[Zelandakh]

johnu, on 2017-July-09, 20:27, said:

Somebody on the Bridgewinners site said complied with the no conventions rule by using 2♣ to show 3+ clubs, 2♦ to show 3+ diamonds, and opener would rebid a 4 card major. The net result is effectively Stayman. Legal or not?

A similar argument was used by Culbertson back in the day to explain why Stayman was a useless convention that noone should use. If you make it so that Responder is limited to at most invite strength (which would always be the case for 3rd seat openings) Opener can even pass with a minimum and no 4 card major, which might even end up being an advantage over Stayman on some hands.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-July-10, 05:44, said:

The fundamental (origional) definition of a non-conventional bid is that the bidder is willing to play with that bid as his contract, i.e. his partner must be permitted (by agreements) to pass.

gordontd, on 2017-July-10, 06:35, said:

So that excludes all approach-forcing systems.

Look up the definitions in the laws:

Bid :  An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks  (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination.

This definition has remained essentially unchanged for at least 85 years!

Note that nothing here makes the use of conventional bids (i.e. bids with meanings other than that described in definitions) as such illegal, but they are not "natural".

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-July-10, 09:30, said:

Look up the definitions in the laws:

Bid :  An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks  (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination.

This definition has remained essentially unchanged for at least 85 years!

And it is not the same as your earlier assertion:

Quote

The fundamental (origional) definition of a non-conventional bid is that the bidder is willing to play with that bid as his contract, i.e. his partner must be permitted (by agreements) to pass.

This would mean that a forcing change of suit is conventional, for which I doubt you would get much support.

[blackshoe]

Where does "the call is forcing" come from? I didn't see that in Johnu's post.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-10, 19:36, said:

Where does "the call is forcing" come from? I didn't see that in Johnu's post.

I don't remember whether forcing or not was discussed. I assume it included game forcing hands, so it was probably forcing.

[Mbodell]

Some people want to play the weak and/or wide ranging only in 3rd seat where game forcing is off the table. And if you said the nt opener passed with 5 or 6 in the minor, and hence a known 8+ card fit, that seems a reasonable non-forcing treatment.

[barmar]

A call can be both natural and forcing. For instance, in the standard, uncontested auction 1♣-1X responder's bid is natural (it shows at least 4 cards in the suit) and unlimited in strength (so even if opener is light, game and even slam could be possible).

Perhaps rather than "the bidder is willing to play with that bid as the contract", a better description would be "the bidder is willing to play in a contract with that denomination". In the case of a bid by a player whose hand is limited, they're offering that bid as the contract.

[weejonnie]

Maybe we should look at the 2017 definition?

Artificial call

1. A bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named or last
named.

2. A pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength.

3. A pass that promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.
--------

Under this definition then it is clear that 2♣ or 2♦ showing the suit (but asking partner to bid a 4-card major) is an artificial call (unless it is agreed to make the call as well without a 4-card Major).

It would also appear that any asking call is NOT artificial - as it does not convey any information - it asks for it. Does this make Moscito a natural system?

[blackshoe]

"Not being information taken for granted by players generally" is interesting. Suppose, rather than the original problem here, the bidders have agreed that a 2♣ response to 1NT (assume a 'normal' NT to avoid the 'illegal system' question) is Stayman. The information conveyed by a Stayman 2♣ (that responder is looking for a 4-4 major suit fit) is certainly "taken for granted by players generally". So it would seem that a Stayman 2♣ bid is not artificial. Law of Unintended Consequences, anyone?

[Zelandakh]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-11, 15:49, said:

It would also appear that any asking call is NOT artificial - as it does not convey any information - it asks for it. Does this make Moscito a natural system?

You are rather missing the point, which is not surprising as many do. Take Stayman as a good example. Stayman is an Asking Bid - "do you have a 4 card major?" But Stayman also shows something. It varies by system but a typical construction might be:-

a weak hand short in clubs
a weak hand with both majors
an invitational+ hand with one or both 4 card majors
an invitational+ hand with 5+-4+ majors
a GF hand with 5+ cards in a minor suit

You can add or remove additional hand types as you see fit. It does not matter though, the Asking Bid shows something. This is the case for all Asking Bids that are not forced (puppets) - they deny the ability to bid something else. That is even true in a relay system, something that some system designers sadly like to gloss over when it comes to disclosure.

