[Cascade]

officeglen, on Aug 10 2007, 06:22 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

There is no law on defining natural.  Anyone can do that.

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level.  Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

Its not a theory its what the laws of the game require.

I read in another thread a view that online bridge is not bridge.

If the SO is not willing to play according to the rules then I guess the game cannot be called bridge.

We rightly don't have much respect for players that deliberately break rules. The rules also constrain SO. I don't think it is too much to expect them to follow the rules.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Aug 10 2007, 06:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

officeglen, on Aug 10 2007, 06:05 AM, said:

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/convchart2005.pdf said:

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit

There is no law on defining natural. Anyone can do that.

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level. Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

Would it make you happier if the ACBL passed the following rule:

Players may not make use of any conventions if their system permits opening a three card major at the one level.

The WBF has made it perfectly clear that they will permit local sponsoring authorities to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of what the laws might say.

1. The ACBL have not said that.

2. I don't really believe that the WBF would allow anything. It just cannot be right for a regulation to violate another rule of the game.

[Echognome]

I'm sure what everyone is referring to is from the General Convention Chart. Number 1 under definitions is:

GCC Definitions said:

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

Sounds to me like they are regulating the definition of natural. As a general aside, is it not up to the SO's to determine the interpretation of the laws in their respective region? Unless the laws say that natural means 3+ cards, then the SO's should have scope to say what they believe is the meaning of natural.

[awm]

Seems like there's yet another issue with the improper definition of conventional in the laws. The definition states that a convention is: 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.

Some of the many obvious issues with this:

(1) Any opening bid which promises or denies length in a suit other than the one named could be considered conventional, since this conveys a meaning other than length or willingness to play in the suit named. So a 1♣ opening which denies a five card major in addition to showing three or more clubs would be a convention. So would a natural (six or more) 2M opening which denies four cards in the other major. So would a canape 1♠ opening (promises a longer side suit).

(2) Any opening bid which includes an upper limit on the length of the suit named would be conventional. For example, a 1♠ opening showing "four or five spades" conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in spades (in fact it says I am not willing to play in spades opposite less than two card support) and other than length in spades (it in fact indicates a maximum length in spades).

(3) Any notrump bid which is forcing is presumably conventional, since it carries information about length in various suits and does not necessarily indicate desire to play in notrump.

(4) On the other hand, a 2♥ opening which is non-forcing and shows "any hand with 0-7 hcp" is not conventional, because it does in fact convey a willingness to play in hearts (if partner is very weak or has heart length) and it doesn't carry any implications about length in suits other than hearts. Note that the definition in the laws continues: "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention."

[helene_t]

At least in the Netherlands, the definition of the word "natural" serves the purpose of defining the kinds of openings against which opps cannot use BSC-defense in pairs events.

3-card majors may be Blue Sticker, i.e. opps can use psycho-suction or whatever against it (not sure about that), but it is certainly allowed. As for the ACBL thing it has been discussed intensively at rec.games.bridge

I have corrected an error in my original post: 2♦ can be 2-2-5-4.

I'll have to think a little more about the follow-ups to 1♦. This is clearly the hardest part of the system, the major suit openings can be reasonably dealt with by the short notes I made in the original post, I think.

Maybe one should open 1N with a 5-card major and pass with a 5M332 and 9-10 points. Then 1♦ promises either a 6-card major or 5M+4m, unless 14+. It would also help a little to raise the notrump range to 12-14. When vulnerable, that is probably a good idea anyway.

Thanx to Adam for input to the the 1♦ follow-ups.

I'm on vacation next week, if the weather is bad I'll have to kill the time developing the 3-card major system.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Aug 9 2007, 09:49 PM, said:

At least in the Netherlands, the definition of the word "natural" serves the purpose of defining the kinds of openings against which opps cannot use BSC-defense in pairs events.

