[mila85]

If the field plays weak notrumph they will be probably in 1nt, 2h, 2nt or 4h.
1s - 1nt / p
1s - 1nt / 2nt - pass
1s - 1nt / 2nt - 3h / 4h
1c - 1h / 1nt - 2h=inv (via some convention) / pass or 4h

From this point of view I don't want to play in 3h. What about 3nt?

[han]

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

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

[skip]

It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.

Ron, I need help with my English.

[ArtK78]

I decided to get the opinion of an authority on the game on this issue, so I wrote to Jeff Rubens of The Bridge World. With Jeff's permission, here is my question and his response:

How would you characterize the final bid in this sequence?

1NT (15-17) - 2D (transfer)
2H - 2NT
3H - 4H

1) interesting
2) unusual
3) rare, but possible
4) extremely rare, hard to imagine
5) suspicious

Would your opinion change if there was a break in tempo by opener after 2NT?

This question prompted a lot of very heated discussion on the BBO Bridge Forum recently, in which I was in a very small minority.

I am looking forward to seeing your response

****************

Dear Art,

Thank you for your letter.

I don’t know that the answer to your question by itself has any significance, but if I had to pick I would pick (3). I consider it possible because of a weakness in the standard transfer system that can cause responder to rebid two notrump with an unbalanced hand. For example, with something resembling xx Jxxxx x AKxxx, I would bid as shown as responder (and find it hard to see any alternative at any point).

If this is a UI question, you are asking it backwards. Assuming there was UI, if it appeared to favor bidding four hearts (as it surely would from a huddle over 2D, and it could be argued similarly with a huddle over two notrump, though this is not as strong a case by far), one determines whether there was a reasonable alternative. Unless the answer to the percentage question is zero, how unlikely it is to hold such a hand doesn’t matter; what matters is whether what he had was one of those hands.

Best wishes,

Jeff Rubens

[kenrexford]

OK. I know you have all been waiting for my analysis, which will be, of course, the correct analysis.

Obviously, everyone knows that there will be a temptation to bid game after the correction back to the major when Responder has an unbalanced hand. This hand will now be a "player."

Had the major been spades (1NT-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-2NT), Opener would clearly distinguish minimums by using empathetic shortness indicators. In other words, Opener would bid as follows:

Normal:
4♠ = spade fit, game only
3♠ = spade fit, no chance of game
Pass = no spade fit, minimum
3NT = spade fit, maximum

Empathetic Splinters:
4♣ = spade fit, four clubs, five key cards (aces and black K's/Q's)
4♦ = spade fit, four diamonds, five keys (aces and pointed K's/Q's)
4♥ = spade fit, five hearts, five keys (aces and major K's/Q's)

Empathetic Short-Suit Game Tries:
3♣ = I'd accept a game try if you could show me an unbalanced player with a stiff club, but not a general GT
3♦ = I'd accept a game try if you could show the diamond stiff
3H = The heart stiff works.

So far, very standard stuff.

The heart auction, however, is more cramped, because Opener cannot show ability to accept a game try if the short suit is spades, at least not naturally, without bypassing 3♥. So, the 3♥ response seems to decline a game try unless the short suit in the unbalanced situation happens to be spades. That makes sense because spades is the most likely suit to be bid competitively during the preceding sequence.

So, it seems that Responder might want to be in game after the proposed sequence if he has a player with short spades, unless, of course, one uses 2♦...2♠ as an artificial GT with an unbalanced hand (I'd check on this before calling a committe, at a minimum), 2♠ being artificial.

So, in summary, I think that Art simply is confused by the sequence. He is clearly right had the major-in-focus been spades. No one could plausibly claim that they do not use empathetic short-suit game tries here. That would be rejected as frivolous, probably with a procedural penalty and/or a loss of the deposit, depending on who appealed.

However, as the major was hearts, Responder would be in the right IF Responder held a stiff spade and was not playing that 2♦...2♠ showed this hand. That last part would, in and of itself, be highly unusual, as no one plays 2♠ as natural any more, but perhaps the opponents are older folks.

