[Vampyr]

Coelacanth, on 2012-January-26, 15:36, said:

The only change that came into effect on 1 January is that on the GCC it is no longer legal to play an artificial defense over the 4432 short club. In other words, a non-forcing 1♣ opener that may be as short as two cards is explicitly defined as natural for the purpose of which defenses are permitted.

This regulation is wrong in so many ways. And it worries me because even though it doesn't affect me personally, where the ACBL go the world tends to follow. See, eg, "could be short".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-26, 18:38, said:

This regulation is wrong in so many ways. And it worries me because even though it doesn't affect me personally, where the ACBL go the world tends to follow. See, eg, "could be short".

Actually the regulation ---the scope of which is accurately stated by Coelacanth --- is just fine. It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

The players who still use this very specific 4-4-3-2 "short club" dwindle in number as they progress in skill. It is not a big deal with extended ramifications; it might be a mild annoyance to the even smaller group of pairs who had jumped on the opportunity to confound and confuse the little old ladies who play short club.

Experienced pairs who have other uses for the short (perhaps shorter than 2) club, are still subject to Mid Chart defenses.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-26, 19:07, said:

It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

Humpty Dumpty would like this definition of "natural". What players consider does not have to be enshrined in regulation if it is in fact wrong; this is another example of the players' tail wagging the ACBL regulatory dog.

[blackshoe]

Wouldn't be the first time the ACBL has imposed a "Humpty Dumpty" definition. See, for example, "strong".

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-26, 19:07, said:

The players who still use this very specific 4-4-3-2 "short club" dwindle in number as they progress in skill.

Does the regulation not cover those who open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-26, 19:19, said:

Humpty Dumpty would like this definition of "natural". What players consider does not have to be enshrined in regulation if it is in fact wrong; this is another example of the players' tail wagging the ACBL regulatory dog.

Isn't a good thing that the people who administer bridge are responsive to the wishes of the members?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-January-27, 03:40, said:

Isn't a good thing that the people who administer bridge are responsive to the wishes of the members?

Yes, in general; but as I mentioned I worry that the ACBL will impose its will on others (is there anyone outside of the US who thinks that saying "having none" is a good idea or even that it is not cheating?)

Leaving that issue aside, the ACBL could have achieved their intention in some other way than by calling an opening in one's shortest suit "natural"; there seems no good reason to distort the meaning of that word. The fact that a method is popular does not mean that it is natural. Does it mean that it should be protected? I guess, but where does it end? The ACBL are already pretty far removed from the rest of the world where system regulations are concerned; it would be a shame if two very different, mutually incompatible, forms of the game were to develop.

[aguahombre]

Humpty Dumpty meets Chicken Little.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-27, 04:30, said:

(is there anyone outside of the US who thinks that saying "having none" is a good idea or even that it is not cheating?)

No, of course it's not cheating. It's explicitly permitted by the rules.

As for whether it's a good idea to allow it, I think it has both advantages and disadvantages. It reduces the number of established revokes, which means that a higher proportion of results are bridge results rather than absurd artefacts of the rules. Against that, it can create UI problems, though in my experience this is uncommon.

[Coelacanth]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-26, 17:10, said:

What I said was that "could be as short as two", which is what Flader said you should announce, is not in accordance with the regulation, which says the proper announcement is "may be short". This has nothing much to do with the change to the GCC. As for the 4=4=4=1 1♣ opening, if it is systemically not forcing, it requires the same announcement as the 4=4=3=2 hand: "may be short". Only if it is systemically forcing is "alert" correct.

Again, I think the distinction between "could be as short as two" and "may be short" is not particularly meaningful and is more likely down to careless editing of the notice in the Bulletin than anything else.

I have always been told that a non-forcing, ostensibly natural 1♣ or 1♦ call that may be a singleton (or void!) is an alert, not an announcement. On checking the Alert Chart this is not made explicit, so perhaps I am mistaken. I will ask Mr. Flader for a clarification when I see him tomorrow.

[Coelacanth]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-27, 04:30, said:

Leaving that issue aside, the ACBL could have achieved their intention in some other way than by calling an opening in one's shortest suit "natural"; there seems no good reason to distort the meaning of that word. The fact that a method is popular does not mean that it is natural.

It is non-forcing and is, in fact, an offer to play the contract of 1♣. I don't think this is a massive distortion of the word natural.

