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

[ArtK78]

: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.

It is not difficult to determine what bids constitute logical alternatives. All bridge players do that all the time. Do I accept the game try or do I decline the game try? If you believe that some players would bid game and others would not, then the action not chosen becomes a logical alternative to the action chosen.

 

Sometimes there are more than two choices available. For example, after 1♦-1♥-2♥, if responder has a 3433 11 count, responder may pass, may bid game, or may make a game try. If a significant number of players would choose each of these actions, the actions not taken by the player at the table become logical alternatives.

 

Clearly, a bid of 5♠ over 2♥ is not a logical alternative on a 3433 11 count on the given auction.

 

Appeals committee members do not have to be omnicient. They just have to have a reasonable amount of experience and expertise. And a little diplomacy and tact also help.

[barmar]

There's a bridge maxim that if you open a 5-card major and partner gives you a limit raise, you should practically always accept the game invitation if you have a singleton or void, even if you have an otherwise minimum opener. You don't know whether the singleton is actually useful -- partner could have all his values wasted opposite it. But unless you play a convention like 2NT to show a limit raise, so you have the 3 level available to ask the nature of responder's hand, you don't have any way to find out, and more often than not the shortness will be useful.

 

The same goes with the auction in this thread. When responder hears 3H, and he has side shortness, he can't tell whether it's useful or not. But frequently shortness IS useful in trump contracts, while it would be a misfeature in NT, so it makes sense to raise to game once you've discovered that you have a good fit.

 

The reason why this is an unusual sequence is not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that the particular combination of cards doesn't come up very often. It's only when opener has a minimum with support for your major, and responder has a shapely invitational hand.

 

Earlier Art claimed that responder's 2NT bid makes opener the captain. I think not. It's very rare that the player opening NT gets to be captain -- this bid describes his hand relatively narrowly. Responder's hand is much less defined -- all you know is that he has 5 cards in the suit he transferred to, but the rest of his shape could be practically anything. Opener will rarely have any distributional assets that he can use to offset HCP deficits, but responder may, but they only become valuable once you've agreed to play in a suit. Since responder can see these, but opener can't, responder is still captain. 2NT is really an asking bid -- it asks "are you minimum or maximum, and do you have a fit with me?" What makes it a little confusing is that Pass is one of the acceptable answers; in that sense, it's somewhat related to "pass or correct" bids, where one's hand increase in value if partner corrects.

[the hog]

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.

This time it is not you who needs help with your English. The adjective is "closed minded", not "close minded". One is tempted to ask close to what?

[jdonn]

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.

This time it is not you who needs help with your English.

That is what Hannie was implying. Though for a more relevant reason than you stated.

[han]

Indeed, but the comment about close vs closed is appreciated.