[helene_t]

I am not sure if a 10-0-0-3 is a natural 1♣ opening in the ACBL. There are so many examples of definitions in the laws and regulations that are, according to most of the law experts here, not supposed to be taken litteraly. Probably MAF style and a Precision 1♦ that can be (14)35 are natural while Canape is not and Muiderberg is boarderline. Or something like that. In any case a 2♣ opening showing 3 clubs and 6+ in any non-club suit is not natural. Maybe if it shows 3+ clubs and 5- in the other suits it is ok.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2014-March-14, 08:09, said:

In any case a 2♣ opening showing 3 clubs and 6+ in any non-club suit is not natural.

Which part of the ACBL definition does it fail on? Whether you or I or any sane person would call it natural is irrelevant here.

[helene_t]

Well I don't read it anywhere, I just think that most ACBL authorities, if asked whether such a bid would be "natural", would say that the text between the lines says that playing natural methods you tend to bid the longer suit first, at least if there is great disparity in suit length. And then you can confuse them with reference to standard players responding 1M to a 1♦ opening holding a 4-card major and seven clubs and then the ping-pong game goes on ....

Basically you know a non-natural bid when you see it.

[Zelandakh]

I would ask them if opening 1♣ with a 4=4=3=2 hand is also natural given that this is bidding the shortest suit of the hand whereas in this example at least we are bidding the second longest. Not to mention where the alternative definition of natural that states that the relative suit lengths are relevant is hidden. Not that would get me anywhere of course - once someone over there has made their mind up it seems to be irrelevant whether it is correct or not. Instead you are just expected to play along and get a different ruling the following week when a different official is in charge.

[ArtK78]

This thread is the wrong place to try to argue rational thought processes.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on 2014-March-14, 08:47, said:

Well I don't read it anywhere, I just think that most ACBL authorities, if asked whether such a bid would be "natural", would say that the text between the lines says that playing natural methods you tend to bid the longer suit first, at least if there is great disparity in suit length. And then you can confuse them with reference to standard players responding 1M to a 1♦ opening holding a 4-card major and seven clubs and then the ping-pong game goes on ....

Basically you know a non-natural bid when you see it.

Obviously that's wrong. You are forgetting canapé. You would never open the longest suit first if the canapé was absolute. In fact, with absolute canapé, the structure must be like this:

1♠ = 4+ spades with a longer second suit, or 7+ spades with 0-3 hearts, 0-2 diamonds, and 0-1 clubs

1♥ = same as 1♠

1♦ = 3+ diamonds with a longer second suit, or 6+ diamonds with 0-3M and 0-1 clubs

1♣ = 2+ clubs with a longer second suit, or 5+ clubs with 0-3M and 0-2 diamonds

Thus, with the hand with 10♠/3♣, the absolute canapé system actually requires a 1♣ opening. And,. that's natural.

[fromageGB]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-14, 09:03, said:

Thus, with the hand with 10♠/3♣, the absolute canapé system actually requires a 1♣ opening. And,. that's natural.

Aren't you a bit stuck for a bid playing canapé when you have 13 cards in the same suit?

[ArtK78]

fromageGB, on 2014-March-14, 09:51, said:

Aren't you a bit stuck for a bid playing canapé when you have 13 cards in the same suit?

You treat it as a 7-6 hand. It is just that both the 7 and the 6 are in the same suit.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-14, 08:40, said:

Which part of the ACBL definition does it fail on? Whether you or I or any sane person would call it natural is irrelevant here.

Canape bidding may be natural according to the definition, but you're still required to pre-alert it. The Alert Procedures says

Quote

if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.

[Zelandakh]

Which is the point that was being made Barry - it is possible to have bids that are both natural and conventional.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-14, 09:03, said:

Obviously that's wrong. You are forgetting canapé. You would never open the longest suit first if the canapé was absolute. In fact, with absolute canapé, the structure must be like this:

1♠ = 4+ spades with a longer second suit, or 7+ spades with 0-3 hearts, 0-2 diamonds, and 0-1 clubs

1♥ = same as 1♠

1♦ = 3+ diamonds with a longer second suit, or 6+ diamonds with 0-3M and 0-1 clubs

1♣ = 2+ clubs with a longer second suit, or 5+ clubs with 0-3M and 0-2 diamonds

Thus, with the hand with 10♠/3♣, the absolute canapé system actually requires a 1♣ opening. And,. that's natural.

Especially since it can only have only 19 hcp and therefore is too weak for a strong 2♣.

