2N, 3H, 3N, 4H?

[mikeh]

It took me awhile before I decided to participate in this Forum.  From some of the responses to my argument in this thread, I wonder why I bothered.

 

 

And a recent poster accused me of being stubborn.  I prefer to think of it as determined.

 

:)

 

So, do what you like.  But we aware that bidding 4♥ in this situation is an alarm to the opponents.  It is a very unusual call - after the 3♥ bid, everyone expects that the auction is over.  If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call.  And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

 

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director.  I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect.  And, as the TD, you are paid to respond to problems that arise at the table.  So, I prefer to think of your responding to my call as using your time, not wasting your time.

In your first post you wrote that ' if you check out in 3♥ and parther bids again... you are going to wind up before a committee'

 

You do later slightly modify that ridiculous statement, but you haven't withdrawn it.

 

'Stubborn' is an underbid.

 

I and, I assume, the others who permit a 4♥ raise of the 3♥ bid, see that as part of the normal process of listening to the auction and re-evaluting one's hand as more information becomes available. We see the rigid 'not allowed to bid over 3♥' as fundamentally flawed and as bad bridge.

 

But none of us suggest that you should not be permitted to play that method. Frankly, the more otherwise competent opps play poor methods, the happier I am :)

 

You, otoh, are not content with arguing, as you have, that raising is going to be bad bridge. Oh no, it isn't just a poor bridge decision: it is presumptively unethical!

 

We make the call and you have us in front of a committee!!

 

Now, in later posts, I think you modified the position so that the committee punishes us only if opener took any time to think before bidding 3♥. How kind of you.

 

I guess no-one is allowed to have a problem with, say, a flat 15 count and 3 card support. No-one is allowed to consider whether to play the 5-3 fit in 2N on modest values and no apparent shape. Or, if one even spends two seconds considering it, you have to pass 2N?

 

Just where the f**K do you get off criticizing the ethics of those of us who actually prefer to continue re-evaluating our hands in mid-auction?

 

Now, I am sure you are going to say that you didn't mean to offend me that way.. and I believe you. In fact, I will go further and say that I enjoy your posts and I am not actually upset with you... I wrote the preceding paragraph to make a point, not because I think for a moment that you are intending the natural meaning of your language :)

 

Just loosen up, recognize that others can legitmately disagree with you on this point without behaving in a way that warrants a committee rolling back any successful exercise of the judgement you decline to use.

[jtfanclub]

In any event, I agree that it is true that 2NT is a statement as Jlall mentioned in a recent post (Parenthetically, most bids in a Standard system are statements).  It describes a hand with a 5 card heart suit and invitational values.  Opener is entitled to evaluate his hand to determine where the hand should be played.  Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

 

And how do you figure this, exactly?

 

Let's say IMPs, all red.

 

After 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT, what do you think is the weakest hand responder could have?

What do you think the strongest hand responder could have is?

 

After 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT-3♥, what do you think is the weakest hand opener could have?

What do you think is the strongest hand opener could have?

 

I mean, you asked for examples. People gave you dozens. Only fair you return the favor. Your claim is that opener is better positioned to decide if game is there after the 2NT bid than responder is after the 3♥ bid, yes?

 

 

In my opinion, a 4♥ bid by responder is a breach of partnership dicipline.

 

Well, that's between you and your partner, not between your opponent and your director. Do you agree, that if a player expects his partner to raise 3♥ to 4 a significant percentage of the time, that it is not a breach of partnership discipline?

 

So, do what you like.

 

Ah, if we only could. Then I'd never have posted in this thread.

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether 3♥ should be signoff.

Only on whether people should be punished by the Committee if they don't play it as signoff.

 

If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call.  And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

 

That is quite possibly the saddest thing I have ever heard regarding. According to you, the bidding of 4♥ is always a bad bid (regardless of result). Therefore, you're calling the director on bad players for getting lucky. What a wonderful representative for bridge you must make.

 

I play a Precision 12-15 NT, which includes many slightly offshape hands (like 2236). As a result, after 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT, opener passes even with an 8 card fit if he feels his hand is substandard. Bidding 3♥ shows at least a tiny amount of game interest.

