Where's the line?

[awm]

Where in this story did we start playing artificial major suit responses to 1♦? This is particularly relevant because ACBL rules apparently disallow such artificial responses (GCC anyway) but occasionally responding on a three-card suit is apparently okay.

 

Initially, we decide to play a natural 1♦ and four-card major responses. However, we use 2NT as a natural game force and 2♣ guarantees five, leaving us a bit stuck when we have precisely 3334 shape and game-invitational values. We decide to respond 1♥ on this hand.

 

(1) Does the rare 1♥ bid on a 3-card suit with precisely INV values make 1♦-1♥ artificial?

 

Having done this for a while, we decide that it would be nice if our various invitational diamond raises guaranteed five cards instead of four (we are using 2♥/2♠ as such raises) and thus we'd like to bid something else with (32)44 and 3343 hands of precisely invitational strength. We decide to reply on these hands with a three-card major.

 

(2) Does adding a few more hand types make 1♦-1♥ artificial?

 

We observe that occasionally we hold hands that really are unsuited to declaring notrump from our side, and decide that on these hands we should reply 1M (in a three-card suit possibly) rather than bidding the natural and game-forcing 2NT (which wrong-sides 3NT).

 

(3) Does adding the occasional GF hand make the 1♥ responses artificial?

 

We notice that 1♦-1♠ is almost always four cards, since we would reply 1♥ with 33(43) patterns. Really it is only the 3244 (precisely) invite that bids 1♠ on three. We also notice that we have a lot more trouble with follow-ups after 1♠ on three cards than after 1♥ on three cards, because 1♦-1♥-2♥ leaves room for both a 2♠ relay and a natural 2NT invite (the former guarantees real hearts, the latter tends to deny). We decide to switch the precisely 3244 pattern to respond 1♥, so that 1♠ once again guarantees four cards.

 

(4) Does adding a very rare 1♥ bid on doubleton make the 1♥ response artificial?

 

Finally, we notice that opener often has a hard decision whether to raise spades on three cards. We decide that it might be nice for the 1♠ response to promise an unbalanced hand or five spades. We take all the balanced hands with less than game values that responder could hold, and decide to reply 1♥ on all of them. Note that 1♥ still promises 2+♥, and still is more likely to have heart length than length in any other particular suit.

 

(5) Does making 1♥ on doubleton more frequent make the 1♥ response artificial?

[hrothgar]

I'd argue that all these bids are artificial.

 

For me, the dividing line is that all of the bids are systemic in nature. You aren't claiming that the 1♥ response is a question of judgement. Rather, these are systemic bids.

 

Note: I think that your Case 2, in isolation, is not conventional

 

We observe that occasionally we hold hands that really are unsuited to declaring notrump from our side, and decide that on these hands we should reply 1M (in a three-card suit possibly) rather than bidding the natural and game-forcing 2NT (which wrong-sides 3NT).

 

This is being described as a judgment call

[gwnn]

unless I don't understand the definitions of "natural" and "artificial", written here over and over again, (1) already seems artificial

[655321]

Oh, that way madness lies; let me shun that.

[pclayton]

Is a 3 card major response to 1 of a minor really artificial? It seems like a treatment to me.

 

Before folks played 1 minor - 2N as invitational, they would respond a short diamond to 1♣ with a 3334 and a short 1♥ to 1♦ with a 3343 or a 3334. I never knew this was 'artificial' .

[hrothgar]

Is a 3 card major response to 1 of a minor really artificial? It seems like a treatment to me.

 

Before folks played 1 minor - 2N as invitational, they would respond a short diamond to 1♣ with a 3334 and a short 1♥ to 1♦ with a 3343 or a 3334. I never knew this was 'artificial' .

The ACBL, in its wisdom, defines bidding a 3+ minor as natural

 

I see nothing wrong with bidding a 3 card major as a deviation, but you can't do it by agreement

[awm]

It seems that a fairly large number of established expert partnerships will bid three-card majors in response to a minor suit opening in some circumstances. While these partnerships often play in mid-chart events, I doubt they really vary this tendency for general-chart events. Often these tendencies are not even alerted. Recently Mr. Flader (rulings@acbl.org) has apparently indicated that an agreement to respond in three-card majors under some circumstances is "natural" and thus okay.