[han]

ArtK78, on Sep 26 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

1) interesting
2) unusual
3) rare, but possible
4) extremely rare, hard to imagine
5) suspicious

I think your question was very poorly phrased Art. It looks like you didn't aim for an answer that would enlighten you, but tried to get an answer that could help you win the argument here. Of these 5 choices "rare, but possible" was probably the furthest away from "suspicious". For next time, how about including:

6) nothing special
7) not uncommon.

Anyway, I'm glad Jeff made it clear that there are indeed hands where there are no logical alternatives but bidding 2NT first and then 4H.

[sathyab]

Hannie, on Sep 26 2007, 11:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 26 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

1) interesting
2) unusual
3) rare, but possible
4) extremely rare, hard to imagine
5) suspicious

I think your question was very poorly phrased Art. It looks like you didn't aim for an answer that would enlighten you, but tried to get an answer that could help you win the argument here. Of these 5 choices "rare, but possible" was probably the furthest away from "suspicious". For next time, how about including:

6) nothing special
7) not uncommon.

Anyway, I'm glad Jeff made it clear that there are indeed hands where there are no logical alternatives but bidding 2NT first and then 4H.

The wording of the question or the choices that were offered as possible answers didn't seem to affect Jeff's opinion.

It's to Art's credit that he forwarded the opinion of an authority which as you youself note, with unconcealed jubiliation if I might add, is at variance with Art's own position. If his aim was to elicit a response that supported his argument why would he do that ?

[jdeegan]

WOW what a wonderful thread I just found. Returning to the game after a brief 30 year hiatus, I was AMAZED at the amount of lawyering going on. Now, at the top level of bridge, that is one thing - people's professional reputations and even livelihoods are at stake. But, at a Podunk sectional? Uggh! For most of us, bridge is for fun.

It takes a modern day Oswald Jacoby or Edgar Kaplan on committees to make the modern ethics system work properly, and they are there at our major national and international events. At Podunk sectionals and regionals I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78.

All the salient points that I can see were covered in the thread:

1. 4♥ is a good bid
2. 3♥ is, imo., OK too - the hand is right on the cusp
3. 4♥ over 3♥ is just fine - I would expect two bullets and 10 fifth of hearts
4. a huddle over 2NT is ambiguous - the alternatives may have been between pass and 3♥ with 4-3-3-3 and a minimum, OR the actual hand type
5. Calling the director on the basis of UI (except, possibly at a high-level event), I find disgusting

If you wanna win the duplicate, try to keep your emotions under control and play a little better. Please, don't call the police unless the opponents actually do a 'job' on you.

[ArtK78]

jdeegan, on Sep 28 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

WOW what a wonderful thread I just found. Returning to the game after a brief 30 year hiatus, I was AMAZED at the amount of lawyering going on.  Now, at the top level of bridge, that is one thing - people's professional reputations and even livelihoods are at stake.  But, at a Podunk sectional? Uggh!  For most of us, bridge is for fun.

It takes a modern day Oswald Jacoby or Edgar Kaplan on committees to make the modern ethics system work properly, and they are there at our major national and international events.  At Podunk sectionals and regionals I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78. 

All the salient points that I can see were covered in the thread:

1. 4♥ is a good bid
2. 3♥ is, imo., OK too - the hand is right on the cusp
3. 4♥ over 3♥ is just fine - I would expect two bullets and 10 fifth of hearts
4. a huddle over 2NT is ambiguous - the alternatives may have been between pass and 3♥ with 4-3-3-3 and a minimum, OR the actual hand type
5. Calling the director on the basis of UI (except, possibly at a high-level event), I find disgusting

If you wanna win the duplicate, try to keep your emotions under control and play a little better.  Please, don't call the police unless the opponents actually do a 'job' on you.

This is supposed to be a forum in which ideas about bridge are discussed at a high level. It is assumed that the discussions here are applicable to high level tournaments, not so much the play at a Podunk sectional.

Jdeegan, you are entitled to your opinion. But I would appreciate it if you (and others in this thread) refrain from personal insults. If you examine my posts, you will find that I have kept my discussion on an intellectual level, and I have not insulted anyone in the process. So, saying that at regionals and sectionals "I'm afraid we get way too much ArtK78" is insulting and uncalled for.