 

And you're thinking is what, exactly? We need to alert this as shows, um, less than a 15-17 opener but more than some hypothetical number? That this gives you a free top because you can claim that when we passed 3♥ it was because of an tiny hesitation and when we bid 4♥ it was because of a tiny hesitation? Exactly what would make you think a hesitation means bid on?

 

But that's Precision, right?

 

And yet, we have some of the best players in the world (I assure you I am not among them) on this thread saying that 3♥ is not a signoff. I believe I can find quite a few people who would pass 2NT rather than bid 3♥ with a particularly poor hand with support simply to ensure that the auction would not continue to 4♥. Which means that on this auction, there is no reason to think that a hesitation shows strength, not weakness.

 

After a hesitation, to accuse somebody of being influenced in the direction of the hesitation is to accuse them of subconsciously using UI, perhaps even coffeehousing. But to accuse them of bidding 4♥ due to UI when the UI does not point in one direction or another is to accuse them of cheating. Is this how you show respect?

 

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director.  I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect.

 

I have certainly been called due to people making poor bids and getting good results. I have been polite to them. I have never, in my life, been called about such a marginal auction. Honestly, I would probably say that in the ACBL, you must call the director at the time of the hesitation. You may not wait until after your opponent makes a call to say that it was caused by a previous, uncalled, hesitation. And God Willing, that would end it.

 

You may not like 3♥ as being a counter-invitation, but it is legal, most people play it to some extent, and for you to try to outlaw it via committee is the sort of thing that destroys bridge, and not merely for the people directly affected.

 

Luckily, I can't say I've come across such an appeal. Would you care to point one out to me?

[ArtK78]

Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

This is exactly the point where we disagree. All opener knows is that responder has 5 hearts and invitational values. He could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx. He doen'st know whether responder is balanced or nott, he doesn't know whether his 5-card suit gets upgraded opposite a fit, etc. However, after the 3♥ bid responder knows opener has 3 hearts and a minimum for hearts given he has a balanced hand worth 15-17 hcp. Who knows more about the other's hand? This really isn't close.

 

Anyway, I am not sure you have the rights to complain about being called stubborn when you upfront told us that we shouldn't be surprised to end up in front of a committee for an action that we consider entirely normal, and then be treated with very little sympathy by you who has been serving in committees for 30 years...

I am only going to respond to one post. Most of the others are beneath response.

 

"Responder could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx."

 

I strongly suspect that with - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx responder would not rebid 2NT over 2H.

[hrothgar]

I strongly suspect that with - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx responder would not rebid 2NT over 2H.

What do you suggest that he would rebid?

[mikeh]

I give up.

 

It is impossible to argue rationally with a closed mind :rolleyes:

 

The good news is that there has been several excellent posts on how, why and under what circumstances it may be appropriate for responder to bid on over 3♥ and some readers, who previously did not understand this possibility or its rationale, may have learned something, even tho the instigator of the discussion seems 'determined' to be 'right' even when so obviously wrong.

 

My only remaining hope is that he is never on any committee on which I serve or (worse) before which I appear. Committee members who are utterly convinced of their own infallibility and bridge knowledge are scary creatures... and when their opinion contradicts expert consensus, they ought never to be allowed to serve.

[drinbrasil]

I agree bidding after 3H is possible, just is very rare. But i figured chances of sucesses depend on 2nd fit (you always has to be at least 5-4 to bid over 3H) and depends normally on trumphs not break 4-1. I just wanted test the expected imps for this auction :P anyone has any site to random hands and analise?

[bid_em_up]

My only remaining hope is that he is never on any committee on which I serve or (worse) before which I appear. Committee members who are utterly convinced of their own infallibility and bridge knowledge are scary creatures... and when their opinion contradicts expert consensus, they ought never to be allowed to serve.

Mike, the good news is that Art really isn't as close-minded as he initially appears to be.

