[akhare]

JanM, on Feb 7 2009, 01:15 AM, said:

I don't think BBOF posters are crazies, but sometimes they can get involved in questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when most people would just use the pin to attach two things together.

On the contrary, I would argue that the people on this forum are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether they can pin their systems together using the 1♣/1♦ bids.

However, apparently, doing so requires them to somehow "divine" the intent of the drafters, which no one really seems to know either.

If the "intent" was for those bids to allow filling of (valid) systemic holes, I don't really see how 1♣/1♦ showing 5+ cards in a major can be disallowed (in context of a system that promised exactly 4 cards in a major in a 1M opening) (see Adam's example).

Similarly, I can't see how 1♣/1♦ showing exactly 4 cards in a major can be disallowed either, in the context of a 5 card major system.

[straube]

AWM said:

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear" (she was not utterly convinced that her 1C was a natural bid)and apparently it was ruled natural in the Shanghai event she describes below. To me, it seems like that event ruled incorrectly. I don't understand how that bid can be ruled anything but conventional. Jan, why do you think it's unclear when natural requires 3 clubs?

JanM said:

Ah, that - sorry I didn't understand your reference. I may be remembering wrong, but I think that:
The structure the Dutch were playing over any 1 club opening wasn't anything as benign as canape overcalls. I don't remember the whole thing, and haven't seen it recently, presumably because it really doesn't work well when the opening bid can be essentially natural, but I know it included jump overcalls that might or might not have length in the suit named and simple overcalls that showed extremely varied hand patterns and values. The bids were clearly brown sticker, and the argument about whether there were too many of them had to do with counting - if you play a method where 1♦ shows either diamonds or hearts or clubs (I'm just making this up) and 1♥ shows either spades or diamonds or hearts and 1♠ shows either spades or clubs or diamonds, all of them with less than 8 HCPs, are you using one BS method or 3? One of the 2 pairs playing the method had described the method as one BS bid (and 2♥ or 3♥ showing length in either hearts or spades as a second BS bid) and therefore claimed that their opponents didn't have seating rights under the rule about 3 or more BS bids. Their teammates had described the same thing as multiple bids. I think that this was a situation where our position (you're playing more than 2 BS bids) was clearly correct.

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear. That was relevant to whether the Dutch methods were allowed in the Round Robin. For Shanghai, the ruling was that such a 1♣ bid was to be treated as natural, so BS methods were not allowed over it in the Round Robin. I believe that ruling has subsequently been changed for WBF events.

[jdonn]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 03:11 AM, said:

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Feb 7 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Just to be clear:

As I recall, the Dutch Pair was playing in the Open Event.

I don't think that Jan was competing in that event. (Not even sure whether she plays a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ Clubs)

My impression was that she was involved in this discussion because of her role with the USBF. I didn't think that she was a principal who was directly involved in the event.

[rbforster]

awm, on Feb 6 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says you have to play a reasonable bidding system. So with appropriate context, you can have an all purpose 1♦ mean absolutely anything -

P - anything I don't want to open
1♣ whatever else has 10+ points I want to open (not 1♦)
1♦ whatever I want with 10+ points
1♥+ to taste

Or if you somehow take issue with the two all purpose bids (not a real issue apparently), you can even have

P - anything I don't want to open, or anything with 10-15 not in 1♦
1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦
1♦ 10+ anything I want
1♥+ to taste

So even if you think the rule is a system catchall thing, you can't really escape the conclusion that there exists perfectly legal systems where 1♦ can mean absolutely anything. So how is that different than "1♦ can be anything with 10+" again? The rule doesn't say "... and you can't play the rest of your system so as to leave 1♦ as something we don't like off the following list".

