[dickiegera]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-30, 06:17, said:

Andy's right — if you have an agreement, whether implicit or explicit, you have to disclose the agreement fully and accurately.

Does some know what RED CLUB is?

They open 2♥ and say they play RED CLUB and further explain that it shows Hearts 5+, 11-15 pts and some distribution

Same with 2♠ 11-15 pts 5+ spades and distributional.
I believe that this is their own creation since I can not any reference to it anywhere.

My big question is: If this is their creation are they allowed to psyche it???

Help

[blackshoe]

It does not matter whether it's their own creation, or what it's named. What matters is this, from the ACBL General Convention Chart:

Quote

Disallowed: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

If these bids are not conventional [or artificial - ER], it is permitted to psych them. What is "conventional", though? The GCC doesn't define the term, though it uses it. The GCC says

Quote

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.

By that definition, these bids are natural. The ACBL Alert regulation defines "convention" as

Quote

A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

This is essentially the definition that was in the 1997 Laws, and which is not in the current laws because, I believe, the lawmakers found it too confusing. The Bridge World defines "convention" as

Quote

an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.

By the Bridge World's definition, these bids are certainly conventional. By the Alert Chart definition they are probably conventional. If that is the case, then psyching them is not allowed. However, there is a bigger problem: when they have exactly five cards in the major, "some distribution" implies at least four cards in another suit, and such an opening bid is legal only if the second suit is known.

Quote

GCC, Opening Bids, Item 6: OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits.

Because of this, I would rule this is an illegal convention. So not only can they not psych it, they can't play it.

Addendum: I note that the GCC prohibition on certain psychs disallows psychs of "artificial or conventional calls". The Laws do define "artificial":

Quote

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…

Since these bids convey such other information, they are artificial, and again, not allowed (because the implied second suit is not known).

Addendum 2: I found a web site that apparently describes this convention, but it's in Norwegian.

[peachy]

 dickiegera, on 2011-May-01, 10:03, said:

Does some know what RED CLUB is?

They open 2♥ and say they play RED CLUB and further explain that it shows Hearts 5+, 11-15 pts and some distribution

Same with 2♠ 11-15 pts 5+ spades and distributional.
I believe that this is their own creation since I can not any reference to it anywhere.

My big question is: If this is their creation are they allowed to psyche it???

Help

Blackshoe explained it all and I agree - they are not allowed to play that convention at all if the event is GCC.

[barmar]

 Cascade, on 2011-April-30, 05:09, said:

This is only true if you do not have an implicit agreement.

In ACBL, such an agreement is not allowed by any of the convention charts.

Quote

DISALLOWED:
...
5. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show
fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

I'm not sure what the point of the parenthetical comment is -- by definition, a psyche isn't a partnership agreement.

And even if it were allowed, I think it would be necessary to alert it, due to the highly unusual and unexpected meaning of the bid.

[helene_t]

wow, if Blackshoe is right then you can't play a classical Precision 2♣ opening under GCC. And if one were to apply the Bridge World definition of conventional: "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.", then players who play anything nonstandard (4-card majors, for example) couldn't psyche those bids.

That can't be right. AWM's version sounds more likely to me.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-01, 10:46, said:

The Bridge World defines "convention" as

> an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.

Let's pretend that the particular definitions adopted by "The Bridge World" have some bearing to the question a hand...

From the looks of things, whether or not a bid is conventional depends on particular set of opponents that you play against.

As a practical example, suppose that I decide to playing down in Watertown this coming weekend.

Partner opens a strong NT.
RHO passes
I bid 2♥

My opponent's would ordinarily understand this to show 5+ Spades.
If, in fact, I used this bid to show 5+ Hearts - with or without an alert / announcement - it would catch people completely by surprise.

So I guess, using a 2♥ bid to show Spades is not conventional, while using it to show Hearts is...

Of course, if I were playing in the UK the converse would hold true

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-02, 11:15, said:

wow, if Blackshoe is right then you can't play a classical Precision 2♣ opening under GCC. And if one were to apply the Bridge World definition of conventional: "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation.", then players who play anything nonstandard (4-card majors, for example) couldn't psyche those bids.

That can't be right. AWM's version sounds more likely to me.

The ACBL's interpretation of its own regulations is not always rational.

[blackshoe]

Yes, the Bridge World definition of "convention" is flawed. What else is new?

[bluejak]

When you and you partner agree that an opening bid shows length in the suit bid and does not guarantee a second suit you will often have agreements - probably usually - as to the possibilities of various distributions. Such agreements do not make such a bid artificial or conventional. For example, when you open 1♦ many players play that it will only have three diamonds if it is four-four in the majors: that is not an artificial bid. For some reason the Precision 2♣ with its fairly precise requirements have always had people wondering whether it is natural or not: it is natural.

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-03, 07:54, said:

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

Why is it different?

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-03, 08:47, said:

Why is it different?

Because it guarantees a second suit.

[mycroft]

Because I am allowed to open a Precision 2C on 82 4 KT6 AKQT842. I am not allowed by agreement to open 82 KQT874 KT6 42 a Muiderberg 2H - partner's going to be *very disappointed in me* when she pulls to my "minor".

If my 2H call was "5+ hearts, 6-10. *If* he only has 5 hearts, he guarantees a 4-card minor", then it would be just as non-artificial as Precision 2C. But it isn't. it's "5+ hearts, 6-10. Guarantees a 4-card minor"

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-03, 08:47, said:

Why is it different?

Because it is no longer a natural bid showing a suit.

