[mrdct]

As noted in my original post, 2NT showed ♦ and major. This a fairly common treatment in my part of the world.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on Sep 23 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

As noted in my original post, 2NT showed ♦ and major.  This a fairly common treatment in my part of the world.

strange part of the world. Don't know why I assumed reds.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on Sep 24 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 23 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

As noted in my original post, 2NT showed ♦ and major.  This a fairly common treatment in my part of the world.

strange part of the world

If you think that's strange, wait until you see what happens when you flush a toilet here!

[aguahombre]

Hope it doesn't involve crocs or snakes

[pran]

mrdct, on Sep 24 2010, 12:22 AM, said:

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial.

[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 24 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 24 2010, 12:22 AM, said:

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial.

... but the fact that it conveys information, other than a willingness to play in the denomination named, does.

[pran]

gordontd, on Sep 24 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 24 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 24 2010, 12:22 AM, said:

In the the jurisdiction where this hand was played, pass/correct bids are explicitly alertable by regulation, although I would suggest that even in the absense of a specific regulation a pass/correct bid would be unambiguously artificial.

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial.

... but the fact that it conveys information, other than a willingness to play in the denomination named, does.

Would you not agree that the "additional information" from a "pass or correct" call is information covered by the clause in the definition of artificial call that I have emphasized below?:

conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named

It is obvious to me that when I make a "pass or correct" call the information that partner may correct (and play in a different denomination) is information taken for granted by players generally.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on Sep 24 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

It is obvious to me that when I make a "pass or correct" call the information that partner may correct (and play in a different denomination) is information taken for granted by players generally.

I am impressed by your certainty on this point. I accept that among the better players this can be taken for granted. But in an ordinary bridge club in England, I guess the majority of players have no understanding at all of the principles behind p/c bids and indeed have probably never heard of them.

[bluejak]

When a player makes a pass or correct call it no doubt sounds to a lot of opponents like a natural call. So while no doubt an expert would understand the following sequence without an explanation, I doubt the majority would:

(1♠) 1NT P 2♣

1NT is alerted and described as " a weak hand with two or three of the unbid suits including at least four hearts". I have played this for many years with some success. Now 2♣ is pass or correct, and an expert opponent might expect that with no alert or explanation. But the majority will just expect clubs.

No matter: we alert, we explain, especially carefully against lesser opponents. But our 2♣ is artificial.

The point about the definition "conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named" is that the bit in brackets means what is says literally: it does not apply to deductions opponents might make from full explanations. If it did, there would be no artificial calls!

So the OP is clear enough: 3♥ is artificial, Law 27B1A does not apply.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 24 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

When a player makes a pass or correct call it no doubt sounds to a lot of opponents like a natural call.  So while no doubt an expert would understand the following sequence without an explanation, I doubt the majority would:

(1♠) 1NT P 2♣

1NT is alerted and described as " a weak hand with two or three of the unbid suits including at least four hearts".  I have played this for many years with some success.  Now 2♣ is pass or correct, and an expert opponent might expect that with no alert or explanation.  But the majority will just expect clubs.

No matter: we alert, we explain, especially carefully against lesser opponents.  But our 2♣ is artificial.

The point about the definition "conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named" is that the bit in brackets means what is says literally: it does not apply to deductions opponents might make from full explanations.  If it did, there would be no artificial calls!

So the OP is clear enough: 3♥ is artificial, Law 27B1A does not apply.

I accept this if you can show exactly what information ("not generally granted") the bid conveys other than willingness to play in the denomination named.

(And I do not accept any condition attached to this willingness like "provided this is what you want". Such conditional willingness is not a question in the definition of artificial calls).

Note that I do not dispute the question of a call being alertable; that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[nige1]

Although GordonTD's argument seems correct, I understood that directors are told to stretch the law when considering corrections to insufficient bids. 3♥ seems natural because, unless an opponent bids again, most of the time it will be the final contract. A player may argue "what could be more natural than that?"

[bluejak]

You are not willing to play there if partner has the other suit.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 24 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

You are not willing to play there if partner has the other suit.

By the same logic: Every possible answer bid to a takeout double is artificial because the bidder is not willing to play in that suit if the doubler has a different intention.

Example: A player holding around 20 HCP and a (solid) 6 card major suit will double an opening bid from his RHO and then bid his suit at his next turn to call regardless of his partner's answer to the double. His partner is certainly not willing to play in his own lousy 4-card suit when he experiences this development of the auction.

Or in your own words: In the auction:
1♦ - X - pass - 1♠
pass - 2♥
the 1♠ bid (made on xxxx) is artificial?

[bluejak]

No, the situation is not comparable. 1♠ is an attempt to play in spades. A pass or correct bid is an attempt to play in any one of more than one denominations.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 27 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

No, the situation is not comparable.  1♠ is an attempt to play in spades.  A pass or correct bid is an attempt to play in any one of more than one denominations.

The definition of artificial calls uses the clause: willingness to play in the denomination named, it doesn't say anything about attempt or suggestion to play in that denomination.

This is a very important difference, don't you agree?

(The way I understand the word willingness it means that the player is fully prepared for the auction now becoming closed by three consecutive passes.)

[bluejak]

It conveys information about willingness to play elsewhere. Remember you only quoted part of the Regulation.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 27 2010, 12:58 PM, said:

It conveys information about willingness to play elsewhere.  Remember you only quoted part of the Regulation.

I didn't quote any regulation, I quoted from the law. And yes, I quoted only the part of the definition that appears relevant to this discussion; here is the complete definition of artificial calls:

a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

I would like to see your reasons for asserting that my "pass or correct" bid when made at the lowest legal level, at the time I make that bid (necessarily) conveys information other than willingness to play in the denomination named?

My assertion is that whenever I am (mentally) prepared for my bid to become the final bid in an auction then that bid shows willingness to play in its denomination. My bid is not artificial unless it in addition (positively) shows information not [....] taken for granted by players generally in the actual situation.

A pass or correct bid that needs not show any values at all (like a suit preference bid at the lowest legal level) can hardly show such (additional) information.

[blackshoe]

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Sep 27 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

We don't just alert artificial bids. We alert natural bids with unexpected meanings. I think the legal definition should be clearer. For example In the UK, I believe that in a transfer auction e.g.
1N (range announced) - 2♦ (announced as "hearts")
2♥
completion of the transfer (here 2♥) is considered artificial from a legal point of view (but not usually alerted). To some players, it seems natural, because the transfer suit will often be the final strain.

[pran]

nige1, on Sep 27 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 27 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

I think "players" in that "information not taken for granted by players generally" bit has to refer not only to players who are familiar with "pass or correct" situations, but also players who've never run into them. To such a player, a pass or correct bid which says "if this is your suit, fine, let's play here, but if it's not, I'm willing to play in your suit at the next higher level", as would be the case with a 2♠ response to multi 2♦, would come as a surprise.

We don't just alert artificial bids we alert natural bids with unexpected meanings. I think the legal definition should be clearer. For example In the UK, I believe that in a transfer auction e.g.
1N - 2♦
2♥
completion of the transfer (here 2♥) is considered artificial (but not usually alerted), although to some it seems natural.

It should be the other way round: The transfer completing bid does not promise a certain number of cards in the denomination named and shall therefore according to most(?) regulations be alerted. This is not a matter of law!

But the bidder is obviously fully prepared to have the final bid so there is no indication of any further information from the bid than his willingness to play in the denomination named.

According to the law definition of artificial calls I see no reason why this bid shall be deemed artificial.