[mikeh]

I agree with MFA in that 4♥ by me should be (at least, and almost always) 4 cards in the suit with a hand that would raise 4♦ to game... it is NOT catering to 4♦ being a transfer... the odds that any bridge player thinks that transfers are on is vanishingly small... I mean... has anyone here actually played that in this sequence or after 1N (3♠)?

Having said that, a 4-3 heart fit might play very well.. but I think I'd need better hearts to suggest that, and he might pass thinking the same thing, and then we are in a 3-3

Can I pass? His hesitation is more likely to suggest that he was close to not bidding than anything else. I really don't think that he was 'reviewing agreements'... we don't have any and he knows that.

But is bidding a logical alternative? I think it is..... if he wouldn't, for example, open 2♦ with 4=6 in the reds, then he could easily hold cards that make game reasonable (given the auction), and even if not, a hand such as x Qxx Kxxxxxx xx is enough to give us a play.

So I think I have to bid 5♦... the bid I'd make anyway

[awm]

peachy, on May 25 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

awm, on May 25 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

It does seem like the slow 4♦ implies something odd is going on, and 4♥ caters to a number of offbeat possibilities (partner has a 5-6 hand, partner thought 4♦ was texas, partner has a slam try). It does seem like the slow tempo makes such a "flexible" call more appealing, and raising to 5♦ is a logical alternative.

"something odd is going on" is much too vague, from the point of law. It is still my (I mean, the player's) responsibility to consider it, figure out what it might mean, and then pick a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. Here, it is impossible to determine what the *something odd* means, just as you yourself listed several possibilities.

Once it is established (IMO) legal to pick any alternative, I think I am legally allowed to pick any call. Perhaps blackshoe reads this thread and comments. I don't consider myself a *top bridge law expert* of course, but pretty knowledgeable.

To give a similar example, say the auction goes:

1♠-3♥-Slow Pass-Pass

What does partner's slow pass show? It could be lots of things, including a hand with a spade fit but too weak to raise, a balanced "invite" considering whether to punt 3NT, a penalty pass of hearts worried about whether we will find the balancing double, or a hand with a long minor that is borderline for a forcing 4m.

However, it is clear that all of these options favor keeping the bidding alive, so as opener I cannot make a balancing double unless it is obvious to do so. I can't argue that "partner could have a zillion things, so there is no reason to think defending 3♥X will be right" -- I have selected the most flexible bid which caters to all of partner's possible hand types except "random garbage" -- the one hand type his BIT denies holding.

[Cascade]

peachy, on May 26 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

"something odd is going on" is much too vague, from the point of law.

Disagree.

That may well be enough to suggestion one action over another which is what is required e.g. a more flexible action rather than a less flexible action we would have chosen had we known what was going on and that was consistent with the face value of the bid.

[skjaeran]

I don't think the hesitation points in a clear direction as to what partner was thinking about.

To me this is a clear raise to 5♦.

With the hesitation I'd go out of my way to avoid making a bid that might look like catering for some possible hands that might have caused partner trouble. Thus, 4♥ is out of the question. I bid 5♦ also after the hestitation.

[barmar]

Could partner really have a transfer-to-♥ hand? Wouldn't that be a hand that would have opened 2♥? However, if his style is not to open a weak 2 with a side 4-card major, he could be 4=6 in ♥=♦, which would have passed on the 1st round.

If this is his holding, his hesitation is probably due to just trying to be sure that 4♦ won't be interpreted as a transfer. If the above logic rules out 4♥ as a LA, I don't think the UI suggests anything in particular to bid.

[MFA]

barmar, on May 26 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Could partner really have a transfer-to-♥ hand?  Wouldn't that be a hand that would have opened 2♥?  However, if his style is not to open a weak 2 with a side 4-card major, he could be 4=6 in ♥=♦, which would have passed on the 1st round.

Some of us do have standards for a vulnerable 2♥ opening, so we might easlily have a bad 6-card suit and want to play 4♥.

[Echognome]

MFA, on May 26 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

barmar, on May 26 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Could partner really have a transfer-to-♥ hand?  Wouldn't that be a hand that would have opened 2♥?  However, if his style is not to open a weak 2 with a side 4-card major, he could be 4=6 in ♥=♦, which would have passed on the 1st round.

Some of us do have standards for a vulnerable 2♥ opening, so we might easlily have a bad 6-card suit and want to play 4♥.

You beat me to it. Suppose you held: x xxxxxx KJx QTx or say Q xxxxxxx Kx xxx. Would you open 2♥ or 3♥? Wouldn't you want to compete in hearts now?

Of course, if you are sure that 4♥ is natural (and I think it would be), then that is the reason partner cannot have a "transfer to ♥ hand."