Insufficient pass or correct bid

[gordontd]

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly.

 

The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial.

... but the fact that it conveys information, other than a willingness to play in the denomination named, does.

[pran]

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly.

 

The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial.

... but the fact that it conveys information, other than a willingness to play in the denomination named, does.

Would you not agree that the "additional information" from a "pass or correct" call is information covered by the clause in the definition of artificial call that I have emphasized below?:

 

conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named

 

It is obvious to me that when I make a "pass or correct" call the information that partner may correct (and play in a different denomination) is information taken for granted by players generally.

[WellSpyder]

It is obvious to me that when I make a "pass or correct" call the information that partner may correct (and play in a different denomination) is information taken for granted by players generally.

I am impressed by your certainty on this point. I accept that among the better players this can be taken for granted. But in an ordinary bridge club in England, I guess the majority of players have no understanding at all of the principles behind p/c bids and indeed have probably never heard of them.

[bluejak]

When a player makes a pass or correct call it no doubt sounds to a lot of opponents like a natural call. So while no doubt an expert would understand the following sequence without an explanation, I doubt the majority would:

 

(1♠) 1NT P 2♣

 

1NT is alerted and described as " a weak hand with two or three of the unbid suits including at least four hearts". I have played this for many years with some success. Now 2♣ is pass or correct, and an expert opponent might expect that with no alert or explanation. But the majority will just expect clubs.

 

No matter: we alert, we explain, especially carefully against lesser opponents. But our 2♣ is artificial.

 

The point about the definition "conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named" is that the bit in brackets means what is says literally: it does not apply to deductions opponents might make from full explanations. If it did, there would be no artificial calls!

 

So the OP is clear enough: 3♥ is artificial, Law 27B1A does not apply.

[pran]

When a player makes a pass or correct call it no doubt sounds to a lot of opponents like a natural call.  So while no doubt an expert would understand the following sequence without an explanation, I doubt the majority would:

 

(1♠) 1NT P 2♣

 

1NT is alerted and described as " a weak hand with two or three of the unbid suits including at least four hearts".  I have played this for many years with some success.  Now 2♣ is pass or correct, and an expert opponent might expect that with no alert or explanation.  But the majority will just expect clubs.

 

No matter: we alert, we explain, especially carefully against lesser opponents.  But our 2♣ is artificial.

 

The point about the definition "conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named" is that the bit in brackets means what is says literally: it does not apply to deductions opponents might make from full explanations.  If it did, there would be no artificial calls!

 

So the OP is clear enough: 3♥ is artificial, Law 27B1A does not apply.

I accept this if you can show exactly what information ("not generally granted") the bid conveys other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

 

(And I do not accept any condition attached to this willingness like "provided this is what you want". Such conditional willingness is not a question in the definition of artificial calls).

 

Note that I do not dispute the question of a call being alertable; that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[nige1]

Although GordonTD's argument seems correct, I understood that directors are told to stretch the law when considering corrections to insufficient bids. 3♥ seems natural because, unless an opponent bids again, most of the time it will be the final contract. A player may argue "what could be more natural than that?"

[bluejak]

You are not willing to play there if partner has the other suit.

[pran]

You are not willing to play there if partner has the other suit.

By the same logic: Every possible answer bid to a takeout double is artificial because the bidder is not willing to play in that suit if the doubler has a different intention.

 

Example: A player holding around 20 HCP and a (solid) 6 card major suit will double an opening bid from his RHO and then bid his suit at his next turn to call regardless of his partner's answer to the double. His partner is certainly not willing to play in his own lousy 4-card suit when he experiences this development of the auction.

 

Or in your own words: In the auction:

1♦ - X - pass - 1♠

pass - 2♥

the 1♠ bid (made on xxxx) is artificial?

[bluejak]

No, the situation is not comparable. 1♠ is an attempt to play in spades. A pass or correct bid is an attempt to play in any one of more than one denominations.

[pran]

No, the situation is not comparable.  1♠ is an attempt to play in spades.  A pass or correct bid is an attempt to play in any one of more than one denominations.

The definition of artificial calls uses the clause: willingness to play in the denomination named, it doesn't say anything about attempt or suggestion to play in that denomination.

 

This is a very important difference, don't you agree?

