[blackshoe]

---

You're the dealer. As you are thinking about your opening bid, LHO opens 4♥ out of turn. Partner does not accept, the bid is cancelled, and back to you. Now what?

The thing that made this an interesting hand for me is Max Hardy's answer to this question (Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands). He said "with my partners, I play Top and Bottom Cue Bids, so I bid 1♥."

I probably wouldn't have thought of this at the table, and if I did I would be worried whether my partner would understand what I'm doing. But it does seem like a pretty neat way to get your hand across in one bid. Comments?

[aguahombre]

In what jurisdiction?

"The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity."

Max and his partner's would have such prior agreement implied because of what he had said or wrote.
If you believe your partner would understand that a 1H opening would not show a 1H opening under these circumstances --- whether or not he would understand the exact nature of the convention you are trying -- better check with your RA's regs.

[blackshoe]

Max was in the ACBL, of course.

My current interest is in the bridge aspects, not the legal aspects. This being the ACBL, innovation is of course anathema, but that doesn't say anything about the bridge aspect.

[Vampyr]

I would be worried too. Better to sit down with partner and discuss this situation.

If you are in a jurisdiction where you are not permitted to have agreements here you will be in trouble even if partner is on the same wavelength. Because you won't be able to make the bid a second time.

[rhm]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-15, 20:23, said:

In what jurisdiction?

"The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity."

Max and his partner's would have such prior agreement implied because of what he had said or wrote.
If you believe your partner would understand that a 1H opening would not show a 1H opening under these circumstances --- whether or not he would understand the exact nature of the convention you are trying -- better check with your RA's regs.

What does the sentence "The Regulating Authority may disallow" actually mean?
I interpret this to mean that the Regulating Authority have the right of disallowing this, but only if they have regulated this aspect in advance, which is unlikely.
They should certainly not be allowed to invent a regulation after the incidence occurred and then apply the regulation in retrospect.
After all in principal opponents have done an irregularity and you are allowed to use the information provided by this irregularity, aren't you?
If opener held an opening with a good 5 card heart suit he would certainly pass now. What is the difference?

Raner Herrmann

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has elected (Item 7 under "Elections" in the back of TFLB) that "Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity."

It occurs to me, having had more time to think about it, there was was no implication in Hardy's exposition, nor, I think, in my OP summary of that, of any agreement, prior or otherwise, as to the meaning of 1♥ in the given circumstance. Dealer's LHO has a 4 level preempt in hearts. This is AI to the dealing side and UI to the dealer's RHO (Law 16D). A one heart opening in this circumstance is effectively a (perfectly legal, IMO) psych.

What's happened is that Max (via his friend who presented him with the problem) was faced with an unusual circumstance and asked "what would you do?" There is no implication even of partnership understanding here - what is the frequency of a 4♥ opening out of turn on your left when you hold this hand? The phrase "once in a blue moon" comes to mind. No, Max is suggesting that he would hope that partner would recognize 1♥ as a kind of "advanced cue bid" and recognize that Max is trying to show the hand he actually has.

I can't imagine that anyone in his right mind would bid 1♥ naturally in this circumstance. Therefore, anyone in his right mind, partner or opponent, will recognize that 1♥ is not natural. So what is it? The information needed to figure that out is available to both opponents and partner. The difference, btw, in that availability is that "Top and Bottom Cue Bids" will be marked on the system card, and the opponents can read that, while partner has to remember it.

"You won't be able to make the bid a second time."

I disagree. It takes more than two incidents "once in a blue moon" to make an implicit understanding. Even if this unusual occurrence happens twice in a week (or a session) the occurrence itself is unusual enough that I would not expect the bid to fall afoul of 'implicit understanding'. Not in any rational jurisdiction.

Added thought: it seems to me that the claim that one instance establishes a partnership understanding implies that both players have perfect memories. I can't speak for anyone else, but my memory certainly isn't perfect!

[aguahombre]

Ed: when you say:

"I disagree. It takes more than two incidents "once in a blue moon" to make an implicit understanding. Even if this unusual occurrence happens twice in a week (or a session) the occurrence itself is unusual enough that I would not expect the bid to fall afoul of 'implicit understanding'. Not in any rational jurisdiction."

How sure are you? It would seem zero actual occurrences at the table for a partnership can still generate an implied agreement. Perhaps the knowledge that you and your partner have read this thread is enough. Maybe I am missing some criterion for what is an implied agreement; but, non-exhaustive examples or scenarios are all I see -- and I am resorting back to the word "imply" itself -- and how I infer something.

There seems to be a very thin line between an implication and General Bridge Knowledge, when we know that a specific partner knows something.

[aguahombre]

Another point:

You say:

"I can't imagine that anyone in his right mind would bid 1♥ naturally in this circumstance. Therefore, anyone in his right mind, partner or opponent, will recognize that 1♥ is not natural."

While this may be true,

1) An unnatural 1♥ opening bid known by partner to be unnatural is alertable whether anyone in his right mind is at the table or not.
2) Alerts are for partnership agreements.

