Cyberyeti Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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 isThe equivalent but 5+ cards which you might do on a 5-6 was never alerted, it's just assumed it could happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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 LandAnd, soon enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilun Posted November 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tramticket Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 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 LandAnd, soon enough...Interesting. Which BB was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pescetom Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 I think you are misunderstanding the word “natural”.Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCovert Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 I'd just like to call attention to a potential incorrect explanation of the 1♥ opening bid here. b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4♠s, could be canape This does not deny 5+♠. Canape openings will open the shorter suit of a two suited hand, and thus, do not deny a longer suit. This is pre-alertable (in the ACBL at least). However, the 1♥ opening bid is not alerted. It is natural, it shows at least 4-cards, it shows a willingness to play in the suit. The introduction of a SECOND suit, which is confirmed to be no shorter (and usually longer) than the first suit, that bid must be alerted. Take the sequence: 1♥ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠. 1♥ shows 4+♥. Not alerted. 1NT is usually not-forcing (but still constructive) in Canape systems. 2♠ promises 5+ ♠ (in this sequence). This bid is alerted. Due to the possibility of a 2♠ bid showing 5+♠, or a 2♣ bid showing 5+♣ (same for diamonds), the pre-alert is necessary to inform your opponents that the unbid suits may not break in a very friendly way, but more importantly, that the team playing Canape will almost certainly have little issue communicating this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why. Well, you stated that a normal weak two bid is not natural, and then seemed to imply that a strong 2 opening was natural. I do not see why one is more natural than the other, but if I had to choose one I would say that the weak two was natural. You would be content to play in this contract, so it could not possibly be any more “natural”. Meanwhile, a strong 2 is normally forcing, and can possibly be 2-suited or semi-balanced, and so does not show the desire to play in, say, 2♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 I'd just like to call attention to a potential incorrect explanation of the 1♥ opening bid here. This does not deny 5+♠.No - the opening poster has described their system accurately. The 1H opening cannot have 4+ spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCovert Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 No - the opening poster has described their system accurately. The 1H opening cannot have 4+ spades. The statement was, "denies 4♠". It says nothing about 5+♠. Furthermore, he states "could be canape". As someone who plays Canape rather proficiently, firstly, 1♥ openings shouldn't deny even 4♠. But, if that's their partnership agreement or understanding, that's what it is. However, it just would not be canape whatsoever to open 5♠ and 4♥ with 1♠. You may be right, and 1♥ may completely deny spades entirely, but then the statement "could be canape" is just incorrect. This is why I'm calling attention to this, because this discussion is being had on an incorrect understanding somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor. Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCovert Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor. Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation. Alright, if that's the agreement then that would seem clearly alertable. Strange agreement though, can't imagine that it's effective. That's besides the point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor. Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation.What is your relationship with the original poster? If you're not him or his partner, how do you know what their agreement is? Your "full agreement" is perfectly understandable, and says nothing about "canapé". Your second statement clarifies the canapé business. But that's your system. How do you know it's the OP's system too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilun Posted November 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 What is your relationship with the original poster? If you're not him or his partner, how do you know what their agreement is? Your "full agreement" is perfectly understandable, and says nothing about "canapé". Your second statement clarifies the canapé business. But that's your system. How do you know it's the OP's system too? We are not in a relationship .... Played in the same team for a number of years, all pairs playing the same method. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilun Posted November 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 Sure it is - it promises something about spades (by denying 4+ spades) in addition to showing hearts. Okay that's fine. Need then to consider c) A traditional weak two, which contains this additional information: - The suit is "good", no 4 cards in the other major, no void, not 6-5. Looks like the lawmakers included the phrase "not being information taken for granted by players generally" to make sure that bids like traditional weak twos are not artificial. Okay. d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order. Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial? Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."? I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 25, 2019 Report Share Posted November 25, 2019 Okay that's fine. Need then to consider .........d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order. Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial? Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."? I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?Does it show "willingless to play in the denomination named"? i.e. Are you happy declaring a 1♣ contract with the 4-4-3-2 distribution and say 12HCP opposite your partner holding 3-3-3-4 distribution and 5 or less HCP? I believe most regulations today explicitly define a natural bid as a bid showing at least 3 cards of the denomination named 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.