[KingCovert]

I'd just like to call attention to a potential incorrect explanation of the 1♥ opening bid here.

Quote

b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4♠s, could be canape

This does not deny 5+♠. Canape openings will open the shorter suit of a two suited hand, and thus, do not deny a longer suit. This is pre-alertable (in the ACBL at least). However, the 1♥ opening bid is not alerted. It is natural, it shows at least 4-cards, it shows a willingness to play in the suit. The introduction of a SECOND suit, which is confirmed to be no shorter (and usually longer) than the first suit, that bid must be alerted.

Take the sequence: 1♥ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠. 1♥ shows 4+♥. Not alerted. 1NT is usually not-forcing (but still constructive) in Canape systems. 2♠ promises 5+ ♠ (in this sequence). This bid is alerted.

Due to the possibility of a 2♠ bid showing 5+♠, or a 2♣ bid showing 5+♣ (same for diamonds), the pre-alert is necessary to inform your opponents that the unbid suits may not break in a very friendly way, but more importantly, that the team playing Canape will almost certainly have little issue communicating this.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-November-25, 10:41, said:

Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why.

Well, you stated that a normal weak two bid is not natural, and then seemed to imply that a strong 2 opening was natural. I do not see why one is more natural than the other, but if I had to choose one I would say that the weak two was natural. You would be content to play in this contract, so it could not possibly be any more “natural”. Meanwhile, a strong 2 is normally forcing, and can possibly be 2-suited or semi-balanced, and so does not show the desire to play in, say, 2♥.

[sfi]

KingCovert, on 2019-November-25, 11:34, said:

I'd just like to call attention to a potential incorrect explanation of the 1♥ opening bid here.



This does not deny 5+♠.

No - the opening poster has described their system accurately. The 1H opening cannot have 4+ spades.

[KingCovert]

sfi, on 2019-November-25, 13:41, said:

No - the opening poster has described their system accurately. The 1H opening cannot have 4+ spades.

The statement was, "denies 4♠". It says nothing about 5+♠. Furthermore, he states "could be canape".

As someone who plays Canape rather proficiently, firstly, 1♥ openings shouldn't deny even 4♠. But, if that's their partnership agreement or understanding, that's what it is. However, it just would not be canape whatsoever to open 5♠ and 4♥ with 1♠. You may be right, and 1♥ may completely deny spades entirely, but then the statement "could be canape" is just incorrect.

This is why I'm calling attention to this, because this discussion is being had on an incorrect understanding somewhere.

[sfi]

The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor.

Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation.

[KingCovert]

sfi, on 2019-November-25, 14:29, said:

The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor.

Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation.

Alright, if that's the agreement then that would seem clearly alertable. Strange agreement though, can't imagine that it's effective. That's besides the point though.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2019-November-25, 14:29, said:

The full agreement is 11-15 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades. All hands in this range get opened 1H, so it can be canapé with a longer minor.

Having played the system for a few years, my experience was that nobody got confused by the original shape explanation.

What is your relationship with the original poster? If you're not him or his partner, how do you know what their agreement is?

Your "full agreement" is perfectly understandable, and says nothing about "canapé". Your second statement clarifies the canapé business. But that's your system. How do you know it's the OP's system too?

[pilun]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-25, 15:13, said:

What is your relationship with the original poster? If you're not him or his partner, how do you know what their agreement is?

Your "full agreement" is perfectly understandable, and says nothing about "canapé". Your second statement clarifies the canapé business. But that's your system. How do you know it's the OP's system too?

We are not in a relationship ....

Played in the same team for a number of years, all pairs playing the same method.

[pilun]

pran, on 2019-November-25, 02:48, said:

Sure it is - it promises something about spades (by denying 4+ spades) in addition to showing hearts.

Okay that's fine.

Need then to consider


c) A traditional weak two, which contains this additional information:

- The suit is "good", no 4 cards in the other major, no void, not 6-5.

Looks like the lawmakers included the phrase "not being information taken for granted by players generally" to make sure that bids like traditional weak twos are not artificial. Okay.


d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order.

Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial?

Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."?

I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?

[pran]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 16:23, said:

Okay that's fine.

Need then to consider

.........
d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order.

Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial?

Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."?

I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?

Does it show "willingless to play in the denomination named"?

i.e. Are you happy declaring a 1♣ contract with the 4-4-3-2 distribution and say 12HCP opposite your partner holding 3-3-3-4 distribution and 5 or less HCP?

I believe most regulations today explicitly define a natural bid as a bid showing at least 3 cards of the denomination named

[KingCovert]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 16:23, said:

d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order.

Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial?

Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."?

I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?

Quote

does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named

Of course it does. It contains the information that "I may have 2 clubs, and if I have 2 clubs, I have exactly 4432 shape". Hence, the announce.

[pilun]

KingCovert, on 2019-November-25, 16:58, said:

Of course it does. It contains the information that "I may have 2 clubs, and if I have 2 clubs, I have exactly 4432 shape". Hence, the announce.

Well, that creates a different issue.
Let's say we play transfers over 1♣ so agree to open it on all 12-14 balanced. (Thus 1♦ opening is unbalanced)

So 1♣ on two could be 4-4-3-2, 4-3-4-2, 3-4-4-2, 3-3-5-2, maybe even 5-3-3-2.

Basically then it just shows the inability to make a different opening.
That characterises every single natural opening!
If I open 1♥ and I have six of them, I deny six spades. Doh!

Repeat, it's NOT the announcement or alert issue, rather the legal status of these calls, according to Law.

Pran, the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant.

It would be good if Regs said "Announce (or alert) a 1♣ opening that could be a doubleton because it is artificial."
That's if it is indeed artificial. If it isn't, need some other justification.

[Vampyr]

If you are not in the ACBL, don’t worry about it. In sensible jurisdictions opening in your shortest suit is artificial.

[KingCovert]

I'll refrain from stating the correct course of action with such an agreement, I'm not a qualified director. I only got involved in the thread due to the mention of Canape...

But, it would seem to me that such an agreement is described as 12-14 balanced, and says absolutely nothing in particular about clubs, and has clear and obvious implications about the other suits.

You're not willing to play clubs unless partner has a stack, and transfer responses give your partner a drop dead sequence with any hand, even 0 HCP.

It feels like you're being intentionally daft with this example, this is obviously not natural.

[PeterAlan]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 17:58, said:

Repeat, it's NOT the announcement or alert issue, rather the legal status of these calls, according to Law.

I've been struggling to understand the "legal status" that you keep referring to.

Basically, the only "illegal" calls under the Laws themselves are:

• insufficient bids
  
• bids of more than 7
  
• inadmissible doubles or redoubles
  
• calls by a player required by law to Pass
  
• calls out of rotation, or
  
• calls after the last Pass of the auction.

(This is off the top of my head; there may be some other detailed cases. Some otherwise illegal calls can become legal by being accepted. There are also the restrictions on partnership understandings in Laws 40A3&4.)

Subject to what follows, any call that doesn't fall foul of such prohibitions is "legal", as are all the calls you cite in your OP and subsequently.

We then have Laws 40B1&2 regarding "special partnership understandings". Without going into all the detail that's there, in all cases it's ultimately the Regulating Authority that determines what is and is not a special partnership understanding, and what restrictions, including possible prohibition (which presumably is what you would regard as "illegality"), and alerting / announcing rules, apply to them. Note in particular that whilst the default is that an "artificial" call is a special partnership understanding the RA is empowered to determine otherwise. Any call / meaning combination that the RA does not determine (and regulate) as a special partnership understanding remains legal, whether artificial or not and whether or not "readily understood etc".

Thus, the legality of the calls you mention, and for that matter any other such specific call / meaning combination, is completely determined by the relevant Regulating Authority's regulations, and not by some other provision within the Laws. Your assertion that "the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant" is totally false; they are in fact the only things that are relevant.