 

The bad news is that he is also a lawyer. I believe this is the same ArtK78 that I knew from another site and its hard to believe there would be two of them showing the exact same attitudes using the same ID. It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken. :P I am uncertain what type of lawyer he is, but this seems to be a trait amongst the bridge playing lawyers that I know (I do not mean this in a bad way.) In many cases, they appear to be naturally ingrained to take a position and defend it to the bitter end. This is a good thing for the trial lawyers client (or the prosecution depending on your position). It is a great trait for lawyer to have. Unfortunately, it's not always such a good thing when discussing a bridge hand.

 

I don't think he really meant he would take someone to committee each and everytime they bid 4H over a 3H bid, even though his initial wording made it appear that way. A closer reading of his later statements lead me to believe that what he really means is that, "If there was a hesitation before the 3H bid, he thinks it is grounds for an appeal or to call the director." I can somewhat agree with this, and you probably can too. It doesn't matter what you were thinking about (passing 2N, bidding 3H), the non-offending side does not know what you were thinking about and is fully entitled to call the director. The fact still remains that there was a hesitation. So,

 

Since the time to call the director is at the point of the hesitation, the hand bidding 4H needs to have a logical and justifiable bridge reason for continuing on to 4H. I can understand this sentiment and it isn't a totally unreasonable position to have. But since the director should be standing right there at the table, and if the responding hand still bids 4H, responder should be able to show some logical and justifiable reason for doing so. "Oh, I felt like taking a shot at it." won't cut it.

 

If this is the reason given, and the director were to let the result stand, I can see how it could end up being appealed, and how the committee might possibly rule against the hesitating side. I believe this is what Art is actually arguing for, and could be convinced in this scenario he might even be right. After the hesitation, you will need a real good argument for going ahead and bidding 4H. Yes, we agree that there are hands that could do so without the hesitation, but in most cases, after the hesitation, pass would probably be a logical alternative as well, which then makes the 4H call a lot less "attractive" or "reasonable".

 

But, an in-tempo, 1N-2D-2H-2N-3H-4H sequence? No way. Any competent director or committee would laugh you out of the room if you tried to appeal this on the basis that 3H is a sign-off therefore you are not allowed to make another call.

[ArtK78]

Please note that the problem hand was at matchpoints, not IMPs.

[helene_t]

Agree with Mikeh and others. In fact I would say it's quite common for responder to raise opener's preference bid in this sequence. I believe that ArtK78 must either be playing some exotic methods in which unbalanced invitational hands with a 5-card major have some other rebid than 2NT, or he must have poor skills in hand evaluation, i.e. fail to acknowledge that unbalanced hands become better after a fit is established.

 

Also, even if responder turned out to have a 5332 which should not (in opps' and the TDs opinion) re-evaluate, responder is allowed to make a bad bid, even a successful bad bid. If opener tanked before bidding 3♥ there may be an issue.

 

The most common reason for me to put BBO players on my enemy list is when they vaste the TD's time with complaints about opps making bad but successful bids or plays.

[mikeh]

The bad news is that he is also a lawyer.  I believe this is the same ArtK78 that I knew from another site and its hard to believe there would be two of them showing the exact same attitudes using the same ID.  It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.  :)  I am uncertain what type of lawyer he is, but this seems to be a trait amongst the bridge playing lawyers that I know (I do not mean this in a bad way.)  In many cases, they appear to be naturally ingrained to take a position and defend it to the bitter end.  This is a good thing for the trial lawyers client (or the prosecution depending on your position).  It is a great trait for lawyer to have. Unfortunately, it's not always such a good thing when discussing a bridge hand.

 

As an occasionally 'determined' trial lawyer/bridge player, I recognize the traits you describe. However, imo, the better trial lawyer learns to see things from the other party's p.o.v. since this ability enables one to anticipate the arguments to be advanced. Furthermore, and perhaps this is not well understood by most non-trial lawyers, the trial lawyer's main goal is not to win at trial, but to obtain the best result for the client, measured in net economic recovery (or minimal economic loss if the one being sued). Note I am speaking of civil litigation, not criminal. The best economic result is usually attained through negotiation, not trial. In moter vehicle cases, which form a substantial part of civil litigation where I live, the settlement rate is roughly 95%, and it is close to that in other civil litigation. One cannot negotiate at this level without the mental flexibility to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both sides to an argument.