3-card majors may be Blue Sticker, i.e. opps can use psycho-suction or whatever against it (not sure about that), but it is certainly allowed. As for the ACBL thing it has been discussed intensively at rec.games.bridge

I have corrected an error in my original post: 2♦ can be 2-2-5-4.

I'll have to think a little more about the follow-ups to 1♦. This is clearly the hardest part of the system, the major suit openings can be reasonably dealt with by the short notes I made in the original post, I think.

Maybe one should open 1N with a 5-card major and pass with a 5M332 and 9-10 points. Then 1♦ promises either a 6-card major or 5M+4m, unless 14+. It would also help a little to raise the notrump range to 12-14. When vulnerable, that is probably a good idea anyway.

Thanx to Adam for input to the the 1♦ follow-ups.

I'm on vacation next week, if the weather is bad I'll have to kill the time developing the 3-card major system.

In Norway a 3-card major system would be classified as red (artificial), but would be legal to play at any level.

[keylime]

Me thinks the ACBL would deny this method for 2 reasons:

1. The perceived "destructiveness" of the method.
2. The analogous connections to MOSCITO with the 1m openings.

edit: I'm drafting my own 3 card major system on my blog - helping to stimulate the brain cells.

[glen]

Me thinks the ACBL would deny this for 1 reason: it would drive their customer base crazy. For extra crazy, combine 3 card major openings with a forcing pass system.

[the hog]

officeglen, on Aug 10 2007, 04:57 AM, said:

Me thinks the ACBL would deny this for 1 reason: it would drive their customer base crazy.  For extra crazy, combine 3 card major openings with a forcing pass system.

Glen, look at Regres. Regres was played by many top Polish players. It was also played at one stage by Jim and Norma Borin of Australia, arguably the best mixed in the world of their time, and also by a couple of other Australian pairs. Regres by the way is the forerunner of the Suspensor system.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

2. I don't really believe that the WBF would allow anything. It just cannot be right for a regulation to violate another rule of the game.

I queried Grattan Endicott and other members of the WBF laws committee on this very issue. (Admittedly, Endicott might have been a poor choice, since he is the one who instigated the use of this hack)

I specifically posed the following hypothetical:

Suppose that a sponsoring authority wished to create the following regulation:

"Croatians may not make use of any conventions over 1NT openings"

Would this fall afoul of Law 40D? The Laws Committee claims that a SO would be within their rights to pass such a law.

The thread is available (somewhere) in the bridge laws mailing list archives.

Please note: I certainly don't believe that any sponsoring authority would ever want to pass such a regulation. However, if they can get away with this, they can get away with anything.

[joshs]

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

officeglen, on Aug 10 2007, 06:22 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

There is no law on defining natural.  Anyone can do that.

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level.  Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

Its not a theory its what the laws of the game require.

I read in another thread a view that online bridge is not bridge.

If the SO is not willing to play according to the rules then I guess the game cannot be called bridge.

We rightly don't have much respect for players that deliberately break rules. The rules also constrain SO. I don't think it is too much to expect them to follow the rules.

Exactly where, from the laws of bridge (or from principals of logic), do you get that a 3 card suit is natural?

In most of the world, a 4 card suit is natural (every hand has to have at least 1 4+ card suit). Since 5 card majors are popular, and some hands have no 5 card major or 4 card minor, bridge organizations, in order to not require any special sanction for 5 card majors "Defined" 3 card minors to also be natural.

[Cascade]

joshs, on Aug 10 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

officeglen, on Aug 10 2007, 06:22 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 9 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

There is no law on defining natural.  Anyone can do that.

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level.  Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

Its not a theory its what the laws of the game require.

I read in another thread a view that online bridge is not bridge.

If the SO is not willing to play according to the rules then I guess the game cannot be called bridge.

We rightly don't have much respect for players that deliberately break rules. The rules also constrain SO. I don't think it is too much to expect them to follow the rules.

Exactly where, from the laws of bridge (or from principals of logic), do you get that a 3 card suit is natural?