Where a bid genuinely does not show anything is in the case of a puppet. But few of the artifical calls in Moscito are puppets, so your (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) argument about Moscito being natural is clearly rather wide of the mark.

It is also not at all clear that the suggested 2m responses are not natural under the definitions given. A short counter-example should suffice. Suppose we play up-the-line. Partner opens 1♣ and I hold a 4=4=4=1 hand. Would it be unnatural for me to respond 1♦ knowing that this, in effect, asks Opener if they hold a 4 card major? This is precisely the same situation as the 2m response, other than that that is not forcing, which makes it "more" natural if we are to believe pran's interpretation. As for holding a 4 card major, as far as I can tell the suggestion would be for Responder to bid 2m also with a long minor, so that would not seem to be a problem. In this way one of P - 1NT; 2m - 2M; 3m and P - 1NT; 3m is weak and the other invitational, which is just perfect when working without any artificial bids to help.

[dokoko]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 10:49, said:

... no stolen bid doubles ...

correct me if i'm wrong but stolen bid double seems legal in this case (opp's stole your natural bid and now you dbl for penalties).

[blackshoe]

dokoko, on 2017-August-06, 03:02, said:

correct me if i'm wrong but stolen bid double seems legal in this case (opp's stole your natural bid and now you dbl for penalties).

That is not a stolen bid double as I understand the term.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-06, 07:38, said:

That is not a stolen bid double as I understand the term.

Me, either. The most common example of Stolen Bid Double is when partner opens 1NT, and RHO overcalls in the suit you were going to use as a transfer. E.g. RHO bids 2♥, so you double to show spades. It's definitely not a penalty double -- you might do this with very few points and no hearts.

[helene_t]

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

It is probably a regional thing. As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2017-August-06, 16:49, said:

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

Isn't that (sort of) a negative double?

Quote

It is probably a regional thing.

Or they're just confused (I originally wrote "wrong", but decided to make it less judgemental).

Quote

As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

Conversation is difficult if you have to expand everything to full explanations instead of using simple, well-known phrases (that's why we name things). Imagine if blackshoe had spelled everything out:

"no bidding 2♣ to ask for a 4-card major [Stayman], no bidding a suit to show the suit above it [transfers], no bidding 2NT to ask opener to bid 3♣ so you can show a variety of different hand types [Lebensohl], no doubling to show that you would have bid their suit artificially [stolen bid doubles]". It was just a parenthetical comment, and this version is longer than the containing sentence.

Clear explanations are appropriate at the table, where it's critical to avoid misinformation, but I think we should be able to get away with names here in the forum.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2017-August-07, 09:48, said:

Isn't that (sort of) a negative double?

Yes.

Quote

Or they're just confused (I originally wrote "wrong", but decided to make it less judgemental).

Maybe. But then someone learns from someone who is confused and then it is called language evolution.

Quote

"no bidding 2♣ to ask for a 4-card major [Stayman]

This is a bit silly, isn't it? There are a few exceptions such as Stayman, take-out doubles, fourth suit forcing, count signal.

But in the EBU you are not supposed ever to use the word "transfer" for the obvious reason that some people have been known to explain a puppet as a "transfer". And how difficult is it to say "five or more hearts" (or just "hearts") instead? Much clearer and just as short.

So obviously you shouldn't disclose a call as "stolen bid" either.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2017-August-07, 16:27, said:

So obviously you shouldn't disclose a call as "stolen bid" either.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the language you should use when disclosing at the table. I'm talking about the language we use when discussing things here in the forum.

[kevperk]

helene_t, on 2017-August-06, 16:49, said:

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

It is probably a regional thing. As always, it is better to explain what a call actually shows rather than using a convention name.

So, the opponents preempted their bid, but did not "steal" it.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2017-August-06, 16:49, said:

Some people use the expression "stolen bid double" in the meaning of "the opponent bypassed my bid", i.e. 1♣-(1♠)-X would mean "I intended to bid 1♦ or 1♥".

I used to play an "advanced" form of stolen bid on this auction as a junior with X showing hearts and 1NT showing diamonds. I still think this sort of approach is at least as easy for beginners as the natural-ish methods most learn.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-08, 17:19, said:

I used to play an "advanced" form of stolen bid on this auction as a junior with X showing hearts and 1NT showing diamonds. I still think this sort of approach is at least as easy for beginners as the natural-ish methods most learn.

You can play whatever you like, just don't call it "stolen bid double" if it doesn't mean "double has the meaning that RHO's bid would have had if you had made it yourself".