[sanst]

nige1, on 2016-September-02, 20:10, said:

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

What exactly is "Standard Acol"? The term Acol is used to describe all kinds of natural systems. In the system we used to teach in Holland, which also was called Acol, you need 10+ HCP to response at the 2-level and a reverse response is GF. To me, the auction looks completely in accordance with the hand and I wouldn't dream of alerting. It's quite different if it went 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦. That would show a hand with 5♠ and 4+♦. It's also different if Walsh or Montreal relays are part of your system, but then alerting is necessary.

[nige1]

I am surprised by the answer, but we seem to have arrived at a useful conclusion.. We now have general consensus, backed by national directors, on what a player of "standard" Acol is obliged to disclose when a puzzled opponent asks about a common natural auction in national competition.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2016-September-03, 01:50, said:

So how would you have bid the given hand if we took away two jacks from it? Presumably you too would have responded 1S? And would you have passed 1NT?

Yes (unless we had agreed an appropriate convention e.g. 2-way check-back).

[helene_t]

sanst, on 2016-September-03, 15:41, said:

I wouldn't dream of alerting.

No but if asked about the meaning of 2d would you just say "natural" or would you be more specific?

Fwiw this exact auction once cames up in a speelkennistest which suggests that it is officially considered gbk in the Netherlands.

[Zelandakh]

If 2♦ is expected to be weak with 5+ diamonds then I would think "to play" would be a better description than "natural". If it has not been discussed then "natural" seems perfectly reasonable under the usual "all undiscussed bids are natural" rule. After all a pick-up pair would have the same chance of misunderstanding what "natural" means here as an opponent. The difficult case is a regular pair that have that same "natural" agreement but know precisely what that means to them and do not disclose it. I am not sure we have enough evidence to know if that was the case here but I think such pairs should disclose the specific agreement rather than use a term that is easy to misinterpret. In essence this is no different from using a convention name and having that lead to a misunderstanding.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, a single word is not an adequate description of partnership understanding. If the understanding is "weak with 5+ diamonds" say so, don't obfuscate with "natural".

[Cyberyeti]

Firstly - do we alert the 1♠ response as "possible canape, may have a longer minor if too weak for 2m" - no, so it's GBK that this hand type is a possibility.

I think for most people this is what 2♦ shows, but often because 2♣ is one way checkback and 2♦ denies invitational values, it has never occurred to me to alert this.

[steve2005]

wank, on 2016-August-30, 13:34, said:

i suspect the opps had no idea what you're talking about and would have no idea which suit was supposed to be longer if you asked.

your bad result was down to your partner's awful lead. that's all.

Most leads result in +2, there are some leads +3 but nothing better, so wasn't partner's bad lead.
There is no "damage"

[Jinksy]

Is there a case for just eliminating the description 'natural' from acceptable responses to queries about specific bids? I've lost count of the amount of times it's haunted me, usually when LOLs describe something (even carding!) in just that one word, and then become immediately defensive when you press for what it means.

[blackshoe]

I suspect, when people become defensive in these situations, that it's because they don't know what it means either. Too bad; they still have to explain it.

[StevenG]

"It's a card he/she doesn't want"

[Jinksy]

Not necessarily - often I've had people who describe carding as 'natural' mean 'standard attitude' (or occasionally other!).