[mr1303]

You are dealt:

Scoring: MP

---

and open 1S. LHO passes, and partner (bless him) decides to bid 1H. RHO, a crafty character, accepts this and passes. What do you try now?

I believe 1S here again is legal.

[gwnn]

1♠ is obviously legal and quite obviously the correct call.

However, after

1♠-1♥
1♠-1♥

I think it's also correct to bid 2♥, to show our 3 card support. I think partner originally promises only 4 cards, but a 2nd bid should imply a 5-card, or even a 6-card suit.


( )

[whereagles]

Yeah, 1♠ is legal and correct. We'll jump to 4♥ afterwards.

[skjaeran]

Don't we have the agreement that a jump to 2♠ shows 6-3 in the majors now?

[cherdano]

Is this 1♥ bid 4+H, 6+hcp or 5+H, GF? I admit I have no agreements in my partnerships about that.

[hrothgar]

skaeran, on Jun 16 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Don't we have the agreement that a jump to 2♠ shows 6-3 in the majors now?

I BELIEVE that it is illegal to have explicit agreements about the meaning of bids over an insufficient call.

I never understood the rule.
I am not defending the rule.
However, I'm pretty sure that I am right about this one.

I can try to track down a reference if folks want.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting area for discussion.

If you cannot have agreements for handling insufficient bids, then no call has meaning. Obviously, 1♠, as a legal call, is allowed, but it cannot have any meaning because you are not allowed to have any agreement for bids like this. Similarly, 1NT cannot have any meaning.

What about 2♠? Nope -- same problem. Now, you have jumped. What does that mean? Cannot mean anything.

This rule cannot make sense if RHO can accept the insufficient bid and thereby force you into a situation where calls have no meaning.

You cannot say that 1♠, promising six cards and denying heart support, minimum, is allowed, because that is an agreement. Nor can 2♥ agree hearts, as that is an agreement.

If the purpose, spirit of the law, and all that applies, then perhaps some semblance of bridge logic is allowed.

If bridge logic is allowed, that still leaves us with stylistic interpretations and, uh oh, agreement.

All that said, IMO 2♠ is different from 1♠, obviously. It seems that principles of fast arrival would suggest that 1♠ either is a stronger bid or implies heart tolerance, whereas 2♠ seems to shut down the auction (if Responder is weak) and to make heart more difficult to rebid (hence dissuading hearts).

So, to me, 1♠ looks right. I have six spades with three hearts.

[chicken]

hrothgar, on Jun 16 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 16 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Don't we have the agreement that a jump to 2♠ shows 6-3 in the majors now?

I BELIEVE that it is illegal to have explicit agreements about the meaning of bids over an insufficient call.

we even had a name for it: we called it the braumöller convention because mrs. braumöller nearly always overcalled our 10-12 NT with 1♣ or 1♦

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Jun 17 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 16 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Don't we have the agreement that a jump to 2♠ shows 6-3 in the majors now?

I BELIEVE that it is illegal to have explicit agreements about the meaning of bids over an insufficient call.

I never understood the rule.
I am not defending the rule.
However, I'm pretty sure that I am right about this one.

I can try to track down a reference if folks want.

No need to track down the reference, you're quite right. I never understood the rule either, and won't defend it. I guess you understood I was joking...

[P_Marlowe]

kenrexford, on Jun 16 2007, 09:47 PM, said:

This is an interesting area for discussion.

If you cannot have agreements for handling insufficient bids, then no call has meaning.  Obviously, 1♠, as a legal call, is allowed, but it cannot have any meaning because you are not allowed to have any agreement for bids like this.  Similarly, 1NT cannot have any meaning.

<snip>

You are not allowed to have explicit agreements,
but this means you can have implicit agreements,
only a small distinction, but there is one.

If you rebid 1S, this shows a min opener, what
else, rebidding your suit at the cheapest level shows
a min opener, you may even say, that it has to show
a 6carder.

So 1S, it is, for that matter 2S shows probably +16 and
a 6 carder.