Therefore, the 1♥ bid is a variation in the pair's methods following an irregularity.

For Rainer: Choosing to Pass with a hand you would normally open 1♥ does not make the PASS an agreed variation of your methods; you would also pass with a Pass. The pass simply says that with the authorized information available you do not choose to open the bidding. That is the same thing a pass would tell "anyone in his right mind".

[Zelandakh]

Ed, the problem I have with your logic is that MH's answer was not regarding 1♥ as a psyche but an extension of a convention. Presumably he would not consider opening 1♥ with the spades and diamonds reversed, for example. So I think invoking the rules on psychic bids is stretching things a little far.

There is another point here too, albeit perhaps a fantasy one. It might be that LHO somehow had it in their head that they were responding to a 1NT opening and was trying to use Texas. Would you claim damage if the BOOT had robbed you of a natural 1♥ opening despite this being contrary to the regulations in force? It would surely be annoying when LHO bid 4 spades over your initial pass with the result of missing an easy 6♥, no?

[glen]

not every player is both a 2/1 and 1/4 expert

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-16, 10:10, said:

Another point:

You say:

"I can't imagine that anyone in his right mind would bid 1♥ naturally in this circumstance. Therefore, anyone in his right mind, partner or opponent, will recognize that 1♥ is not natural."

While this may be true,

1) An unnatural 1♥ opening bid known by partner to be unnatural is alertable whether anyone in his right mind is at the table or not.
2) Alerts are for partnership agreements.

Therefore, the 1♥ bid is a variation in the pair's methods following an irregularity.

No. It's alertable only if it's a matter of partnership agreement or understanding. Since it's not that, your conclusion is not valid.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-16, 15:23, said:

No. It's alertable only if it's a matter of partnership agreement or understanding. Since it's not that, your conclusion is not valid.

If you don't think a 1H opening bid which doesn't show hearts, and is known by partner not to show hearts isn't an alertable partnership understanding, I'm out.

[Siegmund]

I daresay Max would claim he wasn't "varying" anything -- that his agreement, in all situations, was that the cheapest bid in the suit his opponent opened was top-and-bottom, "and the ACBL requires me to play the same system over in-turn and out-of-turn opening bids"

I would be inclined to rule in his favor, too. I wonder what thinks a 2H or 3H opening followed by 4H-out-of-turn shows. One of them is going to be a stopper ask with a long minor, the other... um.... I have no idea!

And yes, if his partner figured this out, his partner probably ought to alert, as we generally alert so-called "invisible cue bids" though we don't alert most meanings of (legal, sufficient, in-turn) cuebids.

[helene_t]

Dunno about the legal aspects but yes, I would take it as top-bottom. Whether it shows 5 spades and whether the strength of this hand is appropriate is another matter. Some people play split-range but then again, this is a defense against a preeempt, isn't it? If so it should be constructive, of course.

[Fluffy]

I am late to the conversation.

What I always understood with that rule is that you can't have specific agreemnets, but your general/metha agreements still apply.

[blackshoe]

 Siegmund, on 2015-June-16, 22:40, said:

I daresay Max would claim he wasn't "varying" anything -- that his agreement, in all situations, was that the cheapest bid in the suit his opponent opened was top-and-bottom, "and the ACBL requires me to play the same system over in-turn and out-of-turn opening bids"

I would be inclined to rule in his favor, too. I wonder what thinks a 2H or 3H opening followed by 4H-out-of-turn shows. One of them is going to be a stopper ask with a long minor, the other... um.... I have no idea!

And yes, if his partner figured this out, his partner probably ought to alert, as we generally alert so-called "invisible cue bids" though we don't alert most meanings of (legal, sufficient, in-turn) cuebids.

If it's a matter of agreement, it requires an alert. I'm just not sure it's a matter of agreement - although your argument here makes me less sure of that position.

[jdonn]

Bridge-wise, if a cuebid would show 4 spades and 5+ clubs over hearts then opening 1♥ seems like a very good idea to me. But if it was Michaels or something else that either misrepresents my length or doesn't show which minor I have, then I would bid clubs to start with and probably double on the next round but maybe bid spades.

[ggwhiz]

All the talk about prior agreements is pretty funny. How many partnerships have discussed such a situation? Bid whatever you like and if asked an explanation of "undiscussed" is sufficient and gives the opps a sporting chance on the board if your partner chooses door number 3.

[Vampyr]

 ggwhiz, on 2015-June-18, 15:19, said:

All the talk about prior agreements is pretty funny. How many partnerships have discussed such a situation? Bid whatever you like and if asked an explanation of "undiscussed" is sufficient and gives the opps a sporting chance on the board if your partner chooses door number 3.

Well, this is fine if it comes up the first time, but it will probably have been discussed in the bar afterwards, so the second time I am not at all sure what you can do.

[blackshoe]

I have not been to a bar after a game in like ten years.