As others have mentioned, the wording of 7C1 has changed since posting my original response to your query. So, taking another look at your question with the new wording…
The conclusion remains the same, the pair are not allowed to combine the 2D bid as non-strong showing 4414 or 4441.
The bullet point wording is now, “One or two artificial meanings that do not specify the suit opened. These may be combined with any number of strong meanings.”
Though 7C1 no longer says, “…except that non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings cannot be combined.”, the overall effect of 7C remains the same in this regard. If the change in wording was was intended to allow a partnership to agree that a bid ‘might or might not be artificial’, then the wording must be clear on this point because it is not obvious how opener subsequently communicates which version applies, particularly if the bid is passed-out.
So, by my understanding, the 2D bid is allowed to have one or two artificial meanings and that their bid is showing a 3-suited hand. Consequently, 2D showing 4414 is an artificial meaning, but 2D showing 4441 is not artificial and does not show the short suit, as per 7C1d (Artificial - 3 suiter…) which says, “By definition all 3 suits are known as they do not include the suit opened…”
So the position remains the same, the artificial 2D bid can show a 4414 hand, but it can’t be used to show a 4441 hand.
Thanks again for pointing out there was a later version.
Your bid is still allowed because you are using a single meaning: non-strong, unbalanced. However…
My expectation would be that if your agreement includes a 3-card suit, then the hand must satisfy the rule of 20 irrespective of the actual shape of the hand.
Arguably, the point of having a bidding system is to make bids clearer, not to create ambiguity. So a widening of the options in the suit length, should see a commensurate narrowing in the possible margin of strength, where the regulations have drawn attention to, and a distinction between, such features of the bid. You simply become captive to the more restrictive regulation because your agreement is that you can bid the 3 card suit. The actual length of the suit doesn’t determine what rule applies, it’s the agreement you have to open a 3 card suit that determines that.
I prefer the new wording of the second bullet point of 7C1.
Comments
Not any more - see the updated version dated 11th October.
Note that while the new version is a big improvement, I still don't think it explicitly addresses the original poster's question.
Thanks for the info. Would you be able to provide a link to that draft because I can only find the 7th August version?
Same link: https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/blue-book/blue-book.pdf
PDF are apt to be cached - try refresh and rerefresh
Thanks both.
…
As others have mentioned, the wording of 7C1 has changed since posting my original response to your query. So, taking another look at your question with the new wording…
The conclusion remains the same, the pair are not allowed to combine the 2D bid as non-strong showing 4414 or 4441.
The bullet point wording is now, “One or two artificial meanings that do not specify the suit opened. These may be combined with any number of strong meanings.”
Though 7C1 no longer says, “…except that non-strong showing the suit and non-strong artificial meanings cannot be combined.”, the overall effect of 7C remains the same in this regard. If the change in wording was was intended to allow a partnership to agree that a bid ‘might or might not be artificial’, then the wording must be clear on this point because it is not obvious how opener subsequently communicates which version applies, particularly if the bid is passed-out.
So, by my understanding, the 2D bid is allowed to have one or two artificial meanings and that their bid is showing a 3-suited hand. Consequently, 2D showing 4414 is an artificial meaning, but 2D showing 4441 is not artificial and does not show the short suit, as per 7C1d (Artificial - 3 suiter…) which says, “By definition all 3 suits are known as they do not include the suit opened…”
So the position remains the same, the artificial 2D bid can show a 4414 hand, but it can’t be used to show a 4441 hand.
@davidcollier
Thanks again for pointing out there was a later version.
Your bid is still allowed because you are using a single meaning: non-strong, unbalanced. However…
My expectation would be that if your agreement includes a 3-card suit, then the hand must satisfy the rule of 20 irrespective of the actual shape of the hand.
Arguably, the point of having a bidding system is to make bids clearer, not to create ambiguity. So a widening of the options in the suit length, should see a commensurate narrowing in the possible margin of strength, where the regulations have drawn attention to, and a distinction between, such features of the bid. You simply become captive to the more restrictive regulation because your agreement is that you can bid the 3 card suit. The actual length of the suit doesn’t determine what rule applies, it’s the agreement you have to open a 3 card suit that determines that.
I prefer the new wording of the second bullet point of 7C1.