[keylime]

If memory serves, the late Al Roth I believe played second suits as invites or better. I might be very wrong tho on this.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Sep 25 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Where is Ben when you need him?

This is one of those occasions where BRBR would really come in handy...

I have never understood the relevance of bridgebrowser, altho I have always respected the effort made by Ben and others who use it.

It represents the cumulative results of a group of players who are, on average, appallingly bad.. at least by the standards of BBF. So using those data to modify the consensus of a more highly skilled set of players seems self-defeating.

Put another way, the 'fact' that, say, there were 11,351 hands on which players raised the 3♥ preference and that the imp expectation on those boards was -2.78 would be meaningless to me. Even if I were making the same call that the average BBO player made, I'd expect to score better than they would, because I play the hands better than they do. So it would be remarkably stupid of me to decide to change my bidding because of their results.

And I suspect that the majority of posters here play their hands better than the BBF average

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Sep 25 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

As for the notion that we must be (almost) sure of game when we raise the preference: that might be nice but it doesn't resemble winning imp bridge imo.

I never said (or even meant to imply) that one needed to be sure of making in order to bid a game. This is so obvious that to even raise it in the argument borders on insulting (no offense intended).

What I do mean to say is that when you bid game on this sequence you should expect it to have marginal play at best. It is a virtual certainty that you will be playing in an 8 card fit with less than the usual combined high card strength for game. If either of these facts were not true, then the opening no trump bidder would have bid game himself.

One may take whatever positions one wants to take on any hand. But I would not expect that bidding game over the 3♥ call would be a long-term winner if the 2NT bid was correct to begin with.

By the way, some of the example hands are very questionable 2NT bids.

If nothing else, at least it is generally acknowledged that bidding 4♥ on this sequence is extremely rare.

[SoTired]

I think Art and others are confusing the subject auction 1N 2D 2H 2N 3H 4H with auctions where one partner has offered game, got refused, and carried on anyway. The proverbial, "Accepting your own invitation" auction which is usually the trait of poor players.

This auction is not quite the same. When responder determined that the hand was invitational, it was without the knowledge of the heart fit. A common hand is x AJxxx Kxxx xxx. (Note the singleton). Opposite a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, this 8HCP hand with a 5-card suit is only worth an invitational 2N for a 3N game without a heart fit. Once the heart fit is verified, the hand is worth 4H even opposite a min 1NT.

Although the 4H bid is not common, it is not that unusual. I would bid it on most 5431, but not with 5422 or 5332.

[jtfanclub]

It's a THREE POINT FREAKIN' NO TRUMP.

The difference between partner accepting and declining is 1 hcp, since he'll bid 3♥ with most 15 counts and a fit, and 4♥ with most 16 counts and a fit.

If I was the director, and I got called because they got to 4♥ when opener had 15 when everybody on the planet would be there when opener had 16, I'd honestly have to ask why they were wasting my time.

And that's my two cents.

[ArtK78]

It took me awhile before I decided to participate in this Forum. From some of the responses to my argument in this thread, I wonder why I bothered.

Several posters seem to take offense if the responses to their posts are not "Yes, you are right!" or "interesting post, well thought out." The post immediately prior to this one is going out of his way to shout about the small distinction between bidding game and not bidding game.

And a recent poster accused me of being stubborn. I prefer to think of it as determined.



In any event, I agree that it is true that 2NT is a statement as Jlall mentioned in a recent post (Parenthetically, most bids in a Standard system are statements). It describes a hand with a 5 card heart suit and invitational values. Opener is entitled to evaluate his hand to determine where the hand should be played. Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

Yes, it is tempting to reevaluate the resonding hand once there is a known "fit." But the fit is not overwhelming. It is an 8 card fit most of the time. Futhermore, opener has that information and can evaluate the usefulness his high cards fairly accurately. So, responder should defer to opener - opener is the "captain" on this auction - responder is the "slave."

In my opinion, a 4♥ bid by responder is a breach of partnership dicipline. Is it possible that 4♥ will make? Sure, it is possible. But not likely (in my opinion) if responder described his hand accurately with his transfer and 2NT bid.

I will not argue that it may be a close decision. The prior post indicated that the difference between bidding game and not bidding game is likely to be 1 or 2 HCPs. Isn't that always the case? And, quite frankly, it is not just a question of HCPs. It is a question of how well opener's values match responder's hand. That is often hard to evaluate after a no trump opening bid (there is a reason why some players refer to a 2NT opening bid as a "slam killer").

