[dst463]

Hi!

One of the newer additions to the laws (I think from Bali 2013) is the following part from the brown sticker policy:

f) For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be
made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural
and non-forcing should be regarded as natural and not artificial..

I found that it actually makes everything way more confusing for me so I just wanted to clarify a few things:

1. What does "ostensibly natural" mean here? I've seen some regulations that consider 2+ clubs natural if it's specifically with 4-4-3-2 shape but here if it could also be with a singleton club, it seems that all 'clubs or balanced' systems should be treated as natural too?

2. I play fantunes so my 1C opening is clubs or balanced promising at least two but the difference is that it is forcing. Does the fact that we open some stronger balanced hands with 1C make it artificial?

3. If, hypothetically, a precision pair decided to switch the meanings of 1C and 1D and then decided to play 2D as showing diamonds so that the 1C would now become nebolous club promising at least a singleton club, would my precision nebulous diamond defense containing multi now be brown sticker, even though opponents are still playing essentially the same system?

Thank you

[barmar]

I think the fact that it's not forcing is a big part of what makes it "ostensibly natural". If partner is required to bid something even with a Yarborough with few clubs, in case you have the strong variant, then it isn't considered natural.

Put another way, if responder's initial action treats opener as if they have something in clubs, it's ostensibly natural.

BTW, system regulation is not in the laws, it's specific to each RA.

[pran]

dst463, on 2015-December-11, 13:17, said:

[...]
1. What does "ostensibly natural" mean here?
[...]

According to my dictionaries "ostensibly" is synonymous with "apparently"

[hrothgar]

pran, on 2015-December-11, 17:57, said:

According to my dictionaries "ostensibly" is synonymous with "apparently"

In this case, the word "ostensibly" should be read to mean "US teams can't handle convention interference over their short club openings, so they are bastardizing the rules to ban other team's methods"

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-11, 18:20, said:

In this case, the word "ostensibly" should be read to mean "US teams can't handle convention interference over their short club openings, so they are bastardizing the rules to ban other team's methods"

And what kind of bastardization is it when someone suggests a GCC regulation has anything to do with US teams competing internationally?

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2015-December-12, 00:25, said:

And what kind of bastardization is it when someone suggests a GCC regulation has anything to do with US teams competing internationally?

Let us count the ways in which your post is wrong

1. The quote in question comes from the WBF System Policy pdf not the ACBL GCC

Interestingly enough this is only in the PDF version. It does not show up on the WBF web page.
http://www.worldbrid...ystems/policy.a

2. The change in WBF rules dates back to an incident in 2007 when the Americans registered a compliant about the Dutch team's use of Holo-Bolo overcalls over a short club opening. The American's claimed that the Dutch had failed to document a Brown Sticker convention. This is all well described in the following thread

http://www.bridgebas...n-sticker-bids/

3. After this event, the ACBL made similar changes to its own regulations

[gnasher]

pran, on 2015-December-11, 17:57, said:

According to my dictionaries "ostensibly" is synonymous with "apparently"

They're not quite the same. "Apparently" describes what an observer sees. "Ostensibly" describes how something has been presented or intended. "Ostensibly" is somewhere between "apparently" and "purportedly".

[pran]

gnasher, on 2015-December-13, 02:53, said:

They're not quite the same. "Apparently" describes what an observer sees. "Ostensibly" describes how something has been presented or intended. "Ostensibly" is somewhere between "apparently" and "purportedly".

Thanks.
Always extending my vocabulary

[barmar]

My dictionary says "apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually".

Ostensibility comes up quite a bit in bridge bidding. For instance, in the auction 1♥ 1NT(forcing) 2♣, 2♣ ostensibly shows at least 3 clubs, but it may have to be bid with only 2 if opener has 4=5=2=2 shape.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-December-13, 15:43, said:

My dictionary says "apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually".

Ostensibility comes up quite a bit in bridge bidding. For instance, in the auction 1♥ 1NT(forcing) 2♣, 2♣ ostensibly shows at least 3 clubs, but it may have to be bid with only 2 if opener has 4=5=2=2 shape.

You seem to be suggesting a new bridge definition of the word, Barry - "usually". If it is the system bid with 5422 then it does not show 3+ clubs at all, whether that be apparently, purportedly or ostensibly!

