Red Club

[hrothgar]

 

The Bridge World defines "convention" as

 

> an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.

 

 

Let's pretend that the particular definitions adopted by "The Bridge World" have some bearing to the question a hand...

 

From the looks of things, whether or not a bid is conventional depends on particular set of opponents that you play against.

 

As a practical example, suppose that I decide to playing down in Watertown this coming weekend.

 

Partner opens a strong NT.

RHO passes

I bid 2♥

 

My opponent's would ordinarily understand this to show 5+ Spades.

If, in fact, I used this bid to show 5+ Hearts - with or without an alert / announcement - it would catch people completely by surprise.

 

So I guess, using a 2♥ bid to show Spades is not conventional, while using it to show Hearts is...

 

Of course, if I were playing in the UK the converse would hold true

[blackshoe]

wow, if Blackshoe is right then you can't play a classical Precision 2♣ opening under GCC. And if one were to apply the Bridge World definition of conventional: "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.", then players who play anything nonstandard (4-card majors, for example) couldn't psyche those bids.

 

That can't be right. AWM's version sounds more likely to me.

 

The ACBL's interpretation of its own regulations is not always rational. :ph34r:

[blackshoe]

Yes, the Bridge World definition of "convention" is flawed. What else is new?

[bluejak]

When you and you partner agree that an opening bid shows length in the suit bid and does not guarantee a second suit you will often have agreements - probably usually - as to the possibilities of various distributions. Such agreements do not make such a bid artificial or conventional. For example, when you open 1♦ many players play that it will only have three diamonds if it is four-four in the majors: that is not an artificial bid. For some reason the Precision 2♣ with its fairly precise requirements have always had people wondering whether it is natural or not: it is natural.

 

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

[blackshoe]

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

 

Why is it different? :huh: :blink:

[campboy]

Why is it different? :huh: :blink:

Because it guarantees a second suit.

[mycroft]

Because I am allowed to open a Precision 2C on 82 4 KT6 AKQT842. I am not allowed by agreement to open 82 KQT874 KT6 42 a Muiderberg 2H - partner's going to be *very disappointed in me* when she pulls to my "minor".

 

If my 2H call was "5+ hearts, 6-10. *If* he only has 5 hearts, he guarantees a 4-card minor", then it would be just as non-artificial as Precision 2C. But it isn't. it's "5+ hearts, 6-10. Guarantees a 4-card minor"

[bluejak]

Why is it different? :huh: :blink:

Because it is no longer a natural bid showing a suit.

[blackshoe]

okay, fair enough.

[helene_t]

So I guess, using a 2♥ bid to show Spades is not conventional, while using it to show Hearts is...

 

Of course, if I were playing in the UK the converse would hold true

Not really, everyone here play transfers.

[Cascade]

When you and you partner agree that an opening bid shows length in the suit bid and does not guarantee a second suit you will often have agreements - probably usually - as to the possibilities of various distributions. Such agreements do not make such a bid artificial or conventional. For example, when you open 1♦ many players play that it will only have three diamonds if it is four-four in the majors: that is not an artificial bid. For some reason the Precision 2♣ with its fairly precise requirements have always had people wondering whether it is natural or not: it is natural.

 

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

 

 

Why is it different? :huh: :blink:

 

 

Because it is no longer a natural bid showing a suit.

 

My understanding is that Muiderberg shows length in the suit bid - hearts or spades.

 

Muiderberg has additional constraints requiring a side suit.

 

The additional constraints for Precision 2♣ or even a standard 1♣ do not go as far as requiring a second suit but a second suit is certainly possible.

 

I do not understand why some additional constraints mean that the bid remains "natural" whereas other additional constraints mean that the bid becomes "conventional" or "artificial".

 

Are the rules written down somewhere so I can see where the boundary is.

 

To me:

 

"Five spades with a side minor"

 

and

 

"Five spades but not with four or more hearts"

 

are similar restrictions and it does not seem clear that one is artificial while the other is natural.

 

Indeed alter the second definition to

 

"Five spades but not with four or more hearts and not balanced"

 

and this is effectively identical to the first definition.

 

Even

 

"Five spades and not balanced" would effectively guarantee a second suit

 

but

 

"Six spades and not balanced (any 6322)" would not guarantee a second suit

 

The first of these two you seem to be arguing is "artificial" while the second is not.

 

I do not see that the boundary is that well defined.

[bluejak]

Lots of things are not well defined in bridge. Shame.

 

It is a normal interpretation around the world that a bid that shows two suits, one of them the bid suit, is not natural, while a bid that only shows one suit, the bid suit, is natural. You don't like it, please do one of two things:

 

• Go argue with the various natural and international authorities, or
  
• Explain in Changing Laws & Regulations, not here, why this interpretation is wrong and the authorities should change it.
  

