[jdonn]

Cascade, on Sep 20 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

Why does "fairly" not convey the same meaning as "fair". It is the most prominent meaning in my dictionary.

Sure there are other less formal interpretations but these are some of things I found in the dictionary for "fairly":

in a fair manner; justly or honestly; impartially; properly; legitimately; clearly; distinctly.

You are playing games with words. There are many definitions that don't describe how the worst being used in the quoted regulation, and none of them have anything to do with this discussion. The definition that is obviously intended here is the one I see in the dictionary as "moderately; tolerably" such as "a fairly heavy rain".

Cascade, on Sep 20 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

I would have thought that the meaning of a phrase comes from the words that are used.

Also the form, order, and combination of the words. "Clearly overweight" does not mean "clear as well as overweight". "Obviously fairly straightforward natural" certainly does not mean "obvious and fair and straightforward and natural" (what would it even mean for a bridge system to be "obvious" or "fair"?) It means "It is obvious the system is fairly straightforward and it is obvious the system is fairly natural."

I happen to think that Jan's system, from what I know of it, fits that. Obviously it is fairly straightforward, since you generally open in your longest suit or notrump on some ranges of balanced hands and it's very similar to systems that are commonly played in many places in the world. And obviously it is fairly natural since I believe all but 2 opening bids are natural (or does she play multi as well?) and of the 2 artificial opening bids, one is merely one card in minimum length from being natural.

But you could reasonably disagree with me on one or both of those points and I probably wouldn't believe you were being disingenuous.

Cascade, on Sep 20 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

I really don't see why it is not so that "obviously" means it needs to be obvious, "fairly" means it needs to be fair, "straightforward" means it needs to be straightforward and "natural" means it needs to be natural. In combination it needs all meet all of those qualifications to apply.

That is completely wrong. Go back to my example.

For manure to be "hardly delicious" would you argue that manure must be hard and manure must be delicious?

[Cascade]

awm, on Sep 21 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

It seems to me that choosing to open 1♣ on 4432 hands, or even on 4342/3442 hands, does not change the fact that the vast majority of times we're opening the longest suit. This modification doesn't seem sufficient to change a green system into red.

That is a convenient view if your preferred methods includes a 1♣ could be short opening and you want to avoid restrictions and advanced disclosure of your methods.

However the WBF system regulations make it clear that one bid - their example is some sort of Polish club - can make a system RED. There is nothing in those regulations to suggest that an artificial Standard American short club would not also make the system RED.

Why should Standard American be protected and Standard Polish be not protected?

Opening all 4333, 4432 and 4333 outside a 15-17 range with 1♣ means that in excess of 15% of your 1-level suit openings are not in your longest suit.

Maybe you consider that a vast majority. However that seems a significant inconvenience to me. I have no problem with inconveniencing the opponents by your methods but claiming that you open not in your longest suit 15% of the time and then still claiming your system is natural seems way off to me.

[blackshoe]

When I first read the phrase, I took "fairly" to mean "to an acceptable extent". I still take it that way. So I agree with Josh on that.

I have often wondered why systems with a natural 1♣ opening and an artificial 2♣ opening are considered "natural", while systems with an artificial 1♣ opening and a natural 2♣ opening are considered "artificial". It seems an artificial distinction to me.

Of course, in this case we have a system with an artificial 1♣ opening and an artificial 2♣ opening. So it's not the same as either of the above. I suppose that in order to cover all the bases, the regulators might want to define a "natural system" as (for example) one in which all one level openings are natural. But they haven't done so. So we don't really know what they mean by "artificial system" or "natural system", do we? Well, there's the experience of what I mentioned in my previous paragraph, but is that really good enough when we're talking about regulations?

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Sep 20 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

Just to be clear in case you are referring to my comments, yes 1♣ showing 2+ clubs absolutely is artificial by definition. I'm not arguing that close to natural is just as good as natural. I'm arguing that 1 card away from natural is "fairly natural". After all, I would reasonably assume "fairly natural" doesn't mean the same thing as "natural" (else why say "fairly" at all?)

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 20 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

BTW, the 1♣ "could be as short as two" is artificial because the regulators have defined it as artificial. Seems to me that arguing that "it isn't really, because it's only one card off" or some such is really just pissing in the wind.

