[dburn]

Whilst I agree with almost every word Fred says above, it seems to me that at present the Laws require rather more by way of an explanation to opponents than "partner has followed this 3♦-3♥-4♥ sequence because he thought it was smart at the time".

That is: if North has previous experience leading him to suspect which of the "psyches" 2, 3 and 4 partner is more likely to have perpetrated, the opponents are also entitled to this experience. It is not enough to say simply "he might be trying this trick, or he might be trying that trick, or he might not in fact be Zia but Frances Hinden in disguise, in which case she really will have ♦Q10xx in a slam try."

Of course, all this information needs to be given over 3♦, and not in some bizarre retrospective fashion over 4♥. But the days are long gone when Victor Mollo could remark that the Hog's call was not necessarily a cue bid, merely a diversionary measure to annoy Papa, and he hardly bothered to listen to it himself. Nowadays, if 3♦ really does not give partner rights to bid above 4♥, then 3♦ may be in effect a controlled psyche, and those are no longer legal at all.

[blackshoe]

It was, I think, established as a given earlier in the thread that for the partnership which perpetrated this auction giving rise to the OP, 4♥ in fact did establish, by partnership agreement, that 3♦ was not in fact a help suit game try but was actually an advance control bid. So while I agree with Fred and dburn (I'd better, they both know more about the game than I do ) that absent prior discussion and agreement, opener would be trying one of the things Fred mentioned, and 3♦ would not be an advance control bid, that's a different situation than the one we were originally asked to consider.

[nige1]

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 12:41 PM, said:

1♥:2♥
3♦*:3♥
4♥
3♦ is ostensibly a help suit game try, partner rejects the game try and opener bids game. Partner now knows 3♦ was a cue bid rather than a game try, should we alert the 4♥ bid?

Agree with Bluejak: If 3♦ could be cue-bid slam-try, rather than a help-suit game-try, then it should be alerted and, on request, both options should be disclosed.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

IIRC, there is a precedent in that in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer and assigns some other meaning (some kind of minor suit holding, I think, but as I don't play it, I'm not sure) to 2♦, we are told to announce 2♦ as if it were definitely a transfer, and then alert the 2♠ bid which cancels that meaning. I don't see the situation we've been discussing as any different.

Interesting. I do play this sort of thing with one occasional partner and the guidance in EBU-land is clear that 2♦ should NOT be announced as a transfer to ♥ but should be alerted instead since it does not necessarily show hearts.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on Jun 1 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

IIRC, there is a precedent in that in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer and assigns some other meaning (some kind of minor suit holding, I think, but as I don't play it, I'm not sure) to 2♦, we are told to announce 2♦ as if it were definitely a transfer, and then alert the 2♠ bid which cancels that meaning. I don't see the situation we've been discussing as any different.

Interesting. I do play this sort of thing with one occasional partner and the guidance in EBU-land is clear that 2♦ should NOT be announced as a transfer to ♥ but should be alerted instead since it does not necessarily show hearts.

It is called Walsh Relays. And In ACBL, we have never been taken to task for simply announcing transfer, then alerting 2S --- since we started using it in the 70's. (Actually, all xfers used to be just alerted instead of announced. Maybe that was better.)

Right or wrong, It has never caused anyone any damage. It is a slam auction, and they know what they need to know by the time the opening lead is made.

[bluejak]

It may never have caused any damage to you or your opponents, but you might be annoyed if you overcalled over 2♦ because of your heart holding, and found - as you went for 800 - that the bid did not contain hearts.

Nevertheless, the alert regulations are clear: if 1NT 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ means that 2♦ does not show hearts, then 2♦ is announced as a transfer in the ACBL and not in the EBU.

However, to assume because of this specific exception that the same applies sin other positions in the ACBL is unwise. I feel that specific exceptions to the general rules need to be specifically listed.



As for fred's post, if that is the way he plays it or feels it is generally played, fine: alerting never really gives nuances. If the opponents have the given sequence with no alert I would not assume what they had for the sequence: I would ask them.

But I stick to my original assertion: whatever that sequence shows, playing 3♦ as either natural or a control is alertable.

Furthermore, dburn's comments seem correct. fred's assertion that a psyche is safe enough so a likely meaning for 3♦ is psychic sounds somewhat like a controlled psyche, illegal in the ACBL.

[mycroft]

The only problem with Fred's ideas on what that auction could be, is that partner can hang you. Fred's partners won't, but pretty much every other player will...and then the discussion about "in my old club" applies.

Do you want to gamble on partner *never* dithering about whether Qxx is "help", knowing that if he does, you're booked for +170?

