Help Suit Game Try that isn't

[kevperk]

A 3♦ as a control showing bid is not alertable. The question becomes: does a bid showing either of 2 non alertable meanings need to be alerted?

[campboy]

A 3♦ as a control showing bid is not alertable. The question becomes: does a bid showing either of 2 non alertable meanings need to be alerted?

Why do you think a 3♦ control bid is not alertable here? I can't find anything on the alert chart to support that view.

 

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

 

It sounds to me like in your system 3♦ either has length or is the first move in a slam investigation in which case it need not have length. I don't see how a call which may by agreement be made without length can be said to "show length".

[kenrexford]

Here's a test for anyone who thinks this needs an alert:

 

If you heard this complete auction, would you think that 3♦ was a slam try with control in diamonds?

 

If not, what is the second option?

[campboy]

No, I wouldn't. 3♦ initially shows a game-try which needs help in diamonds; if I then bid game after it is rejected I am obviously showing a slam-try... that still needs help in diamonds. This is exactly what awm has already said, but evidently it needs saying again.

[ggwhiz]

When we are on the ball, we alert the 3♦ bid as a game try, usually 3+ cards and play the 4♥ bid as a very mild slam try (lack of a further cue).

 

I confess that we don't alert 4♥ and maybe we should but the hand typically is based on a shape slam try instead of power but wide ranging. Might be based on the Latte with the extra shot kicking in.

 

I'm torn with the fact that my explanation of a 4♥ alert could mis-describe my pards actual hand way too often.

[blackshoe]

Why do you think a 3♦ control bid is not alertable here? I can't find anything on the alert chart to support that view.

There's nothing on the alert chart to support the opposite view, either.

[mycroft]

If I have that auction, it's "well, it looks like it was a help-suit slam try." I'd be happy to explain that before the opening lead, if there's any doubt that the opponents can't work out the logic.

 

If that auction occurred in my old club, it would be "partner wanted to bid game, but can't. Therefore we should make it; I'd better bid it." The one time it happened when I was the TD rather than the player, +170 and a austere explanation was the immediate result (with comments on how unfortunate it was that I couldn't give -100 with responder's hand).

[campboy]

Why do you think a 3♦ control bid is not alertable here? I can't find anything on the alert chart to support that view.

There's nothing on the alert chart to support the opposite view, either.

The chart says that you should alert "all other conventional and/or artificial bids", ie all those not mentioned on the chart. "Artificial" is not defined, but normally used to mean "not natural" ("conventional" is defined, but a control bid does not seem to meet that definition). The definition of natural mentions the expected length as "3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses." The call being discussed is opener's rebid. If it merely shows a control it does not show the 3+ cards expected of a natural rebid. Thus it is not natural and is artificial; there is nothing I can see to say this is an exception to "alert artificial bids".

[blackshoe]

It is unfortunate that the ACBL C&C Committee has not made it clear whether it is the Alert Chart or the Alert Procedure which governs. It is unfortunate that the ACBL C&C Committee has not made it clear whether the lack of explicit reference to "control bids" in the Alert Procedure indicates, as common usage would imply, that they fall under "cue bids" or that the explicit differentiation, in the Alert Definitions, between "cue bid" and "control bid" implies that control bids are to be treated differently under the Alert Procedure than "cue bids". These unfortunate circumstances make it very unclear what the C&C Committee's intention is in this area. However, I've already said how I think this particular case should be handled — do not alert 3♦, alert (via a delayed alert) 4♥. I've seen nothing that convinces me to change my mind, and have nothing more to add.

[gordontd]

"Artificial" is not defined, but normally used to mean "not natural" ("conventional" is defined, but a control bid does not seem to meet that definition).

Artificial call is defined in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007

Artificial call – is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

[Finch]

Here's a test for anyone who thinks this needs an alert:

 

If you heard this complete auction, would you think that 3♦ was a slam try with control in diamonds?

No.

 

If not, what is the second option?

 

A hand with a diamond side-suit/values that was looking for a suitable holding opposite for slam. If you had something like Q10xx in diamonds and a good hand outside, wouldn't you like to focus partner's attention on their diamond holding?

[Winstonm]

If an alert is required, I say again that it is the 4♥ bid (which tells partner that 3♦ was a control bid) and not the 3♦ bid itself, which requires an alert.

But 4H is a completely natural bid. If I have an explicit understanding that 3D may not always be a normal game try and may even be shortage in diamonds then I have an obligation to let opponents in on this agreement, do I not? They cannot double a possibly artificial 3D call if I wait until 4H to alert.