Just to be clear in case you are referring to my comments, yes 1♣ showing 2+ clubs absolutely is artificial by definition. I'm not arguing that close to natural is just as good as natural. I'm arguing that 1 card away from natural is "fairly natural". After all, I would reasonably assume "fairly natural" doesn't mean the same thing as "natural" (else why say "fairly" at all?)

The regulation doesn't say "fairly natural".

It says "fairly straightforward NATURAL".

While it is clear that "fairly" qualifies "straightforward" it is not clear that is qualifies "NATURAL" especially when you read "fairly" in the way you are suggesting.

When I see "fairly straightforward" I think that it is reasonable and fair and simple method. Possible natural methods that might not be "fairly straightforward" would be Canape or maybe something with split ranges. Perhaps we need something more extreme.

"obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" seems to be made up of the components

1. It must be natural

2. It must be "fairly straightforward"

3. It must be obviously so

That is "fairly NATURAL" and "fairly straightforward NATURAL" would mean quite different things to me - using Josh's interpretation of "fairly".

Curiously I think in practice "fairly straightforward" would mean pretty much the same thing whether you think of "fairly" as meaning close to or meaning "fair".

[jdonn]

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

[qwery_hi]

JanM, on Sep 20 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

What makes you think that a "short" 1♣ opening makes an entire system Red? Nowhere in the System Regulations does it say so. The definition of Red systems specifies that a 3-way 1♣ (natural or balanced or strong) makes a system Red, but those of us who don't include a strong club in our 1♣ opening aren't covered by that, and obviously one "artificial" opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red, else all systems would be Red (at least I have yet to see any system without at least one artificial opening bid).

If you don't have a strong option in your 1♣, then you have two "artificial" bids in your system, as opposed to SAYC which has only one. So obviously one artificial opening bid doesn't make an entire system Red doesn't apply.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

[JanM]

I know I shouldn't get involved in these discussions, but somehow I forget. However:

1. I did not say and do not think that I was ignoring any regulation by not filing my WBF convention card in advance - what I said was that I did not believe my bidding system qualifies as a Red system so my convention card does not have to be filed in advance.

2. I did say that people who play Polish Club have consistently failed to recognize that the Systems Policy defines their system as Red.

3. I think that if the requirement that Red systems be filed in advance is to have any value, Red systems should be defined fairly narrowly (oops, there I am using "fairly" to mean "to a reasonable extent" not "in a fair manner;" I apologize if you don't understand me). I don't want to have to review 50 Polish Club convention cards to see if someone is playing a system for which I need to prepare in advance. It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

4. The language you quote about "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" systems being Green, and Red being a "catchall," does not appear in any regulation. It appears in the 70 page Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card. That document was Eric Kokish's attempt, a long time ago, to help people do a better job of completing the WBF Convention Card. It is distributed by the WBF, but is not a WBF regulation of any sort and it doesn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, it is so long that few people read it, and so far as I know it has not been updated since it was first written.

[mrdct]

The WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2002 (Adopted December 1994; amended October 1996, January 2000, August 2002, October 2007, October 2008 & September 2009) defines "natural" as:

Quote

a call or play that is not a convention [“special partnership understanding” as defined in Law 40B1(a)]

Law 40B1(a) defines "special partnership understanding" as:

Quote

A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

I would expect that a short 1♣ opening would be "readily understood and anticipated" by every man, woman and child playing at the World Bridge Series in Philadelphia so for the purposes of that event a short 1♣ opening ought to be considered a natural bid but it still comes down to the opinion of the Regulating Authority.

Quite bizaarely, the WBF Systems Policy does not actually define what "artificial" means, but I think it's implied that anything which is not "natural" is "artificial" on ordinary language principles.

The description of the "Red" system classification is quite confusing:

Quote

Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see ‘Blue’).
Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multimeaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet.

As per usual, the corresponding system regulations in Australia are far less ambiguous, defining Red Systems quite clearly as:

Quote

Red (Artificial) Systems
This category includes:
a. All systems employing artificial one-level openings that do not fall under the definition of Yellow (HUM) systems [see below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond (Blue) systems.
b. Any system in which the basic structure (other than the length of natural suit bids or the point range of openings) varies according to position and/or vulnerability.

