[kevperk]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-14, 19:00, said:

In logic, structure matters a great deal. P(X) is a valid statement which may be true or false. P() is not a valid statement.


If it is bid on 100% of all hands with 13 cards, then it's not artificial. As you point out, most people don't actually play that.

{last line snipped}

I cannot believe that this is what is intended, even if it is the correct strict reading of the sentence. I think that they didn't think about your interpretation. If they did, I'm sure they would have included the phrase "or has no meaning at all."

This is yet another time that I feel people stray by not trying to understand the lawmaker's and regulation-maker's intent. Sure, it would be great if the laws and regulations were written in a clear and unambiguous manner, but when situations like this come up, surely common sense must prevail. If one tries to write the law/regulation to cover the way meant(in my mind) one can easily see the problem. This seems much more plausible than the nonsensical consequence that bids that are clearly not natural are not defined as artificial.

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-13, 16:41, said:

Playing Walsh, the auction goes 1♣-1♦. 1♦ does show 4+ diamonds, but it furthermore conveys the information that responder does not have a 4-card major unless he also has game-forcing strength. This is taken for granted by some players, but not so many that it could be called "general", thus 1♦ is an artificial call - correct?

This was way back there, but you didn't really think it would slide, did you?

--In Walsh, when 1C-1NT=8-10, and club raises show five, 1D does not promise 4+ (merely 3)
--Nevertheless, it is not artificial. "Opening bids, responses and rebids which contain 3+ minor or 4+major" are deemed to be natural.
--Re-nevertheless, it is very likely that the 1D response is alertable because it denies a major unless G.F. (but not because it is artificial, which it isn't).

BTW, 1C-1D used to be alerted over here (ACBL) by Walsh pairs who denied a major unless G.F. This was a good thing, because the opponents now knew we were not "up-the-line" people, and most follow-ups were understood on that basis.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-March-14, 22:57

[mrdct]

mycroft, on 2012-March-14, 18:05, said:

If the German one is "alert all Artificial calls, where Artificial means <WBF definition>", then you can either Alert your "stupidly not artificial" call and feel comfortable about it, or not Alert it.

I think you need to reread the German Alerting Regulations:

§15: Alertieren und Auskünfte
(1) Die Gegner sollen durch das korrekte Alertieren vor Schaden infolge Unkenntnis einer Partnerschaftsvereinbarung bewahrt werden. Das Alertieren ersetzt nicht das Vorhanden-sein der vorgeschriebenen Konventionskarten. Andererseits befreit ein Alert oder sein Unterbleiben den Gegner nicht von der Beachtung seiner eigenen Sorgfaltspflicht im Sinne eines sportlichen Wettkampfs. Auch haben die Gegner das Übermitteln unerlaubter Infor-mationen durch unnötige Fragen zu vermeiden; vgl. Abs.5. Jedes Paar kann vor Beginn der Reizung verlangen, dass seine Gegner bis zum Ende der Runde nicht alertieren.
(2) Folgende Ansagen sind zu alertieren:
1. künstliche Gebote (vgl. TBR, Begriffsbestimmungen);
2. Ansagen mit ungewöhnlicher Bedeutung oder solche Ansagen, die auf einer besonderen, ausdrücklichen oder impliziten, Partnerschaftsvereinbarung beruhen (vgl. § 40 TBR);
3. nicht forcierende Sprünge in neuer Farbe als Antwort auf eine Eröffnung oder Gegenreizung sowie nicht forcierende Farbwechsel einer ungepassten Hand auf eine Eröffnung des Partners von 1 in Farbe.
(3) Außer bei der Verwendung von Screens dürfen die folgenden Ansagen nicht alertiert werden:
1. alle Pass, Kontra und Rekontra;
2. alle SA-Gebote, die eine ausgeglichene (4 3 3 3 oder 4 4 3 2 oder 5 3 3 2 Verteilung) oder annähernd ausgeglichene Hand (5 4 2 2 oder 6 3 2 2 oder 4 4 4 1 oder 5 4 3 1 Verteilung, wobei ein Single entweder A, K oder D sein muss) zeigen oder einen SA-Kontrakt vorschlagen;
3. alle Ansagen auf 4er oder höherer Stufe ab der 2. Bietrunde, auch wenn sie normaler-weise alertpflichtig wären.

Now my German is that great, but §15(2)1 looks like "Artificial as per WBF definitions" and §15(2)2 looks like "Special Partnership Understanding as per Law 40 a.k.a. conventional". So Germany seems to have all bases covered that you need to alert "artificial" and "conventional" calls unless they are exempted by §15(3).