And as for the Walsh Relays, I hate the way they're described in the ACBL. They seem to have all the advantages of the system, and the advantage that the "forget transfer" players have: they get to discourage the auction 1NT-p-2D!-2H; <whatever>-3,4,5H... "But it's a slam auction and very rare!" - yeah, and it's easier if you don't have to worry about heart preemption, too. My 1C!-1D!; 1H!-1S!; 2NT! auction is "a slam auction and very rare", too, but I still have to mention it at the time of bidding 1H, in case they want to guess to advance sacrifice in hearts.

But, of course, every other way of doing it is at least as bad: 1NT-2D Alert! "what is it?" "Hearts, or <random rare slam hand>." You *will* get people who get into trouble with the information, because they don't realize that it's 95% likely to be just a regular transfer, and you'll get people who, after 1NT-2D!; 2H!-3NT; 4H try to figure out what's going on,...

[nige1]

mycroft, on Jun 1 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

But, of course, every other way of doing it is at least as bad: 1NT-2D Alert!  "what is it?"  "Hearts, or <random rare slam hand>."  You *will* get people who get into trouble with the information, because they don't realize that it's 95% likely to be just a regular transfer, and you'll get people who, after 1NT-2D!; 2H!-3NT; 4H try to figure out what's going on,...

This doesn't seem to happen, in practice. You often suffer from opponents' economy with the truth but have you ever heard a player complain of damage from too much information?

[bluejak]

Yes, certainly. In fact there was a player in this area who left, fortunately, for another, who always burdened the opponents with so much information that people never asked him or listened to his alerts. His motives were pure, but he was a right pain in the .....

[cherdanno]

How could partner ever hang you on this auction? If partner accepts your "game or slam try", you pretend to have had a game try, and as his hand is limited he can not override that and will pass 4♥. If parter rejects the game try, you pretend to have had a slam try, and as is limited [i]and[i/] rejected a game try, he cannot possible override 4♥.
So this psych is safe just by bridge logic, and there is no special protection for this psych in Fred and Brad's (or Zia's and whoever his partner is atm, or ...) partnership understanding. It's the equivalent of making a transfer to diamonds opposite partner's 1N opening before bidding 7N (regardless of partner's possible superacceptance). This psych is 100% safe, but surely it wouldn't be a controlled psych?

[mycroft]

Cherdanno, partner hesitates before refusing your game try, showing a 3-and-a-half spade bid. The TD is (correctly) not going to lend any weight to your "I was always bidding game" - unless there's absolutely no doubt from the hand that it was always going to game, you get +170.

See my first comment to this thread. It's a very effective convention, if the opponents and the TD let you play it. *You* don't play it, but you'll get scored the same way.

[pooltuna]

Winstonm, on May 30 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

I don't think 4H needs to be alerted but 3D needs to be alerted and explained as a 2-way bid possibility.

I am mystified! The opponents have found a major suit fit and the opener calls 3♦ what logical reasons could he have for doing that. IMV it can only be a game try of some sort which the responder rejects. In spite of the rejection opener bids game. So now could 3♦ have been a game try. Logically that makes no sense as his partner has rejected and he bid game anyway therefore it cannot be a game try and must have been a slam try i.e. a cue bid. OH! WAIT!! THIS IS THE DIRECTORS SECTION FORA, If I had realized that I wouldn't have wasted your time as I KNOW in this section logic does NOT apply

[awm]

pooltuna, on Jun 2 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

I am mystified! The opponents have found a major suit fit and the opener calls 3♦ what logical reasons could he have for doing that. IMV it can only be a game try of some sort which the responder rejects. In spite of the rejection opener bids game. So now could 3♦ have been a game try. Logically that makes no sense as his partner has rejected and he bid game anyway therefore it cannot be a game try and must have been a slam try i.e. a cue bid. OH! WAIT!! THIS IS THE DIRECTORS SECTION FORA, If I had realized that I wouldn't have wasted your time as I KNOW in this section logic does NOT apply

The issue is if the 3♦ call has substantially different meaning as a game or slam try. The "game try" meaning is presumably more likely, but once 4♥ is bid it's known that opener's hand is quite different, not just in terms of overall values but also distribution.

For example, suppose our agreement is:

3♦ is either natural with interest in game, or a diamond void with interest in slam.

If partner has diamond cards he bids 4♥. I now know to pass this with both the game try (hey partner has help in my suit) and the slam try (oops partner has wasted values in my void).

If partner has no diamond cards he bids 3♥. Now I can pass (with the game try) or bid game (with the slam try). The latter action tells partner that if he has a decent hand (but bid only 3♥ because he has terrible diamonds) he should carry on to slam.

