[BudH]

South dealer, North passes out of rotation, not accepted.

then 1♥ - (2♣) - ?

I informed South of her responsibility to not use UI from the withdrawn pass out of rotation, then the auction above occurred.

As has been discussed here (and other forums) several times, any call that would be made only by hands that would pass in first seat would be comparable:

2♥ or 3♥ (non-forcing)
2NT (natural and non-forcing)
2♦ or 2♠ if non-forcing (negative free bids)

However, while speaking with North away from the table, he wanted to know if 4♥ would be comparable. After giving it a few seconds thought, I informed North I would judge it comparable only if he could provide evidence that the partnership meaning of the bid was "weak" and would not be made with opening bid values.

Would you consider 4♥ comparable? Under what conditions?

This post has been edited by BudH: 2019-April-12, 21:06

[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2019-April-12, 16:04, said:

As has been discussed here (and other forums) several times, any call that would not be made by a hand that would pass as dealer would be comparable:

Any call that would not be made? I don't get it.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-12, 18:21, said:

Any call that would not be made? I don't get it.

Thanks, Ed. I screwed up my negatives and re-worded my original post. Thanks for posting my error so I could correct it.

[pran]

BudH, on 2019-April-12, 16:04, said:

South dealer, North passes out of rotation, not accepted.

then 1♥ - (2♣) - ?

I informed South of her responsibility to not use UI from the withdrawn pass out of rotation, then the auction above occurred.

As has been discussed here (and other forums) several times, any call that would be made only by hands that would pass in first seat would be comparable:

2♥ or 3♥ (non-forcing)
2NT (natural and non-forcing)
2♦ or 2♠ if non-forcing (negative free bids)

However, while speaking with North away from the table, he wanted to know if 4♥ would be comparable. After giving it a few seconds thought, I informed North I would judge it comparable only if he could provide evidence that the partnership meaning of the bid was "weak" and would not be made with opening bid values.

Would you consider 4♥ comparable? Under what conditions?

I don't like the last condition: "would not be made with opening bid values"

Change this to: would not be made even with values for weak opening bids (e.g. preemptive opening bids).

(But I suspect that this is what you really say?)

[sanst]

I think I would allow it under the conditions you gave. But I also would like to know with what kind of hand they would open a weak hand with hearts and warn S that the information that N doesn’t have such a hand is also UI.

[BudH]

sanst, on 2019-April-13, 01:48, said:

I think I would allow it under the conditions you gave. But I also would like to know with what kind of hand they would open a weak hand with hearts and warn S that the information that N doesn’t have such a hand is also UI.

Technically, the UI law is NOT in effect once you judge offender made a comparable call.

However, if the small amount of extra information offender's partner may possess ends up mattering, then you have Law 23C to use to adjust the score.

[pescetom]

BudH, on 2019-April-12, 16:04, said:

However, while speaking with North away from the table, he wanted to know if 4♥ would be comparable. After giving it a few seconds thought, I informed North I would judge it comparable only if he could provide evidence that the partnership meaning of the bid was "weak" and would not be made with opening bid values.

Your premise as formulated makes sense, but I doubt that many couples have such precisely an agreement and can prove it.
My CC says that 1♥-3♥ and 1♥-4♥ are "interdictive" (strongly discouraging to partner).
Would that be enough for you?
By implication, a 4♥ jump is almost certainly based on less than opening bid values, but that is not explicit in the agreement.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-April-13, 06:51, said:

Your premise as formulated makes sense, but I doubt that many couples have such precisely an agreement and can prove it.
My CC says that 1♥-3♥ and 1♥-4♥ are "interdictive" (strongly discouraging to partner).
Would that be enough for you?
By implication, a 4♥ jump is almost certainly based on less than opening bid values, but that is not explicit in the agreement.

In a situation where dealer's partner raises dealer's opening bid directly to 4♥ wouldn't he then normally have opened the auction himself with a weak 2♥ or 3♥ bid had he been the dealer?

If so, then the 4♥ bid here can hardly be comparable to his PASS out of rotation, it typically includes hands that would not have passed initially.

So if TD shall accept the 4♥ bid as comparable here it must be with the clear reservation that Law 23C shall eventually be applied on the final result.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-April-13, 09:42, said:

In a situation where dealer's partner raises dealer's opening bid directly to 4♥ wouldn't he then normally have opened the auction himself with a weak 2♥ or 3♥ bid had he been the dealer?

No, he probably has only 4 or 5 card hearts in a hand that is weak in defence against clubs but strong in attack, which he would not have opened had he been the dealer.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-April-13, 11:37, said:

No, he probably has only 4 or 5 card hearts in a hand that is weak in defence against clubs but strong in attack, which he would not have opened had he been the dealer.

Law 23A Definition said:

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

Only clause 2 is possibly applicable here and consequently the 4♥ bid may never be accepted as a comparable call if it may include meaning{s} that would not have been passed out in an opening position.

