BBO Discussion Forums: Artificial call - BBO Discussion Forums

The definitions in the laws of duplicate bridge include this:

Quote

It seems to me that a second seat takeout double conveys the information that doubler has roughly an opening hand and some support for all three unbid suits. It also seems to me that this is "information taken for granted by players generally". So, question: Is such a takeout double an artificial call? If somebody asked me that question cold, I would have said "of course", but that parenthetical expression makes me wonder.

If I could expunge one concept from the Laws of the game, or indeed the minds of humankind, it would be the concept of "general bridge knowledge". Any double that doesn't mean "I think we can beat what the opponents have just contracted to make" is an artificial call.

I wonder why the parenthetical comment is there. The definition would seem to be fine without it.

Yes. Confusing, isn't it?

I think they are trying to approach disclosure/alerts in terms of artificial calls; and it doesn't quite work for the reader who recognizes that a plain old takeout double is artificial.

The parenthetical seems to address passes, bids, and doubles which are used differently by agreement from the way we would expect. They are subject to disclosure and/or alert, not because they are artificial, but because they are special.

IMO, we should be defining calls which are "special" --- some of which happen to also be artificial. That is not easy to do. A negative double of 1H which denies spades, a pass which denies 3-card support, etc.

Heck, we just discovered a "support pass" after:

1m (P) 1H (1S)
freeing up the Double for something more informative. Even though we worked it out at the table via plain logic, opponents might not have the same inferences we do -- and now it is an agreement we should alert.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2015-January-14, 23:58

aguahombre, on 2015-January-14, 23:45, said:

I don't think disclosure, per se, is any more than a side issue. The issue, for me, is that without the parenthetical the definition makes sense to me, and is easy to understand and apply. The parenthetical confuses the issue, since it implies that some things that are "obviously" artificial actually aren't (considering the parenthetical).

As always, I'm concerned with what the laws actually say, and here I don't think they actually say what most people think they say, nor do they say what the drafters intended.

dburn, on 2015-January-14, 18:54, said:

Or maybe we should get rid of the concepts "natural" and "artificial".

I think they may be useful for many other purposes than law purposes. But for law purposes, I see two problems with them.

- The "definition" quoted by Ed is just pathetic:
----"..taken for granted by players generally". Too vague. Could sound like Stayman is natural in jurisdictions where it is not alertable.
----"..the denomination named or last named..". There will always be negative inference about other strains. I was taught that a 1NT response to a 1♦ opening shows 4+ clubs. Btw, it sounds like Drury and Bergen raises are natural bids since they convey information about the denomination last named.
----A forcing pass is sometimes stronger than double. This can be quite natural if it means "we can't make anything at the 5-level so we have to take our money".

Not that I can come up with something (much) better. It may be a futile excercise to try to define them. But ...

- Why would one want to define those concepts anyway? Whether a call is artificial or not may have implications for whether it is allowed, how it should be disclosed, whether it can be psyched, for dealing with insufficient bids, and for the default EBU meaning of opps' subsequent double. But is there any reason why "artificial" should be defined the same way for all those purposes?

helene_t, on 2015-January-15, 10:00, said:

Simplicity, maybe? Over having multiple definitions, anyway.

Is this just a remnant from previous versions of the Laws, which only allowed RAs to regulate artificial calls?

The current revision still refers to artificial bids in the IB law, although it seems like it could have been done as well without it. Just combine 27B1a and 27B1b, allowing the replacement if it has the same or more specific meaning, regardless of whether either was artificial.

barmar, on 2015-January-15, 10:54, said:

Yes. There are perhaps other terms which we could do without defining and "applying" for the purposes of a law. Convention and treatment are such labels which come to mind. Maybe the Lawbook would end up with more total words, but that might not be a bad thing.

We might still use these terms in the titles of sections, with the understanding that they are broad-brush categorizations only.

blackshoe, on 2015-January-15, 08:59, said:

Quite. What the law says here is nonsense.