[bluejak]

If 3♦ is usually length, but could on occasion be a cue bid, including possibly a shortage, then it is clearly alertable under ACBL rules.

 

The strange idea running through this thread is that the meaning of 3♦ changes. It does not. At the time it was made, it was not a help suit game try, which is not alertable. It is a help suit game try or a cue bid so alert it The fact that one meaning is more likely than the other does not affect this.

 

As for alerting 4♥, apart from being unnecessary, when did you start alerting over 3NT?

 

Incidentally, Frances' meaning for 3♦ in the sequence not only seems the obvious one, but the only possible explanation with a competent pair once they do not alert 3♦.

[blackshoe]

If 3♦ is usually length, but could on occasion be a cue bid, including possibly a shortage, then it is clearly alertable under ACBL rules.

:P If it was clear, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it is not alertable.

 

I await a response from Memphis.

 

But 4H is a completely natural bid.

 

It conveys a message about the previous 3♦ bid, to wit, that 3♦ was not actually a game try.

 

IIRC, there is a precedent in that in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer and assigns some other meaning (some kind of minor suit holding, I think, but as I don't play it, I'm not sure) to 2♦, we are told to announce 2♦ as if it were definitely a transfer, and then alert the 2♠ bid which cancels that meaning. I don't see the situation we've been discussing as any different.

[fred]

Incidentally, Frances' meaning for 3♦ in the sequence not only seems the obvious one, but the only possible explanation with a competent pair once they do not alert 3♦.

I disagree.

 

I can think of four other possible explanations why a competent player might bid 3D and then 4H over 3H:

 

1) Opener was always going to game, but wanted to give responder a chance to bid 3NT if he was loaded in clubs and spades.

 

2) Opener was always going to game, but wanted to discourage a diamond opening lead.

 

3) Opener was always going to game, but he thought that his LHO might suspect 2) if he bid this way and he actually wanted to encourage a diamond lead.

 

4) Opener was always going to game, did not particularly care about the opening lead, but wanted to mislead the defenders about the distribution of his hand.

 

(I am not suggesting that anywhere near all competent players get involved in 2, 3, and 4, but 2 at least is very common in the real world - I suppose this means that 3 "should be" as well even though it probably isn't).

 

Note that "psychs" like 2, 3, and 4 are completely safe. 3D does not give responder rights to bid above 4H. For example, when the auction continues 3H-4H, responder must Pass 100% of the time.

 

That is why I don't buy the concept that 4H "converts a game try into a cuebid". 4H does nothing of the sort - it just says "I want to try to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump and I bid 3D because I thought it was smart at the time. Maybe I was always going to play in 4H and maybe I would have considered other contracts had you bid something other than 3H."

 

From that it follows (for me at least) that the notion of alerting 4H does not make any sense. 4H is as natural as a bid can possibly be - it is a pure and complete signoff, just like it sounds. 4H conveys no other meaning so there is nothing to alert.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[dburn]

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.

[blackshoe]

It was, I think, established as a given earlier in the thread that for the partnership which perpetrated this auction giving rise to the OP, 4♥ in fact did establish, by partnership agreement, that 3♦ was not in fact a help suit game try but was actually an advance control bid. So while I agree with Fred and dburn (I'd better, they both know more about the game than I do :) ) that absent prior discussion and agreement, opener would be trying one of the things Fred mentioned, and 3♦ would not be an advance control bid, that's a different situation than the one we were originally asked to consider.

[nige1]

1♥:2♥

3♦*:3♥

4♥

3♦ is ostensibly a help suit game try, partner rejects the game try and opener bids game. Partner now knows 3♦ was a cue bid rather than a game try, should we alert the 4♥ bid?

Agree with Bluejak: If 3♦ could be cue-bid slam-try, rather than a help-suit game-try, then it should be alerted and, on request, both options should be disclosed.

[WellSpyder]

IIRC, there is a precedent in that in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer and assigns some other meaning (some kind of minor suit holding, I think, but as I don't play it, I'm not sure) to 2♦, we are told to announce 2♦ as if it were definitely a transfer, and then alert the 2♠ bid which cancels that meaning. I don't see the situation we've been discussing as any different.

Interesting. I do play this sort of thing with one occasional partner and the guidance in EBU-land is clear that 2♦ should NOT be announced as a transfer to ♥ but should be alerted instead since it does not necessarily show hearts.