So, do what you like. But we aware that bidding 4♥ in this situation is an alarm to the opponents. It is a very unusual call - after the 3♥ bid, everyone expects that the auction is over. If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call. And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director. I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect. And, as the TD, you are paid to respond to problems that arise at the table. So, I prefer to think of your responding to my call as using your time, not wasting your time.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

This is exactly the point where we disagree. All opener knows is that responder has 5 hearts and invitational values. He could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx. He doen'st know whether responder is balanced or nott, he doesn't know whether his 5-card suit gets upgraded opposite a fit, etc. However, after the 3♥ bid responder knows opener has 3 hearts and a minimum for hearts given he has a balanced hand worth 15-17 hcp. Who knows more about the other's hand? This really isn't close.

Anyway, I am not sure you have the rights to complain about being called stubborn when you upfront told us that we shouldn't be surprised to end up in front of a committee for an action that we consider entirely normal, and then be treated with very little sympathy by you who has been serving in committees for 30 years...

[jdonn]

Actually in one of the NABC casebooks from maybe 8 years ago or so (can't remember which) this very appeal came up. And the player lost as you said, and as he should have. However he had a 2533 9 count with great spot cards, one that was surely worth a game force to begin with. He essentially argued that he had to bid game with these great spot cards, but made no argument along the lines of this hand being worth more in a suit than in notrump (it really wasn't anyway) so he had no chance.

If you decide not to participate purely because of something JT said.... then you have to learn who to take seriously and who to ignore

Edit: And excellent post Arend, you have pinpointed the issue exactly.

[han]

I think continuing this argument is pointless, you are too determined Art.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

It took me awhile before I decided to participate in this Forum.  From some of the responses to my argument in this thread, I wonder why I bothered.


And a recent poster accused me of being stubborn.  I prefer to think of it as determined.



So, do what you like.  But we aware that bidding 4♥ in this situation is an alarm to the opponents.  It is a very unusual call - after the 3♥ bid, everyone expects that the auction is over.  If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call.  And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director.  I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect.  And, as the TD, you are paid to respond to problems that arise at the table.  So, I prefer to think of your responding to my call as using your time, not wasting your time.

In your first post you wrote that ' if you check out in 3♥ and parther bids again... you are going to wind up before a committee'

You do later slightly modify that ridiculous statement, but you haven't withdrawn it.

'Stubborn' is an underbid.

I and, I assume, the others who permit a 4♥ raise of the 3♥ bid, see that as part of the normal process of listening to the auction and re-evaluting one's hand as more information becomes available. We see the rigid 'not allowed to bid over 3♥' as fundamentally flawed and as bad bridge.

But none of us suggest that you should not be permitted to play that method. Frankly, the more otherwise competent opps play poor methods, the happier I am

You, otoh, are not content with arguing, as you have, that raising is going to be bad bridge. Oh no, it isn't just a poor bridge decision: it is presumptively unethical!

We make the call and you have us in front of a committee!!

Now, in later posts, I think you modified the position so that the committee punishes us only if opener took any time to think before bidding 3♥. How kind of you.

I guess no-one is allowed to have a problem with, say, a flat 15 count and 3 card support. No-one is allowed to consider whether to play the 5-3 fit in 2N on modest values and no apparent shape. Or, if one even spends two seconds considering it, you have to pass 2N?

Just where the f**K do you get off criticizing the ethics of those of us who actually prefer to continue re-evaluating our hands in mid-auction?

Now, I am sure you are going to say that you didn't mean to offend me that way.. and I believe you. In fact, I will go further and say that I enjoy your posts and I am not actually upset with you... I wrote the preceding paragraph to make a point, not because I think for a moment that you are intending the natural meaning of your language

Just loosen up, recognize that others can legitmately disagree with you on this point without behaving in a way that warrants a committee rolling back any successful exercise of the judgement you decline to use.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

In any event, I agree that it is true that 2NT is a statement as Jlall mentioned in a recent post (Parenthetically, most bids in a Standard system are statements).  It describes a hand with a 5 card heart suit and invitational values.  Opener is entitled to evaluate his hand to determine where the hand should be played.  Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

And how do you figure this, exactly?

Let's say IMPs, all red.

After 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT, what do you think is the weakest hand responder could have?
What do you think the strongest hand responder could have is?

After 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT-3♥, what do you think is the weakest hand opener could have?
What do you think is the strongest hand opener could have?

I mean, you asked for examples. People gave you dozens. Only fair you return the favor. Your claim is that opener is better positioned to decide if game is there after the 2NT bid than responder is after the 3♥ bid, yes?

Quote

In my opinion, a 4♥ bid by responder is a breach of partnership dicipline.

Well, that's between you and your partner, not between your opponent and your director. Do you agree, that if a player expects his partner to raise 3♥ to 4 a significant percentage of the time, that it is not a breach of partnership discipline?