Or both, of course.

[hrothgar]

Lots of things are not well defined in bridge. Shame.

 

It is a normal interpretation around the world that a bid that shows two suits, one of them the bid suit, is not natural, while a bid that only shows one suit, the bid suit, is natural. You don't like it, please do one of two things:

 

 

I don't have any problem with this as a basic principle.

 

Any chance that you could comment on whether a bid that denies a specific holding is natural?

For example, suppose that I play a 2♦ opening that promises 6+ diamonds but denies 4 cards in either heart or spades.

 

Alternatively, I play a 2♠ opening that promises 5+ spades, but denies a 5332 shape...

[mjj29]

I don't have any problem with this as a basic principle.

 

Any chance that you could comment on whether a bid that denies a specific holding is natural?

For example, suppose that I play a 2♦ opening that promises 6+ diamonds but denies 4 cards in either heart or spades.

 

Alternatively, I play a 2♠ opening that promises 5+ spades, but denies a 5332 shape...

All bids do that to some extent. Playing 5 card majors, opening 1S denies 9 cards in any other suit. Of course that's obvious. Slightly less obvious is that it denies any other suit being longer (unless it doesn't. In which case it's alertable). I think it depends on what it is denying and how common that is. I wouldn't alert a weak two if I never made one with a side 4 card major and I don't alert my 1S openings because it can never be a balanced hand (I alert them because they could be canapes with a minor, but I digress). I do alert responses to transfers because they deny 4 card support - but there's a specific regulation about that.

 

Remember, not all disclosure is via alerts, the system card should cover things like precise distribution constraints.

[hrothgar]

All bids do that to some extent. Playing 5 card majors, opening 1S denies 9 cards in any other suit. Of course that's obvious. Slightly less obvious is that it denies any other suit being longer (unless it doesn't. In which case it's alertable). I think it depends on what it is denying and how common that is. I wouldn't alert a weak two if I never made one with a side 4 card major and I don't alert my 1S openings because it can never be a balanced hand (I alert them because they could be canapes with a minor, but I digress). I do alert responses to transfers because they deny 4 card support - but there's a specific regulation about that.

 

Thanks for the reply, however, I was making a (somewhat) different point

 

Consider a 2♠ opening that shows a set of hands with at exactly 5 spades and 4-5 cards in either clubs and diamonds.

 

There are different ways that I can define this bid.

 

Option 1:

 

My 2♠ opening promises 5 Spades

My 2♠ opening promises either (4-5 clubs) or 4-5 diamonds

 

Option 2:

 

My 2♠ opening promises 5 Spades

My 2♠ opening denies a balanced hand

My 2♠ opening denies 4 Hearts

 

I would argue that the decision to label the 2♠ opening as "natural" needs to depend on the set of hand shown by the opening and not the language used to describe the opening.

 

A regulatory system which labels the hand as "natural" if I describe the set of hands using option 2 but "not natural" if I describe the hands using option 1 is broken at a fundamental level. [You don't want to incentivize people to practice poor disclosure so they can evade the regulatory apparatus]

 

Therefore, I would argue that the definition of "natural" needs to depend both on "inclusion" and "exclusion".

[mycroft]

Hrothgar, any regulatory agency that looks at 2 and can't work out for themselves that it's equivalent to 1 and, if 1 isn't allowed, neither is 2, is, as you say, flawed. In other words, everything except your ultimate conclusion I agree with.

 

Anybody who tried 2, knowing that 1 is not allowed, should be treated with exactly the contempt anyone else who plays games like that usually is.

 

I do not believe that exclusion requires mention explicitly; simply the obvious fact that exclusionary schemes that are equivalent to an inclusionary description are regulated equivalently will do.

 

For instance, for normal bridge values of "promises 5 spades", 6322 meets 2, and not 1, and reasonably is treated differently (which is where we can say that 2C "5+ clubs, *if only 5*, promising a 4 card major" is natural, where 2S "promises 5-4 in spades and a minor" (or "exactly 5 spades, unbalanced, not 4 hearts", if someone wants to try that one on) is not).

[campboy]

I think the key point is, as mycroft suggests, that even if a bid which shows n+ in the suit bid with some shapes excluded is natural it does not follow that a bid which is the same except for denying more than n in the suit is also natural. After all, would anyone think you are permitted to play a 1♣ opening as showing exactly 3 clubs in a balanced hand, just because a standard American 1♣ is "natural"? Likewise "2♥=unbalanced with 5+ hearts" is natural but "2♥=unbalanced with exactly 5 hearts" is not.