[aguahombre]

IIRC, there is a precedent in that in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer and assigns some other meaning (some kind of minor suit holding, I think, but as I don't play it, I'm not sure) to 2♦, we are told to announce 2♦ as if it were definitely a transfer, and then alert the 2♠ bid which cancels that meaning. I don't see the situation we've been discussing as any different.

Interesting. I do play this sort of thing with one occasional partner and the guidance in EBU-land is clear that 2♦ should NOT be announced as a transfer to ♥ but should be alerted instead since it does not necessarily show hearts.

It is called Walsh Relays. And In ACBL, we have never been taken to task for simply announcing transfer, then alerting 2S --- since we started using it in the 70's. (Actually, all xfers used to be just alerted instead of announced. Maybe that was better.)

 

Right or wrong, It has never caused anyone any damage. It is a slam auction, and they know what they need to know by the time the opening lead is made.

[bluejak]

It may never have caused any damage to you or your opponents, but you might be annoyed if you overcalled over 2♦ because of your heart holding, and found - as you went for 800 - that the bid did not contain hearts.

 

Nevertheless, the alert regulations are clear: if 1NT 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ means that 2♦ does not show hearts, then 2♦ is announced as a transfer in the ACBL and not in the EBU.

 

However, to assume because of this specific exception that the same applies sin other positions in the ACBL is unwise. I feel that specific exceptions to the general rules need to be specifically listed.

 

:P

 

As for fred's post, if that is the way he plays it or feels it is generally played, fine: alerting never really gives nuances. If the opponents have the given sequence with no alert I would not assume what they had for the sequence: I would ask them.

 

But I stick to my original assertion: whatever that sequence shows, playing 3♦ as either natural or a control is alertable.

 

Furthermore, dburn's comments seem correct. fred's assertion that a psyche is safe enough so a likely meaning for 3♦ is psychic sounds somewhat like a controlled psyche, illegal in the ACBL.

[mycroft]

The only problem with Fred's ideas on what that auction could be, is that partner can hang you. Fred's partners won't, but pretty much every other player will...and then the discussion about "in my old club" applies.

 

Do you want to gamble on partner *never* dithering about whether Qxx is "help", knowing that if he does, you're booked for +170?

 

And as for the Walsh Relays, I hate the way they're described in the ACBL. They seem to have all the advantages of the system, and the advantage that the "forget transfer" players have: they get to discourage the auction 1NT-p-2D!-2H; <whatever>-3,4,5H... "But it's a slam auction and very rare!" - yeah, and it's easier if you don't have to worry about heart preemption, too. My 1C!-1D!; 1H!-1S!; 2NT! auction is "a slam auction and very rare", too, but I still have to mention it at the time of bidding 1H, in case they want to guess to advance sacrifice in hearts.

 

But, of course, every other way of doing it is at least as bad: 1NT-2D Alert! "what is it?" "Hearts, or <random rare slam hand>." You *will* get people who get into trouble with the information, because they don't realize that it's 95% likely to be just a regular transfer, and you'll get people who, after 1NT-2D!; 2H!-3NT; 4H try to figure out what's going on,...

[nige1]

But, of course, every other way of doing it is at least as bad: 1NT-2D Alert!  "what is it?"  "Hearts, or <random rare slam hand>."  You *will* get people who get into trouble with the information, because they don't realize that it's 95% likely to be just a regular transfer, and you'll get people who, after 1NT-2D!; 2H!-3NT; 4H try to figure out what's going on,...

This doesn't seem to happen, in practice. You often suffer from opponents' economy with the truth but have you ever heard a player complain of damage from too much information? :)

[bluejak]

Yes, certainly. In fact there was a player in this area who left, fortunately, for another, who always burdened the opponents with so much information that people never asked him or listened to his alerts. His motives were pure, but he was a right pain in the ..... :)

[cherdanno]

How could partner ever hang you on this auction? If partner accepts your "game or slam try", you pretend to have had a game try, and as his hand is limited he can not override that and will pass 4♥. If parter rejects the game try, you pretend to have had a slam try, and as is limited and[i/] rejected a game try, he cannot possible override 4♥.

So this psych is safe just by bridge logic, and there is no special protection for this psych in Fred and Brad's (or Zia's and whoever his partner is atm, or ...) partnership understanding. It's the equivalent of making a transfer to diamonds opposite partner's 1N opening before bidding 7N (regardless of partner's possible superacceptance). This psych is 100% safe, but surely it wouldn't be a controlled psych?