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

I'll grant you that 1♣-All Pass is a very infrequent auction. (In fact, it's so rare that I always ask for a review of the bidding when I am on lead against it. ) Infrequent is not the same as impossible, however, and a 1♣ bid which shows the willingness to declare 1♣ seems "natural" enough to me.

[blackshoe]

Coelacanth, on 2012-January-27, 09:25, said:

I have always been told that a non-forcing, ostensibly natural 1♣ or 1♦ call that may be a singleton (or void!) is an alert, not an announcement. On checking the Alert Chart this is not made explicit, so perhaps I am mistaken. I will ask Mr. Flader for a clarification when I see him tomorrow.

Or you could read the alert procedure. IAC, it'll be interesting to hear what he says.

Coelacanth, on 2012-January-27, 09:42, said:

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

IIRC, the someone, or one someone, was George Rosenkranz, and he reported the result in one or two of his "Romex" books. I don't have them handy, though, and I don't remember the exact figures either.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 11:51, said:

Or you could read the alert procedure. IAC, it'll be interesting to hear what he says.

And while it's not definitive, you could also notice that the blue checkbox on the ACBL CC is labeled "0-2". Blue means announceable.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-January-27, 13:45, said:

And while it's not definitive, you could also notice that the blue checkbox on the ACBL CC is labeled "0-2". Blue means announceable.

Yep.

[mgoetze]

Coelacanth, on 2012-January-27, 09:42, said:

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

Of course, there are other methods where 1♣ shows 2+. For instance, my Transfer Walsh 1♣ shows (a) 11-13 balanced (excl. 5c majors, incl. 3352), (b) 17-19 balanced (dito), © 4414/4144/1444, (d) unbalanced with clubs as longest suit. This opening shows, on average, 3.75 clubs. (By contrast, the 1♦ opening shows 5.53 diamonds, the 1♥ opening 5.41 hearts and the 1♠ opening 5.02 spades.)

[blackshoe]

Was me, I'd find those fractional cards too difficult to hold on to. I'd be continually dropping them on the floor.

[mycroft]

Ah, but that's different, mgoetze. According to the ACBL, 1♣ "clubs or balanced", non-forcing, is *not* natural. It's only the 1♣ "3+ or 4=4=3=2" that is natural.

And, of course, there's no way to determine the difference from the "could be short" announcement.

Enjoy.

[Coelacanth]

OK, I did check with Mike Flader, and I stand corrected.

As long as it is non-forcing, an opening of 1m which can be shorter than 3 cards is an Announcement, not an Alert. Obviously if it is forcing or carries other unexpected distributional information it's an Alert.

He also clarified that the (new) prohibition of artificial defenses applies only to the 4432 case. If, by agreement, your 1m opening can be a singleton or void, the opponents may play anything they like against it.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-26, 19:07, said:

Actually the regulation ---the scope of which is accurately stated by Coelacanth --- is just fine. It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

Players who play artificial agreements should expect opponents to defend against them robustly. Opening a doubleton is an artificial agreement. The fact that many pairs do so does not affect this.



I did write several other replies correcting Coelacanth's misapprehensions but he has sneakily corrected them himself in his last post! According to the ACBL Alert Procedures:

Quote

ANNOUNCEMENTS

4. After a non-forcing opening 1♣ or 1♦ for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened.

After the opening bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."

Whether the new rule that makes a 4=4=3=2 non-forcing doubleton opening, if that specific shape is the only shape where a doubleton is opened, a natural opening is sensible or not [I think not] is not really relevant for this sort of forum. But the difficulty is that if you play different defences to natural and artificial openings, and allowing for the lack of care of ACBL players in filling in SCs and explaining methods, how do you find out whether they play a natural "May be short" opening or an artificial "May be short" opening?

[Coelacanth]

bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 09:07, said:

But the difficulty is that if you play different defences to natural and artificial openings, and allowing for the lack of care of ACBL players in filling in SCs and explaining methods, how do you find out whether they play a natural "May be short" opening or an artificial "May be short" opening?

This is really the heart of the problem. Absent a pre-alert (which would not be required in any case), players who play such dual defensive methods are put into the position of having to ask a lot of questions and providing partner with UI.

I think the practical effect of the new regulation will be that nobody will play such methods anymore. Any artificial defense will be deployed only against a purely artificial 1♣ opener.