[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2015-December-16, 03:26, said:

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.

That would appear to be a problem because it would need to be forcing to make sense as an opening bid. But you could presumably change it to ♠AKQJxxxxxxx ♥- ♦- ♣xx if the agreement was that partner is only allowed to pass with 12 clubs. That is not forcing, right?

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-16, 06:26, said:

That would appear to be a problem because it would need to be forcing to make sense as an opening bid. But you could presumably change it to ♠AKQJxxxxxxx ♥- ♦- ♣xx if the agreement was that partner is only allowed to pass with 12 clubs. That is not forcing, right?

The EBU covered a less ridiculous situation like this explicitly at one point.

Some people when you weren't allowed to play a weak only multi were playing it as weak or a balanced 35+ or similar, so the EBU ruled that the strong alternative had to be "of reasonable frequency".

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-December-16, 06:59, said:

The EBU covered a less ridiculous situation like this explicitly at one point.

Some people when you weren't allowed to play a weak only multi were playing it as weak or a balanced 35+ or similar, so the EBU ruled that the strong alternative had to be "of reasonable frequency".

Yes but they also ruled that holding something like ♦AKQxxxx in a strong 2 hand was of reasonable frequency, which quickly became the popular way of getting around the regulation.

[mycroft]

Helene: oh absolutely I can play anything. But just try to get a defence for it that isn't "we get all these advantages, and they're undefendable because the only thing that you should do is have a meaning for double and cuebid" :-). Of *course* they're not interested in working on good (can I be snarky and say "Mid-Chart defence database"-quality?) defences to this...

And as for the rant, that all (and the OP's quote of the WBF regulations) came out of the "whoa, whoa, you can't do that, our bid (which includes opening 4=3=4=2 12-counts and 4=2=5=2 18-counts 1♣) is totally natural, how dare you play your Polish Club defence?" discussion before Shanghai. I am occasionally cynical, and just assume that the people who say "there is no good defence (or, *you don't need a good defence*, maybe?) to this really amazing system" and those who objected to disruptive defences to this "really natural 1♣ bid" before, who are also pushing to have it moved to the GCC, might just try to convince the ACBL that "you can't play disruptive defences to our really natural 1♣ bid" when it does get approved for the GCC.

My comment about convincing the LNs not to play "short club" - well, "short club" may be a not-bad idea if played with a relevant system. But the way they play it, they'd be much better off bidding 4=4=3=2s as if they were 4=4=4=2s. Yes, I was being deliberately over-the-top about "education by confusion"; how much I actually mean it and how much is tongue not so much in cheek as busting through it is debatable :-).

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2015-December-16, 03:26, said:

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.

Neither do I. But I don't know to what "stupid new law" you're referring, since as far as I know there isn't one. There is a change, in the ACBL, to the General Convention Chart, a regulation, to the effect that an opening 1♣ bid which could, at a minimum be on only two clubs (i.e. exactly 4=4=3=2) is "natural". Any other 1♣ opening on two or fewer clubs is not natural.

[mgoetze]

You know mycroft, maybe you do know a bunch of people who hold simultaneously all the beliefs you describe, but your posts have all the makings of a good strawman argument.

I don't really care what's allowed in the ACBL but I certainly think transfers over 1♣ should be allowed everywhere. I don't mind opps playing whatever defense they like. For instance there is this pair that we play once a year that likes to play a defense including (1♣)-1♠ = 0-11 points, 2-4 spades, usually balanced, whenever they are allowed to play brown sticker defenses because the opening is considered artificial. Now the last time they did this against us I was a bit disappointed that we defended poorly and only got 1400 rather than 1700, but it still scored better than the nonvulnerable slam our way.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-December-16, 03:26, said:

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.

In the ACBL, opening 1♣ on 10=0=0=3 shape would be considered natural. But it would require a pre-alert because it's a canapé system.

[mycroft]

Oh absolutely it's a strawman. But if you look at the 2007 thread that was quoted here, and the 'I'd like an aggressive defence to a "clubs or balanced" 2+ 1♣" [edit: post I started a while ago] or the suggested defence in Senior's booklet on transfer responses, or anywhere else for that matter, you'll see how the strawman is clothed. And if you look at some of those people, and the righteous indignity they show because they have to spend all this time and memory creating a perfect defence to <convention they don't play>, you'll see why I have my suspicions.

[billw55]

I don't understand the problem. Why does it matter if we call it "natural" or not, as long as it is disclosed accurately? Couldn't we call it a macguffin or anything else we want?

[szgyula]

billw55, on 2015-December-18, 14:22, said:

I don't understand the problem. Why does it matter if we call it "natural" or not, as long as it is disclosed accurately? Couldn't we call it a macguffin or anything else we want?

If it is a "strong artificial" opening, you can play anything against it. If it is "natural", you may run into brown sticker regulations...

[barmar]

billw55, on 2015-December-18, 14:22, said:

I don't understand the problem. Why does it matter if we call it "natural" or not, as long as it is disclosed accurately? Couldn't we call it a macguffin or anything else we want?

In some jurisdictions, the system and disclosure regulations have dependencies on whether a call is natural or not.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-December-19, 14:46, said:

In some jurisdictions, the system and disclosure regulations have dependencies on whether a call is natural or not.

And then, hopefully, the regulations include precise definitions on which calls are natural and which are not.

[billw55]

Ah, system regulations. No wonder it is incomprehensible.

[PhilKing]

szgyula, on 2015-December-18, 15:26, said:

If it is a "strong artificial" opening, you can play anything against it. If it is "natural", you may run into brown sticker regulations...

Yep. This was the main result of the change.

You used to be able to play any defence to a short club. It was pretty common to play Multi Landy pre Bali, but now that is not allowed. I also used to play a 1♦ overcall as an overcall in either major and 1M as 3 or 4 cards with a longer minor. This used to wreak havoc against the overloaded club, but sadly it is no longer allowed.

[nige1]

Perhaps Vampyr is right that the ACBL tail is wagging the WBF dog, again. It seems wrong to ban previously legal counter-measures to conventions newly popular in America, while continuing to make it difficult or impossible to use conventions, long played in other countries (e.g. multi, strong pass)