 

(The way I understand the word willingness it means that the player is fully prepared for the auction now becoming closed by three consecutive passes.)

[bluejak]

It conveys information about willingness to play elsewhere. Remember you only quoted part of the Regulation.

[pran]

It conveys information about willingness to play elsewhere.  Remember you only quoted part of the Regulation.

I didn't quote any regulation, I quoted from the law. And yes, I quoted only the part of the definition that appears relevant to this discussion; here is the complete definition of artificial calls:

 

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.

 

I would like to see your reasons for asserting that my "pass or correct" bid when made at the lowest legal level, at the time I make that bid (necessarily) conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination named?

 

My assertion is that whenever I am (mentally) prepared for my bid to become the final bid in an auction then that bid shows willingness to play in its denomination. My bid is not artificial unless it in addition (positively) shows information not [....] taken for granted by players generally in the actual situation.

 

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

[blackshoe]

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

[nige1]

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

We don't just alert artificial bids. We alert natural bids with unexpected meanings. I think the legal definition should be clearer. For example In the UK, I believe that in a transfer auction e.g.

1N (range announced) - 2♦ (announced as "hearts")

2♥

completion of the transfer (here 2♥) is considered artificial from a legal point of view (but not usually alerted). To some players, it seems natural, because the transfer suit will often be the final strain.

[pran]

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

We don't just alert artificial bids we alert natural bids with unexpected meanings. I think the legal definition should be clearer. For example In the UK, I believe that in a transfer auction e.g.

1N - 2♦

2♥

completion of the transfer (here 2♥) is considered artificial (but not usually alerted), although to some it seems natural.

It should be the other way round: The transfer completing bid does not promise a certain number of cards in the denomination named and shall therefore according to most(?) regulations be alerted. This is not a matter of law!

 

But the bidder is obviously fully prepared to have the final bid so there is no indication of any further information from the bid than his willingness to play in the denomination named.

 

According to the law definition of artificial calls I see no reason why this bid shall be deemed artificial.

[gordontd]

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

[mjj29]

It should be the other way round: The transfer completing bid does not promise a certain number of cards in the denomination named and shall therefore according to most(?) regulations be alerted. This is not a matter of law!

Well, in the case of the EBU, the regulation is

Players should not alert: ... the completion of a transfer unless it shows or denies something specific

so, for example, I always alert because I always break the transfer with 4 card support, but if you don't, then it's not alertable

[campboy]

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

It can, but it doesn't always. The multi example earlier on this page is a good one: a 2♠ response is clearly artificial because it indicates support for hearts; a 2♥ response is less clear, because it doesn't say anything about spades (spades will usually be longer, sure, but that is just because hearts tend to be short; clubs and diamonds will also usually be longer).

[pran]

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Are you serious?

 

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

 

And when the auction goes 1M - 2M (Michaels showing the opposite major and a minor) you bid one of your two minor suits (which?) when you have an even longer major suit fit to partner?

 

Campboy beat me to the comment on responses to 2♦ opening bids.

[lamford]

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Usually is going a bit far. But you might certainly have a longer suit of ones that partner might have. Let us say that it goes (1C*) - 1NT - (Dble*) where 1C is strong and partner bids 1NT showing the rounded or pointed suits, and let us say that you are favourable. Now with S xx H QJxxx D QJxx C xx, I would bid 4D, pass or correct, but I still bid my preferred pointed suit, although I have a longer rounded suit.

[gordontd]

Are you serious?

 

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

What does this have to do with pass/correct responses?

[mycroft]

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Are you serious?

 

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

 

And when the auction goes 1M - 2M (Michaels showing the opposite major and a minor) you bid one of your two minor suits (which?) when you have an even longer major suit fit to partner?

 

Campboy beat me to the comment on responses to 2♦ opening bids.

Um, Pran, when partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors, 3m is *not* "pass or correct", it's "pass". Therefore, Gordon's statement doesn't apply.

 

When partner opens 2NT showing a preempt in an *unknown* minor, then 3m *is* p/c, and yes, you bid 3C unless you prefer clubs to diamonds (and are therefore willing to play 4C), and shows either "preference for diamonds" or "don't care".

 

The Michaels situation only bids 3m p/c (if they do play it that way) if the minor will play better than the known major (lack-of) fit.