 

Yes, we tend to posture... to outwardly maintain a level of confidence in our position that perhaps we do not really have, since there is an element of psychology in the negotiation process, but with competent opposition, that posturing isn't worth much. The truly inflexible laywer doesn't do that well, because he wastes too much of his own time and his client's money and gets poor results too often. Kind of like bridge players who persist in irrational bidding theories :ph34r:

[mila85]

If the field plays weak notrumph they will be probably in 1nt, 2h, 2nt or 4h.

1s - 1nt / p

1s - 1nt / 2nt - pass

1s - 1nt / 2nt - 3h / 4h

1c - 1h / 1nt - 2h=inv (via some convention) / pass or 4h

 

From this point of view I don't want to play in 3h. What about 3nt?

[han]

Mike, the good news is that Art really isn't as close-minded as he initially appears to be.

 

[skip]

 

It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.

Ron, I need help with my English.

[ArtK78]

I decided to get the opinion of an authority on the game on this issue, so I wrote to Jeff Rubens of The Bridge World. With Jeff's permission, here is my question and his response:

 

How would you characterize the final bid in this sequence?

 

1NT (15-17) - 2D (transfer)

2H - 2NT

3H - 4H

 

1) interesting

2) unusual

3) rare, but possible

4) extremely rare, hard to imagine

5) suspicious

 

Would your opinion change if there was a break in tempo by opener after 2NT?

 

This question prompted a lot of very heated discussion on the BBO Bridge Forum recently, in which I was in a very small minority.

 

I am looking forward to seeing your response

 

****************

 

Dear Art,

 

Thank you for your letter.

 

I don’t know that the answer to your question by itself has any significance, but if I had to pick I would pick (3). I consider it possible because of a weakness in the standard transfer system that can cause responder to rebid two notrump with an unbalanced hand. For example, with something resembling xx Jxxxx x AKxxx, I would bid as shown as responder (and find it hard to see any alternative at any point).

 

If this is a UI question, you are asking it backwards. Assuming there was UI, if it appeared to favor bidding four hearts (as it surely would from a huddle over 2D, and it could be argued similarly with a huddle over two notrump, though this is not as strong a case by far), one determines whether there was a reasonable alternative. Unless the answer to the percentage question is zero, how unlikely it is to hold such a hand doesn’t matter; what matters is whether what he had was one of those hands.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jeff Rubens

[kenrexford]

OK. I know you have all been waiting for my analysis, which will be, of course, the correct analysis.

 

Obviously, everyone knows that there will be a temptation to bid game after the correction back to the major when Responder has an unbalanced hand. This hand will now be a "player."

 

Had the major been spades (1NT-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-2NT), Opener would clearly distinguish minimums by using empathetic shortness indicators. In other words, Opener would bid as follows:

 

Normal:

4♠ = spade fit, game only

3♠ = spade fit, no chance of game

Pass = no spade fit, minimum

3NT = spade fit, maximum

 

Empathetic Splinters:

4♣ = spade fit, four clubs, five key cards (aces and black K's/Q's)

4♦ = spade fit, four diamonds, five keys (aces and pointed K's/Q's)

4♥ = spade fit, five hearts, five keys (aces and major K's/Q's)

 

Empathetic Short-Suit Game Tries:

3♣ = I'd accept a game try if you could show me an unbalanced player with a stiff club, but not a general GT

3♦ = I'd accept a game try if you could show the diamond stiff

3H = The heart stiff works.

 

So far, very standard stuff.

 

The heart auction, however, is more cramped, because Opener cannot show ability to accept a game try if the short suit is spades, at least not naturally, without bypassing 3♥. So, the 3♥ response seems to decline a game try unless the short suit in the unbalanced situation happens to be spades. That makes sense because spades is the most likely suit to be bid competitively during the preceding sequence.

 

So, it seems that Responder might want to be in game after the proposed sequence if he has a player with short spades, unless, of course, one uses 2♦...2♠ as an artificial GT with an unbalanced hand (I'd check on this before calling a committe, at a minimum), 2♠ being artificial.

