[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

[mjj29]

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

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!

Well, in the case of the EBU, the regulation is

OB5G3(k) said:

Players should not alert: ... the completion of a transfer unless it shows or denies something specific

so, for example, I always alert because I always break the transfer with 4 card support, but if you don't, then it's not alertable

[campboy]

gordontd, on Sep 27 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

It can, but it doesn't always. The multi example earlier on this page is a good one: a 2♠ response is clearly artificial because it indicates support for hearts; a 2♥ response is less clear, because it doesn't say anything about spades (spades will usually be longer, sure, but that is just because hearts tend to be short; clubs and diamonds will also usually be longer).

[pran]

gordontd, on Sep 27 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Are you serious?

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

And when the auction goes 1M - 2M (Michaels showing the opposite major and a minor) you bid one of your two minor suits (which?) when you have an even longer major suit fit to partner?

Campboy beat me to the comment on responses to 2♦ opening bids.

[lamford]

gordontd, on Sep 27 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Usually is going a bit far. But you might certainly have a longer suit of ones that partner might have. Let us say that it goes (1C*) - 1NT - (Dble*) where 1C is strong and partner bids 1NT showing the rounded or pointed suits, and let us say that you are favourable. Now with S xx H QJxxx D QJxx C xx, I would bid 4D, pass or correct, but I still bid my preferred pointed suit, although I have a longer rounded suit.

[gordontd]

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

Are you serious?

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

What does this have to do with pass/correct responses?

[mycroft]

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 27 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

Are you serious?

If your partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in minors do you then respond in your shortest minor suit?

And when the auction goes 1M - 2M (Michaels showing the opposite major and a minor) you bid one of your two minor suits (which?) when you have an even longer major suit fit to partner?

Campboy beat me to the comment on responses to 2♦ opening bids.

Um, Pran, when partner opens 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors, 3m is *not* "pass or correct", it's "pass". Therefore, Gordon's statement doesn't apply.

When partner opens 2NT showing a preempt in an *unknown* minor, then 3m *is* p/c, and yes, you bid 3C unless you prefer clubs to diamonds (and are therefore willing to play 4C), and shows either "preference for diamonds" or "don't care".

The Michaels situation only bids 3m p/c (if they do play it that way) if the minor will play better than the known major (lack-of) fit.

But when it's a known minor fit, there's a wrinkle, though. Raptor NT over a minor has this auction happen fairly frequently: 1D-1NT (unknown 4-card major, longer clubs)-p-2H with a non-game 2434, even though I have a known 9-card club fit. If partner passes, great; if partner bids 2S, I'll retreat to clubs.

re multi 2D-2H: are you really saying that that isn't any less artificial than 1C(strong or 10-12 BAL)-1D (negative, to play opposite 10-12)? Yes, it's willing (for definitions of willing) to play there, but it certainly implies (even if it does not promise, as 2D-2S does) a willingness to play somewhere else. In fact, 2D-2H is specifically "I want to play in your major" (with minor exceptions that involve NT after 2D-2H; 2S) which does, certainly talk about suit(s) other than the one named.

Yes, there is "willingness" and "willingness", after all a natural 1H opening is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support" just as much as 2D-2H is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support", but in the first case, support is 3 cards, in the second it's 6...

[pran]

mycroft, on Sep 28 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

re multi 2D-2H: are you really saying that that isn't any less artificial than 1C(strong or 10-12 BAL)-1D (negative, to play opposite 10-12)?  Yes, it's willing (for definitions of willing) to play there, but it certainly implies (even if it does not promise, as 2D-2S does) a willingness to play somewhere else.  In fact, 2D-2H is specifically "I want to play in your major" (with minor exceptions that involve NT after 2D-2H; 2S) which does, certainly talk about suit(s) other than the one named.

Yes, there is "willingness" and "willingness", after all a natural 1H opening is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support" just as much as 2D-2H is "willing to play in hearts if partner has some support", but in the first case, support is 3 cards, in the second it's 6...

I think the multi question is the one best describing my point:

There may be variations on how people use multi, this is the one I am familiar with:
2♦ shows one out of three possible hands: A traditional weak 2♥, a traditional weak 2♠ or a traditional 20-21 2NT opening bid.

Responder has in principle three choices:
2NT is a demand bid that requests information on which variant the opener holds, and in the case of a weak 2M opening also whether the opener is weaker or stronger.
2♠ shows a hand that suggests opener to pass if he has the weak spade variant, but which invites to game in hearts in case opener has the weak hearts variant.
These two response alternatives are clearly artificial.

As opposed to the above alternatives 2♥ shows a hand that implies no interest for any particular contract and just suggests opener to pass if he has the weak heart variant.
This is the typical answer for a valueless hand, but it can also be made with a hand that will invite to game in spades if the opener has the weak spade variant and therefore corrects to spades.
However, as this will only be revealed after opener's next call and responder at the time of his answer does not show anything but willingness to play in 2♥, this bid cannot possibly be considered artificial at the time it is made (see below).

