BBO Discussion Forums: Help Suit Game Try that isn't - BBO Discussion Forums

I'm with Ken and Josh, this is just normal bridge logic. If you make what looks like a game try, and then raise yourself to game, it obviously wasn't a game try. It's probably sending a message that you were thinking about slam.

Unless you have some special agreement about this sequence that's likely to be unfamiliar to most bridge players, I don't see the need to alert.

The response that you should alert if your regulations say so is not helpful, since ACBL's alert regulations don't specifically cover this (are other jurisdictions better?). There are some general principles (e.g. alert highly unusual and unexpected meanings) but they're open to judgement.

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

My reading of this is not that 3♦ shows length in diamonds and it was initially a game try, but once opener carried on to game it became a slam try.

Note the words (emphasis mine) cue bid. This implies that the meaning of 3♦ after the 4♥ call is actually substantially different -- initially it showed "length in diamonds and a game try" but now it showed "control of diamonds and a slam try." Note that a help-suit try always involves 3+ cards in the suit, and could be quite a weak suit like Qxxx or even perhaps xxx. A cue bid is a very different thing, and could easily be based on shortage (like AK-tight or even a small singleton) but never a suit like Qxxx or xxx.

I agree that the change from "help suit game try" to "help suit slam try" should not require an alert -- 3♦ is basically natural in either case. But the change from "help suit game try" to "first or second round control in this suit" (which is how I'm reading the original post) is quite different. This is an implication that the 3♦ call did not in fact show length in diamonds, and certainly requires an alert.

If an alert is required, I say again that it is the 4♥ bid (which tells partner that 3♦ was a control bid) and not the 3♦ bid itself, which requires an alert.

awm, on May 30 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

Agree, but *IF* something is alertable, it would be the 4H call; it is at that point that the nature of the 3D call is clarified as cue bid and slam try instead of HSGT or even a Natural game try. The OP says they had the agreement the 4H now showed a diamond cue bid (not length, not HSGT). I am sure blackshoe will post here what ACBL response will be - if he gets an answer.

If 3♦ is either a game try with length, or a cue bid (possibly short) with slam interest, surely it is alertable?

But anyway, Kathryn, nobody really plays this - if you want to try for slam over 2♥, you either bid a long side suit (ostensibly a game try, but can also be a slam try) or you splinter.

A 3♦ as a control showing bid is not alertable. The question becomes: does a bid showing either of 2 non alertable meanings need to be alerted?

kevperk, on May 31 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

Why do you think a 3♦ control bid is not alertable here? I can't find anything on the alert chart to support that view.

Quote

It sounds to me like in your system 3♦ either has length or is the first move in a slam investigation in which case it need not have length. I don't see how a call which may by agreement be made without length can be said to "show length".

Here's a test for anyone who thinks this needs an alert:

If you heard this complete auction, would you think that 3♦ was a slam try with control in diamonds?

If not, what is the second option?

No, I wouldn't. 3♦ initially shows a game-try which needs help in diamonds; if I then bid game after it is rejected I am obviously showing a slam-try... that still needs help in diamonds. This is exactly what awm has already said, but evidently it needs saying again.

When we are on the ball, we alert the 3♦ bid as a game try, usually 3+ cards and play the 4♥ bid as a very mild slam try (lack of a further cue).

I confess that we don't alert 4♥ and maybe we should but the hand typically is based on a shape slam try instead of power but wide ranging. Might be based on the Latte with the extra shot kicking in.

I'm torn with the fact that my explanation of a 4♥ alert could mis-describe my pards actual hand way too often.

campboy, on May 31 2010, 07:33 AM, said:

There's nothing on the alert chart to support the opposite view, either.

If I have that auction, it's "well, it looks like it was a help-suit slam try." I'd be happy to explain that before the opening lead, if there's any doubt that the opponents can't work out the logic.

If that auction occurred in my old club, it would be "partner wanted to bid game, but can't. Therefore we should make it; I'd better bid it." The one time it happened when I was the TD rather than the player, +170 and a austere explanation was the immediate result (with comments on how unfortunate it was that I couldn't give -100 with responder's hand).

