An opinion on the call of 2D in response to 1S by a strong player in a regular partnership holding Qxx Txx xxx AQxx. It is a call that a fair number of experts would consider and make from time to time in regular and pick-up partnership.
This is a very interesting problem for a lot of what are very subtle reasons. Each player in the partnership knows the other makes this sort of bid from time to time.
The first thing to address is "Is it legal?". This is easy. Yes. The Law says so. This extract is from the definitions to the Laws:
[[
Convention 1) A call that, by partnership agreement,
conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in
the denomination named (or in the last denomination
named), or high-card strength or length (three
cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to
overall strength does not make a call a convention.
]]
This makes it clear that the call of 2D is NOT a convention. In that case, in WBF regulated events it is also not alertable, even if it is an explicit agreement. Nonetheless it should be on the CC "We sometimes bid worse minor" The EBU would require an alert. It is worth noting that 1S 2C does not require an alert in EBU (because it's the approach bid on a 3433)
We now have to address the question of "Is it a psych?". My view is that is not, as the suit contains 3 cards.
[[
LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
A. Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an
intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid
- or a call or play that departs from commonly
accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention),
without prior announcement, provided that such call or
play is not based on a partnership understanding.
B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited
A player may not make a call or play based on a
special partnership understanding unless an opposing
pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning,
or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play
in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring
organisation.
]]
It certainly has an intent that in a different scenario would render it psychic, but that doesn't apply in this case. A psych has to be gross and manifest. This call is not a gross misrepresentation.
This leads us to the question of disclosure. Again I turn to the Lawbook.
[[
LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
A. Special Partnership Agreements
Special partnership agreements, whether explicit
or implicit, must be fully and freely available to
the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to
partner through such agreements must arise from the
calls, plays and conditions of the current deal.
]]
We have inter alia "conditions of the current deal", so one is entitled to take into account the state of the match, or one's estimated matchpoint score, the opponents and many other things only peripherally related to the hand. We also have "fully and freely available". This is the crunch. This partnership knows that the call may be a 3 card suit, and that the opponents may not expect this. In a strong game one should expect it in my view, as the ploy is not exactly unknown - you'd be laughed off court at the Young Chelsea (London’s strongest club) if you expressed surprise when a pick-up pair did it.
However the opponents are entitled to the knowledge this pair has of their implicit understandings. I am entirely confident that an alert and explanation "Occasionally 3 cards" or "Occ. 3" meets all Law and Regulation requirements. Answer a follow up question with the explanation "partner sometimes bids 'worse minor' on flattish hands". It actually doesn't help the opponents much as the absolute frequency when it is 3 will be quite low, so no benefit is available as a result of the alert. There is an analogy with 1NT on a singleton under EBU regs (It's alertable if implicit or explicit). Again, under WBF regs it's not even alertable.
So, there we have it. This pair should now, particularly now it has been thoroughly aired, alert their 2 minor responses to 1 major "Occ 3" provided:
1) It is EBU regs, not WBF regs
2) The sequence is not 1S P 2C.
Of course, actively ethical players may well choose to alert more than this but there is definitely no requirement in Law to do so.
I have chosen to keep the names out of this document as I will no doubt use it again in similar circumstances, and intend to publish it. Nonetheless I publicly thank the pair in question and their opponent who raised the matter for the very open way in which they have replied to my substantial numbers of questions.
I thank the following for their input to my deliberations:
Maxine Etkin, Tim West-Meads, Barrie Partridge, Sue Oliver and to the Columbian coffee plantations for the provision of the stimulants whilst I thought the matter through.
John Probst, CTD, BridgeClubLive!