In most of the world, a 4 card suit is natural (every hand has to have at least 1 4+ card suit). Since 5 card majors are popular, and some hands have no 5 card major or 4 card minor, bridge organizations, in order to not require any special sanction for 5 card majors "Defined" 3 card minors to also be natural.

I didn't get that anywhere.

Anyone can call anything they like natural. Yes even the ACBL. They can have their own definition of natural which can be similar or different than anyone elses definition.

What the laws of bridge give them the power to do though is to regulate conventional bids - they have no power to regulate non-conventional bids (except for light openings at the one-level). Conventional is a defined term. According to that definition a bid that shows length (3 or more cards) in the suit named is not conventional unless it also has some other meaning. My understanding is that the other meaning needs to be not a negative inference.

Logically I don't see any difference between opening your longest suit or opening your 2nd longest suit etc. Therefore I can't see that the fact that we don't open our longest suit makes a bid conventional any more than that we do open our longest suit makes it conventional.

Bridge is a game that has laws. Sponsoring Organizations have an obligation, just as players do, to comply with the laws. Unfortunately many Sponsoring Organizations have a long history of ignoring the laws when they see fit. I wrote to the powers that be sometime in the past concerning what I considered an illegal regulation and received a reply that stated that "Law 40D was NEVER intended to constrain" sponsoring organizations. (Their emphasis not mine). Law 40D states clearly that a bid needs to be conventional or light at the one-level for the sponsoring organization to regulate. If this is not intended to constrain sponsoring organizations who is it intended to constrain.

I completely don't understand the whole approach to system regulations and why organizations want to restrict methods while allowing similar methods. The arguments put forward by advocates of strict system regulations (usually regulations that allow their favourite methods) often get emotive rather than objective. As an example in this thread we have the word "crazy" used to describe methods that the author did not agree with. In another thread recently the writer described these methods as "weird". To me (and others) innovative ideas are interesting and worth considering. I might not want to adopt them but I might learn something useful by considering the merits and disadvantages of such methods.

How's this for "crazy":

1. Open your shortest suit

2. Bid the suit below the suit you really have

3. Bid a suit you don't have just to force the bidding

4. Pass with strong hands, bid with weaker hands

5. Bid the next step up as a relay

6. Bid one suit when you have a longer undisclosed suit

"Crazy" you think?

All of these are features of a 'Standard' American System

1. a 1♣ opening when playing five-card majors and four-card diamond suit

2. Jacoby Transfers

3. Drury, Strong 2♣, 4th suit forcing, NMF etc etc

4. Forcing pass in competitive situations at the game level

5. Stayman, NMF (or Checkback Stayman more precisely)

6. Standard one-level response to 1♦ or 1♥ with four spades and five or six clubs etc and not enough strength to bid at the two-level

[Gerben42]

Adam, in your structure:

Quote

1♦ = at least one five card major, denies holding 3-4 cards in a side major suit.

... 1♥ = "forcing notrump" type values, no real fit for hearts
...... Pass = very min hand, usually 6♥
...... 1♠ = 5+ spades, might have five hearts also
...... 1NT = strength showing, artificial
...... Else = natural with 5+♥ (so 2♣ = hearts and clubs) like rebid over 1♥-1NT(F)

... 1♠ = "forcing notrump" type values, would raise a 1♥ opening but not a 1♠ open
...... 1NT = strength showing, artificial, could be either major
...... 2m = natural with spades also
...... 2♥ = 5+♥, would pass a single raise of hearts (resp. shows shape with LR)
...... 2♠ = 6+♠, no 5♥
...... Else = like 1♠-1NT(F)

... 1NT = relay, at least very invitational

... 2m = natural, mildly invitational, no 3-card major holding
... 2♥ = single raise in ♥, at least single raise in ♠
... 2♠ = single raise in spades, really good fit for hearts (LR equivalent)
... 2NT = LR type hand in either major

what do you suggest I bid with, say,

♠KQTxxx
♥Ax
♦Jxx
♣xx

This was the hand type my 2♦ response covered. I was trying to get out without low-level relays.