In Australia a 1♣ opening that could be as short as 2 is an artificial one-level opening as it does not convey a "preparedness to play in the named denomination". However, we have a stated exception that "a 4432 shaped hand may be opened 1♣" amongst the definition of a Green System, so playing a short 1♣ will only make your system red if the bid includes 3442, 4342 or 3352 shapes (which is often the case for systems which roll all weak NT openings into the 1♣ bid).

[mich-b]

Perhaps , as bidding systems are developed, and trends change , so should the system classifications. Maybe all this debate can be easily solved by creating a new category (Orange?) , which means something like "natural , but all balanced hands out of the 1NT range are opened 1♣". Since this is getting popular, maybe the time has come for this to have it's own colour?

[paulg]

JanM, on Sep 21 2010, 06:39 AM, said:

It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

It is my guess that the Systems Committee did not write the regulation in the Supplementary Conditions of Contest for Philly, but another arm of the WBF who had this (reasonable) expectation.

[Free]

The colour codes could be defined better for sure. Blue can be very artificial, but is usually considered in the same class as green.

Here in Belgium we also use the colour codes, but with slight nuances.
- Green is clearly defined: 5533/5542/4444 and 1-level openings are NF. I think 5443 is also considered green, since there's not a big difference anyway.
- A strong ♣/♦ system is blue only if the continuations are natural. This makes MOSCITO red for example.
- Yellow (HUM) is defined the same as WBF.
- All the rest is red.

With these rules it makes more sense to consider blue and green pretty much the same. Some openings may be different, but continuations are basic.

Remark: in Poland, any flavor of Polish club (multi-way 1♣ opening) is considered standard. Obviously they don't think it needs special attention. But on an international level it's considered artificial. I guess that's one of the reasons why it is specifically given as an example.

[jvage]

The Belgian colour-codes seems sensible. In Norway the codes were copied from WBF (before I became a member of the Laws Committee), making a system with 1♣-opening possibly with 4432 "Red" and no mention of follow-ups for strong 1♣/♦-systems ("Blue").

There are also no restrictions for the "catch-all"-bid in a strong 1♣/♦-system. We recently had a discussion about a system with a strong 1♦ opening where 1♣ is opened with long clubs OR long diamonds (no natural 2♣/♦) or balanced. As the regulations are written this would still be "Blue", the funny(?) consequence is that a system in which 1♣ can be opened with 4432 is (arguably) considered more artificial than a system where 1♣ can be opened "naturally" with 3370

PS: We are discussing a revision of the Norwegian colour-codes. Currently a classification as "green", "blue" or "red" does not matter much in practice, since only HUM systems are restricted (only allowed for the top teams events where one must send system-notes to the opponents and seating restrictions may apply).

John

[Vampyr]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

But wouldn't that meaning likely be more clearly conveyed with "fairly straightforward and natural"? Plus there is the capitalised "NATURAL". I think that this makes it pretty clear that "straightforward" is modified by "fairly" and NATURAL is modified not at all.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Sep 21 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

Of course the word "fairly" implies judgment, so using ridiculous examples proves nothing and I would not consider them 'potholes' except for an unqualified driver.

[JoAnneM]

Want to avoid the frustration of all these rules? Come to the D20 Regional at beautiful Seaside, Oregon which is happening at the same time as Philadelphia - thank you very much ACBL (not). Oct 4-10 we would love to see you and all the great players who usually come.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Sep 22 2010, 03:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 21 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

I still interpret "fairly straightforward natural" with "fairly" modifying both "straightforward" and "natural". But you have a fair point. Whichever way it was meant could certainly have been made more clear.

I think that interpretation is littered with potholes.

1. The definition of natural does not entertain the concept of "fairly natural"

2. If things could be "fairly natural" we would have no idea where the boundary is

i You say 2-cards is only one card out so it is "fairly natural"

ii Maybe bidding hearts when you have spades is only one suit out so it is fairly natural

iii My symmetric relay partner describes the symmetric diamond - two or three suits unbalanced no 5-card major - as essentially natural. He says we try to bid two suits in two bids instead of one suit in one bid. I guess its "fairly natural" when you think of it like that

This week in a pairs tournament I am playing something like 1♣ = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds. No doubt someone will think this is fairly natural. At least in general it is easier to defend against known suits than against a multi-meaning bid of which at least one of the meanings does not relate to the denomination named like a "short 1♣".