I almost never call for the tournament director in situations such as these, even when playing in North American Championship events. I trust that most players, especially those that I know personally or by reputation, are ethical enough to ignore breaks-in-tempo and the like. The ideal is to play as if you were behind screens, so that you do not notice the break-in-tempo even if everyone at the table acknowledges that there has been one. I also know many top-flight players who call for the TD at the drop of a hat. One is a good friend of mine, although I don't particularly like this attribute.

Having said that, one should not crawl under a rock and act as if the problem does not exist. Rarely does an issue of The Bridge World pass without some discussion of how tournament directors and appeals committees should or should not handle break-in-tempo situations.

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives. I did not ask Jeff his opinion about whether he would call for the tournament director if he were playing in a sectional in Podunk. The question was phrased entirely in the area of a discussion of a particular bridge auction taken in a vacuum to begin with, and then adding the problems that arise in competitive bridge - presumably at a high level. These problems - hesitations and other actions that occur at the table which can convey unauthorized information - cannot be ignored. And that is especially true when an unusual sequence of bids occurs. And most of the contributors to this post concede that the continuation to 4♥ is, at the very least, ununusal.

I don't ask that you agree with me. I don't even ask that you like me. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal insults.

[ArtK78]

By the way, I bet one of the reasons that this was such "a wonderful thread" as you put it, jdeegan, was that my opinions on the auction provoked a very lively (and somewhat heated) discussion. Without my contribution, this would have been much less entertaining.

I don't mind being in the minority (even a minority of one). It is just when the argument starts getting personal that it gets ugly.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

If you examine my posts, you will find that I have kept my discussion on an intellectual level, and I have not insulted anyone in the process.

No comment

Quote

I almost never call for the tournament director in situations such as these, even when playing in North American Championship events.

That is good to hear. It is not the impression I received from your earlier posts, but I appreciate the correction.

Quote

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives.

That's an...interesting interpretation.

Earlier you said...

Quote

I have been playing for over 30 years at all levels up to North American Championships, and I have served on many committees. If this auction occurred and there was a complaint about it, and it came before a committee on which I was serving, I would have to be 100% convinced that there was no action at the table outside of the bidding which could have caused the game bid.

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point". I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from. As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand.

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

[ArtK78]

jtfanclub, on Sep 28 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

Quote

No less of an authority than Jeff Rubens stated in his response to my e-mail that a hesitation by opener over the 2♦ bid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 2♥) and, to a lesser extent, a hesitation by opener after responder's 2NT rebid (which could be construed as thinking about bidding something other than 3♥) would convey unauthorized information and would probably result in responder favoring a 4♥ bid over other logical alternatives.

That's an...interesting interpretation.

Earlier you said...

Quote

I have been playing for over 30 years at all levels up to North American Championships, and I have served on many committees. If this auction occurred and there was a complaint about it, and it came before a committee on which I was serving, I would have to be 100% convinced that there was no action at the table outside of the bidding which could have caused the game bid.

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point". I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from. As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand.

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

JT:

Pardon me if this is somewhat long-winded.

It is always true that any bridge player can bid whatever he wants to bid (with certain exceptions when the organizing body regulates certain bids, such as psyches of strong artificial and forcing bids). In the absence of UI, there is nothing wrong with any bid (although some of my partners may think otherwise).

However, if there is UI, then there may be a problem. UI can favor one logical alternative over another. In this case, as Jeff Rubens stated, a break in tempo over the 2♦ tranfer conveys UI - that the 1NT bidder was considering some other action than the usual 2♥ call. Quoting from Jeff's response to my question:

"Assuming there was UI, if it appeared to favor bidding four hearts (as it surely would from a huddle over 2D, and it could be argued similarly with a huddle over two notrump, though this is not as strong a case by far), one determines whether there was a reasonable alternative. Unless the answer to the percentage question is zero, how unlikely it is to hold such a hand doesn’t matter; what matters is whether what he had was one of those hands."