[hrothgar]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

JanM said:

Ah, that - sorry I didn't understand your reference. I may be remembering wrong, but I think that:
The structure the Dutch were playing over any 1 club opening wasn't anything as benign as canape overcalls. I don't remember the whole thing, and haven't seen it recently, presumably because it really doesn't work well when the opening bid can be essentially natural, but I know it included jump overcalls that might or might not have length in the suit named and simple overcalls that showed extremely varied hand patterns and values. The bids were clearly brown sticker, and the argument about whether there were too many of them had to do with counting - if you play a method where 1♦ shows either diamonds or hearts or clubs (I'm just making this up) and 1♥ shows either spades or diamonds or hearts and 1♠ shows either spades or clubs or diamonds, all of them with less than 8 HCPs, are you using one BS method or 3? One of the 2 pairs playing the method had described the method as one BS bid (and 2♥ or 3♥ showing length in either hearts or spades as a second BS bid) and therefore claimed that their opponents didn't have seating rights under the rule about 3 or more BS bids. Their teammates had described the same thing as multiple bids. I think that this was a situation where our position (you're playing more than 2 BS bids) was clearly correct.

The question about whether a 2+ club that is 2 only with a balanced hand should be defined as "natural" or "conventional" is of course far less clear. That was relevant to whether the Dutch methods were allowed in the Round Robin. For Shanghai, the ruling was that such a 1♣ bid was to be treated as natural, so BS methods were not allowed over it in the Round Robin. I believe that ruling has subsequently been changed for WBF events.

I just went back and reviewed the Convention Cards for the Dutch Pair

The Dutch Pair were using a defensive structure that they refer to as "Holo Bolo". As Jan notes, this is a pretty complicated overcall strcuture that includes lots of multi-meaning bids. For example:

Over a 1C opening, a 2H jump overcall is weak with Hearts or Spades
Over a 1D opening, a 2S overcall is intermediated with Clubs or Diamonds.

At the same time, I think that it is very misleading to characterize this as a Brown Sticker Convention. The WBF definition of a BSC is very clear. For the purpose of this discussion, clause B is the releveant one. Clause B establishes that the following class of bids is Brown Sticker.

Quote

An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

    EXCEPTION: A natural overcall in no trumps.
    EXCEPTION: any cue bid suit that shows a strong hand.
    EXCEPTION: a jump cue bid in opponent's known suit that asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in that suit.

Nice to see that the WBF [eventually] corrected their mistake on this one...

[straube]

Rob F, on Feb 7 2009, 05:25 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 6 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

I don't really get the alternative interpretation of "all-purpose" people seem to be proposing.

Look at it this way. If I am playing a reasonable bidding system, then I have a possible call for any hand I could hold in opening position. So if we look at any opening bid in such a reasonable system, this bid covers all hands which are not suitable for any other opening call (including pass). Since in most systems (outside of forcing pass and a few other exotic ones) pass can only cover weak hands, I can define a 1♦ opening as:

1♦ = any hand with X or more points which is not suitable for any other opening bid in the system

Once we determine the value of X, this description covers basically any 1♦ opening in any reasonable system. Provided X is at least ten, it seems like I've just defined a "catch-all" or "all-purpose" bid by the definition that Jan Martel, Jeff Goldsmith, and Josh Donn are apparently using...

And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says you have to play a reasonable bidding system. So with appropriate context, you can have an all purpose 1♦ mean absolutely anything -

P - anything I don't want to open
1♣ whatever else has 10+ points I want to open (not 1♦)
1♦ whatever I want with 10+ points
1♥+ to taste

Or if you somehow take issue with the two all purpose bids (not a real issue apparently), you can even have

P - anything I don't want to open, or anything with 10-15 not in 1♦
1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦
1♦ 10+ anything I want
1♥+ to taste

So even if you think the rule is a system catchall thing, you can't really escape the conclusion that there exists perfectly legal systems where 1♦ can mean absolutely anything. So how is that different than "1♦ can be anything with 10+" again? The rule doesn't say "... and you can't play the rest of your system so as to leave 1♦ as something we don't like off the following list".

Yay. I think we're advancing the same thing. The difference is mostly semantic, but we don't have to play for example...

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦
1♦ 10+, 4 spades by inference
1♥+ legal openings denying 4 spades

We can play...

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦
1♦ 10+, 4 spades
1♥+ to taste

I'm trying to think of a system where the difference now would not be semantic.

Maybe I don't have to be so precise when I define my other openings and I can decide whether I want to show 4 spades or some other feature of my hand...