 

So, in summary, I think that Art simply is confused by the sequence. He is clearly right had the major-in-focus been spades. No one could plausibly claim that they do not use empathetic short-suit game tries here. That would be rejected as frivolous, probably with a procedural penalty and/or a loss of the deposit, depending on who appealed.

 

However, as the major was hearts, Responder would be in the right IF Responder held a stiff spade and was not playing that 2♦...2♠ showed this hand. That last part would, in and of itself, be highly unusual, as no one plays 2♠ as natural any more, but perhaps the opponents are older folks.

[han]

1) interesting

2) unusual

3) rare, but possible

4) extremely rare, hard to imagine

5) suspicious

I think your question was very poorly phrased Art. It looks like you didn't aim for an answer that would enlighten you, but tried to get an answer that could help you win the argument here. Of these 5 choices "rare, but possible" was probably the furthest away from "suspicious". For next time, how about including:

 

6) nothing special

7) not uncommon.

 

Anyway, I'm glad Jeff made it clear that there are indeed hands where there are no logical alternatives but bidding 2NT first and then 4H.

[Guest Jlall]

lol ken, nice

[sathyab]

1) interesting

2) unusual

3) rare, but possible

4) extremely rare, hard to imagine

5) suspicious

I think your question was very poorly phrased Art. It looks like you didn't aim for an answer that would enlighten you, but tried to get an answer that could help you win the argument here. Of these 5 choices "rare, but possible" was probably the furthest away from "suspicious". For next time, how about including:

 

6) nothing special

7) not uncommon.

 

Anyway, I'm glad Jeff made it clear that there are indeed hands where there are no logical alternatives but bidding 2NT first and then 4H.

The wording of the question or the choices that were offered as possible answers didn't seem to affect Jeff's opinion.

 

It's to Art's credit that he forwarded the opinion of an authority which as you youself note, with unconcealed jubiliation if I might add, is at variance with Art's own position. If his aim was to elicit a response that supported his argument why would he do that ?

[jdeegan]

;) WOW what a wonderful thread I just found. Returning to the game after a brief 30 year hiatus, I was AMAZED at the amount of lawyering going on. Now, at the top level of bridge, that is one thing - people's professional reputations and even livelihoods are at stake. But, at a Podunk sectional? Uggh! For most of us, bridge is for fun.

 

It takes a modern day Oswald Jacoby or Edgar Kaplan on committees to make the modern ethics system work properly, and they are there at our major national and international events. At Podunk sectionals and regionals I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78.

 

All the salient points that I can see were covered in the thread:

 

1. 4♥ is a good bid

2. 3♥ is, imo., OK too - the hand is right on the cusp

3. 4♥ over 3♥ is just fine - I would expect two bullets and 10 fifth of hearts

4. a huddle over 2NT is ambiguous - the alternatives may have been between pass and 3♥ with 4-3-3-3 and a minimum, OR the actual hand type

5. Calling the director on the basis of UI (except, possibly at a high-level event), I find disgusting

 

If you wanna win the duplicate, try to keep your emotions under control and play a little better. Please, don't call the police unless the opponents actually do a 'job' on you.

[ArtK78]

;) WOW what a wonderful thread I just found. Returning to the game after a brief 30 year hiatus, I was AMAZED at the amount of lawyering going on.  Now, at the top level of bridge, that is one thing - people's professional reputations and even livelihoods are at stake.  But, at a Podunk sectional? Uggh!  For most of us, bridge is for fun.

 

It takes a modern day Oswald Jacoby or Edgar Kaplan on committees to make the modern ethics system work properly, and they are there at our major national and international events.  At Podunk sectionals and regionals I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78. 

 

All the salient points that I can see were covered in the thread:

 

1. 4♥ is a good bid

2. 3♥ is, imo., OK too - the hand is right on the cusp

3. 4♥ over 3♥ is just fine - I would expect two bullets and 10 fifth of hearts

4. a huddle over 2NT is ambiguous - the alternatives may have been between pass and 3♥ with 4-3-3-3 and a minimum, OR the actual hand type

5. Calling the director on the basis of UI (except, possibly at a high-level event), I find disgusting

 

If you wanna win the duplicate, try to keep your emotions under control and play a little better.  Please, don't call the police unless the opponents actually do a 'job' on you.

