[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2019-November-26, 02:06, said:

Unfortunately this is not as true as it used to be. Both the WBF and EBL System Policy now include the following:

2.3.f. "For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural and not artificial." - http://www.worldbrid...stemsPolicy.pdf


2.4.f "For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural." - http://www.eurobridg...cy-Jan-2020.pdf

Which covers many of the most important tournaments and NBOs who follow these regulations.

It is remarkable how well the ACBL inflict their rubbish policies on the rest of the world.

[PeterAlan]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 23:45, said:

Maybe bad choice of words. By "legal status" I simply meant the status of such bids under the Laws, whether artificial or natural. Not whether they are allowed!

The word "natural" does not occur anywhere in the 2017 Laws, whether in relation to a call or otherwise. It does occur in various Regulating Authorities' regulations.

In relation to calls (as distinct from adjusted scores), "artificial" occurs in the Laws in only two contexts:

• In modifying (Laws 29C, 30C and 31) the provisions concerning calls out of rotation (so that artificial bids are treated in terms of the denomination shown, and artificial Passes and Passes of artificial bids are dealt with).
  
  
• In the details of Laws 40B1&2 regarding how Regulating Authorities approach the categorisation of calls as "special partnership understandings" or otherwise.

The first of these does not appear to be your concern, and the second is a technical point that doesn't appear to be either.

I repeat, what matters in the context of your various enquiries about particular call / meaning combinations is your Regulating Authority's regulations, with which almost all replies have rightly concerned themselves, and not what you insist on calling "the status of such bids under the Laws". Please get that bee out of your bonnet.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-November-26, 03:52, said:

In Norway any opening bid (except 1♥ and 1♠) below 2NT shall be announced regardless of what information it conveys.
I find that very sensible with today's mixture of conventions.

In Italy it's almost the same, the exception is only valid for 5-card majors (4-card is announced). I've been fighting to eliminate the exception which seems to me a pointless source of confusion, otherwise this scheme works well.

[nige1]

pran, on 2019-November-26, 03:52, said:

In Norway any opening bid (except 1♥ and 1♠) below 2NT shall be announced regardless of what information it conveys. I find that very sensible with today's mixture of conventions.

pescetom, on 2019-November-26, 11:07, said:

In Italy it's almost the same, the exception is only valid for 5-card majors (4-card is announced). I've been fighting to eliminate the exception which seems to me a pointless source of confusion, otherwise this scheme works well.

Good news Big step forward.

[helene_t]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-25, 19:51, said:

[*]bids of more than 7

This is a pet peeve of mine.

Related to this: bids in non-existing denominations, such a 3 bananas and 4 lemons. Here in New Zealand we even have to put up with bizarro fruits like tamarilos and feijoas.

And don't get me started with all the undergrad math students who show off by making bids like (2pi+ e^-3 i) spades. Last time I was TD I was called on a dispute about whether such a complex number bid could ever be deemed insufficient. Since it's a non-ordered set the question is probably not even meaningful.

[pilun]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-26, 05:14, said:

The word "natural" does not occur anywhere in the 2017 Laws, whether in relation to a call or otherwise. It does occur in various Regulating Authorities' regulations.

In relation to calls (as distinct from adjusted scores), "artificial" occurs in the Laws in only two contexts:

• In modifying (Laws 29C, 30C and 31) the provisions concerning calls out of rotation (so that artificial bids are treated in terms of the denomination shown, and artificial Passes and Passes of artificial bids are dealt with).
  
  
• In the details of Laws 40B1&2 regarding how Regulating Authorities approach the categorisation of calls as "special partnership understandings" or otherwise.

The first of these does not appear to be your concern, and the second is a technical point that doesn't appear to be either.

I repeat, what matters in the context of your various enquiries about particular call / meaning combinations is your Regulating Authority's regulations, with which almost all replies have rightly concerned themselves, and not what you insist on calling "the status of such bids under the Laws". Please get that bee out of your bonnet.

Okay I will make it clearer.
In Australia, the first line of the current alerting Regs defines a Convention, quoting verbatim from the 1997 Laws. Later, we get "If a call is conventional, it must be alerted ....". (There are exceptions, such as doubles)
It matters not that the Laws have replaced Conventional with Artificial Call, since - as you point out - the RA can deem alertable whatever they wish.

