dburn

Was wondering about that on the bus home from work. Came to the conclusion that although I could easily convince myself that it was right, I could not so easily convince team-mates should it prove wrong. Probably better to cash ♥Q first, though - after all, if West shows out on that, you might not (should not?) play a diamond to the ten next.

Jilllybean may have a fair hand but no help in ♦ and no room between 3♦ and 3♥ to suggest help elsewhere. Are there hands, with which you reject a 3♦ help-suit trial-bid for game; but you re-evaluate and co-operate in slam exploration, when 3♦ turns out to be a control cue-bid try for slam?Fred and Jdonn say no. Bluejak says yes and I tend to agree. You should not, for this will class you as a hopeless bidder (and rightly so). As Fred and jdonn point out, there isn't a hand on which any rational partnership can conduct the auction 1♥-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♥-anything other than pass. But that isn't the issue. Suppose that instead of bidding 3♥, responder had bid 4♦. Now, bluejak (and I) might imagine that responder had some right to bid on over opener's 4♥ with such as: ♠x ♥Qxx ♦QJxxx ♣Kxxx At least, I would bid on with that unless I were playing with some card-carrying member of the cool school, in which case I would have to "guess" whether his bidding meant what it said or whether he was just kidding. After all, how are we supposed to bid to six diamonds if he really holds ♠xxx ♥AKxxx ♦AKxx ♣A? What is he supposed to do over 4♦ with that hand? Or was I supposed to splinter with 4♠ over 3♦ when 3♦ could be based on any one of the number of hand types Fred suggests? Don't get me wrong - I don't disapprove at all of the notion that 3♦ should in an all-expert game mean what Fred says it means. The theoretical advantages of forbidding responder from ever bidding beyond 4♥ are very great compared to the advantages of allowing him to do so. But in an all-expert game no one has to disclose anything, because in the immortal words of Leonard Cohen: Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed. Everybody knows that the war is over, Everybody knows the good guys lost. Everybody knows the fight was fixed - The poor stay poor, the rich get rich - That's how it goes. Everybody knows. The question, as I have remarked before, is: do the Laws and the regulations allow the rich to steal from the poor without declaring the means by which they already attempt to steal from the rich?

Oh, they don't work. But at least we don't have to fill in convention cards or worry about alerting, since no one knows what anyone else is doing anyway.

I am sure some experienced players could help with the question. But unless it actually generated a ruling, or some situation in which the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were concerned, I am not sure what the question is doing in this section of the forums. Perhaps some kind moderator could (if necessary) move it to the appropriate place.

Me too. Plus partner should have a little extra. I would raise to 2♥ directly with many non-descript 4342's and rebid 1N with 4333. I hope 2♣ isn't GF. I mean, seriously... I would raise to 2♥ with many (nay, almost all) nondescript 4=3=5=1s. But if I had a "descript" (i.e. extra values) 4=3=5=1 I would bid 3♥ over 2♣. 2♥ would be reserved for a nondescript 4=2=5=2 with an honour in hearts but not in clubs. As to whether fourth suit should be forcing to game, I could seriously entertain the idea that it should and I could equally seriously entertain the idea that it should not. On the hand as given, if playing fourth suit as not forcing to game I would bid 2♣. Otherwise I would bid 2NT at IMPs and 1NT at matchpoints.

Well, actually...

Well, from time to time some players whose class is, shall we say, less than world wander into the game. There is no reason why they should have to play any of the rubbi... er, excellent methods that adorn the tournament scene nowadays. Besides, if we allowed dining-room-at-Le-Gavroche-class methods into the game we would never start a Chicago, let alone finish one. The first half hour after the cut would be taken up by Zia telling his partner what the system was; the half hour after the first hand would be taken up by Zia telling his partner what he ought to have bid according to the system; and the half hour after that would be taken up by trying to remember whose deal it was because after the first hour, everyone would have forgotten. Time is money, and system takes time.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you. Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem. The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead. The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"?

Apologies - don't know how to edit poll questions once posted. Forget redouble (that comes later, if you pass now).

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s972haqj42dak7c62]133|100|Scoring: Chicago[/hv] First deal of a Chicago; all players of "world class" as defined on BBO and some of them as defined by the world; stakes £30 per 100. You, South, open 1NT (15-17). Yes, I know. For no bonus credit at all, guess who you are. West bids 2♠ - natural, no conventional defences permitted. North bids 3♠. This is defined within the game as "Stayman in principle, but if that's not what he has, he will have some other kind of game force." East bids 4♠. You bid 5♥, which West doubles. North bids 6♣, East passes, and we have finally arrived at the point where the poll question becomes operative. You need to know that: If North had doubled 2♠, that would have been penalty; If North had bid three of a suit other than spades, that would have been natural and non-forcing; If North had bid four of a minor, that would have been natural and forcing; Lebensohl is not permitted; North has no way specifically to ask you to bid 3NT with a spade guard. Well?

