2M only to discover a disaster because they missed game in the opposite major. They never do it again.

Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds. "I opened a weak NT, went for 1400, so I switched to strong NT, went for 1100 now I don't open 1N at all". You have to balance up what it means for the rest of your system, and because we have good methods to deal with wide range wide shape range weak 2s, we can frequently catch up.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2019-November-24, 19:17, said:

What actually happened is the following:

A US team was playing a short club opening in the Bermuda Bowl.
A Dutch team was using an artificial defense against this conventional opening.
The US team worked the ref to get the opening ban.

Folks then noted how ridiculous it was that the US got this passed during the Bermuda Bowl when there isn't any similar res in ACBL Land
And, soon enough...

Interesting. Which BB was it?

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-24, 18:55, said:

I think you are misunderstanding the word “natural”.

Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why.