In other words: If the 4♥ bid in this auction (without any irregularity!) could be made with a hand that in normal circumstances might have been opened with (say) a weak 2♥ bid then it is not a comparable call.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-April-13, 12:16, said:

Only clause 2 is possibly applicable here and consequently the 4♥ bid may never be accepted as a comparable call if it may include meaning{s} that would not have been passed out in an opening position.

That's the doubt that I expressed to OP: an agreement like mine (probably common, at least in the case of a 4♥ response) does not completely exclude a hand that would have opened 2♥ or 1♣/1♦.

pran, on 2019-April-13, 12:16, said:

In other words: If the 4♥ bid in this auction (without any irregularity!) could be made with a hand that in normal circumstances might have been opened with (say) a weak 2♥ bid then it is not a comparable call.

If it could have been opened with a weak bid in hearts it is certainly not a comparable call, but that is only a small part of the hands that would normally respond 4♥ in an agreement like mine: many others have less hearts and most would not have been opened at all. So the question I think is whether clause 2 has to be applied literally or with reference to some limit of probability.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-April-13, 14:45, said:

If it could have been opened with a weak bid in hearts it is certainly not a comparable call, but that is only a small part of the hands that would normally respond 4♥ in an agreement like mine: many others have less hearts and most would not have been opened at all. So the question I think is whether clause 2 has to be applied literally or with reference to some limit of probability.

The term "subset" is an absolute and precise designation: A is a subset of B if, and only if A is completely enclosed within B.

However, as we have the safeguard in Law 23C I might apply some tolerance in situations like this.

The purpose of Law 23 is to allow results be obtained (whenever possible) through "normal play" rather than by sophisticated application of law.

[weejonnie]

And, just to complete matters, there is nothing wrong in North bidding 4♥ even if it was decided that it was not a comparable call - all that would happen is that South would have to pass next time it was their turn to call. (And lead penalties may apply if opponents sacrificed in 5♣ - which might be of help since they could bar a trump (club) lead).

It might be worthwhile finding what the partnership would do with a hand holding heart support and more than opening values. A common practice is to respond 2NT with limit+ values and 4+ hearts or cue-bid opponent's suit with only 3. Obviously there are hands where 4♥ would be called when another opening bid might be made, but if we accept that the probability is very low then I think that we can accept the call as being comparable.

Obviously if South makes use of the fact that partner cannot hold 6 or more hearts (or 5 hearts and a 4-card minor as well if they play Lucas 2-bids) then we adjust. This is not as unlikely as it sounds, since South might decide not to sacrifice if the chance of partner holding long hearts has been significantly reduced.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2019-April-14, 00:58, said:

Obviously if South makes use of the fact that partner cannot hold 6 or more hearts (or 5 hearts and a 4-card minor as well if they play Lucas 2-bids) then we adjust. This is not as unlikely as it sounds, since South might decide not to sacrifice if the chance of partner holding long hearts has been significantly reduced.

How many players would sacrifice just on the possibility that partner might have more hearts than they've already shown? Wouldn't they be more likely to leave that decision to partner, who knows how many hearts they have? Partner also could have jumped to 5♥ in the first place with so many hearts. Most of the time the 4♥ bid is based on exactly 5-card support, and sometimes even only 4 cards plus distributional factors on the side (e.g. a void in the opponents' suit).

I would have a hard time judging not sacrificing as taking advantage of the UI.

[BudH]

pran, on 2019-April-13, 22:20, said:

The term "subset" is an absolute and precise designation: A is a subset of B if, and only if A is completely enclosed within B.

However, as we have the safeguard in Law 23C I might apply some tolerance in situations like this.

The purpose of Law 23 is to allow results be obtained (whenever possible) through "normal play" rather than by sophisticated application of law.

The "subset law" does have a few quirks in that although the very large majority of possible hands meet the criteria, there are a few that do not.

For example, in the given auction after partner opens 1♥ after responder passed out of turn, 2♥ would be deemed comparable. However, opener does have some information he is not supposed to hold, in that he knows partner does not hold ♠KQ98xx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣x which would likely have been opened 2♠.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-April-13, 22:20, said:

The term "subset" is an absolute and precise designation: A is a subset of B if, and only if A is completely enclosed within B.

However, as we have the safeguard in Law 23C I might apply some tolerance in situations like this.

The purpose of Law 23 is to allow results be obtained (whenever possible) through "normal play" rather than by sophisticated application of law.

BudH, on 2019-April-16, 14:13, said:

The "subset law" does have a few quirks in that although the very large majority of possible hands meet the criteria, there are a few that do not.

For example, in the given auction after partner opens 1♥ after responder passed out of turn, 2♥ would be deemed comparable. However, opener does have some information he is not supposed to hold, in that he knows partner does not hold ♠KQ98xx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣x which would likely have been opened 2♠.