1♣ 16+ strong, not in 1♦
1♦ 10+, 4 spades
1♥ 4+ hearts
1♠ 5 spades or 4 really good spades
1 NT could have 4 spades or 4 hearts
2♣ 6 clubs possibly with 4 spades OR 4/5 in minors
2♦ 6 diamonds possibly with 4 spades OR 5/4 in minors

Not that I would want to play that...

[straube]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:54 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 03:11 AM, said:

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+.

[straube]

awm, on Feb 7 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

JanM, on Feb 7 2009, 01:15 AM, said:

I am sure part of the problem is the "artificial" included in the description - that's there (I think - I wasn't involved in drafting the GCC) because for some unknown reason, the drafters wanted to use one section to allow both strong, forcing 1m bids and vaguely defined 1m bids.

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Now you claim that "everyone" knows you're right about "all-purpose" bids. Well I hate to tell you this, but your opinions on these matters are not what "everyone" knows. A very large number of people (quite possibly a majority of knowledgeable people) disagree with you. We have the right to our opinion too. And we resent implications that we are a tiny minority of BBO forum posters, or are cheaters, or are somehow misreading plain english -- especially from someone who seems quite capable of ignoring the clearly written definition of natural when it comes to her own one club openings.

I think you should retract this post. So much of it has been shown to be wrong by comparing it to Jan's previous posts.

[helene_t]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

AWM said:

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear" (she was not utterly convinced that her 1C was a natural bid)and apparently it was ruled natural in the Shanghai event she describes below. To me, it seems like that event ruled incorrectly. I don't understand how that bid can be ruled anything but conventional. Jan, why do you think it's unclear when natural requires 3 clubs?

If Shanghai would simply have used the normal BSC definition then everything would have been clear, but at some point ( I think a few weeks before the event) it was decided that the 1♣ opening in a 5542 system would, for this particular event, be treated as natural, and there was a confusing discussion here as well as on r.g.b. about how far that extents. For example, which of the many more or less nebulous precision 1♦ openings would be treated as natural.

[straube]

I mischaracterized Jan's statement when I said that she said that whether 1C promising only 2 clubs should be treated as conventional or natural was unclear. JDonn pointed out that she had used the word "defined" (not treated) and that she was saying that it was unclear whether a minor opening that promised 2 should be defined as natural.

[blackshoe]

The only promise I make at the bridge table is to do my best to win by playing the best bridge I can. I make many — maybe too many — agreements with my partner regarding the meanings of calls and plays, but I don't "promise" that i'll have what our agreement says I should have. Not to partner (nor partner to me) and certainly not to opponents.

Regulating Authorities can define things however they like, as long as they don't conflict with definitions in the laws. The ACBL, for example, defines natural openings in the minor suits as containing at least three cards in the suit. Therefore, a 1♣ or 1♦ opening that by agreement could contain only two cards in the bid suit is not natural, it is artificial. The WBF apparently (I haven't looked) normally defines, or used to define, these openings in much the same way. Then, just prior to Shanghai, they changed the definition of "natural" for clubs to admit a suit of two cards. In spite of some speculation, this cannot affect the meaning of a 1♦ opening unless they changed the definition for minor suits and not just for clubs. Which they did depends on how they worded the change. Whether the change continues to apply after Shanghai also depends on the wording - and on whether the change was to the conditions of contest for that event, to general conditions of contest for all events, or to convention or alerting regulations.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Feb 7 2009, 05:24 AM, said:

awm, on Feb 7 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Let me just put it this way. You seem utterly convinced that a 1♣ opening "clubs or balanced" is a natural bid. This is despite the fact that every single written regulation by ACBL or WBF relating to this matter says that a natural bid in a minor must promise at least three cards there. Your insistence on this matter has gone so far as convincing a WBF director in charge to ban a Dutch pair's methods because they were using an artificial defense to your "natural" bid.

Just to be clear:

As I recall, the Dutch Pair was playing in the Open Event.

I don't think that Jan was competing in that event. (Not even sure whether she plays a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ Clubs)

My impression was that she was involved in this discussion because of her role with the USBF. I didn't think that she was a principal who was directly involved in the event.