[johnu]

Cascade, on 2014-March-14, 12:08, said:

Especially since it can only have only 19 hcp and therefore is too weak for a strong 2♣.

LOL, another "fuzzy" concept in the convention chart which requires a "strong" hand" to open an artificial 2♣ (or 3 suiter with 10+ HCP). What's "strong"? For a strong 1♣, it's 15+ HCP to use artificial and conventional bids afterwards. That doesn't seem to be the case for 2♣ where some players seem to get away with opening 2♣ with some like 8 solid cards in a major and nothing else, etc.

[ArtK78]

johnu, on 2014-March-14, 13:37, said:

LOL, another "fuzzy" concept in the convention chart which requires a "strong" hand" to open an artificial 2♣ (or 3 suiter with 10+ HCP). What's "strong"? For a strong 1♣, it's 15+ HCP to use artificial and conventional bids afterwards. That doesn't seem to be the case for 2♣ where some players seem to get away with opening 2♣ with some like 8 solid cards in a major and nothing else, etc.

If you routinely open a strong 2♣ with that sort of hand, you have to include it in your description of your 2♣ opener. Otherwise, you will have problems.

[johnu]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-14, 15:11, said:

If you routinely open a strong 2♣ with that sort of hand, you have to include it in your description of your 2♣ opener. Otherwise, you will have problems.

The question remains, what is strong for a 2♣ opening bid? If you play a strong 1♣, you need 15+ HCP. Someone can correct me, but looking at the GCC, having a agreement to open 1♣ with something like

AKJxxxxxx
xx
x
x

would mean you are playing a non-GCC convention, and you aren't allowed to psych an artificial opening bid.

Is there any logic to allowing a 2♣ opener to open this hand when a 1♣ opener can't.

[straube]

johnu, on 2014-March-14, 16:21, said:

The question remains, what is strong for a 2♣ opening bid? If you play a strong 1♣, you need 15+ HCP. Someone can correct me, but looking at the GCC, having a agreement to open 1♣ with something like

AKJxxxxxx
xx
x
x

would mean you are playing a non-GCC convention, and you aren't allowed to psych an artificial opening bid.

Is there any logic to allowing a 2♣ opener to open this hand when a 1♣ opener can't.

One club or one diamond may be used as all-purpose opening bids as long as they promise 10 hcps. I think you couldn't legally open AKJxxxxxx xx x x with 1C not because it isn't strong but because it doesn't have 10 hcps.

Many folks choose a 15+ artificial club (or diamond or heart) opening because that satisfies the requirement for them to use conventional responses; with fewer than 15 hcps all that they would be allowed is a conventional and forcing 1D response.

At the 2-level they allow for "strength-showing" bids but don't specify 15 hcps. As a strong club player I've considered whether that's fair, but it is at the 2-level and folks do need to be able to force one way or the other when they have game or near game in their own hand.

[johnu]

straube, on 2014-March-14, 17:00, said:

At the 2-level they allow for "strength-showing" bids but don't specify 15 hcps. As a strong club player I've considered whether that's fair, but it is at the 2-level and folks do need to be able to force one way or the other when they have game or near game in their own hand.

I think most people would open with 4M or a namyats bid with 8+ tricks in their suit as in this example.

[straube]

johnu, on 2014-March-14, 17:34, said:

I think most people would open with 4M or a namyats bid with 8+ tricks in their suit as in this example.

I agree. I think we're just talking about what is legally possible or not possible.

[Zelandakh]

johnu, on 2014-March-14, 16:21, said:

The question remains, what is strong for a 2♣ opening bid?

As Ed is fond of pointing out, in the ACBL "strong" means whatever the pair using the term want it to mean.

[Cascade]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-15, 16:02, said:

As Ed is fond of pointing out, in the ACBL "strong" means whatever the pair using the term want it to mean.

Nevertheless as Art pointed out they still have a disclosure responsibility. I think "strong" or even "gameforce" etc will not be sufficient. As a minimum I would expect the players to make clear their bid may be based on very light high card strength with lots of playing strength. This is unexpected information compared with a more standard style where players preempt with such hands.

[steve2005]

To get back on topic

If I have 5♠ 4♣ 6 hcp with most if not all my hcp in your two long suit Vul at imps

I really don't want to bid 2♠ on this hand playing pre-empts with 4 card minors even with 6♠ would hesitate but do it.


This would be a much more useful convention if you are allowed to have a 5-card minor or even to specify that you must have a 5-card minor

5-5 in the blacks I would be much more willing to bid 2♠ at any vul