[Gerben42]

You have released the idea in a group including mathematicians... that means the idea will be taken further than in your worst fears. When in Leiden I first encountered "Tripleton preempts". Basically when preempting (the spare bids are 2M, 3x) you bid your 2nd suit, which must be 3 or 4 cards

Full opening structure of the system "Trio":

1♣: 16+
1♦: 9 - 15, one or more 5/6-card majors
1♥: 11 - 15, 3/4 or 7+♥
1♠: 11 - 15, 3/4 or 7+♠
1NT: 14 - 16 (maybe 2-2 majors)
2♣: 9 - 13, 6+♣ / 2245
2♦: 9 - 13, 6+♦ / 2254
2♥: Preempt, 3/4♥ with long side suit
2♠: Preempt, 3/4♠ with long side suit
2NT: 14 - 16, 6+♣/♦ (no 3-card major)
3x: Preempt, 3(4)-card with longer side suit

Of course you have to play Bocchi - Duboin's canape overcalls as well

[awm]

Gerben42, on Aug 10 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

what do you suggest I bid with, say,

♠KQTxxx
♥Ax
♦Jxx
♣xx

This was the hand type my 2♦ response covered. I was trying to get out without low-level relays.

Bid 1♥. This is "almost forcing" and if partner passes his hand is likely so bad that 1♥ is probably a decent spot (and you have an 8-card fit there anyway). Most likely the auction will go:

1♦(some 5cM) - 1♥ (like a forcing notrump) - 2m (♥ + the bid minor) - 2♠ (natural NF)

When opener can't have three spades, there isn't nearly so much need to "bid your spades" right away over hearts, and you can get away with bidding a forcing notrump followed by the spades (much as you would bid with 6♥ after partner opens 1♠ in most methods).

[gerry]

Many years ago, just for fun, I played a match using a similar off the cuff method that I mistakenly thought (at the time being young and foolish) was completely novel.

1♣ 16+
1♦  a 5+ major (not 4♠5+♥)
1♥  4♥, possibly 4♠ but not 5
1♠   4♠ possibly 5+♥
1nt balanced no major OR 54 minors
2♣♦ natural 6+♣♦

5+♠4+♥ opened 1♦

replies to 1♦ were very simple as far as I remember but I cannot recall the details now. The 1♥♠ openers were very effective and the 1♦ was not as hard to handle as it looked. Unfortunately it never got an outing against decent oppos.

[Robert]

Hi gerry

Several decades ago I designed a system that reversed the 'bid your better minor idea without a 5 card major' idea with one that opened your better minor with a five card major.

Opening 1M showed an even odd of cards starting with 4. If you rebid the suit, you had 6. With an odd numbered holding in a major(starting with 5), you opened your better minor.

Partner bid his 3(+) card majors up the line and opener normally only raised with 5 trumps. This was before support doubles, so using support doubles, you could show a 4 card raise or a 5 card raise in the modern game.

Regards,
Robert

[helene_t]

I think I'll go for Gerben's recomendation of playing 1♦ as 5+ in either or both majors. Then move the strong 5+/3-4 M hands to the 1♣ opening to reduce the burden on the 1♦ opening.

This makes the system more symmetric. After
1♣-?
and
1♣-1♦
?

the continuation becomes
1M: same shapes as a 1M openig
1N: same shapes as a 1♦ opening
2m: same shapes as a 2m openig

I think 1♣-1N could be semipositive or better. As for the other responses it's probably most symmetric to play them as semi-positive, so that
1♣-1♦
is two-way, either very weak or a semi-positive with with either no 5-card majors 5+/3-4 M. Alternatively 1♦ as either very weak or a semi-positive hand not suitable for a 1N response, like classical Precision. But then the follow-ups become less straight-forward. Or we could play something with Kokish Relay.