Definition of Artificial Call

[mycroft]

First, in most cases, the null statement is still a statement - in fact, usually the most trivial statement. So B != A, but also 0 != A. But that's irrelevant to the underlying issue.

 

Second, any reading of any regulation that says that 1♠ "13 cards" is not Alertable is stupid. We all know that. Does that mean that the regulation is stupid? Possibly, but possibly not, given that people are going to discount this reading as being logically correct, but totally insensible.

 

Third, I reiterate that there are *no* non-stupid Alert regulations, read on the face. If there is one, please show it to me: we'll try to get it worldwide.

 

There are cases, everywhere, where Potter Stewart rules, and "[we'll] know it when we see it." That applies double to Alerting regulations. Sure there are borderline cases, we all know that, no matter where we put the borderline - I deal with that by checking, and when in doubt, Alerting unless it's clear that that might pass more misinformation than not Alerting.

[barmar]

I'm also of the mind that the authors didn't consider that "conveys information other than X" is different from "does not convey only the information X", because of the no-information case.

[bluejak]

You better be willing to play there, because that's exactly what you'll do if partner passes (which is one of the aims of the convention).

This will, of course, be argued until the end of time, but I always think this sort of logic is facetious. Unless a call is 100% forcing, then you might play there because partner might pass it. I cannot see how that makes you willing to play there, what it means is that partner wishes to play there.

 

(1♠) double

 

Holding a void spade, and 22 points, are you willing to play 1♠ doubled? Of course not, you are looking for a slam somewhere. But if partner passes then you play there.

 

I do not believe that a bid which shows a willingness to play there [eg a weak takeout of 2♠ in response to 1NT] is the same as an artificial response that shows something or nothing [eg a 2♦ response to Stayman or 2-way NMF].

 

Consider another case. Partner bids 4NT with hearts agreed, you respond 5♦ showing 1 or 4. But should you describe it as 1 or 4 and a willingness to play there? Yet sometime, some day, a partner with some idea or other will pass it.

[bluejak]

This logic is flawed. Stayman is generally played, and still artificial. Same for takeout doubles. Walsh is a treatment, and imo natural.

The logic is not flawed, though the regulation probably is. The regulation does not actually say that everything normally played is not artificial.

[wyman]

Part of the confusion (I think) is that many play, for example, that 1C-1H; 1S-2C!; 2H!! shows a 4315. So 2D is not _exactly_ forced.

[blackshoe]

Walsh is certainly artificial since it is not generally played.

This logic is flawed. Stayman is generally played, and still artificial. Same for takeout doubles. Walsh is a treatment, and imo natural.

The logic is not flawed, though the regulation probably is. The regulation does not actually say that everything normally played is not artificial.

 

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

[mgoetze]

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

I didn't see David saying that. Walsh is artificial because the definition in the Lawbook says so. Once again I emphasize that this thread is about "artificial" as defined by the WBF, not "artificial" as any sensible person would use it. I really don't see why that is so hard to grasp.

[bluejak]

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

I have lost the definition and have too little time to look. Part of the definition depends on whether people are used to it, but only part. The fact that people are not used to it is relevant to that part, and makes it artificial.

 

I cannot remember the details, but you can look it up. In effect 1♠ is not artificial because it may have four clubs but not four hearts, playing four card majors, because this sort of arrangement is widely known. But a Walsh 1♦ response is not so it is not excluded from being artificial by this clause.

[blackshoe]

I have lost the definition and have too little time to look. Part of the definition depends on whether people are used to it, but only part. The fact that people are not used to it is relevant to that part, and makes it artificial.

 

I cannot remember the details, but you can look it up. In effect 1♠ is not artificial because it may have four clubs but not four hearts, playing four card majors, because this sort of arrangement is widely known. But a Walsh 1♦ response is not so it is not excluded from being artificial by this clause.

Artificial call – is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

 

This definition refers to information "taken for granted by players generally", which is not the same as "generally played", but okay, I'll accept for the moment the argument that it's artificial by the definition. Now what?

[bluejak]

Now nothing. The OP asked whether certain calls were artificial. That seems to have been answered.

[phil_20686]

WaLSH IS NOT ALERTABLE, and dont see why it would be an artificial call. Perhaps it is "general" enough.

 

It was an alertable treatment in the junior europeans. I expect that is WBF laws. Both 1c-1d and 1c-1M are alertable, sinc ethe 1M "may contain longer diamonds".

[mgoetze]

I note with some bemusement that the "GUIDE TO COMPLETION OF THE WBF CONVENTION CARD" includes an entirely different definition: "Tick any opening bid that does not denote willingness to play in the stated denomination or that does denote willingness to play in another denomination. [...] Do not tick 1♣ or 1♦ just because your system allows an opening bid in a three-card minor. However, do tick when opening in a two-card or shorter suit is permitted."

 

I had been about to tick all my opening bids as artificial but I may have to reconsider.