This is supposed to be a forum in which ideas about bridge are discussed at a high level. It is assumed that the discussions here are applicable to high level tournaments, not so much the play at a Podunk sectional.

 

Jdeegan, you are entitled to your opinion. But I would appreciate it if you (and others in this thread) refrain from personal insults. If you examine my posts, you will find that I have kept my discussion on an intellectual level, and I have not insulted anyone in the process. So, saying that at regionals and sectionals "I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78" is insulting and uncalled for.

 

I almost never call for the tournament director in situations such as these, even when playing in North American Championship events. I trust that most players, especially those that I know personally or by reputation, are ethical enough to ignore breaks-in-tempo and the like. The ideal is to play as if you were behind screens, so that you do not notice the break-in-tempo even if everyone at the table acknowledges that there has been one. I also know many top-flight players who call for the TD at the drop of a hat. One is a good friend of mine, although I don't particularly like this attribute.

 

Having said that, one should not crawl under a rock and act as if the problem does not exist. Rarely does an issue of The Bridge World pass without some discussion of how tournament directors and appeals committees should or should not handle break-in-tempo situations.

 

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives. I did not ask Jeff his opinion about whether he would call for the tournament director if he were playing in a sectional in Podunk. The question was phrased entirely in the area of a discussion of a particular bridge auction taken in a vacuum to begin with, and then adding the problems that arise in competitive bridge - presumably at a high level. These problems - hesitations and other actions that occur at the table which can convey unauthorized information - cannot be ignored. And that is especially true when an unusual sequence of bids occurs. And most of the contributors to this post concede that the continuation to 4♥ is, at the very least, ununusal.

 

I don't ask that you agree with me. I don't even ask that you like me. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal insults.

[ArtK78]

By the way, I bet one of the reasons that this was such "a wonderful thread" as you put it, jdeegan, was that my opinions on the auction provoked a very lively (and somewhat heated) discussion. Without my contribution, this would have been much less entertaining.

 

I don't mind being in the minority (even a minority of one). It is just when the argument starts getting personal that it gets ugly.

[jtfanclub]

If you examine my posts, you will find that I have kept my discussion on an intellectual level, and I have not insulted anyone in the process.

 

No comment

 

I almost never call for the tournament director in situations such as these, even when playing in North American Championship events.

 

That is good to hear. It is not the impression I received from your earlier posts, but I appreciate the correction.

 

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives.

 

That's an...interesting interpretation.

 

Earlier you said...

 

I have been playing for over 30 years at all levels up to North American Championships, and I have served on many committees. If this auction occurred and there was a complaint about it, and it came before a committee on which I was serving, I would have to be 100% convinced that there was no action at the table outside of the bidding which could have caused the game bid.

 

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point". I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from. As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand.

 

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

[ArtK78]

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives.

 

That's an...interesting interpretation.

 

Earlier you said...

 

I have been playing for over 30 years at all levels up to North American Championships, and I have served on many committees. If this auction occurred and there was a complaint about it, and it came before a committee on which I was serving, I would have to be 100% convinced that there was no action at the table outside of the bidding which could have caused the game bid.

 

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point". I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from. As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand.

 

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

JT:

 

Pardon me if this is somewhat long-winded.

 

It is always true that any bridge player can bid whatever he wants to bid (with certain exceptions when the organizing body regulates certain bids, such as psyches of strong artificial and forcing bids). In the absence of UI, there is nothing wrong with any bid (although some of my partners may think otherwise).

 

However, if there is UI, then there may be a problem. UI can favor one logical alternative over another. In this case, as Jeff Rubens stated, a break in tempo over the 2♦ tranfer conveys UI - that the 1NT bidder was considering some other action than the usual 2♥ call. Quoting from Jeff's response to my question:

 

"Assuming there was UI, if it appeared to favor bidding four hearts (as it surely would from a huddle over 2D, and it could be argued similarly with a huddle over two notrump, though this is not as strong a case by far), one determines whether there was a reasonable alternative. Unless the answer to the percentage question is zero, how unlikely it is to hold such a hand doesn’t matter; what matters is whether what he had was one of those hands."