So we have a situation where players and directors need to know what constitutes an artificial/conventional call.
There have been some helpful replies, such as Paul's quote from the WBF Systems policy.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-26, 04:16, said:

It is remarkable how well the ACBL inflict their rubbish policies on the rest of the world.

Maybe that will cease, now that the ACBL is no longer part of the WBF.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2019-November-26, 14:50, said:

This is a pet peeve of mine.

Related to this: bids in non-existing denominations, such a 3 bananas and 4 lemons. Here in New Zealand we even have to put up with bizarro fruits like tamarilos and feijoas.

And don't get me started with all the undergrad math students who show off by making bids like (2pi+ e^-3 i) spades. Last time I was TD I was called on a dispute about whether such a complex number bid could ever be deemed insufficient. Since it's a non-ordered set the question is probably not even meaningful.

The language to be used for a call in Bridge comprises the terms (only):
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs, no trump, double, redouble and pass (or equivalent translations to languages other than English)

Definitions said:

Call - Any bid, double, redouble or pass.
Pass - a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble.

Law 18A said:

A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination.

Law 19A2 said:

In doubling, a player should not state the number of odd tricks or the denomination. The only correct form is the single word “Double”.

Law 19B2 said:

In redoubling, a player should not state the number of odd tricks or the denomination. The only correct form is the single word “Redouble”.

Any other term is not part of a (legal) call but simply some extraneous remark.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-26, 15:48, said:

Maybe that will cease, now that the ACBL is no longer part of the WBF.

What? Is that a new development? Do you have a link?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on 2019-November-26, 16:16, said:

What? Is that a new development? Do you have a link?

I suspect that Ed is referencing the USBF

[PeterAlan]

pilun, on 2019-November-26, 15:27, said:

Okay I will make it clearer.
In Australia, the first line of the current alerting Regs defines a Convention, quoting verbatim from the 1997 Laws. Later, we get "If a call is conventional, it must be alerted ....". (There are exceptions, such as doubles)
It matters not that the Laws have replaced Conventional with Artificial Call, since - as you point out - the RA can deem alertable whatever they wish.

So we have a situation where players and directors need to know what constitutes an artificial/conventional call.

ABF Alerting Regulations 2017 (updated August 1st 2017) said:

2. Definitions and General Principles

2.1 Convention

A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

2.1.1 Note that ‘other than’ is construed to include ‘additional to’. So, by definition, any bid that shows the denomination named and another denomination also, is conventional. All opening bids and overcalls that show two or more suits, even if one of the suits is named, are by definition conventional.

... etc (further clarifications of the meaning / interpretation of "convention")

It seems to me that your regulations (the start of which I quote above, assuming I've found the correct document) define quite clearly what is meant by "convention" (and by extension "conventional") for the purposes of those regulations, and there is no need to refer to any other document to determine its meaning. "Artificial" occurs three times (in the definitions of transfer and puppet bids, and in one of the examples in 5.1(d)), and, whilst the term is not defined in the document, in all these cases the intended meaning would seem to be both clear and also unchanged if "conventional" were to be used instead.

The first of the bids in your OP is clearly "conventional"; I would have regarded the second as being so as well, given the broad interpretation of "conveys a meaning other than" in 2.1.1, but I note that it is cited as a "natural" call in 3.3.2(b), which states that it is nevertheless to be alerted.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2019-November-26, 16:16, said:

What? Is that a new development? Do you have a link?

Sorry, no, I don't have a link. But...

The members of the WBF are the NBOs around the world. The ACBL is not an NBO (the NBOs in North America are the United States Bridge Federation, the Canadian Bridge Federation, and the Federacion Mexicana de Bridge . The ACBL was the Zonal Authority for the WBF's Zone 2 (North America) but that function has been taken over by the North American Bridge Federation, a newly formed (at the end of 2018) organization.

In practice I suspect the ACBL retains large influence in the WBF, at least for the moment.

[pilun]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-26, 18:21, said:

It seems to me that your regulations (the start of which I quote above, assuming I've found the correct document) define quite clearly what is meant by "convention" (and by extension "conventional") for the purposes of those regulations, and there is no need to refer to any other document to determine its meaning. "Artificial" occurs three times (in the definitions of transfer and puppet bids, and in one of the examples in 5.1(d)), and, whilst the term is not defined in the document, in all these cases the intended meaning would seem to be both clear and also unchanged if "conventional" were to be used instead.

