what makes these bids alertable?

[KingCovert]

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 contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named

 

Of course it does. It contains the information that "I may have 2 clubs, and if I have 2 clubs, I have exactly 4432 shape". Hence, the announce.

[pilun]

Of course it does. It contains the information that "I may have 2 clubs, and if I have 2 clubs, I have exactly 4432 shape". Hence, the announce.

 

Well, that creates a different issue.

Let's say we play transfers over 1♣ so agree to open it on all 12-14 balanced. (Thus 1♦ opening is unbalanced)

 

So 1♣ on two could be 4-4-3-2, 4-3-4-2, 3-4-4-2, 3-3-5-2, maybe even 5-3-3-2.

 

Basically then it just shows the inability to make a different opening.

That characterises every single natural opening!

If I open 1♥ and I have six of them, I deny six spades. Doh!

 

Repeat, it's NOT the announcement or alert issue, rather the legal status of these calls, according to Law.

 

Pran, the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant.

 

It would be good if Regs said "Announce (or alert) a 1♣ opening that could be a doubleton because it is artificial."

That's if it is indeed artificial. If it isn't, need some other justification.

[Vampyr]

If you are not in the ACBL, don’t worry about it. In sensible jurisdictions opening in your shortest suit is artificial.

[KingCovert]

I'll refrain from stating the correct course of action with such an agreement, I'm not a qualified director. I only got involved in the thread due to the mention of Canape...

 

But, it would seem to me that such an agreement is described as 12-14 balanced, and says absolutely nothing in particular about clubs, and has clear and obvious implications about the other suits.

 

You're not willing to play clubs unless partner has a stack, and transfer responses give your partner a drop dead sequence with any hand, even 0 HCP.

 

It feels like you're being intentionally daft with this example, this is obviously not natural.

[PeterAlan]

Repeat, it's NOT the announcement or alert issue, rather the legal status of these calls, according to Law.

I've been struggling to understand the "legal status" that you keep referring to.

 

Basically, the only "illegal" calls under the Laws themselves are:

 

• insufficient bids
  
• bids of more than 7
  
• inadmissible doubles or redoubles
  
• calls by a player required by law to Pass
  
• calls out of rotation, or
  
• calls after the last Pass of the auction.
  

(This is off the top of my head; there may be some other detailed cases. Some otherwise illegal calls can become legal by being accepted. There are also the restrictions on partnership understandings in Laws 40A3&4.)

 

Subject to what follows, any call that doesn't fall foul of such prohibitions is "legal", as are all the calls you cite in your OP and subsequently.

 

We then have Laws 40B1&2 regarding "special partnership understandings". Without going into all the detail that's there, in all cases it's ultimately the Regulating Authority that determines what is and is not a special partnership understanding, and what restrictions, including possible prohibition (which presumably is what you would regard as "illegality"), and alerting / announcing rules, apply to them. Note in particular that whilst the default is that an "artificial" call is a special partnership understanding the RA is empowered to determine otherwise. Any call / meaning combination that the RA does not determine (and regulate) as a special partnership understanding remains legal, whether artificial or not and whether or not "readily understood etc".

 

Thus, the legality of the calls you mention, and for that matter any other such specific call / meaning combination, is completely determined by the relevant Regulating Authority's regulations, and not by some other provision within the Laws. Your assertion that "the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant" is totally false; they are in fact the only things that are relevant.

[pilun]

I've been struggling to understand the "legal status" that you keep referring to.

 

Basically, the only "illegal" calls under the Laws themselves are:

 

• insufficient bids
  
• bids of more than 7
  
• inadmissible doubles or redoubles
  
• calls by a player required by law to Pass
  
• calls out of rotation, or
  
• calls after the last Pass of the auction.
  

(This is off the top of my head; there may be some other detailed cases. Some otherwise illegal calls can become legal by being accepted. There are also the restrictions on partnership understandings in Laws 40A3&4.)

 

Subject to what follows, any call that doesn't fall foul of such prohibitions is "legal", as are all the calls you cite in your OP and subsequently.

 

We then have Laws 40B1&2 regarding "special partnership understandings". Without going into all the detail that's there, in all cases it's ultimately the Regulating Authority that determines what is and is not a special partnership understanding, and what restrictions, including possible prohibition (which presumably is what you would regard as "illegality"), and alerting / announcing rules, apply to them. Note in particular that whilst the default is that an "artificial" call is a special partnership understanding the RA is empowered to determine otherwise. Any call / meaning combination that the RA does not determine (and regulate) as a special partnership understanding remains legal, whether artificial or not and whether or not "readily understood etc".

 

Thus, the legality of the calls you mention, and for that matter any other such specific call / meaning combination, is completely determined by the relevant Regulating Authority's regulations, and not by some other provision within the Laws. Your assertion that "the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant" is totally false; they are in fact the only things that are relevant.

 

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!

[pilun]

I'll refrain from stating the correct course of action with such an agreement, I'm not a qualified director. I only got involved in the thread due to the mention of Canape...

 

But, it would seem to me that such an agreement is described as 12-14 balanced, and says absolutely nothing in particular about clubs, and has clear and obvious implications about the other suits.

 

You're not willing to play clubs unless partner has a stack, and transfer responses give your partner a drop dead sequence with any hand, even 0 HCP.

 

It feels like you're being intentionally daft with this example, this is obviously not natural.

 

Okay, I will make it simpler. If you play Better Minor, is the 1♦ opening artificial by the Laws?

"If 3, then 4-4-3-2 precisely" seems like additional information, No?

 

Or the modern Acol style where 1♥ can only be four if 4-4-3-2 or 4-4-2-3, 15+.

[paulg]

If you are not in the ACBL, don't worry about it. In sensible jurisdictions opening in your shortest suit is artificial.

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.

[sanst]

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?

Sorry, biut I think you’re splitting hairs. What is the importance of a call being artificial or not? Some artificial bids are in most jurisdictions not alertable, like take out doubles, some natural calls might be alertable like a weak two when most contestants are playing strong twos (you’ll find these in Holland at some clubs with an elderly membership).

[pran]

.........

Pran, the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant.

 

It would be good if Regs said "Announce (or alert) a 1♣ opening that could be a doubleton because it is artificial."

That's if it is indeed artificial. If it isn't, need some other justification.

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.

[Vampyr]

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]

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:

 

1. 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).
    
   
2. 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]

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]

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.

Good news :) Big step forward. :)

[helene_t]

[*]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]

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:

 

1. 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).
    
   
2. 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]

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]

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)

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.

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

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

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]

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]

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

 

I suspect that Ed is referencing the USBF

[PeterAlan]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.