Join Bridge Winners
Two way bids without screens and the magic 2 bid

Apologies in advance for a long setup but the issue is complex...

At a regional earlier this week our auction started:

W
N
E
S
1NT
2
2

We wound up declaring in 4. My partner, prior to the opening lead and after explaining that my 2 bid showed both majors, asked E if he was certain that the 2 bid was a transfer, or if it might be a natural bid over a 2 bid that showed hearts. E explained that since W had not asked, he was sure it was a transfer.

This seems to me to raise a number of issues. With that actual situation as context, here are some hypotheticals. Lets start with a pair that has the agreement that systems are on over 2, except that transfers to suits shown by the overcaller are off (our regional opponents did not have that agreement, so this really is a hypothetical). So over Woolsey or Landy 2 would show diamonds, over DONT or Cappalletti it would be a transfer to hearts.

Now after a 2 overcall consider the following situations. 

1. Responder is short in the majors and has diamonds and would like to be able to bid them at the 2 level. Suspecting from their hand that the 2 bid showed majors, they ask and find out that it did, thus triggering the exception to "system on over 2" and make a natural 2 bid.

2. Responder has hearts. Strongly suspecting from their hand that the 2 bid didn't show majors, they don't bother to ask and transfer.

Effectively, this creates a system over Woolsey or Landy where 2 means whichever red suit responder wants it to mean: hearts if they don't ask and diamonds if they do, and partner automatically knows which way you meant it. You have a magic 2 bid!

I am not suggesting that such a player has any bad intentions. What is really concerning to me is that this could happen completely by accident.

So, how is this handled by the rules today?

What I took away from the discussion of the situation at the regional was that it was completely legal for opener to use responder's failure to ask about the 2 bid to help him interpret his partners bid. This surprised me as I thought that if a question being asked was UI logically a question not being asked was also UI, but that is not how it was explained to me. If this is correct this would make situation 2 legal.

EDIT: What many have said in the comments is that either I misunderstood the directors at the regional or they were incorrect. Really it seems that situation 2 in theory probably is not legal but my partner and I spoke to two directors and couldn't get them to address the issue in practice. 

How about situation 1? It seems clear under the laws that responder having asked is UI to opener. Opener now has to decide how partner meant their 2 bid. Since partner doesn't always ask, and their having asked is UI, it seems that taking the 2 bid as showing hearts is, in the absence of the UI, a logical alternative for how responder meant the bid. Certainly the UI (partner asked, and thus knows that the 2 bid shows majors and transfers are off) strongly favoring the natural interpretation. Thus it seems you must play pard's bid for a transfer. If I have it right you can only read partner's natural 2 bid correctly if, absent having heard partner ask, it is not a logical alternative that partner meant the bid as a transfer.

If this is the correct interpretation of the laws, this pair gets away with their agreement in situation 2. In situation 1 theoretically they have to have a misunderstanding but I think there is about a 0.00% chance that a director will be called (and about the same chance of a ruling against the opener's side if they are called). If in fact directors don't overturn situation 1, there is no cost at all to playing this way and it is legal for a pair to have a system which gives the practical effect of 2 as one red suit or the other according to whether partner asked about the 2 bid.

Now, what about an actively ethical pair that has the same agreement about 2 being natural over a major-showing 2 bid, but has a firm policy of always asking about the meaning of the 2 bid? Consider:

1a) Responder is short in the majors and has diamonds and would like to be able to bid them at the 2 level. Suspecting from his hand that the 2 bid showed majors, they ask and find out that it did, thus triggering the exception to "system on over 2" and make a natural 2 bid.

2b) Responder has hearts. Suspecting from their hand that the 2 bid didn't show majors, they ask anyway and find out that in fact it did. they bid 2, which is now a natural heart bid.

In both cases opener has UI (that responder asked about the meaning of the 2 bid), and the UI strongly suggests that partner bid consistently with a correct understanding of your opponents agreements. If it is a logical alternative that partner got it wrong, clearly you have to play partner for having gotten it wrong. Why is it not a logical alternative? Because partner asks all the time?

Practically speaking, how can the director distinguish 1a from 1 or 2a from 2? The pair that is trying hard to be ethical by asking all the time to avoid accidentally getting away with the magic 2 bid has not only lost the ability to transfer to but risks being caught up in UI issues.

What do you think?

The current system as described is fine
The current system isn't ideal but fixing it is impractical except possibly for elite events
The system needs to be changed to prevent the magic 2 bid (without punishing the actively ethical pair that always asks)
Not only does it need to be changed but I have a practical suggestion for how to change it (please please please explain)
I don't agree with your description of the current situation (please explain)
Other (please explain)

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
62 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top