A different example: A player responds 2♠ to an artificial strong 2♣ opening bid. The 2♠ answer shows (say) a positive hand with a fair spade suit. At this time the player obviously is both interested in and willing to play a spade contract, and as such his response bid can hardly be deemed artificial.
However the continued auction reveals that the opener while void in spades has a hand so that 7♥ is cold.

Is responder any longer interested in or willing to play in spades? Hardly.
Does this revelation during the continued auction make his 2♠ initial response bid artificial? Of course not.

Whether a call is artificial must be judged according to the circumstances at the time it is made, it cannot depend on what is revealed later during the auction.

[lamford]

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

Whether a call is artificial must be judged according to the circumstances at the time it is made, it cannot depend on what is revealed later during the auction.

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid indicated a willingness to play in spades (or diamonds), so is incontrovertibly artificial. Some might play 3H as natural and non-forcing here, in which case it would obviously not be artificial.

[campboy]

mycroft, on Sep 28 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

When partner opens 2NT showing a preempt in an *unknown* minor, then 3m *is* p/c, and yes, you bid 3C unless you prefer clubs to diamonds (and are therefore willing to play 4C), and shows either "preference for diamonds" or "don't care".

This is the bit I disagree with, and in general I think it applies when the pass/correct call is the cheapest call available in a suit which partner may have. If I bid 3♣ here, all it means is that I don't have enough clubs to raise a 3♣ pre-empt. It says nothing about diamonds; certainly there are hands where I prefer clubs to diamonds but I bid 3♣, and there are hands where I prefer diamonds to clubs but do not bid 3♣ (4♣ bids). Any higher pass or correct bid, on the other hand, does show support for the other suit and so is certainly artificial.

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 28 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 27 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

Whether a call is artificial must be judged according to the circumstances at the time it is made, it cannot depend on what is revealed later during the auction.

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid indicated a willingness to play in spades (or diamonds), so is incontrovertibly artificial. Some might play 3H as natural and non-forcing here, in which case it would obviously not be artificial.

If that is the case in OP (3♥ does not show willingness to play in hearts but requests partner to choose between spades and diamonds) I completely agree that 3♥ is artificial.

However, as I understood OP the bid from partner showed diamonds and an unknown major, and then I consider the 3♥ response as willingness to play in hearts and suggestion for partner to pass if hearts indeed is his unknown major suit. This is a classical pass or correct bid.

I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 28 2010, 01:18 PM, said:

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

It shows that you don't want to play in 3♦ if partner has spades and diamonds. That's information unrelated to hearts.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 28 2010, 03:24 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 28 2010, 01:18 PM, said:

Of course, but in the original example from Nigel, the proposed 3H bid I cannot see how the 3♥ bid "must show" support or interest for any denomination other than hearts?

It shows that you don't want to play in 3♦ if partner has spades and diamonds. That's information unrelated to hearts.

No, it doesn't:

The player may very well prefer hearts over diamonds, but diamonds over spades.

(The player may also be indifferent about spades or diamonds if these are partner's suits.)

So the 3♥ bid only (for certain) shows willingness to play in hearts.

[campboy]

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 29 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

Which hands? If you mean hands which are too strong or too weak, then I would suggest that that is "information taken for granted by players generally".

[gwnn]

I would almost risk it to say that all bids show information other than willingness to play in that contract/denomination. I cannot at the moment think of a clear-cut counterexample. Hang on: I guess signoffs when partner described his shape and HCP already.

[pran]

gwnn, on Sep 29 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

I would almost risk it to say that all bids show information other than willingness to play in that contract/denomination. I cannot at the moment think of a clear-cut counterexample. Hang on: I guess signoffs when partner described his shape and HCP already.

A late partner of mine used to say that the most important feature of an auction is not the actual calls made, but the available calls that were not made.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 29 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

I am pretty confident that the 3♥ bid does indeed show that you don't want to play in 3♦.

Information is not limited to "willingness to play in spades" or "willingness to play in diamonds". There are certain hands which will not bid 3♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 3♥ denies such a hand type. For example, if I were 3♥ bidder, I would be denying holding exactly 2=3 in spades and diamonds. That denial is information.

"There are certain hands which will not open the auction with 1♥ for reasons unrelated to hearts, and 1♥ denies such a hand type. That denial is information."

Does this make the 1♥ opening bid artificial?

Which hands? If you mean hands which are too strong or too weak, then I would suggest that that is "information taken for granted by players generally".

The 1♥ bid for instance denies five spades, and it denies 4 cards in any minor suit if the hand contains four hearts and the agreement is to open with the lowest 4 card suit.

You should be careful about "taking for granted" just such information that suits your own arguments.

To me it would be obvious that the player bidding 3♥ as a pass or correct bid just suggests playing in hearts without any other information communicated.

Then if partner corrects to 3♠ that will be another "pass or correct" call, now for the responder to choose between pass or 4♦ in order to show his secondary preference.

None of these possible calls, beginning with the 3♥ bid, fits the definition of an artificial call the way I understand the definition of artificial calls. The respective players are perfectly comfortable with an all pass following each of these calls.

[campboy]

Personally I do not deny a 5-card spade suit when I open 1♥. I deny holding a longer suit than hearts and I deny a suit of equal length in certain circumstances, but that is hardly "information unrelated to hearts".