A stopper and a half

[Trinidad]

So, what does natural mean, in the context? To me, "asks for half a stopper" sounds artificial and alertable, but "shows some spades, but still does not feel confident about NT" sounds natural and not alertable. Yet, on this hand, they mean virtually the same thing.

I would say that "natural" means "an offer to play in this strain" and therefore "5(4)+ spades", given that opener denied four spades.

The other thing that puzzles me is the response of 3♣ to the FSF bid. Surely that shows a fifth club. Or do the Dutch do it differently?

I don't know how you do that, but in The Netherlands the reasoning would be:

1) Can I bid 2NT (i.e. do I have a spade stop)?

2) Can I show three card support for partner's major (with 3♥)?

3) Do I have another descriptive bid?

4) I make the cheapest other bid.

 

(1 and 2 are inverted if it is cheaper to show 3 card support.)

 

1) Opener couldn't rebid 2NT because he didn't have a stop in spades. -> 2) Opener didn't have three hearts. -> 3) Opener didn't have another descriptive bid. (3♦ shows 6, 3♠ shows four spades.) -> 4) Remains to make the cheapest other bid: 3♣, which shows: 5+ clubs or any hand that couldn't make another bid.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Well, my representation of the information was the result of some questioning of East of course. He had intended to show a strong 55 in the majors, but now realized that his partner's explanation that this sequence asks for half a stopper was correct. There is no further evidence to corroborate this.

 

When polling I met some raised eyebrows about this agreement. Most of the pollees thought that this sequence showed 55 majors absent any explicit other agreement.

The trouble with "most" is that we only need to know what this pair plays, and they may play something different from the norm. For example, I do not play this sequence as 5-5: I play 3♠ as"fifth suit forcing", seeking more information, and ther actual description is not far off what I play. I show a 5-5 strong hand:

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1sp2cp3h]133|100[/hv]

 

and a 6-5:

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1hp2cp3s]133|100[/hv]

 

I am merely pointing out that the burden of proof lies with the side that did the misexplaining/misbidding. East's statement maybe fine and correct. But he will still need to prove it somehow.

 

And in these cases "proof" can be anything. A systembook would, of course, be excellent. But if another player (earlier opponent or a partner that plays with both), TD, teacher, etc. can tell that they play this as asking for half a stopper, I will believe that immediately. The same is true if they will tell me that it is in this book by so and so that they use as the basis of their system.

 

The self serving statement by East may well be true, but it needs to be backed up by "something".

Not by "proof", though, convincing evidence. When deciding matters at bridge preponderance of evidence suffices, except in cheating or serious disciplinary offences where expulsion is a possibility.

 

I don't think this approach to be the product of a befuddled mind at all: in Holland you would have to be prepared to make your second response a jump to 3♥ to make the auction forcing, thereby only showing a 4+ card in the suit. Starting with the lower 5 card when you have game going values spares a lot of bidding space and gives the opportunity to show your distribution below 3NT.

I think you mean "uses up extra bidding space". If you bid hearts first, you have described your hand when you reach 3♠: if you bid spades first, you have described your hand when you reach 3♥.

 

A self serving statement by one of the players is not evidence. It is a circular reasoning.

A self-serving statement by one of the players is definitely evidence. It is normal to accord less weight to a self-serving statement, but not discount it entirely. In many cases both sides make self-serving statements: do you ignore everything they tell you?

 

I would not put any weight on this. I think something is lost in translation. (This was a case from The Netherlands and I am from The Netherlands too.) You could state that EW used the name of the convention when they were explaining, rather than explaining the bid as "artificial and forcing (for one round / to game / ...)". However, "everybody" in The Netherlands knows what the fourth suit convention is. It is an integral part of the bidding system that is taught to beginners (about at the same point in the course as Stayman).

Same in England and the ACBL: I was puzzled by aquahombre's remark.

[helene_t]

The same is true if they will tell me that it is in this book by so and so that they use as the basis of their system.

