I think you have nailed this "natural" meaning.
So now if my Forcing Club promises 2+clubs as per this rule
it is a natural call.
Of course then the Forcing 1D call would also have to promise 2+D
(3+D now but would be given a special natural meaning) to be the
natural call when this forcing opening hand does not have 2+C.
Now both "general purpose" openings are natural and those
defenses to artificial openings are not allowed, as you note in (1).
On Feb 10, 10:52 pm, "dak...@aol.com" <dak...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think you have nailed this "natural" meaning.
> So now if my Forcing Club promises 2+clubs as per this rule
> it is a natural call.
> Of course then the Forcing 1D call would also have to promise 2+D
> (3+D now but would be given a special natural meaning) to be the
> natural call when this forcing opening hand does not have 2+C.
> Now both "general purpose" openings are natural and those
> defenses to artificial openings are not allowed, as you note in (1).
Not unless your forcing clubs promises exactly a 4432 hand with 2
clubs and 3 diamonds. That is what the statement means.
Only if you interpret the rule literally. I am quite
sure it was not inteded that way. If you interpret it
literally a 1C which have this distribution, but, on the other hand it may be void in clubs and have 8 hearts
would be natural.
Previously, SAYC players book-opening 1D promised 4 or more
diamonds or exactly 4=4=3=2. I think the idea here was to get
the 4=4=3=2 out of the diamond so that only the club could
be short. They could have done this previously, but only
with the consequence of making their 1C a conventional opening.
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 8:44:49 AM UTC-5, Fred. wrote:
> Only if you interpret the rule literally. I am quite
> sure it was not inteded that way. If you interpret it
_may_
> literally a 1C which _/ have this distribution, but, > on the other hand it may be void in clubs and have 8 hearts
> would be natural.
> Previously, SAYC players book-opening 1D promised 4 or more
> diamonds or exactly 4=4=3=2. I think the idea here was to get
> the 4=4=3=2 out of the diamond so that only the club could
> be short. They could have done this previously, but only
> with the consequence of making their 1C a conventional > opening.
> Fred.
Sorry. My editor was napping on the job and I dropped a very important word. See above.
>I just took a look at the revised wording on the ACBL General
>Convention Chart. At the head of "Defintions" it reads:
> An opening bid of one club is natural if, by agreement,
> it may be exactly 4-4-3-2 with two clubs, three diamonds,
> and four cards in each major.
>I take it that their actual intent is for 1C to be natural if
>it promises a hand whish either has 3+ clubs or is exactly
>4-4-3-2 as quoted above.
>My understanding of the implications of making 1C bid under
>such an agreement natural is
>(1) The opponents do not have as wide a selection of defenses
> as if the call were conventional, and
>(2) The lower limit in HCP on such a call is 8 HCP rather than
> the 10 HCP required for the general purpose 1C opening
> with 2+ clubs.
>Is my understanding of the implications correct? Have I missed
>any implications on the allowed use of the call?
This is exactly the implications. The problems lie with the understanding of the difference between people who lay this way and people how like to open a short club on various shapes of balanced hand.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Right after this new bit about 4=4=3=2 hands it says "otherwise, an opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."
I think that technically that last "and if" should be "or if", but never mind that. The "otherwise" makes it clear that a 1C opening is natural if by agreement it shows at least three clubs, or if it shows two clubs in a precisely 4=4=3=2 hand.
It seems to me the answers to your questions, Fred, are "yes", and "no". :-)
I think David's problem with the new regulation is that, because the announcement was not changed, if an opponent opens 1C, and his partner announces "could be short" (this is the correct procedure if the club suit could have fewer than 3 cards), you have to ask for further information in order to determine whether the opening is this new natural one, or still artificial (that is, it could be made on 2 clubs and some other distribution that 4=4=3 in the other suits). You can still play an artificial defense to the artificial meanings of the "short club", just not to the natural one. But if you ask, you may be deemed to have passed UI to partner, constraining his actions.
In article <9515333.1482.1328975553751.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh19>,
blackshoe <blacks...@mac.com> wrote:
> I think David's problem with the new regulation is that, because the > announcement was not changed, if an opponent opens 1C, and his partner > announces "could be short" (this is the correct procedure if the club suit > could have fewer than 3 cards), you have to ask for further information in > order to determine whether the opening is this new natural one, or still > artificial (that is, it could be made on 2 clubs and some other distribution > that 4=4=3 in the other suits). You can still play an artificial defense to > the artificial meanings of the "short club", just not to the natural one. But > if you ask, you may be deemed to have passed UI to partner, constraining his > actions.