Quote

So, do what you like.

Ah, if we only could. Then I'd never have posted in this thread.
I don't have a strong opinion as to whether 3♥ should be signoff.
Only on whether people should be punished by the Committee if they don't play it as signoff.

Quote

If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call.  And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

That is quite possibly the saddest thing I have ever heard regarding. According to you, the bidding of 4♥ is always a bad bid (regardless of result). Therefore, you're calling the director on bad players for getting lucky. What a wonderful representative for bridge you must make.

I play a Precision 12-15 NT, which includes many slightly offshape hands (like 2236). As a result, after 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT, opener passes even with an 8 card fit if he feels his hand is substandard. Bidding 3♥ shows at least a tiny amount of game interest.

And you're thinking is what, exactly? We need to alert this as shows, um, less than a 15-17 opener but more than some hypothetical number? That this gives you a free top because you can claim that when we passed 3♥ it was because of an tiny hesitation and when we bid 4♥ it was because of a tiny hesitation? Exactly what would make you think a hesitation means bid on?

But that's Precision, right?

And yet, we have some of the best players in the world (I assure you I am not among them) on this thread saying that 3♥ is not a signoff. I believe I can find quite a few people who would pass 2NT rather than bid 3♥ with a particularly poor hand with support simply to ensure that the auction would not continue to 4♥. Which means that on this auction, there is no reason to think that a hesitation shows strength, not weakness.

After a hesitation, to accuse somebody of being influenced in the direction of the hesitation is to accuse them of subconsciously using UI, perhaps even coffeehousing. But to accuse them of bidding 4♥ due to UI when the UI does not point in one direction or another is to accuse them of cheating. Is this how you show respect?

Quote

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director.  I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect.

I have certainly been called due to people making poor bids and getting good results. I have been polite to them. I have never, in my life, been called about such a marginal auction. Honestly, I would probably say that in the ACBL, you must call the director at the time of the hesitation. You may not wait until after your opponent makes a call to say that it was caused by a previous, uncalled, hesitation. And God Willing, that would end it.

You may not like 3♥ as being a counter-invitation, but it is legal, most people play it to some extent, and for you to try to outlaw it via committee is the sort of thing that destroys bridge, and not merely for the people directly affected.

Luckily, I can't say I've come across such an appeal. Would you care to point one out to me?

[ArtK78]

cherdano, on Sep 25 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

This is exactly the point where we disagree. All opener knows is that responder has 5 hearts and invitational values. He could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx. He doen'st know whether responder is balanced or nott, he doesn't know whether his 5-card suit gets upgraded opposite a fit, etc. However, after the 3♥ bid responder knows opener has 3 hearts and a minimum for hearts given he has a balanced hand worth 15-17 hcp. Who knows more about the other's hand? This really isn't close.

Anyway, I am not sure you have the rights to complain about being called stubborn when you upfront told us that we shouldn't be surprised to end up in front of a committee for an action that we consider entirely normal, and then be treated with very little sympathy by you who has been serving in committees for 30 years...

I am only going to respond to one post. Most of the others are beneath response.

"Responder could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx."

I strongly suspect that with - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx responder would not rebid 2NT over 2H.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Sep 26 2007, 05:13 AM, said:

I strongly suspect that with - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx responder would not rebid 2NT over 2H.

What do you suggest that he would rebid?

[mikeh]

I give up.

It is impossible to argue rationally with a closed mind

The good news is that there has been several excellent posts on how, why and under what circumstances it may be appropriate for responder to bid on over 3♥ and some readers, who previously did not understand this possibility or its rationale, may have learned something, even tho the instigator of the discussion seems 'determined' to be 'right' even when so obviously wrong.

My only remaining hope is that he is never on any committee on which I serve or (worse) before which I appear. Committee members who are utterly convinced of their own infallibility and bridge knowledge are scary creatures... and when their opinion contradicts expert consensus, they ought never to be allowed to serve.

[drinbrasil]

I agree bidding after 3H is possible, just is very rare. But i figured chances of sucesses depend on 2nd fit (you always has to be at least 5-4 to bid over 3H) and depends normally on trumphs not break 4-1. I just wanted test the expected imps for this auction anyone has any site to random hands and analise?

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 25 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

My only remaining hope is that he is never on any committee on which I serve or (worse) before which I appear. Committee members who are utterly convinced of their own infallibility and bridge knowledge are scary creatures... and when their opinion contradicts expert consensus, they ought never to be allowed to serve.

Mike, the good news is that Art really isn't as close-minded as he initially appears to be.