Does he, by golly? Take the book back and get a refund in any case. Assume that from the opening lead, it is known that West has five spades or three (we ignore the possibility of one, which might have led to some bidding by East). Now, if West has five spades and East four (and nothing else is known about the distribution) we calculate Chance that West has three diamonds: 38.01%; Chance that West has four diamonds: 20.36%; Chance that West has two diamonds: 28.51%. The chance of a 3-3 diamond break has increased slightly (because of the even spade division), but the chance of a [4-2 or 2-4] break (which has not changed very much at all) still comfortably outweighs it. If West has three spades and East six (and nothing else is known about the distribution) we calculate Chance that West has three diamonds: 33.94%; Chance that West has four diamonds: 35.63%; Chance that West has two diamonds: 12.73%. The chance of a 3-3 break has decreased slightly (because of the uneven spade division), and West has become more likely to hold four diamonds than three. But again the chance of a [4-2 or 2-4] break has not changed very much, and now outweighs the chance of 3-3 by a greater margin. Perhaps Mr (Professor? Doctor?) MacKinnon does not have to tear his book up altogether. He just needs to add to the title the letters "Mis" before the word "information".

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥. Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things. Amen to this! We need to ask the doubters what kind of hand makes a slam try over a constructive raise but doesn't have a 2♣ opener? Damn I did it again!!! I keep trying to use logic in this Fora :ph34r: And you keep failing, because you do not know what logic is (any more than you know what the plural of "forum" is). This: ♠None ♥AKxxxx ♦xx ♣AKxxx is by no stretch of the imagination a 2♣ opening, yet it would want to make a slam try over a constructive raise of 1♥. Indeed, it might reasonably just bid a slam over a constructive raise, hoping either that it will be cold or that it will make on a non-diamond lead. But what the clever school does is to make a "trial bid" of 3♦ and then bid a slam. Naturally, they also do not tell the opponents that this is what they may be doing. Hence the concern expressed by some posters here.

It often happens that players need to discard from worthless holdings in such a way as to pretend to be squeezed. This is not at all an "extremely rare" position.

West is more likely to have been dealt five spades than three (by a ratio of roughly 2-1), but on some hands with five spades he might have overcalled. Since he does not appear from the lead to hold ♠KQ, and is only a 50-50 shot to hold ♣A, there are probably not many hands with five spades with which he would have overcalled, but the number is an imponderable (especially since the vulnerability and the form of scoring are unknown). However, if one considers that West would overcall on fewer than half of his possible hands with five spades, the lead is more likely to be from five cards than three. If the answer in the book does not say this, get a refund.

The 3♣ bidder wasn't the one who asked about 2♥. His partner asked about it at her earliest legal opportunity - that is, when the auction had come back to her with 3♠ on her right.

But it can be an illegal deviation. The law does not distinguish between psyches and deviations so it is just as legal to prohibit deviations here as it is to prohibit psyches. It sounds to me like the regulation quoted does so. It is not legal to prohibit either deviations or psyches per se. But Law 40B2d says that: which it ought not to say - instead, the word "psychic" should appear before the word "use. If it is held, as it might well be, that opening with a three count when your methods mandate a five count is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength", then the Regulating Authority may forbid you to do it, and award an artificial adjusted score if you disobey.

The TD hasn't denied redress; if he had done he would have given a split score. He has just decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is no reason to believe declarer would play differently without the double, IOW that the bad play was subsequent but not consequent. But this is nonsense, since declarer put all his eggs in one basket -- that of LHO holding the ♥A. I think that might be the ♣A. I also think that, at least under the guidance recently issued in England, it would be held that although declarer's play was ludicrous, it was not a serious error.

Opener can do slightly better by bidding S1 when his hand is either minimally suitable or maximally suitable (so that he will continue after responder's 4M), and bidding the major when his hand is neither of the above.

No. The opening bid at the other table was four spades, passed out and down three.

Well, I passed. Partner had ♠64 ♥AJ765 ♦K4 ♣10862 The pre-emptor's partner had the singleton ♠A and three diamonds, so three spades went down two and (with the right view in trumps) my side could make six hearts. The first three boards were all flat - our counterparts at the other table also bid six diamonds; our team-mate also led a heart against four spades (and his partner did not duck it, which would have forced declarer to guess diamonds); the flat-looking board lived up to its appearance. On the fifth deal I found a ridiculous defence to a vulnerable game that beat it only one instead of three (it wasn't an awful contract, but the breaks were bad). The last two boards were as flat as the first three, so we... won the match comfortably, because our other team-mate received an even more ridiculous defence to the game that allowed it to make. There is a moral in all of this, if only I could find it.

Would bid 2♥ again if legal. Might make it, if partner has a maximum.