[pilun]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-25, 19:51, said:

I've been struggling to understand the "legal status" that you keep referring to.

Basically, the only "illegal" calls under the Laws themselves are:

• insufficient bids
  
• bids of more than 7
  
• inadmissible doubles or redoubles
  
• calls by a player required by law to Pass
  
• calls out of rotation, or
  
• calls after the last Pass of the auction.

(This is off the top of my head; there may be some other detailed cases. Some otherwise illegal calls can become legal by being accepted. There are also the restrictions on partnership understandings in Laws 40A3&4.)

Subject to what follows, any call that doesn't fall foul of such prohibitions is "legal", as are all the calls you cite in your OP and subsequently.

We then have Laws 40B1&2 regarding "special partnership understandings". Without going into all the detail that's there, in all cases it's ultimately the Regulating Authority that determines what is and is not a special partnership understanding, and what restrictions, including possible prohibition (which presumably is what you would regard as "illegality"), and alerting / announcing rules, apply to them. Note in particular that whilst the default is that an "artificial" call is a special partnership understanding the RA is empowered to determine otherwise. Any call / meaning combination that the RA does not determine (and regulate) as a special partnership understanding remains legal, whether artificial or not and whether or not "readily understood etc".

Thus, the legality of the calls you mention, and for that matter any other such specific call / meaning combination, is completely determined by the relevant Regulating Authority's regulations, and not by some other provision within the Laws. Your assertion that "the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant" is totally false; they are in fact the only things that are relevant.

Maybe bad choice of words. By "legal status" I simply meant the status of such bids under the Laws, whether artificial or natural. Not whether they are allowed!

[pilun]

KingCovert, on 2019-November-25, 19:19, said:

I'll refrain from stating the correct course of action with such an agreement, I'm not a qualified director. I only got involved in the thread due to the mention of Canape...

But, it would seem to me that such an agreement is described as 12-14 balanced, and says absolutely nothing in particular about clubs, and has clear and obvious implications about the other suits.

You're not willing to play clubs unless partner has a stack, and transfer responses give your partner a drop dead sequence with any hand, even 0 HCP.

It feels like you're being intentionally daft with this example, this is obviously not natural.

Okay, I will make it simpler. If you play Better Minor, is the 1♦ opening artificial by the Laws?
"If 3, then 4-4-3-2 precisely" seems like additional information, No?

Or the modern Acol style where 1♥ can only be four if 4-4-3-2 or 4-4-2-3, 15+.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 19:19, said:

If you are not in the ACBL, don't worry about it. In sensible jurisdictions opening in your shortest suit is artificial.

Unfortunately this is not as true as it used to be. Both the WBF and EBL System Policy now include the following:

2.3.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." - http://www.worldbrid...stemsPolicy.pdf


2.4.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." - http://www.eurobridg...cy-Jan-2020.pdf

Which covers many of the most important tournaments and NBOs who follow these regulations.

[sanst]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 16:23, said:

Okay that's fine.

Need then to consider


c) A traditional weak two, which contains this additional information:

- The suit is "good", no 4 cards in the other major, no void, not 6-5.

Looks like the lawmakers included the phrase "not being information taken for granted by players generally" to make sure that bids like traditional weak twos are not artificial. Okay.


d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order.

Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial?

Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."?

I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?

Sorry, biut I think you’re splitting hairs. What is the importance of a call being artificial or not? Some artificial bids are in most jurisdictions not alertable, like take out doubles, some natural calls might be alertable like a weak two when most contestants are playing strong twos (you’ll find these in Holland at some clubs with an elderly membership).

[pran]

pilun, on 2019-November-25, 17:58, said:

.........
Pran, the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant.

It would be good if Regs said "Announce (or alert) a 1♣ opening that could be a doubleton because it is artificial."
That's if it is indeed artificial. If it isn't, need some other justification.

In Norway any opening bid (except 1♥ and 1♠) below 2NT shall be announced regardless of what information it conveys.
I find that very sensible with today's mixture of conventions.