[blackshoe]

I was just looking at the latest OB, and I noticed this definition of "natural":

Quote

A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings [is natural]; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a singleton by agreement.

Romex uses a natural 2NT opening, in that it "shows a preparedness to play in no trumps" and is balanced (5332, 4432, 4333, may include any five card suit, rarely may include a singleton ace or king). However, it also shows 25-26 HCP and 9 controls (and the point range may be as low as 24 with 9 or more controls, or as high as 27 with 9 or fewer controls). Because it shows game values, it is forcing to game. Does this latter provision mean that in the EBU this opening bid is considered artificial (which is defined as "not natural")?

It doesn't really matter to me, since I don't play there any more, it just seems odd that an ostensibly natural bid should be considered artificial just because it's forcing.

Additional question: at what level is this opening allowed? Looks to me like Level 2 ("Any strong meaning(s)").

[lalldonn]

For a more common example, is that saying 1♣ p 2NT is not natural if it's forcing to game? How goofy lol.

[gnasher]

You missed out a key sentence: "The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:" That is, the rule you quote defines the word "natural" solely for the purposes of the alerting rules. The authors of the Orange Book could have chosen any word for the category of bid that they were trying to define. They chose "natural" as a reasonable, albeit imperfect, approximation.

If you prefer, you can substitute the word "banana" for "natural" throughout section 5 of the Orange Book. For example:

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not banana; or
(b) it is banana but has a potentially unexpected meaning.
...
The following are considered ‘banana’ for alerting purposes:
...
(b) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly banana no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.
...
Because they are not banana, players must alert:
(a) An opening bid of one of a suit in which opener may hold fewer than three cards.
...

Would that make you happier?

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2012-July-31, 15:24, said:

For a more common example, is that saying 1♣ p 2NT is not natural if it's forcing to game? How goofy lol.

No, it's saying that for alerting purposes 1♣ p 2NT(F) falls into a different category from 1♣ p 2NT(NF).

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

You missed out a key sentence: "The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:" That is, the rule you quote defines the word "natural" solely for the purposes of the alerting rules. The authors of the Orange Book could have chosen any word for the category of bid that they were trying to define. They chose "natural" as a reasonable, albeit imperfect, approximation.

Fair enough.

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

Would that make you happier?

My happiness is not at issue here. And the whole "banana" business is more than a little insulting.

[stevenagy]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

Would that make you happier?

It sure made me smile just now.

[gnasher]

The ACBL's approach folllows the same pattern: they define the term "natural" solely in order to categorise bids for alerting, even though the definition wouldn't make sense in other contexts. For example, in a different context it would be illogical to say that a 3-card 1♦ opening is natural but a 5-card 3♦ opening is not.

[Zelandakh]

It sounds like 5NT in the auction 1NT - 5NT is alertable too. I would be willing to bet a coke that practically noone knows this. It is an interesting thought experiement to ponder what the non-alertable meaning might be.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-01, 07:20, said:

It sounds like 5NT in the auction 1NT - 5NT is alertable too. I would be willing to bet a coke that practically noone knows this. It is an interesting thought experiement to ponder what the non-alertable meaning might be.

If you are talking about England like OP, then in England it is not alertable regardless of its meaning, and everyone knows this. Because the basic rule "don't alert anything above 3NT" is easy to understand and well known, even though actually it is a bit more complicated than that, and the exceptions are less well known.

[Zelandakh]

You are right, sorry. I thought that responses were also alertable but either the rules changed or I have gotten mixed up with ACBL or DBV rules, or something. The exceptions listed in the Orange Book seem pretty clear: artificial opening bids; lead-directing passes; and lead-directing doubles and redoubles suggesting a lead in a suit other than the one bid.

Having now read some more, I can think of one common case which creates a bit of confusion. After 1X - 1Y, it would not be uncommon to play a 2NT rebid as 18-19. Say we play very traditionally/conservatively, strictly a decent 6 points to respond; now 2NT is functionally forcing to game providing partner has their bid so it ssounds like it would be alertable. But if we systemically respond on weaker hands then now the exact same meaning for 2NT is non-alertable. Have I read that right this time? It surely is not intentional.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-01, 07:53, said:

Having now read some more, I can think of one common case which creates a bit of confusion. After 1X - 1Y, it would not be uncommon to play a 2NT rebid as 18-19. Say we play very traditionally/conservatively, strictly a decent 6 points to respond; now 2NT is functionally forcing to game providing partner has their bid so it ssounds like it would be alertable. But if we systemically respond on weaker hands then now the exact same meaning for 2NT is non-alertable. Have I read that right this time? It surely is not intentional.

Seems reasonable to me that 2N here should be alertable if it is forcing, and not alertable if it is non-forcing, regardless of exactly what aspects of our agreements lead to it being F in one case and not in the other.

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-31, 19:15, said:

My happiness is not at issue here. And the whole "banana" business is more than a little insulting.

Really? Why? It cleared up the whole thing for me.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-01, 07:20, said:

It sounds like 5NT in the auction 1NT - 5NT is alertable too. I would be willing to bet a coke that practically noone knows this. It is an interesting thought experiement to ponder what the non-alertable meaning might be.

Funnily enough, I know a number of poor players who think it means bid 6NT with a maximum, pass with a minimum.

Why do they not bid 4NT? Because 4NT is Blackwood, of course.

[Zelandakh]

I thought all poor players played Gerber! Surely 4NT there is RKCB...

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2012-July-31, 16:23, said:

You missed out a key sentence: "The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:" That is, the rule you quote defines the word "natural" solely for the purposes of the alerting rules. The authors of the Orange Book could have chosen any word for the category of bid that they were trying to define. They chose "natural" as a reasonable, albeit imperfect, approximation.

If you prefer, you can substitute the word "banana" for "natural" throughout section 5 of the Orange Book. For example:

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not banana; or
(b) it is banana but has a potentially unexpected meaning.
...
The following are considered ‘banana’ for alerting purposes:
...
(b) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly banana no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.
...
Because they are not banana, players must alert:
(a) An opening bid of one of a suit in which opener may hold fewer than three cards.
...

Would that make you happier?

No, because it would lay us open to the accusation that our alerting regulations are simply bananas.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2012-August-01, 15:57, said:

No, because it would lay us open to the accusation that our alerting regulations are simply bananas.

ROFL!

[Jeremy69A]

Oranges would be a better choice of fruit IMO.