[aguahombre]

 mikestar13, on 2011-November-22, 23:06, said:

By the way, if I were making the rules, the "any defense allowed" rule would not apply to 1♣/1♦ which are natural (4+ cards IMHO) OR balanced.

 Free, on 2011-November-23, 04:58, said:

Then glad you're not making the rules

This exchange is odd, IMO.
Mike from ACBL would like the "any defense rule" not to apply to natural openings. It doesn't. Mid Chart defenses are allowed against artificial openings in GCC events. As of January, what most of us understand to be a natural system will have its 1C opening defined as natural, since there is only one instance of many where 1C might have only 2 cards in the suit.

This change of characterization was deemed necessary, apparently, because a very few pairs found a loophole to allow Mid Chart defenses against short club in GCC events. If we can live with not being able to use CRASH against 1NT in GCC, I suppose others can live with the short club thing. It really isn't a big deal.

[Zelandakh]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-23, 07:00, said:

Mike from ACBL would like the "any defense rule" not to apply to natural openings. It doesn't. Mid Chart defenses are allowed against artificial openings in GCC events. As of January, what most of us understand to be a natural system will have its 1C opening defined as natural, since there is only one instance of many where 1C might have only 2 cards in the suit.

What Mike is suggesting (I believe) is that a 1D opening promising 4+ diamonds or a balanced 11-13 is no more artificial than a 1C opening promising 4+ clubs or 12-14 balanced, which in turn is no more artificial than a 1C opening promising 4+ clubs or 43(33)/4432 and 12-14/18-19 balanced. Free presumably either disagrees with this assertion, prefers to be able to play artificial defences to these openings, or perhaps prefers that others play artificial defences to these openings. What someone defines as "natural" is highly subjective and I daresay that you, me, Free and Mike would all have slightly different definitions if pushed to it. I do find it difficult to defend any position which specifically says that opening your shortest suit is "natural".

[Free]

Openings based on distribution only are usually natural (unless you bid a suit promissing another, like transfer openings). Showing a suit OR some balanced range is unnatural to me, because you open a minor based on HCP, not based on the minor suits you're holding. For example, the exact same distribution will open 1♣ with 12-14HCP but 1♦ with 15-17HCP. How can you call this natural? Similar, with a 3=3=5=2 you can open 1♣, with a 3=3=2=5 you can open 1♦, in both cases your shortest suit. I don't see anything that can be called "natural" if you only promisse 2+ cards in a suit.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-23, 07:00, said:

This change of characterization was deemed necessary, apparently, because a very few pairs found a loophole to allow Mid Chart defenses against short club in GCC events. If we can live with not being able to use CRASH against 1NT in GCC, I suppose others can live with the short club thing. It really isn't a big deal.

If I had to hazard a guess, I suspect that the change had more to do with arguments regarding Brown Sticker Conventions in international competition than anything that happened in the ACBL...

[mycroft]

I'm willing to protect Mr. and Mrs. LN who play "majors 5, diamonds 4" and who panic about raising partner with "only 5" because "I could have 2, you know". I'm not terribly *happy* about it, but I'm willing to protect them.

I'm not willing to protect those smart people who figure out that it's better to overload 1♣ with lots of non-club hands because they can use this fancy conventional system to resolve it all, and they can pick off the opponents' club suit - *and their opponents have to bid naturally*.

But if I have to protect them, I expect my equivalent Precision 1♦ to be protected.

I really hope Seattle (where there's a BoD motion on this topic) clarifies this completely so that we (finally) have a clear, specific, and official resolution of a perennial problem.

[Cascade]

 mikestar13, on 2011-November-22, 23:06, said:

By the way, if I were making the rules, the "any defense allowed" rule would not apply to 1♣/1♦ which are natural (4+ cards IMHO) OR balanced.

Why is there any attitude to protect these pairs?

These methods make it difficult for the opponents. The reality is most pairs overlook the difficulties. The most important difficulty is that relatively frequently compared with a real 'natural' opening we may belong in any of the four suit denominations. This adds a difficulty especially when most pairs not unreasonably want to keep a bid that shows both majors (Michaels).

Some pairs may reasonably want to solve this problem by playing an artificial defense and against the patently artificial short club.

The weakness of a short club is based on the ambiguity inherent in the bid.

Therefore it seems wrong to me that some artificial methods are protected.