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-14, 22:48, said:

--Nevertheless, it is not artificial. "Opening bids, responses and rebids which contain 3+ minor or 4+major" are deemed to be natural.

Really, how hard is it to understand that ACBL definitions are completely irrelevant in this thread? Geez, this kind of response really pisses me off.

mrdct, on 2012-March-15, 03:22, said:

I think you need to reread the German Alerting Regulations:

§15: Alertieren und Auskünfte
(1) Die Gegner sollen durch das korrekte Alertieren vor Schaden infolge Unkenntnis einer Partnerschaftsvereinbarung bewahrt werden. Das Alertieren ersetzt nicht das Vorhanden-sein der vorgeschriebenen Konventionskarten. Andererseits befreit ein Alert oder sein Unterbleiben den Gegner nicht von der Beachtung seiner eigenen Sorgfaltspflicht im Sinne eines sportlichen Wettkampfs. Auch haben die Gegner das Übermitteln unerlaubter Infor-mationen durch unnötige Fragen zu vermeiden; vgl. Abs.5. Jedes Paar kann vor Beginn der Reizung verlangen, dass seine Gegner bis zum Ende der Runde nicht alertieren.
(2) Folgende Ansagen sind zu alertieren:
1. künstliche Gebote (vgl. TBR, Begriffsbestimmungen);
2. Ansagen mit ungewöhnlicher Bedeutung oder solche Ansagen, die auf einer besonderen, ausdrücklichen oder impliziten, Partnerschaftsvereinbarung beruhen (vgl. § 40 TBR);
3. nicht forcierende Sprünge in neuer Farbe als Antwort auf eine Eröffnung oder Gegenreizung sowie nicht forcierende Farbwechsel einer ungepassten Hand auf eine Eröffnung des Partners von 1 in Farbe.
(3) Außer bei der Verwendung von Screens dürfen die folgenden Ansagen nicht alertiert werden:
1. alle Pass, Kontra und Rekontra;
2. alle SA-Gebote, die eine ausgeglichene (4 3 3 3 oder 4 4 3 2 oder 5 3 3 2 Verteilung) oder annähernd ausgeglichene Hand (5 4 2 2 oder 6 3 2 2 oder 4 4 4 1 oder 5 4 3 1 Verteilung, wobei ein Single entweder A, K oder D sein muss) zeigen oder einen SA-Kontrakt vorschlagen;
3. alle Ansagen auf 4er oder höherer Stufe ab der 2. Bietrunde, auch wenn sie normaler-weise alertpflichtig wären.

Now my German is that great, but §15(2)1 looks like "Artificial as per WBF definitions" and §15(2)2 looks like "Special Partnership Understanding as per Law 40 a.k.a. conventional". So Germany seems to have all bases covered that you need to alert "artificial" and "conventional" calls unless they are exempted by §15(3).

You forgot (4) which has a list of specific exceptions, my favourite being "Don't alert 2♦/♥/♠ if they show an ACOL Strong 2, but do alert if they show anything else". §15(2)2 is "Calls with an unusual meaning or SPUs as per Law 40B1a". The German edition of the Laws informs us that there are no SPUs as per Law 40B1a in Germany. Therefore this sentence reduces to "Calls with an unusual meaning". I have argued at length on the German Bridge mailing list about how stupidly wide the possible range of interpretations of this clause is, but the essence of my opinion is this: if every player can be trusted to know which calls are unusual and which aren't, it would make a lot of sense to change the entire alert regulation to just "Alert unusual calls, don't alert usual calls."

[mrdct]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-15, 06:23, said:

§15(2)2 is "Calls with an unusual meaning or SPUs as per Law 40B1a". The German edition of the Laws informs us that there are no SPUs as per Law 40B1a in Germany.

Well that is starting to sound ridiculous. One reg says you need to alert SPUs and another reg says there are no SPUs!

At the end of the day, however, I have never ever seen anyone get into trouble for alerting something that isn't alertable and I think BBO has the best alert regs of any jurisdiction, "if in doubt - alert".

[mycroft]

First, in most cases, the null statement is still a statement - in fact, usually the most trivial statement. So B != A, but also 0 != A. But that's irrelevant to the underlying issue.

Second, any reading of any regulation that says that 1♠ "13 cards" is not Alertable is stupid. We all know that. Does that mean that the regulation is stupid? Possibly, but possibly not, given that people are going to discount this reading as being logically correct, but totally insensible.

Third, I reiterate that there are *no* non-stupid Alert regulations, read on the face. If there is one, please show it to me: we'll try to get it worldwide.