And, as far as I know - please correct me if I am missing something - any action other than 2♥ over the transfer would imply some kind of super acceptance of hearts. So, if responder had an invitational type of hand - balanced or unbalanced - or even a hand which, on the face of it, might be a pass of the transfer to 2♥ - responder might choose to continue on with 2NT. Upon opener's preference to 3♥, responder might continue on to 4♥ on a hand where 50% of players would do so but 50% of players would not. And all of this might be perfectly innocent and unintentional. Nevertheless, bidding is restricted to a very limited vocabulary - the numbers one through seven, four suits, no trump, double, redouble and pass. Adding hesitations, mannerisms, inflections in voice, etc., can convey unauthorized information. If UI could have influenced an action taken at the table, the innocent side can obtain redress from the TD and, if not satisfied, from the appeals committee. And if the TD rules in favor of the innocent side, the other pair may also appeal that ruling to the appeals committee. These things happen all the time. Quite frankly, most players take offense to calls for the TD and appeals of rulings when they should not do so. Most of the time, all that is sought is equity - there is nothing personal involved.

I admit that I found the opinions in favor of the 4♥ bid over 3♥ as perfectly acceptable on a number of hands to be surprising. Jeff agreed that there are hands on which he would do the same. He attributed it to a weakness in the standard transfer systems - essentially, invitational unbalanced hands are difficult to deal with using common transfer methods. So, I accept that. The problem arises when one partner conveys information through something other than the bidding - unauthorized information. Once there is UI, it takes some of the judgment out of the hands of the players. So, a player who may have had every intention of bidding on to 4♥ over a preference to 3♥ by opener may be barred from doing so if opener conveyed any UI. No matter how genuine responder's intentions may have been, as long as the action is not one that almost every player of his skill level would take, he cannot overcome the fact that the UI may favor that action over some other logical alternative.

I hope that I have made my position clearer. This is a very difficult area and one that is not well understood by many players. Hence, when a TD or an appeals committee rules against them, there are often hard feelings. That should not be the case, and most appeals committee members and especially appeals committee chairpersons should be very sensitive to that fact. The chairperson of the appeals committee should go out of his or her way to make the losing side understand that the ruling against them does not mean that they committed any sort of bridge crime, only that there was a problem created by the UI and the committee had to find a solution to the problem.

[sathyab]

jtfanclub, on Sep 28 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

But in fact, Jeff gave an example hand where he would bid 4♥ over 3♥ and he finds it "hard to see any alternative at any point".  I'm not sure how he could have made it clearer that were he on a committee, and this hand came up with this auction, that no amount of hesitation or other UI would make a difference, as there were no LAs to choose from.  As he points out, there are hands where bidding 4♥ over 3♥ is clear and obvious, and the question is not what are the odds of whether the opponent holds such a hand, but simply whether he holds such a hand. 

I think virtually all of the people on the forums would agree that a 5-5 8 count qualifies (such as the one Jeff gave as an example), and a strong majority would argue that a number of 5431 8 counts would also qualify.

What's interesting about the hand that Jeff offered as an example of one that would bid 4h over 3h is that it's significantly different from any that anyone else has offered so far. In addition to being 5-5, it's a 5-5 containing a stronger side-suit and a Jxxxx of trumps, the presumption being that the heart fit has improved the potential of the hand. In other words a 3-card fit does a lot more to improve the value of a hand with a trump suit of Jxxxx and a side suit of Akxxx rather than a trump suit of Akxxx and a side suit of Jxxxx.

[ArtK78]

sathyab, on Sep 28 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

What's interesting about the hand that Jeff offered as an example of one that would bid 4h over 3h is that it's significantly different from any that anyone else has offered so far. In addition to being 5-5, it's a 5-5 containing a stronger side-suit and a Jxxxx of trumps, the presumption being that the heart fit has improved the potential of the hand. In other words a 3-card fit does a lot more to improve the value of a hand with a trump suit of Jxxxx and a side suit of Akxxx rather than a trump suit of Akxxx and a side suit of Jxxxx.