[hrothgar]

 Cascade, on 2011-November-23, 12:57, said:

Why is there any attitude to protect these pairs?

Historically, the ACBL has tried to protect incompetent bidders in order to maximize revenue.

The assumption is that pairs playing a precision style short diamond know what they are doing and don't need special protection.
Many pairs playing a short club are incompetent and need a warm, sheltered environment where they can hang out and tithe to Memphis.

More recently, the ACBL has tried to extend this same logic to its internationalists, claiming that ACBL members should be able to play a short club opening, but should be protected against the opponent's conventional defenses.
Jan is probably in a much better position to argue this one than I...

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-November-23, 08:15, said:

I do find it difficult to defend any position which specifically says that opening your shortest suit is "natural".

Indeed. The mind boggles.

[mikestar13]

 Free, on 2011-November-23, 04:58, said:

Then glad you're not making the rules

Me too, actually.

The idea is that if you are sophisticated enough to open a three-card minor on an unbalanced hand, you don't need LOL/LOM protection. My idea was on the order of "given the ACBL wants to protect weak players from sophisticated defenses, the rule I suggest is better than theirs." I think the whole GCC is ludicrous--but if you play f2f in North America, sometimes you are stuck with it. For my own part, I really don't give a damn what defenses opponents want to use (given proper disclosure)--if the opponents are good they'll be hard to beat anyway; if not, a sophisticated artificial defense will hurt them more than it hurts us.

[barmar]

 Free, on 2011-November-23, 09:48, said:

Similar, with a 3=3=5=2 you can open 1♣, with a 3=3=2=5 you can open 1♦, in both cases your shortest suit. I don't see anything that can be called "natural" if you only promisse 2+ cards in a suit.

These are not natural under the new ACBL rule. The only time a short club is considered natural is if you only bid it with 4=4=3=2 distribution, i.e. you require 4 cards to bid 1♦.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2011-November-24, 21:34, said:

These are not natural under the new ACBL rule. The only time a short club is considered natural is if you only bid it with 4=4=3=2 distribution, i.e. you require 4 cards to bid 1♦.

I believe Free was answering Mike's suggestion here that it is better to protect "4+ in suit or balanced" from conventional defences than the current position. As I took it, Free was saying that under Mike's rule opening 3352 with 1C or 3325 1D would be considered "natural" in as much as being protected from such defences, not that they are under the current rules. It is an open question whether it is more desirable to protect a pair opening 1C as "natural or any balanced hand out of range" or a pair opening 1C with "3+ clubs, possible canape" (if the latter currently qualifies for protection that is). I think assigning the term "natural" here is something of a red herring - as per my previous post you have really given up any semblance of designating a bid as "natural" when you describe opening your shortest suit as such. Perhaps the ACBL's description should be described as "semi-natural".

[Gerardo]

OT but related: I remember a big fuzz when a Dutch pair tried to use Holo-Bolo vs a 4=4=3=2 1♣.

This was forbidden IIRC. When and where was this?

[paulg]

 Gerardo, on 2011-November-25, 05:50, said:

OT but related: I remember a big fuzz when a Dutch pair tried to use Holo-Bolo vs a 4=4=3=2 1♣.

This was forbidden IIRC. When and where was this?

2007 Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai - details available on these forums.

Subsequently this decision was not ratified as standard WBF practice and you can now use any defence to an artificial 1♣, even 4=4=3=2, in WBF events.

[Free]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-November-25, 03:33, said:

 barmar, on 2011-November-24, 21:34, said:

These are not natural under the new ACBL rule. The only time a short club is considered natural is if you only bid it with 4=4=3=2 distribution, i.e. you require 4 cards to bid 1♦.

I believe Free was answering Mike's suggestion here that it is better to protect "4+ in suit or balanced" from conventional defences than the current position. As I took it, Free was saying that under Mike's rule opening 3352 with 1C or 3325 1D would be considered "natural" in as much as being protected from such defences, not that they are under the current rules. It is an open question whether it is more desirable to protect a pair opening 1C as "natural or any balanced hand out of range" or a pair opening 1C with "3+ clubs, possible canape" (if the latter currently qualifies for protection that is). I think assigning the term "natural" here is something of a red herring - as per my previous post you have really given up any semblance of designating a bid as "natural" when you describe opening your shortest suit as such. Perhaps the ACBL's description should be described as "semi-natural".

Exactly