[helene_t]

What a terrible law. "For the avoidance of doubt" should be sarcastic but I suppose sarcasm in law texts is rare.

I think I will suggest to p that we play a strong diamonds system with 1♣ being 1+ clubs, possible canape, 10-17 points.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-14, 03:40, said:

You seem to be suggesting a new bridge definition of the word, Barry - "usually". If it is the system bid with 5422 then it does not show 3+ clubs at all, whether that be apparently, purportedly or ostensibly!

The ACBL Alert Pamphlet says it in a different way:

Quote

4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor.

I think we've had discussions about what "expects" means here -- I say that it means that he bids as if opener is likely to have it, e.g. he raises with 5 clubs, or passes with 1 of the major and 4 clubs, just as he would if the opening bid had been 1♠ (which practically guarantees that a 2♣ rebid shows 3, unless you have special agreements otherwise).

This is essentially the same as what "ostensibly" means -- you normally expect that meaning, but sometimes the player has to lie, perhaps even systematically.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-December-14, 09:52, said:

I think we've had discussions about what "expects" means here -- I say that it means that he bids as if opener is likely to have it, e.g. he raises with 5 clubs, or passes with 1 of the major and 4 clubs, just as he would if the opening bid had been 1♠ (which practically guarantees that a 2♣ rebid shows 3, unless you have special agreements otherwise).

This is essentially the same as what "ostensibly" means -- you normally expect that meaning, but sometimes the player has to lie, perhaps even systematically.

I think you may be right about having discussed this in the past. By the same token, a Swedish Club 1♣ opening is "ostensibly a weak NT" and the system may well be designed such that Responder bids as if Opener has that hand until they cancel the message. I imagine you would consider such a description just as much misinformation as I would on hearing "3+ clubs" as the description for this 2♣ rebid. But I am fairly sure that an ACBL TD would not share my view either.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-14, 16:34, said:

I think you may be right about having discussed this in the past. By the same token, a Swedish Club 1♣ opening is "ostensibly a weak NT" and the system may well be designed such that Responder bids as if Opener has that hand until they cancel the message. I imagine you would consider such a description just as much misinformation as I would on hearing "3+ clubs" as the description for this 2♣ rebid. But I am fairly sure that an ACBL TD would not share my view either.

No Swedish Club player would bid 1♣-4♠ just because they expect to make 4 spades opposite a weak NT. Therefore, 1♣ is not "ostensibly a weak NT".

On the other hand, practicioners of Standard American might bid 1♣-1♥-2♥-4♥ just because they expect to make 4♥ opposite a minimum opener with 4 hearts. Hence, 2♥ is "ostensibly a 4-card raise".

[mycroft]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-12, 04:59, said:

3. After this event, the ACBL made similar changes to its own regulations

Oddly enough, it's not very similar. On the GCC, a bid at the one level is natural if it shows 4+ in a major, 3+ in a minor, or 1♣ with exactly 4=4=3=2. So I see no reason why I couldn't play (and in fact, in one partnership, *do* play) a weird conventional defence to the "clubs or balanced" 1♣ opener that was such an issue in 2007.

Of course, a lot of people are playing this in a "+ transfer responses to 1♣" which isn't GCC. I've heard several mentions of "it's okay in my club and nobody's objected" - and that's *fine* - it's one of the things clubs are for - as long as they know that "acceptable at the club" != "acceptable in a tournament" (which several players of my experience have been surprised at).

I will admit that "opponents playing something not legal in this game" is one of the things that I seriously SB about, even though I am usually happy to play against it, *were I allowed to play it myself* (whether or not I would). You want to play your cool toys? Join me in getting the restrictions loosened, don't just play them hoping not to be noticed (and yes - most don't know it's not legal here, because it's "okay at the club").

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2015-December-15, 11:54, said:

Oddly enough, it's not very similar. On the GCC, a bid at the one level is natural if it shows 4+ in a major, 3+ in a minor, or 1♣ with exactly 4=4=3=2. So I see no reason why I couldn't play (and in fact, in one partnership, *do* play) a weird conventional defence to the "clubs or balanced" 1♣ opener that was such an issue in 2007.

