[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Adam Beneschan]

Steve Willner wrote:
 
> > From: Adam Beneschan <adam at irvine.com>
> >   The question isn't what the
> > 3C bid demonstrably suggested; the question is what the UI
> > demonstrably suggested, 
> 
> Clearly correct.  The AI (the systemic meaning of the 3C bid) determines 
> the LAs, and the UI may make some of them illegal.
> 
> > and the UI is the mistaken explanation of the
> > 2NT bid.  And given that East knows that 3C should be some sort of
> > game try in hearts, but the UI (the mistaken explanation) suggests
> > that 3C isn't a game try at all,
> 
> The UI suggests the 3C bid is a meaningless noise that opener would make 
> on all hands he might hold.  I think we agree up to here.
> 
> > the UI demonstrably suggests that
> > West has less than East would otherwise think, 
> 
> But you've lost me here.  According to system, opener must be middle of 
> his original range.  With more, he would have bid 4H; with less signed 
> off in 3H.  The return game try -- according to system -- shows 
> something in between (and something useful in clubs).
> 
> The UI tells us that opener could have anything from bottom to top of 
> range.  How does that suggest bidding less rather than more?  Further, 
> the UI tells us that opener is unaware of responder's heart support. 
> Doesn't that, if anything, suggest bidding more rather than less?
> 
> I may be analyzing this wrong, but I still don't see how the UI suggests 
> 3H over 4H.

That's a good point.  I think there are two answers:

(1) The probability of a weak hand is greater than that of the
stronger hand.  So if an unethical East who is willing to take
advantage of the UI has to guess at the final contract, 3H is more
likely to work than 4H.

(2) If West has a stronger hand, 3H may not end the auction.

This one depends on the exact methods involved.  The original post
said that West confused two auctions, so apparently this pair plays
2NT as a relay to 3C in some other cases.  I think the TD probably
should have found out what those other cases were and what the exact
methods were.  The main thing the TD needs to find out is, could West
have passed 3H with an above-minimum hand.  If so (e.g. if one of the
meanings of 2NT is to show a weak raise), then you may be right that
3H is not demonstrably suggested.

However, if not (e.g. 2NT showed either a weak club hand, or various
invitational-plus hands), then to an unethical East, 3H would have
covered all the bases---if West had a weaker hand, 3H was the right
place, and if West had a stronger hand, 3H wouldn't be passed.  So in
a case like this, then I think 3H is still demonstrably suggested
(over 4H).

But I guess you're right, that based on the information we have (which
doesn't include any description of what methods West thought they were
playing), perhaps I shouldn't have said 3H was demonstrably
suggested.  I think we need more info.

By the way, if West was confused because of methods he played with a
different partner, and if East had no knowledge of what those methods
were, I'd still think 3H is demonstrably suggested.  Here, the methods
played by West with his other partner are irrelevant, since the
question is, what is demonstrably suggested from East's point of
view.  And if I were the hypothetical unethical East in question, I'd
assume that West probably would *not* pass my 3H with a stronger hand,
since I'd assume that weak raises would just jump raise and not go
through a relay that would give the opponents more room.  I'm on
rather shaky ground here, since I have no idea what 2NT-relay methods
are out there.  But I'm also willing to rule against the offenders
when in doubt, so that would be good enough for me (although I still
don't think 4H is a LA so it wouldn't actually matter).

                                -- Adam