I agree that Jeff's example hand was different than the ones set out as examples of hands that would bid 4♥ over 3♥, and I agree with the reasons for it that you pointed out, sathyab. Clearly, the existence of a heart fit improves the hand with long, weak hearts and a long, strong side suit more than the other way around.

[jdeegan]

Gee, I was just trying to make the point that, imo, the current system that polices use of UI and other similar bridge ethical offences doesn't work very well unless committee members are virtual bridge demi-gods. If a committee member happens to think that an auction like:

1NT-P-2♦-P
2♥-P-2NT-P
3♥-P-4♥

is 'impossible', then that whole system breaks down, because that system depends on the committee member knowing what bids constitute 'reasonable alternatives' for other players in that specific situation.

[ArtK78]

jdeegan, on Sep 28 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

Gee, I was just trying to make the point that, imo, the current system that polices use of UI and other similar bridge ethical offences doesn't work very well unless committee members are virtual bridge demi-gods.  If a committee member happens to think that an auction like:

1NT-P-2♦-P
2♥-P-2NT-P
3♥-P-4♥

is 'impossible', then that whole system breaks down, because that system depends on the committee member knowing what bids constitute 'reasonable alternatives' for other players in that specific situation.

It is not difficult to determine what bids constitute logical alternatives. All bridge players do that all the time. Do I accept the game try or do I decline the game try? If you believe that some players would bid game and others would not, then the action not chosen becomes a logical alternative to the action chosen.

Sometimes there are more than two choices available. For example, after 1♦-1♥-2♥, if responder has a 3433 11 count, responder may pass, may bid game, or may make a game try. If a significant number of players would choose each of these actions, the actions not taken by the player at the table become logical alternatives.

Clearly, a bid of 5♠ over 2♥ is not a logical alternative on a 3433 11 count on the given auction.

Appeals committee members do not have to be omnicient. They just have to have a reasonable amount of experience and expertise. And a little diplomacy and tact also help.

[barmar]

There's a bridge maxim that if you open a 5-card major and partner gives you a limit raise, you should practically always accept the game invitation if you have a singleton or void, even if you have an otherwise minimum opener. You don't know whether the singleton is actually useful -- partner could have all his values wasted opposite it. But unless you play a convention like 2NT to show a limit raise, so you have the 3 level available to ask the nature of responder's hand, you don't have any way to find out, and more often than not the shortness will be useful.

The same goes with the auction in this thread. When responder hears 3H, and he has side shortness, he can't tell whether it's useful or not. But frequently shortness IS useful in trump contracts, while it would be a misfeature in NT, so it makes sense to raise to game once you've discovered that you have a good fit.

The reason why this is an unusual sequence is not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that the particular combination of cards doesn't come up very often. It's only when opener has a minimum with support for your major, and responder has a shapely invitational hand.

Earlier Art claimed that responder's 2NT bid makes opener the captain. I think not. It's very rare that the player opening NT gets to be captain -- this bid describes his hand relatively narrowly. Responder's hand is much less defined -- all you know is that he has 5 cards in the suit he transferred to, but the rest of his shape could be practically anything. Opener will rarely have any distributional assets that he can use to offset HCP deficits, but responder may, but they only become valuable once you've agreed to play in a suit. Since responder can see these, but opener can't, responder is still captain. 2NT is really an asking bid -- it asks "are you minimum or maximum, and do you have a fit with me?" What makes it a little confusing is that Pass is one of the acceptable answers; in that sense, it's somewhat related to "pass or correct" bids, where one's hand increase in value if partner corrects.

[the hog]

Hannie, on Sep 26 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

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

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

[skip]

It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.

Ron, I need help with my English.

This time it is not you who needs help with your English. The adjective is "closed minded", not "close minded". One is tempted to ask close to what?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Sep 28 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 26 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

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

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

[skip]

It is practically impossible to convince him that his position might be mistaken.

Ron, I need help with my English.

This time it is not you who needs help with your English.

That is what Hannie was implying. Though for a more relevant reason than you stated.

[han]

Indeed, but the comment about close vs closed is appreciated.