Actually, I was the NPC for a Bermuda Bowl team, so was involved in this discussion in that capacity. The fact that at the time I was also USBF president was irrelevant to the Systems issues, as is the fact that I do play a 2+ 1 club opening bid.

The more I have discussed the issue of what defenses should be allowed over a 1♣ opening that is either natural or balanced, the more convinced I become that we shouldn't base the determination of what overcalls should be allowed on whether the opening bid is "natural" or "conventional" (if "conventional" is even the opposite of "natural"). It is reasonable for a sponsoring organization to allow highly unusual overcalls (I would include in "highly unusual" both 1♠ showing any 13 cards and 2♥ showing a weak jump overcall in either hearts or spades, as well as CRASH type bids) over some opening bids and not over others. The SO really ought to deal with this issue specifically and not by restricting overcalls of "natural" bids.
I don't know what the rule should be. If highly unusual overcalls are allowed over an artificial, strong 1♣ opening, should they also be allowed over a less artificial 1♣ opening that can be either clubs or balanced and might have as many as 5 diamonds and as few as 2 clubs? I don't know. I'm fairly confident, however, that whatever rules govern overcalls of a 1♣ opening that shows 3+ clubs should also apply to a 1♣ opening that can be 2 clubs only if the hand is 4432. Whether that particular 1♣ bid is "natural" has nothing to do with it - that is a bid that fairly unsophisticated players often use and the GCC is designed to a large extent to protect the unsophisticated. Before someone else says it - yes, unsophisticated players also play Precision and certainly open 1NT, but we don't restrict overcalls over both of those bids, even in GCC events. We all recognize that some of the "rules" aren't rational, they're based on history, and we aren't going to change them.
And of course, the players in the Bermuda Bowl aren't unsophisticated and maybe they aren't entitled to any protection at all. Certainly, however, they are entitled to know what methods they will face and when.

[PrecisionL]

Additional information on opening a short club:

Mike Flader in the May 2006 issue of the ACBL Bulletin discussed responses to a short club (2+ clubs) with 4+♦ showing 4 or more:

"No Alert is required for a response in a major that shows at least a five-card suit. The 1♣ opening and the 1♦ response, however, must be Alerted. If your side declares, you should disclose the information available to you in the bidding at the end of the auction."

My Qs (via e-mail):

1) "Did you mean announced: "may be as short as 2"? Is this considered a convention or a treatment?"

2) "Can the Gardener 1NT Overcall (16-18 or weak with a long suit, not generally GCC legal) be used over such a short club opening? Over an artificial 1D opening?"

ANSWERS:

1) "Yes, I suspect that I meant announced. By definition, the Short Club should be a convention since when one opens 1C they could have fewer that 3 clubs."

2) "The Gardener 1NT overcall would not be legal over these artificial openings bids unless they were by definition strong (15+) according to the General Convention Chart."

Hope this is helpful. Mike Flader

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 03:54 AM, said:

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 03:11 AM, said:

Jan said that the question whether her 1C bid should be treated as conventional or natural was "far less clear"

It's clear 1♣ that is 2+ should be treated as conventional, because that's what the rules say. However she questioned whether her 1♣ bid should be defined as conventional or natural, not treated that way. It's a key difference, the way she stated it is just a question of opinion (what you think the rule should be, ideally). I think it should be defined as natural, but who is to say anyone is wrong.

Thanks. So currently 1♣ is defined as natural if 3+ and should be treated as conventional if less than 3, but some would prefer 1♣ be redefined as as natural if 2+.