I hope it's obvious that such an agreement is very different from a simple agreement that 3♦ shows length in diamonds! Such an arrangement should require an alert of the 3♦ call, and certainly an alert of the 4♥ call.

I think part of the confusion is that some people seem to define "cue bid" as synonymous with "try for slam" whereas many of us believe that a cuebid shows control of the suit (ace or king, singleton or void) and that there are many types of "slam tries" which are not cuebids (for example a "long suit" slam try or a "short suit" slam try).

On the given auction, it's actually an interesting question whether the 4♥ call is always "to play" or whether responder is allowed to push onwards for slam with the right type of hand. I think the latter situation would be surprising to many of us and should probably be alerted.

[blackshoe]

"Cue bid" — a bid in a suit bid or shown by opponents. Various meanings.
"Control bid" — a bid in an unbid suit showing first or second round control of that suit.

The former may, depending on agreements, include some kind of slam try (IOW, it may be unlimited). The latter is always, to my mind, a slam try, but Adam is right that there are other kinds of slam tries, even excluding a "cue bid".

We are told only that when 4♥ was bid in the uncontested auction 1♥—2♥—3♦—3♥—4♥, the last bid indicates that 3♦, ostensibly a help suit game try, was in fact an "advance control bid" and a slam try.

Under ACBL regulations (which I believe are the ones in question, since the OP is in the ACBL), a help suit game try does not require an alert. The question is whether 3♦ requires an alert in this auction, since it seems to have a dual meaning.

Frankly, I have the help suit game try agreement with most of my partners. We have neither discussed nor agreed on other, secondary meanings for the 3♦ bid. Nonetheless, I might well bid this way (it hasn't come up yet) with a slam try hand, expecting partner to work out that 4♥ can't signify anything else except some kind of slam try. But in that case, there's no agreement involved, while in the original case, there was apparently an explicit agreement that the bid is two way. Does that make a difference? Some say yes, some no. I asked both the candc committee and Mike Flader for opinions 4 or 5 days ago (granted, at the beginning of a holiday weekend). I don't have an answer from either yet. In the meantime, I remain unconvinced by arguments that 3♦ should be alerted.

It does occur to me that opener, having decided to do this, better pray that either his partner does not tank before bidding 3♥, or that the TD/AC will agree that he (opener) has a clear-cut 4♥ bid.

[jillybean]

deleted

[bluejak]

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche. If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass. If I have psyched 3♦ this may get me to a higher level than is a good idea! If partner has to pass 4♥ because I may not have my slam try then 3♦ seems to be a controlled psyche.

As to the alertability, there seem to be three views.

One: 3♦ shows a suit that requires help, and that does not change even if it is a slam try. Of course neither 3♦ nor 4♥ is alertable.

Two: 3♦ shows a suit that requires help, or a control for slam. 3♦ is alertable.

Three: 3♦ shows a suit that requires help, or is a little joke to get opponents to go wrong. This looks to me a bit like the famous tactical response of Ogust, which is made by experts against poor players, since they will believe it although other experts will not. The ethics of this worry me.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jun 2 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

Yes he is. This auction shows you were interested in slam should partner have been able to cooperate over 3♦. If you wanted partner to still be involved then there were a lot of bids available between 3♥ and 4♥.

Are you seriously suggesting there can't be a hand that wants to try for slam only if partner can cooperate over that try? Or that such a hand can't bid 3♦? Or that such a hand has to play at the 5 level sometimes having already known he was no longer interested in slam? I can't think of any other possibility so it seems to me you must be suggesting one of those silly things.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, you find it silly, but I sort of play a partnership game, whereby when one player makes a slam try, the other is allowed to accept. I realise it is more fun to play a solo game where partner just does what he is told.

[karlson]

Have to say I agree with Josh -- I don't think partner ever bids over this sequence.

[fred]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

I am still surprised so many people think this is a "safe" psyche.  If I bid 1♥ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ I have made a slam try, so my partner is not constrained to pass.

In the same way that it is smart for the better players here to listen to you when it comes to matters of bridge law, it would be smart for you to listen to the better players here when it comes to matters of bridge (yes, I know you are a decent player).

No offense intended, but what you suggest is completely absurd. If opener was still interested in slam after hearing 3H from responder, he would cuebid.

You also seem to be ignoring the 3NT possibility I mentioned. I am not just making this up. In fact, this concept was mentioned in another recent thread where opener had to decide what to do with something like xxx AKQxx xx AKJ after 1H-2H. If you don't think it is reasonable to bid 1H-2H-3C-3H-4H with that, then I am sure you can imagine a similar hand with which you think it is. If you ever bid that way with such a hand and your partner moves over 4H (thinking you were making a slam try instead of just trying to get to the right game) I doubt you would be impressed.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com