The rule exist only to prevent that a partnership makes
insufficient bids on purpose.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 17 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

The rule exist only to prevent that a partnership makes
insufficient bids on purpose.

Then why are you (also) banned from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids?

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 17 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 17 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

The rule exist only to prevent that a partnership makes
insufficient bids on purpose.

Then why are you (also) banned from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids?

Who is ever going to follow the Laws and call the Director, as the Laws say they should when an Irregularity occurs, if they have figured out a way to take advantage of said irregularity?

[Roy]

gwnn, on Jun 16 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

1♠ is obviously legal and quite obviously the correct call.

However, after

1♠-1♥
1♠-1♥

I think it's also correct to bid 2♥, to show our 3 card support.

I disagree. The correct bid in this sequence is clearly 1♥. 2♥ would show a stronger hand.

Roy

[han]

kenrexford, on Jun 16 2007, 09:47 PM, said:

If the purpose, spirit of the law, and all that applies, then perhaps some semblance of bridge logic is allowed.

If bridge logic is allowed, that still leaves us with stylistic interpretations and, uh oh, agreement.

Yeah, I think that bridge logic is still allowed, even if explicit agreements are not. I think it is clear that 3S by us would now show a better hand then 2S for instance. Any bridge player would think so, and I bet that you can't find a director who would disagree with this.

Whether 2S should show extras is not clear though, does 1S promise 6? I think it should, I would bid 1NT with AQJxx Kx xxx Qxx and 2H with AQJxx xxx xx KQx. A logical corollary would be that 2S does show extras, but as you are not allowed to discuss this beforehand and partner is known not always to make the same deductions as we do it is a dangerous situation.

Anyway, I'm bidding 1S followed (maybe) by a cheap heart raise.

[dake50]

Is it explicit agreement to 'implicitly' assume our structure still exists for 2-level trump agreement, cues, etc. later on AT LEAST? Thus to leave 'implicitly' explicit allowed 1S, with the agreed continuations.
Or are we required to surrender this hand to adjusted score from the moment of 'insufficient bid'? Opponents win by accepting ALL insufficient calls!!! They can only get 'result stands' or better by adjustment.

[kenrexford]

This implicit-explicit distinction helps very little, for several reasons.

Assume a simple 1♠-P-1♥-P-1♠ auction.

Some might think that 1♠shows a minimum, as seen, with 2♠ showing extras. Some might think that fast arrival makes 1♠ actually stronger. Some might think that 2♠, by blocking a cheap heart rebid, implies six spades without three hearts, whereas 1♠, by enabling heart bids from partner, implies support-1 in hearts. Some might think that 1♠ infers a balanced hand with preference for partner declaring if the contract is 1NT, or simply a flat 5332 minimum. Some might think that 1♠, being below 2♠ and therefore enabling minor calls, suggests a 5-4 hand with a minor. All of these are "logical" thoughts, each possibly being the "most likely thought" depending upon your personal style. So, how can any one of these be the "bridge logic" bid, to the exclusion of all of the others?

Furthermore, if 1♠ can have no explicit meaning, only implicit, how does one provide full disclosure if asked for the meaning of this call?

Further yet, what the heck are later bids? What does 1♠-P-1♥-P-1♠-P-2♥ show? If might be forcing, constructive, or weak. It might confirm an implied fit or, on the other hand, show a sixth or even seventh card in the suit. Apparently you cannot have agreements here, either, as even the 2♥ call was only possible after the initial 1♥ was accepted (requiring a 2♥ call preempts Responder out of a later 2♥ call, obviously).

For that matter, 2♠ by Responder, later, cannot have any meaning. E.g., 1♠-1♥-1♠-2♠. For, 2♠ also would have been impossible but for the acceptance. Bridge logic would suggest that 2♠ is a game try after some interpretations of 1♠, or simply preemptive, or possibly even forcing.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jun 17 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 17 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

The rule exist only to prevent that a partnership makes
insufficient bids on purpose.

Then why are you (also) banned from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids?

This doesn't make sense. In a regular partnership that has been exposed to this situations frequently, an implicit agreement evolves no matter what the regulators say.