Three things occur to me- 1. Would Burn desire to partake of such proceedings? 2. When he did partake, how long would his sanity survive? 3. I sense an emptiness not knowing the consequences of a call not legally made. Actually, a whole lot more than three things. If you mean "would I rather play in a tournament where once you'd made a legal call, you could not change it", of course I would. I am as prone to "mechanical errors" as the next man, but unlike some of the next men I believe that whatever the penalty may be for those errors, I should pay it rather than moan about it and attempt to have it rescinded. Probably, there should be some provision for changing illegal calls. The current provisions for calls out of rotation are more or less all right; the current provisions for changing insufficient bids are more or less all wrong. The consequences of a call not legally made are that if it works, the one-handed people in the audience will clap vigorously. Numbers greater than three may exist, but don't count on it.

Sure it does (just as in Fluffy's question). If you know fortuitously from your own hand that partner has forgotten the system, and you know more than the opponents know about the type of hand that partner will have if he has forgotten the system, then: one school of thought (which we will describe as "honest") holds that you are obliged to tell the opponents what amounts to all of the foregoing; while another school of thought (which we will describe as "dutiful") holds that you are obliged to tell the opponents what amounts to none of the foregoing. The irreconcilable differences between these two schools is nowhere more aptly summarized than by Nigel's "legal, but unfair in practice". awm is on record as asking whether a player should really explain his partner's call as: [1] showing something the player knows that his partner does not have; [2] taking advantage of the player's own (fortuitous) holding to sow confusion, usually to the player's own benefit. In the days when Kaplan wrote the Laws, the answer to that question was an unqualified "yes, he should - if he is lucky enough to know that his partner has (in effect) psyched, he is under no obligation to inform the opponents that this is the case." In those days, there was no debate - you should be dutiful, and there was no obligation at all to be honest; indeed, it was on occasion held that being honest was unhelpful to the constabulary, and thus practically an offence it itself. But that was then, and this is now. The Law regarding implicit (as opposed to, or in conjunction with) explicit agreements has acquired such force that nobody has actually got the faintest idea what Law 40 means for practical purposes; in particular, no one knows whether it obliges players to be honest, or dutiful, or somewhere between the two. Fluffy was helpful enough to say that his partnership agreement at the time was "definitely" that 2♥ showed hearts; this allows us to say equally definitely that he should dutifully explain 2♥ as hearts and bid what he likes. If the opponents come to grief - well, they might or might not obtain redress, for his partner on the other side of the screen will have given misinformation (not about his hand, which is no infraction, but about the partnership agreement, which is). Instead, Fluffy knew what was going on and wanted to be honest. Commendable though this may seem, it is probably still illegal, though this is unclear. You see, instead of trying to develop a legal system with some chance of working (or at any rate of being understood), the powers that be have concentrated on ways of stopping some idiots from going down seven in a cuebid just because one of the idiots may not have meant to make it, or the other one may not have meant to pass it. Wherefore I propose Burn's 40th law: Law 40 You should tell the opponents what methods you play, and you should tell them nothing else. If you don't know what methods you play then you must not tell them anything, but you will not be permitted to play any methods relating to the sequence you have messed up until you have sorted it out. Moreover, the opponents should receive a score in respect of the current deal of no less than 90% of the match points, or 14 IMPs in team play (or their actual score if greater, as one sincerely hopes that it will be). This penalty to be extended to at least 17 IMPs if you talk complete nonsense (e.g. describing a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening as "either clubs, or spades and diamonds" when you are both clearly deranged). Law 41....

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s972hk1098daq975ca]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are East on board four of a 7-board Swiss Teams match. Last round. Going in, you lead by 5 VPs (20-0 scale) from the second-placed team and are playing the third-placed team, who need to blitz you to catch you. On board one, you have bid and made 6♦ with: [hv=d=w&v=n&w=s2hkq104dkj73ck842&e=sa10863ha5da1082ca5]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] On board two, you have bid and made 4♠ with: [hv=d=w&v=n&w=s2hkq104dkj73ck842&e=sa10863ha5da1082ca5]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] when South's heart lead from ♥964 proved fatal. You would have made it on a trump lead also, but not on a minor-suit lead; the opening leader held ♠2 ♥964 ♦K9653 ♣K985 and your uncontested auction was simply 2♠ (good weak two bid) - 4♠. Board three appears flat. Now, South opens 3♠ which is followed by two in-tempo passes. And you?

Whilst I agree with almost every word Fred says above, it seems to me that at present the Laws require rather more by way of an explanation to opponents than "partner has followed this 3♦-3♥-4♥ sequence because he thought it was smart at the time". That is: if North has previous experience leading him to suspect which of the "psyches" 2, 3 and 4 partner is more likely to have perpetrated, the opponents are also entitled to this experience. It is not enough to say simply "he might be trying this trick, or he might be trying that trick, or he might not in fact be Zia but Frances Hinden in disguise, in which case she really will have ♦Q10xx in a slam try." Of course, all this information needs to be given over 3♦, and not in some bizarre retrospective fashion over 4♥. But the days are long gone when Victor Mollo could remark that the Hog's call was not necessarily a cue bid, merely a diversionary measure to annoy Papa, and he hardly bothered to listen to it himself. Nowadays, if 3♦ really does not give partner rights to bid above 4♥, then 3♦ may be in effect a controlled psyche, and those are no longer legal at all.