The bad news is that he is also a lawyer. I believe this is the same ArtK78 that I knew from another site and its hard to believe there would be two of them showing the exact same attitudes using the same ID. It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken. I am uncertain what type of lawyer he is, but this seems to be a trait amongst the bridge playing lawyers that I know (I do not mean this in a bad way.) In many cases, they appear to be naturally ingrained to take a position and defend it to the bitter end. This is a good thing for the trial lawyers client (or the prosecution depending on your position). It is a great trait for lawyer to have. Unfortunately, it's not always such a good thing when discussing a bridge hand.

I don't think he really meant he would take someone to committee each and everytime they bid 4H over a 3H bid, even though his initial wording made it appear that way. A closer reading of his later statements lead me to believe that what he really means is that, "If there was a hesitation before the 3H bid, he thinks it is grounds for an appeal or to call the director." I can somewhat agree with this, and you probably can too. It doesn't matter what you were thinking about (passing 2N, bidding 3H), the non-offending side does not know what you were thinking about and is fully entitled to call the director. The fact still remains that there was a hesitation. So,

Since the time to call the director is at the point of the hesitation, the hand bidding 4H needs to have a logical and justifiable bridge reason for continuing on to 4H. I can understand this sentiment and it isn't a totally unreasonable position to have. But since the director should be standing right there at the table, and if the responding hand still bids 4H, responder should be able to show some logical and justifiable reason for doing so. "Oh, I felt like taking a shot at it." won't cut it.

If this is the reason given, and the director were to let the result stand, I can see how it could end up being appealed, and how the committee might possibly rule against the hesitating side. I believe this is what Art is actually arguing for, and could be convinced in this scenario he might even be right. After the hesitation, you will need a real good argument for going ahead and bidding 4H. Yes, we agree that there are hands that could do so without the hesitation, but in most cases, after the hesitation, pass would probably be a logical alternative as well, which then makes the 4H call a lot less "attractive" or "reasonable".

But, an in-tempo, 1N-2D-2H-2N-3H-4H sequence? No way. Any competent director or committee would laugh you out of the room if you tried to appeal this on the basis that 3H is a sign-off therefore you are not allowed to make another call.

[ArtK78]

Please note that the problem hand was at matchpoints, not IMPs.

[helene_t]

Agree with Mikeh and others. In fact I would say it's quite common for responder to raise opener's preference bid in this sequence. I believe that ArtK78 must either be playing some exotic methods in which unbalanced invitational hands with a 5-card major have some other rebid than 2NT, or he must have poor skills in hand evaluation, i.e. fail to acknowledge that unbalanced hands become better after a fit is established.

Also, even if responder turned out to have a 5332 which should not (in opps' and the TDs opinion) re-evaluate, responder is allowed to make a bad bid, even a successful bad bid. If opener tanked before bidding 3♥ there may be an issue.

The most common reason for me to put BBO players on my enemy list is when they vaste the TD's time with complaints about opps making bad but successful bids or plays.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Sep 26 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

The bad news is that he is also a lawyer.  I believe this is the same ArtK78 that I knew from another site and its hard to believe there would be two of them showing the exact same attitudes using the same ID.  It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.    I am uncertain what type of lawyer he is, but this seems to be a trait amongst the bridge playing lawyers that I know (I do not mean this in a bad way.)  In many cases, they appear to be naturally ingrained to take a position and defend it to the bitter end.  This is a good thing for the trial lawyers client (or the prosecution depending on your position).  It is a great trait for lawyer to have. Unfortunately, it's not always such a good thing when discussing a bridge hand.

As an occasionally 'determined' trial lawyer/bridge player, I recognize the traits you describe. However, imo, the better trial lawyer learns to see things from the other party's p.o.v. since this ability enables one to anticipate the arguments to be advanced. Furthermore, and perhaps this is not well understood by most non-trial lawyers, the trial lawyer's main goal is not to win at trial, but to obtain the best result for the client, measured in net economic recovery (or minimal economic loss if the one being sued). Note I am speaking of civil litigation, not criminal. The best economic result is usually attained through negotiation, not trial. In moter vehicle cases, which form a substantial part of civil litigation where I live, the settlement rate is roughly 95%, and it is close to that in other civil litigation. One cannot negotiate at this level without the mental flexibility to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both sides to an argument.

Yes, we tend to posture... to outwardly maintain a level of confidence in our position that perhaps we do not really have, since there is an element of psychology in the negotiation process, but with competent opposition, that posturing isn't worth much. The truly inflexible laywer doesn't do that well, because he wastes too much of his own time and his client's money and gets poor results too often. Kind of like bridge players who persist in irrational bidding theories