 

And, as far as I know - please correct me if I am missing something - any action other than 2♥ over the transfer would imply some kind of super acceptance of hearts. So, if responder had an invitational type of hand - balanced or unbalanced - or even a hand which, on the face of it, might be a pass of the transfer to 2♥ - responder might choose to continue on with 2NT. Upon opener's preference to 3♥, responder might continue on to 4♥ on a hand where 50% of players would do so but 50% of players would not. And all of this might be perfectly innocent and unintentional. Nevertheless, bidding is restricted to a very limited vocabulary - the numbers one through seven, four suits, no trump, double, redouble and pass. Adding hesitations, mannerisms, inflections in voice, etc., can convey unauthorized information. If UI could have influenced an action taken at the table, the innocent side can obtain redress from the TD and, if not satisfied, from the appeals committee. And if the TD rules in favor of the innocent side, the other pair may also appeal that ruling to the appeals committee. These things happen all the time. Quite frankly, most players take offense to calls for the TD and appeals of rulings when they should not do so. Most of the time, all that is sought is equity - there is nothing personal involved.

 

I admit that I found the opinions in favor of the 4♥ bid over 3♥ as perfectly acceptable on a number of hands to be surprising. Jeff agreed that there are hands on which he would do the same. He attributed it to a weakness in the standard transfer systems - essentially, invitational unbalanced hands are difficult to deal with using common transfer methods. So, I accept that. The problem arises when one partner conveys information through something other than the bidding - unauthorized information. Once there is UI, it takes some of the judgment out of the hands of the players. So, a player who may have had every intention of bidding on to 4♥ over a preference to 3♥ by opener may be barred from doing so if opener conveyed any UI. No matter how genuine responder's intentions may have been, as long as the action is not one that almost every player of his skill level would take, he cannot overcome the fact that the UI may favor that action over some other logical alternative.

 

I hope that I have made my position clearer. This is a very difficult area and one that is not well understood by many players. Hence, when a TD or an appeals committee rules against them, there are often hard feelings. That should not be the case, and most appeals committee members and especially appeals committee chairpersons should be very sensitive to that fact. The chairperson of the appeals committee should go out of his or her way to make the losing side understand that the ruling against them does not mean that they committed any sort of bridge crime, only that there was a problem created by the UI and the committee had to find a solution to the problem.

[sathyab]

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point".  I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from.  As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand. 

 

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

What's interesting about the hand that Jeff offered as an example of one that would bid 4h over 3h is that it's significantly different from any that anyone else has offered so far. In addition to being 5-5, it's a 5-5 containing a stronger side-suit and a Jxxxx of trumps, the presumption being that the heart fit has improved the potential of the hand. In other words a 3-card fit does a lot more to improve the value of a hand with a trump suit of Jxxxx and a side suit of Akxxx rather than a trump suit of Akxxx and a side suit of Jxxxx.

[ArtK78]

What's interesting about the hand that Jeff offered as an example of one that would bid 4h over 3h is that it's significantly different from any that anyone else has offered so far. In addition to being 5-5, it's a 5-5 containing a stronger side-suit and a Jxxxx of trumps, the presumption being that the heart fit has improved the potential of the hand. In other words a 3-card fit does a lot more to improve the value of a hand with a trump suit of Jxxxx and a side suit of Akxxx rather than a trump suit of Akxxx and a side suit of Jxxxx.

I agree that Jeff's example hand was different than the ones set out as examples of hands that would bid 4♥ over 3♥, and I agree with the reasons for it that you pointed out, sathyab. Clearly, the existence of a heart fit improves the hand with long, weak hearts and a long, strong side suit more than the other way around.

[jdeegan]

:unsure: Gee, I was just trying to make the point that, imo, the current system that polices use of UI and other similar bridge ethical offences doesn't work very well unless committee members are virtual bridge demi-gods. If a committee member happens to think that an auction like:

 

1NT-P-2♦-P

2♥-P-2NT-P

3♥-P-4♥

 

is 'impossible', then that whole system breaks down, because that system depends on the committee member knowing what bids constitute 'reasonable alternatives' for other players in that specific situation.