 

But when it's a known minor fit, there's a wrinkle, though. Raptor NT over a minor has this auction happen fairly frequently: 1D-1NT (unknown 4-card major, longer clubs)-p-2H with a non-game 2434, even though I have a known 9-card club fit. If partner passes, great; if partner bids 2S, I'll retreat to clubs.

 

re multi 2D-2H: are you really saying that that isn't any less artificial than 1C(strong or 10-12 BAL)-1D (negative, to play opposite 10-12)? Yes, it's willing (for definitions of willing) to play there, but it certainly implies (even if it does not promise, as 2D-2S does) a willingness to play somewhere else. In fact, 2D-2H is specifically "I want to play in your major" (with minor exceptions that involve NT after 2D-2H; 2S) which does, certainly talk about suit(s) other than the one named.

 

Yes, there is "willingness" and "willingness", after all a natural 1H opening is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support" just as much as 2D-2H is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support", but in the first case, support is 3 cards, in the second it's 6...

[pran]

re multi 2D-2H: are you really saying that that isn't any less artificial than 1C(strong or 10-12 BAL)-1D (negative, to play opposite 10-12)?  Yes, it's willing (for definitions of willing) to play there, but it certainly implies (even if it does not promise, as 2D-2S does) a willingness to play somewhere else.  In fact, 2D-2H is specifically "I want to play in your major" (with minor exceptions that involve NT after 2D-2H; 2S) which does, certainly talk about suit(s) other than the one named.

 

Yes, there is "willingness" and "willingness", after all a natural 1H opening is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support" just as much as 2D-2H is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support", but in the first case, support is 3 cards, in the second it's 6...

I think the multi question is the one best describing my point:

 

There may be variations on how people use multi, this is the one I am familiar with:

2♦ shows one out of three possible hands: A traditional weak 2♥, a traditional weak 2♠ or a traditional 20-21 2NT opening bid.

 

Responder has in principle three choices:

2NT is a demand bid that requests information on which variant the opener holds, and in the case of a weak 2M opening also whether the opener is weaker or stronger.

2♠ shows a hand that suggests opener to pass if he has the weak spade variant, but which invites to game in hearts in case opener has the weak hearts variant.

These two response alternatives are clearly artificial.

 

As opposed to the above alternatives 2♥ shows a hand that implies no interest for any particular contract and just suggests opener to pass if he has the weak heart variant.

This is the typical answer for a valueless hand, but it can also be made with a hand that will invite to game in spades if the opener has the weak spade variant and therefore corrects to spades.

However, as this will only be revealed after opener's next call and responder at the time of his answer does not show anything but willingness to play in 2♥, this bid cannot possibly be considered artificial at the time it is made (see below).

 

A different example: A player responds 2♠ to an artificial strong 2♣ opening bid. The 2♠ answer shows (say) a positive hand with a fair spade suit. At this time the player obviously is both interested in and willing to play a spade contract, and as such his response bid can hardly be deemed artificial.

However the continued auction reveals that the opener while void in spades has a hand so that 7♥ is cold.

 

Is responder any longer interested in or willing to play in spades? Hardly.

Does this revelation during the continued auction make his 2♠ initial response bid artificial? Of course not.

 

Whether a call is artificial must be judged according to the circumstances at the time it is made, it cannot depend on what is revealed later during the auction.

[lamford]

Whether a call is artificial must be judged according to the circumstances at the time it is made, it cannot depend on what is revealed later during the auction.

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid indicated a willingness to play in spades (or diamonds), so is incontrovertibly artificial. Some might play 3H as natural and non-forcing here, in which case it would obviously not be artificial.

[campboy]

When partner opens 2NT showing a preempt in an *unknown* minor, then 3m *is* p/c, and yes, you bid 3C unless you prefer clubs to diamonds (and are therefore willing to play 4C), and shows either "preference for diamonds" or "don't care".

This is the bit I disagree with, and in general I think it applies when the pass/correct call is the cheapest call available in a suit which partner may have. If I bid 3♣ here, all it means is that I don't have enough clubs to raise a 3♣ pre-empt. It says nothing about diamonds; certainly there are hands where I prefer clubs to diamonds but I bid 3♣, and there are hands where I prefer diamonds to clubs but do not bid 3♣ (4♣ bids). Any higher pass or correct bid, on the other hand, does show support for the other suit and so is certainly artificial.