Of course the word "fairly" implies judgment, so using ridiculous examples proves nothing and I would not consider them 'potholes' except for an unqualified driver.

I don't understand why my examples are ridiculous and yours is not.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Sep 21 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

I know I shouldn't get involved in these discussions, but somehow I forget. However:

1. I did not say and do not think that I was ignoring any regulation by not filing my WBF convention card in advance - what I said was that I did not believe my bidding system qualifies as a Red system so my convention card does not have to be filed in advance.

2. I did say that people who play Polish Club have consistently failed to recognize that the Systems Policy defines their system as Red.

3. I think that if the requirement that Red systems be filed in advance is to have any value, Red systems should be defined fairly narrowly (oops, there I am using "fairly" to mean "to a reasonable extent" not "in a fair manner;" I apologize if you don't understand me). I don't want to have to review 50 Polish Club convention cards to see if someone is playing a system for which I need to prepare in advance. It is my guess that the Systems Committee, in making the regulation that Red System convention cards had to be filed in advance did not think of Red as a "catchall" for things that aren't anything else, but thought of Red as pretty unusual but not so unusual that it should not be allowed except for long KO matches (Yellow).

4. The language you quote about "obviously fairly straightforward NATURAL" systems being Green, and Red being a "catchall," does not appear in any regulation. It appears in the 70 page Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card. That document was Eric Kokish's attempt, a long time ago, to help people do a better job of completing the WBF Convention Card. It is distributed by the WBF, but is not a WBF regulation of any sort and it doesn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, it is so long that few people read it, and so far as I know it has not been updated since it was first written.

In answer to your points:

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

You did say:

"players have (sensibly) decided that the part of that territory that's pretty close to Green shouldn't be treated in the same way as the part that's close to Yellow"

And it seems to me with your parenthetical use of "sensibly" that you approve of this action or rather rebellion by players.

I am sorry but I think that deliberately ignoring regulations is reprehensible.

The fact is that the regulators for Philadelphia have decreed that everything that is between GREEN and YELLOW needs to be filed in advance. The WBF have indicated that your short club is RED and therefore in that category.

Knowing that information I think a player would find it hard in good conscience to intend to turn up and play a RED system that they have not registered in advance.

2. Maybe they have I bet there are more short club players who have consistently failed to recognize that the System Policy defines their system as RED.

GREEN is natural. A short club is not natural. Repeating a mantra that it is or is fairly natural or just ignoring the regulations does not make it so.

3. They are defined as not NATURAL, not HUM.

I get the feeling that you don't really want to review any systems.

1♣ short is artificial, not natural I don't see why you think you should get some special allowance if you play that artificial method so that you do not have to follow the regulations.

Twisting the words and conveniently guessing the regulators motives do not change the fact that noone has registered to play a short club at the world championships. And therefore none should be allowed to play this RED system.

4. If the WBF refer to this document then they should make it clear that the information is unreliable if in fact it does not correspond with the official position.

It seems from the quote in the opening post that in fact it does as it has been advised that a short club is in fact a RED system.

[JanM]

Cascade, on Sep 21 2010, 12:09 PM, said:

1. The Opening Post made it clear that the WBF secretariat has provided information that an unnatural 1♣ opening makes your system RED.

I don't think it does - it says that a 2 card 1♣ opening bid is artificial, but falls into the same trap that many of the people posting to this thread do of thinking that an artificial BID = an artificial SYSTEM.

Quote

I get the feeling that you don't really want to review any systems.

I don't have any idea where you get that idea - I spend hours before every World Championship reviewing systems. I don't do this in any official capacity (no one does), but to help my teams prepare for the WC. I don't need to review "vanilla" Polish Club systems to do that and it would take me unnecessary time to figure out that a filed convention card was in fact a normal Polish (or Short or in fact Strong) club system and didn't have anything that needed advance preparation, so I am happier not to have those cards filed. The purpose of advance filing of convention cards is to help the other teams or pairs prepare. That purpose is not served by over-filing. Of course it would be better if the filing requirements were described better. There are lots of things that could be improved. But given what we have, the players have acted sensibly.