[blackshoe]

okay, fair enough.

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-02, 11:34, said:

So I guess, using a 2♥ bid to show Spades is not conventional, while using it to show Hearts is...

Of course, if I were playing in the UK the converse would hold true

Not really, everyone here play transfers.

[Cascade]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-03, 07:54, said:

When you and you partner agree that an opening bid shows length in the suit bid and does not guarantee a second suit you will often have agreements - probably usually - as to the possibilities of various distributions. Such agreements do not make such a bid artificial or conventional. For example, when you open 1♦ many players play that it will only have three diamonds if it is four-four in the majors: that is not an artificial bid. For some reason the Precision 2♣ with its fairly precise requirements have always had people wondering whether it is natural or not: it is natural.

However a Muiderberg opening which shows two suits, one of them known, is artificial. That is different.

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-03, 08:47, said:

Why is it different?

 bluejak, on 2011-May-03, 17:33, said:

Because it is no longer a natural bid showing a suit.

My understanding is that Muiderberg shows length in the suit bid - hearts or spades.

Muiderberg has additional constraints requiring a side suit.

The additional constraints for Precision 2♣ or even a standard 1♣ do not go as far as requiring a second suit but a second suit is certainly possible.

I do not understand why some additional constraints mean that the bid remains "natural" whereas other additional constraints mean that the bid becomes "conventional" or "artificial".

Are the rules written down somewhere so I can see where the boundary is.

To me:

"Five spades with a side minor"

and

"Five spades but not with four or more hearts"

are similar restrictions and it does not seem clear that one is artificial while the other is natural.

Indeed alter the second definition to

"Five spades but not with four or more hearts and not balanced"

and this is effectively identical to the first definition.

Even

"Five spades and not balanced" would effectively guarantee a second suit

but

"Six spades and not balanced (any 6322)" would not guarantee a second suit

The first of these two you seem to be arguing is "artificial" while the second is not.

I do not see that the boundary is that well defined.

[bluejak]

Lots of things are not well defined in bridge. Shame.

It is a normal interpretation around the world that a bid that shows two suits, one of them the bid suit, is not natural, while a bid that only shows one suit, the bid suit, is natural. You don't like it, please do one of two things:

• Go argue with the various natural and international authorities, or
  
• Explain in Changing Laws & Regulations, not here, why this interpretation is wrong and the authorities should change it.

Or both, of course.

[hrothgar]

 bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 07:03, said:

Lots of things are not well defined in bridge. Shame.

It is a normal interpretation around the world that a bid that shows two suits, one of them the bid suit, is not natural, while a bid that only shows one suit, the bid suit, is natural. You don't like it, please do one of two things:

I don't have any problem with this as a basic principle.

Any chance that you could comment on whether a bid that denies a specific holding is natural?
For example, suppose that I play a 2♦ opening that promises 6+ diamonds but denies 4 cards in either heart or spades.

Alternatively, I play a 2♠ opening that promises 5+ spades, but denies a 5332 shape...

[mjj29]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-12, 07:07, said:

I don't have any problem with this as a basic principle.

Any chance that you could comment on whether a bid that denies a specific holding is natural?
For example, suppose that I play a 2♦ opening that promises 6+ diamonds but denies 4 cards in either heart or spades.

Alternatively, I play a 2♠ opening that promises 5+ spades, but denies a 5332 shape...

All bids do that to some extent. Playing 5 card majors, opening 1S denies 9 cards in any other suit. Of course that's obvious. Slightly less obvious is that it denies any other suit being longer (unless it doesn't. In which case it's alertable). I think it depends on what it is denying and how common that is. I wouldn't alert a weak two if I never made one with a side 4 card major and I don't alert my 1S openings because it can never be a balanced hand (I alert them because they could be canapes with a minor, but I digress). I do alert responses to transfers because they deny 4 card support - but there's a specific regulation about that.

Remember, not all disclosure is via alerts, the system card should cover things like precise distribution constraints.

[hrothgar]

 mjj29, on 2011-May-12, 07:59, said:

All bids do that to some extent. Playing 5 card majors, opening 1S denies 9 cards in any other suit. Of course that's obvious. Slightly less obvious is that it denies any other suit being longer (unless it doesn't. In which case it's alertable). I think it depends on what it is denying and how common that is. I wouldn't alert a weak two if I never made one with a side 4 card major and I don't alert my 1S openings because it can never be a balanced hand (I alert them because they could be canapes with a minor, but I digress). I do alert responses to transfers because they deny 4 card support - but there's a specific regulation about that.

Thanks for the reply, however, I was making a (somewhat) different point

Consider a 2♠ opening that shows a set of hands with at exactly 5 spades and 4-5 cards in either clubs and diamonds.

There are different ways that I can define this bid.

Option 1:

My 2♠ opening promises 5 Spades
My 2♠ opening promises either (4-5 clubs) or 4-5 diamonds

Option 2:

My 2♠ opening promises 5 Spades
My 2♠ opening denies a balanced hand
My 2♠ opening denies 4 Hearts

I would argue that the decision to label the 2♠ opening as "natural" needs to depend on the set of hand shown by the opening and not the language used to describe the opening.

A regulatory system which labels the hand as "natural" if I describe the set of hands using option 2 but "not natural" if I describe the hands using option 1 is broken at a fundamental level. [You don't want to incentivize people to practice poor disclosure so they can evade the regulatory apparatus]

Therefore, I would argue that the definition of "natural" needs to depend both on "inclusion" and "exclusion".