The first of the bids in your OP is clearly "conventional"; I would have regarded the second as being so as well, given the broad interpretation of "conveys a meaning other than" in 2.1.1, but I note that it is cited as a "natural" call in 3.3.2(b), which states that it is nevertheless to be alerted.

Well spotted! That anomaly with the nature of a 1♥ opening that denies 4+ spades was one of the reasons for the post.
I suspect that the next rewrite of the ABF Alerting Regs will replace Conventional with Artificial, using the definition in the Laws as a guide.
They will need heaps more examples of Artificial Calls, plus "natural" calls that need to be alerted.
When the basis for an alerting regime is "Alert all artificial calls except ...." it is important that everyone understands what constitutes an Artificial Call. I for one am still uncertain. It's good that the WBF has offered some (controversial) clarifications.
Of course it is still up to RA to decide whether to accept them.

An interesting case is Brown Sticker conventions.
The WBF Systems Policy includes this:

2.4. The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker':
An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
(Note that the WBF is not deterred from using "natural" even though the Laws do not mention it.)

Some pairs use wonder bids / RCO / Suction etc over a strong club or 1NT.
Note that - in events where Brown Sticker conventions are not permitted - they cannot bid that way over a natural 1♥ opening.
Can they use Suction over a 2+ 1♣ opening?
Obviously, that depends on whether 1♣ on a doubleton is an Artificial Call.
The WBF is suggesting No.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-26, 20:53, said:

Sorry, no, I don't have a link. But...

The members of the WBF are the NBOs around the world. The ACBL is not an NBO (the NBOs in North America are the United States Bridge Federation, the Canadian Bridge Federation, and the Federacion Mexicana de Bridge . The ACBL was the Zonal Authority for the WBF's Zone 2 (North America) but that function has been taken over by the North American Bridge Federation, a newly formed (at the end of 2018) organization.

In practice I suspect the ACBL retains large influence in the WBF, at least for the moment.

Really, what was the purpose of your comment? The ACBL was US-driven anyway. There is no reason to suspect that the NABF will have a different agency than the ACBL.

Also it looks to me that it is just a name change, except for Bermuda leaving. I do wonder how a ZA comprising a small minority of North American countries gets to call itself the North American federation.

[blackshoe]

How many North American countries do you think there are? Keep in mind that Central America, which is geographically part of North America, is a separate zone.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2019-November-26, 14:50, said:

This is a pet peeve of mine.

Related to this: bids in non-existing denominations, such a 3 bananas and 4 lemons. Here in New Zealand we even have to put up with bizarro fruits like tamarilos and feijoas.

And don't get me started with all the undergrad math students who show off by making bids like (2pi+ e^-3 i) spades. Last time I was TD I was called on a dispute about whether such a complex number bid could ever be deemed insufficient. Since it's a non-ordered set the question is probably not even meaningful.

Not to mention those who fail to make their final Pass call after 7NT Redoubled.

[pilun]

pescetom, on 2019-November-26, 11:07, said:

In Italy it's almost the same, the exception is only valid for 5-card majors (4-card is announced). I've been fighting to eliminate the exception which seems to me a pointless source of confusion, otherwise this scheme works well.

If our 2♥ opening shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20,

what am I expected to announce?

[hrothgar]

pilun, on 2019-November-28, 06:45, said:

If our 2♥ opening shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20,

what am I expected to announce?

Sorry to go all meta, but is there a point to your question?

Assume for the moment that you are playing in a location in which you are required to announce your bids.
Do you honestly believe that you should be leaving out significant material information?

Alternatively, do you think that weird contrived examples are interesting in some way?

[pescetom]

pilun, on 2019-November-28, 06:45, said:

If our 2♥ opening shows either
a weak 2♠,
5-5 in ♦ & a major,
21-22 bal,
an Acol 2 in a major,
or any 4441 17-20,

what am I expected to announce?

You are expected to alert that. The announcements are only for natural openings (you announce the minimum length of a suit or the range of NT) and for the most common artificial openings (including a 2♦ Multicolor).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-27, 08:36, said:

How many North American countries do you think there are? Keep in mind that Central America, which is geographically part of North America, is a separate zone.

The zone which comprises the 20 other North American countries has a better claim to the name.