Exactly. It is clear to those who can read and do try to understand (such as yourself) that "Clubs or balanced" is not a 'natural' opening, while precisely 4=4=3=2 is the only 1c opening which has been declared natural by the GCC. We are, have been, and will be, allowed to use conventional defenses to artificial methods.

I understand Hrothgar and others want to be able to use their toys against the mama-papa short clubbers who will never be playing in international competition; but, they (we) can't and should just get over it. The real problem is when these mama-papas open 1c with two or fewer and other distributions. This is not a natural system, and is rarely disclosed so that we can counter it with appropriate methods.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2015-December-15, 12:36, said:

I understand Hrothgar and others want to be able to use their toys against the mama-papa short clubbers who will never be playing in international competition; but, they (we) can't and should just get over it.

I don't care what happens in ACBL play. It doesn't impact me in any serious manner.

I do object to ACBL and USBF officials working the refs because their teams are too lazy to prepare for real competition.

[jallerton]

dst463, on 2015-December-11, 13:17, said:

Hi!

One of the newer additions to the laws (I think from Bali 2013) is the following part from the brown sticker policy:

f) For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be
made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural
and non-forcing should be regarded as natural and not artificial..

I found that it actually makes everything way more confusing for me so I just wanted to clarify a few things:

I don't blame you for finding this confusing. This is a regulation used in certain WBF tournaments rather than a Law.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 include the following within the 'definitions' section.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

Artificial call – is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

It is hard to see how someone with a 4=4=4=1 shape would want to express willingness to play in clubs, so it the Law implies that a 1♣ opening on such a hand by agreement is artificial.

Does the WBF regulation over-ride the Law? Not in my opinion. Law 80B2 says:

Law 80B2 said:

2. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
.......
(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

So this "avoidance creation of doubt" regulation is ultra vires.

[mycroft]

Yes, agua, I don't think hrothgar is concerned with the LOLs of either gender who want to play majors 5, diamonds 4, and you can't raise clubs because "I could have had 2, partner". Frankly, I am - I wish we could play our anythings against this, just so that they would decide this is a stupid idea and play the much more sound standard. But since that'll never happen, and anyway, said LOLs would remove their entry fees from the game rather than learn to play it, I'm happy with the ACBL's ruling here.

It's the ones who play "clubs or balanced" - especially "with transfer responses", and "it's so easy to understand and defend against, it should obviously be GCC" but who also complain if anyone tries to play anything weird against it because "it's not conventional" and "oh, the best defence is just 'treat it as if it were normal' (with maybe 'pick one meaning for double of the transfer, and one for the 1-level cuebid, one of them shows the suit, one of them's takeout, doesn't matter'). Trust us." Maybe it is, maybe it ain't; what it *looks like* is "we want to play this cool new toy that has massive advantages for us, but it won't hold up to/it's too much work to deal with/... artificial defences, so let's make sure people don't play them".

Eat your cake and have it too, to use an appropriate aphorism. It's the high-level equivalent to "why do we have to play against all those weird systems?" - meaning "stuff I don't play, because what I play is useful and good and obvious."

Please note: if transfer responses to 1♣ "natural" becomes GCC, I'd probably switch (even giving up and submitting to the Strong NT, too). But I wouldn't complain when they brought out the weirdies (unless they play 'weird or natural, when she forgets'). That's the price I pay for artificiality.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2015-December-15, 19:23, said:

[rant about T-Walsh]

You can play anything against their transfer responses except that transfer responses are not GCC.

Which defenses you can play against their 1♣ opening does not depend on their response structure except that you can play anything against a 1♣ opening that is forcing.

Off-topic: why are standard methods "much sounder" than "1♣ is 3+ or specifically SSSS HHHH DDD CC" ? Probably standard works slightly better in contested auctions while the latter works better in inverted minors auctions, but in any case the difference must be trivial as the two methods are almost identical.

But my issue with this stupid new law is that while it is clear that 1♣=3+ is natural (old law), it is not at all clear what additional criteria a 1♣=1+ opening has to satisfy to be natural, since I don't believe that the intention is that a 1♣ opening on
♠AKJxxxxxxxxx
♥-
♦-
♣x
is natural.