2 bids with same meaning

[sakuragi]

you are dealer and pass. lho pass. partner opens 1C. rho pass. your bid

P (P) 1C (P)

?

 

Both my bid 2C/3C here shows 6-11 with C support. It all depends on my judgement which to bid at the moment.

 

Is it legal/allowed?

[Cyberyeti]

Which jurisdiction ?

 

In the UK I suspect you have to be able to give some indication how you take that decision as to which to bid, as you will have built up a body of experience in your partnership which is close to a CPU.

[johnu]

In theory, I would say yes.

 

You say you would use judgement? Would you always bid 3♣ with X points, Y trumps, and a certain distribution?, or would it be a random choice between 2♣/3♣. If you are consistent, then a regular partner would/should pick up on a pattern of why one raise or the other was chosen.

 

Then it becomes a matter of proper disclosure and 6-11 with club support is an inadequate explanation and I would think you have a concealed partnership understanding.

[steve2005]

Would depend on the jurisdiction, but I can't imagine any prohibition against this.

Where you might get stuck is when you start using your judgement to make each bid on different type of hands. Then you should be correcting your explanation to reflect this.

It isn't that uncommon for two bids like this to have similar, but one might have longer clubs or side shortness.

[The_Badger]

If you have two bids with the same (or a similar) meaning, you are wasting a bid (which sounds so obvious I don't know why I am highlighting it.)

 

Whether it is allowed I don't know, but it's quite unusual in my opinion inasmuch it is at your discretion whether to use one or the other.

[smerriman]

If you're able to use judgement as to which bid to make, then surely they can't have the same meaning.

[Vampyr]

If you're able to use judgement as to which bid to make, then surely they can't have the same meaning.

 

Perhaps it is not, strictly speaking, a bridge difference. The decision could be based, for instance, on knowledge of the players; their strength, willingness to compete, maybe even their mannerisms -- were either of their passes reluctant? I think that this still needs to be disclosed, but i am not sure how. It might be better to just have two,convention cards, each with one version of the raise, and decide which card you will use for which opponents.

[nige1]

The choice between 2 calls with the same meaning could depend on form of scoring, vulnerability, or position at the table; but it would still make sense to ascribe a different meaning to the rejected call, in each context.

[nullve]

If you're able to use judgement as to which bid to make, then surely they can't have the same meaning.

Bad judgement can vary with time.

[nekthen]

While I might agree that HCP is a blunt instrument for evaluating a hand, I cannot believe that this is in anyway better than inverse raises or even old school raises

[xbabarx]

2c=inverted minor (pass hand too) 10-11 hcp with 4+ cards support

3c= weak jump 4-6 hcp with 5+ cards support

[gordontd]

2c=inverted minor (pass hand too) 10-11 hcp with 4+ cards support

3c= weak jump 4-6 hcp with 5+ cards support

And with 7-9?

[Cyberyeti]

And with 7-9?

 

2N if you play this style

[Vampyr]

2N if you play this style

 

Although 2NT as the weakest raise is more popular.

 

LOL I wonder what xbabarx bids with 12+.

[Cyberyeti]

Although 2NT as the weakest raise is more popular.

 

LOL I wonder what xbabarx bids with 12+.

 

He opened the bidding, was opposite a 3rd seat club

[gordontd]

Although 2NT as the weakest raise is more popular.

Indeed, superior in my opinion. I define it as a hand that's too weak to ever want to play 3NT opposite (though 5m might occasionally come into the frame).

[Vampyr]

He opened the bidding, was opposite a 3rd seat club

 

Yes, but I thought that "pass hand too" meant that the description was intended to be more general.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, but I thought that "pass hand too" meant that the description was intended to be more general.

 

I thought he meant the inverted was only 10-11 because it was a passed hand and would be different if it wasn't

[aawk]

You can make any agreement (good or bad) with your partner and if opponents ask about the difference between a 2♣ or 3♣ raise you have to explain that.

 

And if opponents (during or after the board is finished) are not satisfied they can call the director.

[msjennifer]

If your LHO asks you or your partner "Then what is the difference between the two" you have to give a full explanation.Like.let us say,"white against red our 3C is 6/9 and our 2C is 10plus when red "

,

.You can't give an explanation that it depends upon your mood.In any tournament you are required to carry your system methods and bid accordingly.The director will ask you to explain the full information that your partner gets from any of your bidsA strong willed director will keep watch on you or even ask an observer to sit at your table."It all depends upon my mood" is little short of misleading the opponents on purpose and that will not be tolerated by any director when exposed.

[Gerardo]

I don't think this is true.

 

Would be best if you have some documentation (CC, or supplementary notes).

But if that's your agreement, that's how it should be explained.

 

Partner would also have to explain tendencies on what s/he observed on your choice, if s/he noticed any.

 

 

[RD350LC]

If your LHO asks you or your partner "Then what is the difference between the two" you have to give a full explanation.Like.let us say,"white against red our 3C is 6/9 and our 2C is 10plus when red "

,

.You can't give an explanation that it depends upon your mood.In any tournament you are required to carry your system methods and bid accordingly.The director will ask you to explain the full information that your partner gets from any of your bidsA strong willed director will keep watch on you or even ask an observer to sit at your table."It all depends upon my mood" is little short of misleading the opponents on purpose and that will not be tolerated by any director when exposed.

It is very possible to have bids have completely different meaning depending on vulnerability, or position at the table. I know of people who have bids that have COMPLETELY different meanings whether they are vulnerable or not vulnerable. Of course, such bids do have to be alerted.

But, as has been said previously, having two bids with the same meaning is a waste of a bid.

[sakuragi]

Exactly. Bidding is more than a system.

Perhaps it is not, strictly speaking, a bridge difference. The decision could be based, for instance, on knowledge of the players; their strength, willingness to compete, maybe even their mannerisms -- were either of their passes reluctant? I think that this still needs to be disclosed, but i am not sure how. It might be better to just have two,convention cards, each with one version of the raise, and decide which card you will use for which opponents.

[Zelandakh]

First of all, it is perfectly legal to have 2 calls with the same meaning. A classic example is a pair that plays both RKCG and RKCB, with both 1♠ - 3♠; 4♣ and 1♠ - 3♠; 4NT asking for key cards. The difference? Simply whether Opener remembered that Gerber applied in this partnership.

 

That said, there is good reason to be skeptical of such an agreement in the present case. Although the point count might be correct, it would not be a surprise if practice showed that the 3♣ choice was made with more clubs on average than 2♣. The point here is that you do not only have to disclose the agreement as written on the system card but also the way it is implemented at the table. If you know that your partner will almost always bid 2♣ with any 4 clubs or with 5 clubs and a defensive hand, and will similarly always bid 3♣ with 6 clubs or 5 clubs and an offensive hand, then this is your agreement regardless of what your system document states and the opponents are entitled to know this. You cannot hide behind "same meaning" any more than you can hide behind "no agreement". So yes, it is legal in theory, but unless you and your partner are genuinely able to randomise raises to leave no discernible pattern, you will almost certainly be providing misinformation and should therefore not be surprised to find yourselves ruled against.

[nullve]

Fisher-Schwartz played

 

1♣ = CAN BE SHORT WHEN 3-4 IN MINORS IF 12-14 BAL.

1♦ = CAN BE SHORT WHEN 3-4 IN MINORS IF 12-14 BAL.

I remember wondering why a top pair would waste useful bidding space by having 1m openings with overlapping meanings, but that was before the cheating allegations against them. Then I realised that the choice of opening with this hand type could be used to send a (binary) signal for nefarious purposes. (I don't mean to suggest they actually did.)