This is the same UI you potentially pass whenever you ask about an opponent's alert, so it's not exactly a new problem. You can avoid it by always asking, whether or not you would take action over one or the other responses. If you think this is excessive, you could mostly only ask when you need to know, but occasionally ask when you don't, so the UI would not be as obvious.
However, if you ask when you don't actually need to know, you could run afoul of the Law against deliberately misleading the opponent. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>I think David's problem with the new regulation is that, because the >announcement was not changed, if an opponent opens 1C, and his partner >announces "could be short" (this is the correct procedure if the club >suit could have fewer than 3 cards), you have to ask for further >information in order to determine whether the opening is this new >natural one, or still artificial (that is, it could be made on 2 clubs >and some other distribution that 4=4=3 in the other suits). You can >still play an artificial defense to the artificial meanings of the >"short club", just not to the natural one. But if you ask, you may be >deemed to have passed UI to partner, constraining his actions.
I am not worrying abut UI because my intention is to ask every time. But I am worried about MI because I have not found North American players nearly as amenable as British ones in telling opponents what they are playing except in obvious situations, eg after an alert.
Take the sequence
1C 1H
1S .....
Before I lead in an English tournament I always ask how many clubs the 1S rebid showed. I expect most people to make a sensible replay. In the ACBL I do not bother because of the difficulty of extracting information.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
On Feb 11, 10:52 am, blackshoe <blacks...@mac.com> wrote:
> Right after this new bit about 4=4=3=2 hands it says "otherwise, an opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."
> I think that technically that last "and if" should be "or if", but never mind that. The "otherwise" makes it clear that a 1C opening is natural if by agreement it shows at least three clubs, or if it shows two clubs in a precisely 4=4=3=2 hand.
> It seems to me the answers to your questions, Fred, are "yes", and "no". :-)
> I think David's problem with the new regulation is that, because the announcement was not changed, if an opponent opens 1C, and his partner announces "could be short" (this is the correct procedure if the club suit could have fewer than 3 cards), you have to ask for further information in order to determine whether the opening is this new natural one, or still artificial (that is, it could be made on 2 clubs and some other distribution that 4=4=3 in the other suits). You can still play an artificial defense to the artificial meanings of the "short club", just not to the natural one. But if you ask, you may be deemed to have passed UI to partner, constraining his actions.
And you hit on a problem that the ACBL seems not to have thought about
when it did this. Better to me would have been to require an alert
for all 1 club bids that were not 'natural' by their definition. It
could be that they thought that was implied in the new definition.
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:40:05 AM UTC-5, David Stevenson wrote:
-snip-
> But I am worried about MI because I have not found North American > Before I lead in an English tournament I always ask how many clubs the > 1S rebid showed. I expect most people to make a sensible replay. In > the ACBL I do not bother because of the difficulty of extracting > information.
-snip-
I share your frustration. There are many US players who seem to think
that because they are playing Standard American, whatever that happens
to be in their own minds, that they shouldn't need to answer any
questions about it. That burden should be reserved for people playing "systems". I once had an opponent flat out tell me that.
Nevertheless, I continue to ask when I want the information. Maybe
the fact that the world doesn't know their agreements will eventually
sink in.
On Feb 11, 10:52 am, blackshoe <blacks...@mac.com> wrote:
> Right after this new bit about 4=4=3=2 hands it says "otherwise, an opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."
> I think that technically that last "and if" should be "or if", but never mind that. The "otherwise" makes it clear that a 1C opening is natural if by agreement it shows at least three clubs, or if it shows two clubs in a precisely 4=4=3=2 hand.
> It seems to me the answers to your questions, Fred, are "yes", and "no". :-)
> I think David's problem with the new regulation is that, because the announcement was not changed, if an opponent opens 1C, and his partner announces "could be short" (this is the correct procedure if the club suit could have fewer than 3 cards), you have to ask for further information in order to determine whether the opening is this new natural one, or still artificial (that is, it could be made on 2 clubs and some other distribution that 4=4=3 in the other suits). You can still play an artificial defense to the artificial meanings of the "short club", just not to the natural one. But if you ask, you may be deemed to have passed UI to partner, constraining his actions.
It would solve a lot of problems if in the ACBL the announcement was
"may be a 2-card suit only if holding two 4-card majors" if 1C is
opened on 4=4=3=2 hands and with all other distributions it shows
three or more clubs.