 

Saying that something is a "deviation" or "judgement" is all well and good, but in many cases the aforementioned expert partnerships have played tens or hundreds of thousands of boards together and discussed sequences in great depth. If you ask these players about a specific hand, they will indicate that their bid is consistent (i.e. they would always bid 1M on this particular hand, although honor location and not just shape is often a factor; in any case it's not part of a mixed strategy or based on the state of the match or caliber of opponents). Even if bidding a three-card major is not an explicit agreement, these players are consistent in their choices and have extensive partnership experience. Sometimes they even have followup methods or styles that tend to protect for this possibility (i.e. opener almost never raises on three cards, responder can subsequently suggest 3NT in such a way that opener will almost always pass with a balanced opening and four-card major fit, etc).

 

If you're looking for names, I have seen Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss bid this way (and alert it) as well as Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell (and not alert it). I expect they are only two examples among many.

[hrothgar]

It seems that a fairly large number of established expert partnerships will bid three-card majors in response to a minor suit opening in some circumstances. While these partnerships often play in mid-chart events, I doubt they really vary this tendency for general-chart events. Often these tendencies are not even alerted. Recently Mr. Flader (rulings@acbl.org) has apparently indicated that an agreement to respond in three-card majors under some circumstances is "natural" and thus okay.

 

Saying that something is a "deviation" or "judgement" is all well and good, but in many cases the aforementioned expert partnerships have played tens or hundreds of thousands of boards together and discussed sequences in great depth. If you ask these players about a specific hand, they will indicate that their bid is consistent (i.e. they would always bid 1M on this particular hand, although honor location and not just shape is often a factor; in any case it's not part of a mixed strategy or based on the state of the match or caliber of opponents). Even if bidding a three-card major is not an explicit agreement, these players are consistent in their choices and have extensive partnership experience. Sometimes they even have followup methods or styles that tend to protect for this possibility (i.e. opener almost never raises on three cards, responder can subsequently suggest 3NT in such a way that opener will almost always pass with a balanced opening and four-card major fit, etc).

 

If you're looking for names, I have seen Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss bid this way (and alert it) as well as Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell (and not alert it). I expect they are only two examples among many.

Comment 1:

 

I think that Flader got it wrong. It seems to happen a lot

 

Comment 2:

 

I'm a bit more leery about this one... The ACBL rules set specifically differentiates between a 3 card major and 4+ card major. Shape is the governing criteria. Therefore, I believe that an agreement that states that any all hands with 4333 shape much advance 1♥ is an artificial agreement. The other examples that you are advancing involve honor holds and the like. In turn, this suggests that there are some 4333 hands that would bid 1♥ and others that would not. Therefore, judgment is being applied to determine whether or not it is appropriate to open 1♥ with a 4333 and it seems appropriate to apply the concept of a deviation...

[mikeh]

I use this treatment (1♥/1♦ may be 3 cards, and if so will be invitational, balanced or semi-balanced, with clubs if semi). I alert. My partner and his other regular partner did not alert when playing together, but I think I have persuaded them otherwise now :P

 

No way is this 'artificial' in my view, any more than rebidding 2♣ on 3 is artificial after 1♠ 1(forcing)NT.

 

But I certainly think that the opps are entitled to the knowledge.

[Gerben42]

I see nothing wrong with bidding a 3 card major as a deviation, but you can't do it by agreement

 

Herein the madness lies. If you bid it once, you'd do it again on a similar hand. Those who claim to play "natural" are always under suspicion for me for lack of disclosure. This includes Acol players who have "no agreement" what suit they open with 4-4, regular partnerships who make fake reverses because their system doesn't have a suitable bid, the list is endless.

 

I think it is commendable that Adam alerts this, I know too many who let such things creep into the system and deny it. To your question, if it promises 3 cards it's not artificial but alertable.

 

It's a mad world, to me any first suit by any player that is not 4 cards is artificial, in particular the std. American 1♦ opening bid. But that's just me...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it does not matter if a call is natural or artificial,

if it is systemic, and it does not matter, how rare it

maybe, that a response in a mayor to an opening bid,

could be a 3 carder, it is alertable.

