[pran]

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

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".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.
Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

[nige1]

I'm told that in some countries, players open one of a minor-suit, holding longer major-suit(s). Seemingly, regulations treat this as natural and partner does not alert!

Similarly, when you open 1♠ and partner responds 2♣, you don't alert, although you know that partner may hold
e.g. ♠ xxx ♥ AKxx ♦ AKx ♣ xxx

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 29 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

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".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.
Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 29 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

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".

So make it a 6-card spade suit, or even a 7-card spade suit.
Do you not deny those with your opening bid in 1♥?

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

I once had a teacher in physics who told us that when we wanted to test the sanity of a statement we should vary parameters to the extreme while keeping within the logical range for which that statement should be applicable.

My example just proved that if the 3♥ bid is artificial just because it denied length in a different suit then most if not all bids will one way or another also be artificial. Most objections seem to be caused by mixing up the duty to alert certain calls with the definition of what is an artificial call.

Back to square one: I cannot remember having seen any real example on why a "pass or correct" bid (obviously showing willingness to play in the named denomination because the bidder is prepared to having had the last bid in the auction) shall be ruled artificial.

Of course if it by (express) agreements include special conditions we have a different kettle of fish, but such conditions have not been stated for the 3♥ bid we started off with froom OP.

In fact we have a positive statement from bluejak to the effect that there is no such extra information tied to the 3♥ bid from his first assumption that the 3♥ bid had the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient 2♥ bid would have had. This statement has not been contested.

[gordontd]

campboy, on Sep 29 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

Ok, now I'm sure you're just trolling.

I had long given up on discussing anything further with him in this thread, since he doesn't seem open to discussion, but against my better judgement I'll have one last go.

pran, on Sep 30 2010, 12:13 AM, said:

Back to square one: I cannot remember having seen any real example on why a "pass or correct" bid (obviously showing willingness to play in the named denomination because the bidder is prepared to having had the last bid in the auction) shall be ruled artificial.

Back to the beginning of this thread, a 3♥ bid in response to the 2NT overcall would not only show a preference for hearts rather than diamonds, but also for spades rather than diamonds. With a mediocre 1435, would you not bid 3♦ rather than 3♥? And if so, is not the reason because you do not want to play in 3♠ or 4♦?

Quote

In fact we have a positive statement from bluejak to the effect that there is no such extra information tied to the 3♥ bid from his first assumption that the 3♥ bid had the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient 2♥ bid would have had. This statement has not been contested.

That an insufficient artificial call may convey no more information than a sufficient artificial call does not make it a natural call.

[campboy]

Ok, now I'm no longer sure. Do you seriously think your "example" is any use at all?

If a 1♥ bid promises that hearts is the longest suit, is this "information unrelated to hearts"? From that information alone, what is the maximum number of spades I can have?

Also, your final paragraph is nonsense. Sure, no-one has disputed that the 3♥ bid has "the same or more precise" meaning than the 2♥ bid, but this doesn't mean the 3♥ bid is non-artificial because (i) if 3♥ is more precise it could carry additional information (ii) no-one (other than you) has at any point claimed that 2♥ is non-artificial anyway.