In the version of "Start to Finish" that I have (a very popular textbook in the Netherlands) this 3♠ bid asks opener to further describe his hand. I think it is a reasonable interpretation of this that it asks for half a stopper since opener sort-of has denied a real stopper by not bidding notrumps on his 3rd turn.

 

Of course I don't know if these players have read the same book, much less that they have the agreement to play by it. But at least it is fair to say that the treatment is not uncommon in NL.

 

But since the 3♠ bid was not alerted, most likely they don't have a clear agreement. At best, the explanation was meant as "this is how I interpret our meta-agreements". At worst, it was meant as "no specific agreements but my general bridge knowledge suggests that it probably means ....".

[aguahombre]

Bluejack: I am puzzled that you were puzzled by my remark about just saying "4th suit".

 

In ACBL, on-line, and elsewhere there are strong sentiments against merely naming conventions. Most respected pairs do not use names; they explain what the alerted bid means. Even if everyone and his dog uses the 4th suit as forcing (and they don't), not all of them play it as artificial in each case; nor does everyone agree whether it is forcing to game.

 

It is the same with other conventions. Naming them means little, since they show different things when used by different people.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, I do not agree with you: my experience of both the EBU and the ACBL is that despite what the authorities say, everyone and their dog uses certain names, and fourth suit forcing is one of the commonest. In the ACBL the authorities have even included it as a tick box on their SC, so they clearly believe it to be an adequate description of a well-known convention.

 

I have asked the meaning of the fourth suit on a number of occasions over the years, and I can never remember anyone who did not describe it as “Fourth suit” or “Fourth suit forcing” or “Fourth suit forcing to game” – apart from people not playing it, of course.

[aguahombre]

My side note is becoming a side track, so I will merely concede that your experiences with practice vs. disclosure are different from mine.

 

Interesting possibility:

 

4th suit bid by opponent is not alerted because they don't use it as a convention. (beginners).

 

"Is that 4th suit?"

 

"Uh, yes." (mentally counting the suits on his fingers).

 

And the auction continues without either side knowing what was asked or what was answered.

[AndreSteff]

Interesting as this discussion of subtle differences between bidding methods may be (and linked thereto the credibility we are going to lend to the statement that there was a misbid), would it be possible to move the discussion to the stage where the TD has judged that there was misinformation? :rolleyes:

[mycroft]

My response is always "Artificial game force." (plus, if I'm not sure the opponents will know this from "artificial", I'll add "says nothing about [suit].")

 

That doesn't refute David in the slightest, however - my self-defined description here should make that clear.

 

Of course, in response, I get "so it's 4th suit?" about half the time. One of these days, I'm going to respond "Yes. I'm just trying to confuse you."

[blackshoe]

Everyone and their dog speeds. When a cop sees a speeder, he may pull him over and give him a lecture or a ticket. That's the equivalent of the TD using his judgement. However, in bridge, the TD does not have the power to use his judgement to ignore an infraction of law or regulation, and the ACBL alert regulation is very specific: When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. (The emphasis is in the original). Note "must".

 

That said, if in the case at hand all four players are certain what "fourth suit" means, then the lack of proper explanation has caused no damage. Under the ACBL regulation, I would give the offender a warning for a first offense, and a PP in matchpoints if I catch him doing it again. I do not agree with "ah, just ignore the infraction, everybody does it" or "keep telling him to stop, maybe someday he will".

 

I expect it would be very rare to have only one piece of evidence, and that one "self-serving". But we are required to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence, not preponderance of the evidence and "I don't want to make this ruling".

[RMB1]

... would it be possible to move the discussion to the stage where the TD has judged that there was misinformation? :rolleyes:

 

Then we give some credence to South that he would not necessarily lead the ♠A with a different explanation. But South is only entitled to "no agreement" as an explanation. Perhaps the TD should ask people what they would lead with that explanation, and how they expect the play to go subsequently, and weight the possible outcomes in 4♥ accordingly.