 

If one compares how common such a response is, to

how common it is, that openers 2nd bid in a minor could

be based on just be 3 carder, than the first is far more

uncommon, ... at least in an enviroment which is dominated

by systems like SAYC and Acol.

BBO , Germany, France and America, are such an enviroment,

... I cant speak about Poland

and this is independ of the level the game is played.

 

Hence such a response has to be alertable, at least in those

enviroments.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I voted 4) but maybe it should be 5) - I think it becomes artificial when opener stops routinely raising with 4-card support (or stops raising with 4-card support in competition).

 

Of course, what matter here is the ACBL-legal definition of "artificial", one I'm not familiar with.

[david_c]

First of all it depends whose definition you are using. The terms natural and/or artificial are defined:

 

(i) In the 2007 Lawbook.*

(ii) In some national authorities' regulations.

(iii) By the way people generally use the words.

 

These definitions are all different, so it doesn't really make sense to ask the question until you've decided which one you're talking about. Even then, of course, there is no guarantee that the definition you picked will give a clear answer.

 

In the case of (iii) there is no absolute dividing line at all. You wouldn't normally use either word without qualification. I might describe the first three agreements as "natural but could sometimes be 3 cards", but I would never describe them as simply "natural".

 

I voted for "4" because if I was asked to write down a definition this is where I would prefer to put the dividing line. (Note: this would make the first three cases natural bids, but still alertable.)

 

*(Only "artificial". Note that this is not in the 1997 Lawbook.)

[mycroft]

"This way madness lies" - well, I read (and get most of the jokes in) lolthulhu.com for fun.

 

The difference between "we do it often enough that it's an implicit partnership agreement" - or even "we've decided explicitly that that's the best description of that hand in our system" - and "we've written our system so that these hands have to bid a 3cM" is not trivial, and there is case law in the ACBL that the latter is different.

 

1NT on a singleton is legal in the ACBL in certain circumstances, but one of them is that it can not be *required by system*. It has to be a judgement call.

 

A similar borderline, I believe, is crossed when there is any way to detect whether it was a 3cM response added to the system.

 

Caveat: I very occasionally TD for the ACBL. I never speak here with their authority - this is simply my opinion and my reading of the evidence.

 

Michael.

[brianshark]

I think they should all be alertable the same way a prepared club which could be as few as 2 is alertable.

[ASkolnick]

GCC Rules:

 

You may play artificial responses to any strong opening bid provided it shows >15 HCP. I have cleared this with ACBL directors.

 

Currently, we have a system which is artificial for both 1C and 1D

 

We play 1C (Shows 15-20 HCP, unbalanced hand) and 1D shows 3+ Hearts, 1H Shows 3+ Spades and denies hearts.

[rbforster]

I think the larger issue raise here is that almost all systems have "holes" in their bidding, so that certain hand types don't have a perfectly descriptive bid. What everybody does, until they patch up their system, is tell the smallest lie based on their suits and values. For example, in SAYC there is no forcing minor raise. I'm not sure what one is supposed to bid opposite 1♣ with 3307 and GF values, but it might be 1♦ depending on how strongly you interpret 1M promising 4+. Of course until this comes up, you probably weren't alerting 1♣-1♦ as 0+♦.

 

Initially, we decide to play a natural 1♦ and four-card major responses. However, we use 2NT as a natural game force and 2♣ guarantees five, leaving us a bit stuck when we have precisely 3334 shape and game-invitational values. We decide to respond 1♥ on this hand.

Without discussion of this problem, I would guess that Adam and his partner might bid

 

Qxx AKx Kxx xxxx 1♥?

xxx xxx Kxx AKQx 2♣?

 

based on the suit texture.

 

Improvising as best you can in light of your system/agreements is something people do all the time. However, somehow the problem comes when you decide to formalize this and agree that the best lie might sometimes be 1M on a 3 card suit. This is another one of those cases where the rules punish full disclosure since the people who haven't thought of the issue or who have but don't agree on a solution are entitled to make bids that are forbidden to those who take the time to have more complete and disclosed agreements. With incentives like this, it's no surprise full disclosure can be hard to elicit.