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

The chart says that you should alert "all other conventional and/or artificial bids", ie all those not mentioned on the chart. "Artificial" is not defined, but normally used to mean "not natural" ("conventional" is defined, but a control bid does not seem to meet that definition). The definition of natural mentions the expected length as "3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses." The call being discussed is opener's rebid. If it merely shows a control it does not show the 3+ cards expected of a natural rebid. Thus it is not natural and is artificial; there is nothing I can see to say this is an exception to "alert artificial bids".

It is unfortunate that the ACBL C&C Committee has not made it clear whether it is the Alert Chart or the Alert Procedure which governs. It is unfortunate that the ACBL C&C Committee has not made it clear whether the lack of explicit reference to "control bids" in the Alert Procedure indicates, as common usage would imply, that they fall under "cue bids" or that the explicit differentiation, in the Alert Definitions, between "cue bid" and "control bid" implies that control bids are to be treated differently under the Alert Procedure than "cue bids". These unfortunate circumstances make it very unclear what the C&C Committee's intention is in this area. However, I've already said how I think this particular case should be handled — do not alert 3♦, alert (via a delayed alert) 4♥. I've seen nothing that convinces me to change my mind, and have nothing more to add.

campboy, on May 31 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

Artificial call is defined in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007

Quote

kenrexford, on May 31 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

No.

Quote

A hand with a diamond side-suit/values that was looking for a suitable holding opposite for slam. If you had something like Q10xx in diamonds and a good hand outside, wouldn't you like to focus partner's attention on their diamond holding?

blackshoe, on May 30 2010, 11:13 PM, said:

But 4H is a completely natural bid. If I have an explicit understanding that 3D may not always be a normal game try and may even be shortage in diamonds then I have an obligation to let opponents in on this agreement, do I not? They cannot double a possibly artificial 3D call if I wait until 4H to alert.

If 3♦ is usually length, but could on occasion be a cue bid, including possibly a shortage, then it is clearly alertable under ACBL rules.

The strange idea running through this thread is that the meaning of 3♦ changes. It does not. At the time it was made, it was not a help suit game try, which is not alertable. It is a help suit game try or a cue bid so alert it The fact that one meaning is more likely than the other does not affect this.

As for alerting 4♥, apart from being unnecessary, when did you start alerting over 3NT?

Incidentally, Frances' meaning for 3♦ in the sequence not only seems the obvious one, but the only possible explanation with a competent pair once they do not alert 3♦.

bluejak, on May 31 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

If it was clear, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it is not alertable.

I await a response from Memphis.

Winstonm said:

It conveys a message about the previous 3♦ bid, to wit, that 3♦ was not actually a game try.

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.

bluejak, on May 31 2010, 11:35 PM, said:

I disagree.

I can think of four other possible explanations why a competent player might bid 3D and then 4H over 3H:

1) Opener was always going to game, but wanted to give responder a chance to bid 3NT if he was loaded in clubs and spades.

2) Opener was always going to game, but wanted to discourage a diamond opening lead.

3) Opener was always going to game, but he thought that his LHO might suspect 2) if he bid this way and he actually wanted to encourage a diamond lead.

4) Opener was always going to game, did not particularly care about the opening lead, but wanted to mislead the defenders about the distribution of his hand.

(I am not suggesting that anywhere near all competent players get involved in 2, 3, and 4, but 2 at least is very common in the real world - I suppose this means that 3 "should be" as well even though it probably isn't).

Note that "psychs" like 2, 3, and 4 are completely safe. 3D does not give responder rights to bid above 4H. For example, when the auction continues 3H-4H, responder must Pass 100% of the time.

That is why I don't buy the concept that 4H "converts a game try into a cuebid". 4H does nothing of the sort - it just says "I want to try to win 10 tricks with hearts as trump and I bid 3D because I thought it was smart at the time. Maybe I was always going to play in 4H and maybe I would have considered other contracts had you bid something other than 3H."

From that it follows (for me at least) that the notion of alerting 4H does not make any sense. 4H is as natural as a bid can possibly be - it is a pure and complete signoff, just like it sounds. 4H conveys no other meaning so there is nothing to alert.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com