I think the parenthetical is the one that everybody brings up when discussing "2♠ showing 5+ spades is natural, but 2♠ showing 5+ spades *and a 4+minor* is artificial: "yeah, but 1♠ promises 5+ and no longer suit (usually)" or "1♠ promises at least one card outside spades" or the reductio ad absurdum like.

Like all of these things, it's impossible to write completely. Let's work on making it less bad.

That makes sense. One wonders, though, about the need for obscure wording.

mycroft, on 2015-January-15, 12:02, said:

But the parenthetical is not needed for that. Promising a 4+ minor is "information other than willingness to play in the denomination named".

If they thought something like this was necessary, perhaps it should be written as "conveying information other than or in addition to willingness ...".

I expect that the part in brackets is intended to exclude calls like:
1♦-1NT denying a four-card major
1♥-1♠ denying four-card support

"The denomination named or last named" should obviously be read as "the denomination most recently named", rather than "any denomination named by the call, and also the denomination most recently named by the preceding calls".

blackshoe, on 2015-January-15, 08:59, said:

I don't think that should be your biggest concern in these forums. This is, as you have sometimes reminded us, not BLML. As I understand it, the purpose of these forums is to deal with the application of the Laws in practice. That necessarily means interpreting the intended meaning, resolving ambiguities in a way that makes the rules coherent and the game playable, and sometimes simply pretending that the Laws say something other than what they actually say.

gnasher, on 2015-January-17, 03:14, said:

Should it not actually read, and be read as, "the denomination most recently named by a member of the same partnership"? Otherwise the last call in 1NT - (2D) [Blue Club transfer showing hearts] - 2NT (transfer to diamonds) would not be artificial.

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact - Arthur Conan Doyle

lamford, on 2015-January-17, 06:19, said:

It means exactly what it says: A bid is artificial if it refers to a denomination different from the denomination named in the bid.

The term "articial" stems from the origin of bridge where:
A bid is an undertaking to win a certain number of tricks with the named denomination as trumph (or with "no trumph").
Double and Redouble are calls that increase the points for the last previous undertaking.
Pass is a call indicating that the player do not wish to make any other call.

Calls made with intentions different from the above are defined as "artificial".

It is a fact that bridge auction theory has come a long way since 1930, and that as a consequence the term "artificial" no longer seems logical.

Vampyr, on 2015-January-15, 12:25, said:

I don't think it is so easy to define what the word means.

Take for example 1♦-(pass)-1NT. Everyone would say that 1NT is a natural bid, but for a Marsian not familiar with earthlings' bidding style there would be no way of infering that it is natural other than just root learning. It is a notrump bid but it shows clubs. OK, maybe it is natural because it is nonforcing but then the gampling 3NT opening would be natural as well, along with a modern Precision 1♦ opening and maybe even the 2♥ relay to the multi 2♦ and the 2♦ response to Stayman. Besides, a forcing 1NT and a semi-forcing 1NT show, at least in some styles, the same kind of hands, so it can't be that one is artificial and one is natural.

We have seen travesties here on this forum like directors deeming a Precision 2♣ opening and even a weak notrump opening "non-natural". So sometimes the word "artificial" simply means "weird" which is obviously very subjective. So I am not sure it makes much sense to attempt to provide a definition that would allow people to determine artificiality in an objective way.

helene_t, on 2015-January-17, 07:21, said:

It is necessary to decide the purpose of a definition before trying to create it.

According to the (ancient) principles I referred to in my post:
1♦-(pass)-1NT is "Natural" (unless it demands that responder be given another possibility to bid).
The gambling 3NT opening bid is obviously "Natural".
modern Precision 1♦ is "Natural" (unless it demands that opener be given another possibility to bid).
The 2♥ relay to the multi 2♦ and the 2♦ response to Stayman are both "artificial"
The forcing 1NT opening bid (e.g. in Vienna) is clearly "artificial"
The 2NT forcing response (game or round force) to an opening bid in 1 in a major denomination is also clearly "artificial"
The Precision 2♣ opening, and also a weak notrump opening are certainly "Natural".

Most of which makes it clear that the original definitions of "artificial" and "natural" don't seem much useful in most situations today.