[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-15, 18:33, said:

IWBNI = It would be nice if

Wow, acronym-talk is getting more esoteric every day. Soon no one will have to use whole words!

[awm]

The one I really don't understand is the line between stuff like Muiderburg and mini-Flannery (i.e. opening that shows a weak hand with 5-6 in the bid suit and 4+ in a second suit) versus stuff like Bailey Twos (i.e. opening showing a weak hand with 5-6 in the bid suit and 2-3 in each unbid major and no voids). Both of these seem to me like natural bids that have additional shape inferences; my intuition is that they should both be natural and allowed (although I could see a view that since they both have a positive inference about length in some other suit, they would both be disallowed). Yet ACBL seems to view the first two as artificial methods (mid-chart) and the last as natural (general chart) for reasons I cannot fathom. This also leaves me mystified where something in-between (say 2♥ opening showing 5-6♥ and 3-4♠) would be on the legality scale.

[Coelacanth]

awm, on 2012-April-17, 23:09, said:

Yet ACBL seems to view the first two as artificial methods (mid-chart) and the last as natural (general chart) for reasons I cannot fathom. This also leaves me mystified where something in-between (say 2♥ opening showing 5-6♥ and 3-4♠) would be on the legality scale.

With one partner I play that a 2♥ opener shows 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♠. We have been told that if, by agreement, this bid can show fewer than 10 HCP, it is Mid-Chart. I have never understood this.

When we play this at our local club (which generally is pretty lax in terms of restricting what people can play, so our range is roughly 6-11 HCP) I alert this bid and describe it as "essentially a normal weak two in hearts, promising 5 or more cards, but it also guarantees at least 4 cards in spades".

I just don't understand why ACBL thinks it's more difficult to defend against this bid than a "standard" weak 2♥, which I've seen people make with every shape from 2632 to 0526.

[barmar]

I think the concern is more about familiarity than difficulty of defense.

[mycroft]

2♥-p/X-3♠. Tell me that auction comes up more often playing standard weak 2s. Tell me that auction isn't incredibly hard to defend. Even 2♥-p/X-2♠ - especially if 2♠ could be on a 1=4=(35/44) NV.

But having said that:
- the ACBL has basically decided (and reasonably) that any call that *promises* (as opposed to "will have if" some negative feature) another suit (even one of N suits) is not Natural; and
- no unNatural, weak 2-level call will be allowed on the GCC.

We can argue that the GCC needs to be updated to SPUs rather than conventions or "not Natural", that it needs to be clarified, that it should be formatted in a way that is easier to interpret (like OB 11), that there are things restricted that should be unrestricted, that there are things that are not restricted that should be, given what is; I won't disagree. But the policy that "weak two-suiters are verboten" doesn't seem to horrible.

[bluejak]

awm, on 2012-April-09, 19:40, said:

Another sort of funny one is the standard auction (opponents passing) 1NT - 2♦ (transfer) - 2♥. Is the 2♥ bid natural? It does not really promise hearts. In fact if they play a style where all hands with 4+♥ would super-accept, the 2♥ bid might actually deny length in hearts.

Of course, there is little question that such a bid is allowed on the general chart. But a more interesting might be:

1♦ (showing an unbalanced hand with one or both minors) - 2♣ (pass or correct). Is it natural? It doesn't show clubs... but it's very non-forcing, trying to raise partner's "suit"....

The arguments about transfer completion have gone on for ten years and I do not propose to restate my views. But I think your comparison is a little off.

When partner makes a transfer bid you do not complete the transfer based on your view as to where the best place to play is, any more than a response to Blackwood says you think that is the place to play, though partner may pass it. It is just part of a conventional agreement and partner is in control.

But pass/correct bids tend to really suggest playing there. I play a Mini-multi 2♦, and a fairly similar 3♦. Responses of 2 and 3 of a major are all pass or correct, but that is because I am seriously suggesting playing in that suit if partner holds it, based on my view of where the partnership should play.

barmar, on 2012-April-15, 18:33, said:

IWBNI = It would be nice if

IWBNI people only used recommended abbreviations here.

[awm]

It sounds from Bluejak's post like he intends to classify the 2h bid in 2d (transfer)-2h as artificial, even though the bidding side most certainly has hearts... while classifying 2d (multi)-2h as natural even though the bidding side might have no hearts at all. This seems bizarre to me.

[bluejak]

Yes, this argument will run and run. Your approach seems bizarre to me.

If you choose to bid 2♥ because you are willing to play there that feels natural to me.

If you have to bid 2♥ because the convention says so in case partner wants to play there that feels artificial to me.

You [and to be fair, several others] think the reverse.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 07:21, said:

If you choose to bid 2♥ because you are willing to play there that feels natural to me.

If you have to bid 2♥ because the convention says so in case partner wants to play there that feels artificial to me.

We open 1NT and pard responds 2D; we wouldn't have opened 1NT if we were not willing to play in 2H. If we are also willing to see how partner continues after the transfer, that is the partnership follow-ups by responder which might be artificial (or natural but conventional).

I don't understand any value in, or need to, classify the 2H bid at all.

OTOH, with 2-under transfers to minors there is definitely a need to classify an acceptance.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-24, 07:55, said:

I don't understand any value in, or need to, classify the 2H bid at all.

There are some regulations that depend on the distinction between natural and artificial bids.

The problem is that this is a false dichotomy -- as we've seen, it's not always clear how to classify bids.

Multi is a very interesting example of this. Assuming you don't have an exceptional hand that breaks the transfer, you tend to bid your majors in the OPPOSITE order of your preference to play in them -- you're just trying to get to where you would have gotten if partner had made a natural weak 2 opening, and you have to cater to him holding the suit you're shorter in.

[awm]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 07:21, said:

Yes, this argument will run and run. Your approach seems bizarre to me.

If you choose to bid 2♥ because you are willing to play there that feels natural to me.

If you have to bid 2♥ because the convention says so in case partner wants to play there that feels artificial to me.

You [and to be fair, several others] think the reverse.

Suppose partner and I play a 2♦ opening as showing 5+♥, either weak or very strong. If I reply 2♥ to that, it says "I want to play here opposite the weak option." If responding to 2♦ multi with 2♥ is natural (a response which says "I want to play here opposite one of the weak options") surely the fact that we took the "spades" hand out of the 2♦ opening doesn't make my 2♥ response now artificial?

The example of a transfer in response to 1NT is very much the same as this 2♦ opening. The only differences are due to negative inferences provided by opener's 1NT opening.