Long suit trial bids
I have been having a discussion on whether long suit trial bids are alertable.
Take the unopposed sequence 1 <3 2 <3 3:club:
For some, this would be inviting to 4<3 and simply showing some length in the club suit. That would be natural and not alertable.
But many play that the 3:club: bid shows a club suit, maybe only three cards, but that the club suit is the suit most seeking help from partner by way of some feature.
Blue Book 4H1: Because they are not natural, players must alert (unless excepted by 4B4 above) ......
..... (b) Any trial bid in a suit that may contain fewer than three cards
It's easy to take a negative inference that if the trial bid must be 3+ cards, it becomes not alertable, but I am not sure that is so.
I go back to 4B1(b) that if the long suit trial bid is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning it is alertable.
The question then is whether the meaning of such a bid is potentially unexpected. What is the relative popularity of these methods?Might it depend on the field of players in whichever event? Or have I missed something?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
4 < 3 should read 4 <3
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
It would not be unexpected to me for my opponents to play it as showing strength in the suit, or as looking for help in that suit. If I cared, I would ask further. I don't know whether or not my expectations are the norm.
Some partnerships I've been in play trial bids as "I have two or more losers in this suit". I've been alerting that because the definition seems to allow xx as a possible holding (although it seems unwise to me to actually make the call with that holding, it doesn't come up often enough for me to be sure that my partners would think the same).
If you have xx in a suit does that now become alertable because you have fewer than three cards rather than the holding in the suit ?
If you're making a non-announceable bid on what could be a 2-card suit, except for preference bids, raises and transfer completions (i.e. bids of partner's suit), then it's alertable at the 1, 2 and 3 levels (WB 4C1a). It probably doesn't matter that it rarely actually is a 2-card suit.
A call that only guarantees two (or fewer) cards in the suit is not 'Natural' - BB 4C1a (corollory)
A pass or bid must be alertedif it (a) is not natural BB 4B1a
It would therefore seem that a short-suit trial bid is alertable - but a long-suit trial bid (3+) isn't (unless you regard it as "having a potentially unexpected meaning.") The word 'potentially' I think causes problems here. Do you KNOW your opponents are familiar with long-suit trial bids?
That is exactly the question upon which I seek opinions. I have never come across Long Suit Trial Bids being alerted but it seems to me that there is a case for those LSTBs that to some extent seek a feature in the trial suit to be alertable in some fields. In stronger or more experienced fields, I could well go with Gordon's view. In fields of less experienced players, opponents are unlikely to be familiar with the special meaning of the LSTB. How well known is this meaning? Where might one draw a line, if at all? :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
It would be a shame if artificial game tries, short suit game tries and long suit game tries were all alertable.
Opponents who understand long-suit-game-tries-from-strength and long-suit-game-tries-requiring-help can ask. If it looks like opponents don't understand, you can tell them at the end of the auction.