Insufficient pass or correct bid

[pran]

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.

If that is the case in OP (3♥ does not show willingness to play in hearts but requests partner to choose between spades and diamonds) I completely agree that 3♥ is artificial.

 

However, as I understood OP the bid from partner showed diamonds and an unknown major, and then I consider the 3♥ response as willingness to play in hearts and suggestion for partner to pass if hearts indeed is his unknown major suit. This is a classical pass or correct bid.

 

I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

[campboy]

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

It shows that you don't want to play in 3♦ if partner has spades and diamonds. That's information unrelated to hearts.

[pran]

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

It shows that you don't want to play in 3♦ if partner has spades and diamonds. That's information unrelated to hearts.

No, it doesn't:

 

The player may very well prefer hearts over diamonds, but diamonds over spades.

 

(The player may also be indifferent about spades or diamonds if these are partner's suits.)

 

So the 3♥ bid only (for certain) shows willingness to play in hearts.

[campboy]

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

 

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

[pran]

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

 

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

 

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

[campboy]

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

 

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

 

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

Which hands? If you mean hands which are too strong or too weak, then I would suggest that that is "information taken for granted by players generally".

[gwnn]

I would almost risk it to say that all bids show information other than willingness to play in that contract/denomination. I cannot at the moment think of a clear-cut counterexample. Hang on: I guess signoffs when partner described his shape and HCP already.

[pran]

I would almost risk it to say that all bids show information other than willingness to play in that contract/denomination. I cannot at the moment think of a clear-cut counterexample. Hang on: I guess signoffs when partner described his shape and HCP already.

A late partner of mine used to say that the most important feature of an auction is not the actual calls made, but the available calls that were not made.

[pran]

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

 

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

 

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

Which hands? If you mean hands which are too strong or too weak, then I would suggest that that is "information taken for granted by players generally".

The 1♥ bid for instance denies five spades, and it denies 4 cards in any minor suit if the hand contains four hearts and the agreement is to open with the lowest 4 card suit.

 

You should be careful about "taking for granted" just such information that suits your own arguments.

 

To me it would be obvious that the player bidding 3♥ as a pass or correct bid just suggests playing in hearts without any other information communicated.

 

Then if partner corrects to 3♠ that will be another "pass or correct" call, now for the responder to choose between pass or 4♦ in order to show his secondary preference.

 

None of these possible calls, beginning with the 3♥ bid, fits the definition of an artificial call the way I understand the definition of artificial calls. The respective players are perfectly comfortable with an all pass following each of these calls.

[campboy]

Personally I do not deny a 5-card spade suit when I open 1♥. I deny holding a longer suit than hearts and I deny a suit of equal length in certain circumstances, but that is hardly "information unrelated to hearts".

[pran]

Personally I do not deny a 5-card spade suit when I open 1♥. I deny holding a longer suit than hearts and I deny a suit of equal length in certain circumstances, but that is hardly "information unrelated to hearts".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.

Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

[nige1]

I'm told that in some countries, players open one of a minor-suit, holding longer major-suit(s). Seemingly, regulations treat this as natural and partner does not alert!

 

Similarly, when you open 1♠ and partner responds 2♣, you don't alert, although you know that partner may hold

e.g. ♠ xxx ♥ AKxx ♦ AKx ♣ xxx

[campboy]

Personally I do not deny a 5-card spade suit when I open 1♥. I deny holding a longer suit than hearts and I deny a suit of equal length in certain circumstances, but that is hardly "information unrelated to hearts".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.

Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

[pran]

Personally I do not deny a 5-card spade suit when I open 1♥. I deny holding a longer suit than hearts and I deny a suit of equal length in certain circumstances, but that is hardly "information unrelated to hearts".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.

Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

I once had a teacher in physics who told us that when we wanted to test the sanity of a statement we should vary parameters to the extreme while keeping within the logical range for which that statement should be applicable.

 

My example just proved that if the 3♥ bid is artificial just because it denied length in a different suit then most if not all bids will one way or another also be artificial. Most objections seem to be caused by mixing up the duty to alert certain calls with the definition of what is an artificial call.

 

Back to square one: I cannot remember having seen any real example on why a "pass or correct" bid (obviously showing willingness to play in the named denomination because the bidder is prepared to having had the last bid in the auction) shall be ruled artificial.

 

Of course if it by (express) agreements include special conditions we have a different kettle of fish, but such conditions have not been stated for the 3♥ bid we started off with froom OP.

 

In fact we have a positive statement from bluejak to the effect that there is no such extra information tied to the 3♥ bid from his first assumption that the 3♥ bid had the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient 2♥ bid would have had. This statement has not been contested.

[gordontd]

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

I had long given up on discussing anything further with him in this thread, since he doesn't seem open to discussion, but against my better judgement I'll have one last go.

 

Back to square one: I cannot remember having seen any real example on why a "pass or correct" bid (obviously showing willingness to play in the named denomination because the bidder is prepared to having had the last bid in the auction) shall be ruled artificial.

Back to the beginning of this thread, a 3♥ bid in response to the 2NT overcall would not only show a preference for hearts rather than diamonds, but also for spades rather than diamonds. With a mediocre 1435, would you not bid 3♦ rather than 3♥? And if so, is not the reason because you do not want to play in 3♠ or 4♦?

 

In fact we have a positive statement from bluejak to the effect that there is no such extra information tied to the 3♥ bid from his first assumption that the 3♥ bid had the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient 2♥ bid would have had. This statement has not been contested.

That an insufficient artificial call may convey no more information than a sufficient artificial call does not make it a natural call.

[campboy]

Ok, now I'm no longer sure. Do you seriously think your "example" is any use at all?

 

If a 1♥ bid promises that hearts is the longest suit, is this "information unrelated to hearts"? From that information alone, what is the maximum number of spades I can have?

 

Also, your final paragraph is nonsense. Sure, no-one has disputed that the 3♥ bid has "the same or more precise" meaning than the 2♥ bid, but this doesn't mean the 3♥ bid is non-artificial because (i) if 3♥ is more precise it could carry additional information (ii) no-one (other than you) has at any point claimed that 2♥ is non-artificial anyway.