I think I just said this, but in case I didn't. My real problem with the 2+ 1♣ rules is that I don't think the question of what overcalls should be allowed ought to depend on whether an opening bid is "natural" or not. To me, it seems obvious that the line between opening bids of 1♣ that are entitled to protection from weird overcalls and opening bids of 1♣ that are not entitled to that protection should not be drawn between players who open 1♦ with 4432 shape and players who open 1♣ with 4432 shape. Virtually all of the hands that are opened 1♣ by the first set of players will also be opened 1♣ by the second set.
I don't know whether the line should be drawn between the 4432 1♣ opening and a 1♣ opening that can be 4342, or whether the line should be drawn between that opening and one that can be 3352, or perhaps only between an opening that can be clubs or balanced and an opening that is never clubs (2♣ is used for long club suits in a minimum hand, as it is by some playing Polish Club), or maybe weird overcalls should be allowed only if the 1♣ bid is strong, artificial and forcing. I am merely suggesting that the question that should be asked is not "is this 1♣ bid natural?" but rather "is this 1♣ bid entitled to protection from weird overcalls?"
By the way, I think as time goes by we see that the overcallers will actually do the line drawing for us. I don't know very many people who want to play CRASH type bids over a 1♣ opening bid that shows clubs in a minimum opening hand at least 75% of the time. Many don't want to use such bids over a Polish club that is usually a weak NT. That's because when the opening bid is unlikely to be a strong hand, the defenders don't want to make the auction confusing for their side, and all of these bids do that.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Feb 7 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

I just went back and reviewed the Convention Cards for the Dutch Pair

The Dutch Pair were using a defensive structure that they refer to as "Holo Bolo".  As Jan notes, this is a pretty complicated overcall strcuture that includes lots of multi-meaning bids.

I haven't gone and looked at what is currently posted, but I do think it's only fair to those of us who had to contend with this at the time to mention that what is now there is different from what was originally submitted, at least by one of the pairs. One pair did a careful job of describing "Holo Bolo" the other didn't. I also think that everyone (including the proponents of the method) agreed that "Holo Bolo" if it is used over a natural 1♣ opening bid, includes BS bids. The 2♥ bid (and identical 3♥ bid) clearly does not promise 4+ cards in a known suit, and to the best of my recollection neither do some of the 1 level overcalls.

[straube]

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

The first pair uses...
1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor
1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

the second pair uses...
1C-shows four hearts
1D-shows four spades

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit. The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd? Both or neither?

[JanM]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

The first pair uses...
1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor
1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

the second pair uses...
1C-shows four hearts
1D-shows four spades

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit.  The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd?  Both or neither?

I'm not sure what question you intend to ask here - whether these methods are currently GCC legal? Mid-Chart legal? Or whether I think they should be GCC/Mid-Chart legal. Also, I'm not advocating against 1 of a minor bids showing a specific Major, what I've been advocating is complying with the rules, which include the requirement to present a complete description and defense for such a bid and get it approved.
Anyway, if your question is whether these different structures would be GCC legal under my understanding of the GCC as it now exists, the answer is that although I think the first set of methods are not very good and likely not very playable, I believe that they are GCC legal as "all-purpose" bids. And although the second set is probably more playable, it is not currently GCC or Mid-Chart legal. It would be Mid-Chart legal if a defense were presented and approved.
Why should the first meanings be GCC legal and the second not? I suppose because lots of people who play in low-level events play "nebulous" and multi-purpose club and diamond openings, whereas virtually none play 1m opening bids to show a specific Major. The GCC was designed to make legal what was common at the entry level when it was written. Obviously, that stifles change. Maybe it's not a good way to run the ship, but it's what we have.

[david_c]

straube, on Feb 8 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

The first pair uses...
1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor
1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

the second pair uses...
1C-shows four hearts
1D-shows four spades

I would have said the same as Jan - the first set is OK but the second is not. (Actually I think it would be impossible to construct a legal system around the second set of bids even if those bids were OK themselves.)

[jdonn]

straube, on Feb 7 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

So can jdonn or JanM or anyone else who advocates against assigning such artificial meanings as "shows four spades" rule on this?

Suppose you're a TD and two pairs have sat down against each other and are quibbling over their opponents' methods.

The first pair uses...
1C-shows an unbalanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor
1D-shows a balanced hand without a 5-card major or 6-card minor

the second pair uses...
1C-shows four hearts
1D-shows four spades

The first pair argues that "all-purpose" wasn't intended to show a specific holding in a suit. The second pair replies "Who says so?" and argues that it is more difficult to defend against a nebulous bid than one that shows a specific holding.

Do you rule against the 1st pair or the 2nd? Both or neither?

I thought I had said earlier that I don't pretend to have much idea where the borderline for 'all purpose' is or not, I was merely arguing that it doesn't include every possible bid. Anyway my best idea of the answer is the same as Jan's.