There are cases, everywhere, where Potter Stewart rules, and "[we'll] know it when we see it." That applies double to Alerting regulations. Sure there are borderline cases, we all know that, no matter where we put the borderline - I deal with that by checking, and when in doubt, Alerting unless it's clear that that might pass more misinformation than not Alerting.

[barmar]

I'm also of the mind that the authors didn't consider that "conveys information other than X" is different from "does not convey only the information X", because of the no-information case.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2012-March-14, 07:01, said:

You better be willing to play there, because that's exactly what you'll do if partner passes (which is one of the aims of the convention).

This will, of course, be argued until the end of time, but I always think this sort of logic is facetious. Unless a call is 100% forcing, then you might play there because partner might pass it. I cannot see how that makes you willing to play there, what it means is that partner wishes to play there.

(1♠) double

Holding a void spade, and 22 points, are you willing to play 1♠ doubled? Of course not, you are looking for a slam somewhere. But if partner passes then you play there.

I do not believe that a bid which shows a willingness to play there [eg a weak takeout of 2♠ in response to 1NT] is the same as an artificial response that shows something or nothing [eg a 2♦ response to Stayman or 2-way NMF].

Consider another case. Partner bids 4NT with hearts agreed, you respond 5♦ showing 1 or 4. But should you describe it as 1 or 4 and a willingness to play there? Yet sometime, some day, a partner with some idea or other will pass it.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-13, 22:07, said:

This logic is flawed. Stayman is generally played, and still artificial. Same for takeout doubles. Walsh is a treatment, and imo natural.

The logic is not flawed, though the regulation probably is. The regulation does not actually say that everything normally played is not artificial.

[wyman]

Part of the confusion (I think) is that many play, for example, that 1C-1H; 1S-2C!; 2H!! shows a 4315. So 2D is not _exactly_ forced.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-March-13, 18:50, said:

Walsh is certainly artificial since it is not generally played.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-13, 22:07, said:

This logic is flawed. Stayman is generally played, and still artificial. Same for takeout doubles. Walsh is a treatment, and imo natural.

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 17:50, said:

The logic is not flawed, though the regulation probably is. The regulation does not actually say that everything normally played is not artificial.

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-15, 17:57, said:

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

I didn't see David saying that. Walsh is artificial because the definition in the Lawbook says so. Once again I emphasize that this thread is about "artificial" as defined by the WBF, not "artificial" as any sensible person would use it. I really don't see why that is so hard to grasp.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-15, 17:57, said:

Okay, let's start over. You say that Walsh is artificial because it is not normally played. I do not understand this logic. Can you explain it?

I have lost the definition and have too little time to look. Part of the definition depends on whether people are used to it, but only part. The fact that people are not used to it is relevant to that part, and makes it artificial.

I cannot remember the details, but you can look it up. In effect 1♠ is not artificial because it may have four clubs but not four hearts, playing four card majors, because this sort of arrangement is widely known. But a Walsh 1♦ response is not so it is not excluded from being artificial by this clause.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 19:24, said:

I have lost the definition and have too little time to look. Part of the definition depends on whether people are used to it, but only part. The fact that people are not used to it is relevant to that part, and makes it artificial.

I cannot remember the details, but you can look it up. In effect 1♠ is not artificial because it may have four clubs but not four hearts, playing four card majors, because this sort of arrangement is widely known. But a Walsh 1♦ response is not so it is not excluded from being artificial by this clause.

Quote

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.

This definition refers to information "taken for granted by players generally", which is not the same as "generally played", but okay, I'll accept for the moment the argument that it's artificial by the definition. Now what?

[bluejak]

Now nothing. The OP asked whether certain calls were artificial. That seems to have been answered.

[phil_20686]

mike777, on 2012-March-13, 17:28, said:

WaLSH IS NOT ALERTABLE, and dont see why it would be an artificial call. Perhaps it is "general" enough.

It was an alertable treatment in the junior europeans. I expect that is WBF laws. Both 1c-1d and 1c-1M are alertable, sinc ethe 1M "may contain longer diamonds".

[mgoetze]

I note with some bemusement that the "GUIDE TO COMPLETION OF THE WBF CONVENTION CARD" includes an entirely different definition: "Tick any opening bid that does not denote willingness to play in the stated denomination or that does denote willingness to play in another denomination. [...] Do not tick 1♣ or 1♦ just because your system allows an opening bid in a three-card minor. However, do tick when opening in a two-card or shorter suit is permitted."

I had been about to tick all my opening bids as artificial but I may have to reconsider.