[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

That makes sense to me.

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred:

I agree with everything you say, until you get to the last sentence:

We're having a discussion regarding the types of conventions that pairs should be allowed to use.

This 33 page long thread started when Adam asked whether strong pass systems should be allowed in pair events.

My assumption is that Jan introduced the multi 2♥ opening as an an example of a type of convention that should not be allowed.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

That makes sense to me.

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred:

I agree with everything you say, until you get to the last sentence:

We're having a discussion regarding the types of conventions that pairs should be allowed to use.

This 33 page long thread started when Adam asked whether strong pass systems should be allowed in pair events.

My assumption is that Jan introduced the multi 2♥ opening as an an example of a type of convention that should not be allowed.

I don't understand what there is to disagree with, Richard.

All I was saying was that players should not play systems that are disalllowed according to the conditions of contest.

Surely you agree with that

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

imo, in strong competition, these two generic bids should be allowed:

1) A call that shows that a particular point count range, and this call can be pass or, if the opponents bid, double, or if the opponents have doubled, redouble;

2) As with 1), but the hand can be further defined as balanced or close-to-balanced.

However except for 2), 1) should not be legal if the hand type or types are explicitly or implicitly known, and fall outside the legal limits, such as the partnership will only use the opening with specific hand types, or will not open with many specific hand types such that the remainder, that does open, is a predictable set of hand types that would not be a legal bid.

This means that a 13+ pass is legal, a 0-7 2♣ opening is legal, a double that promises 16+ is legal, a double that shows 6-9 is legal, a 1NT opening that shows 2-5 is legal etc.

This means a 0-7 2♣ opening would not be legal if the partnership could also pass 0-7, and thus 2♣ implies a random opening with some decent shape.

Partnerships would be expected to know how to defend against point showing calls, assisted by the publication of recommended methods.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

That makes sense to me.

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred:

I agree with everything you say, until you get to the last sentence:

We're having a discussion regarding the types of conventions that pairs should be allowed to use.

This 33 page long thread started when Adam asked whether strong pass systems should be allowed in pair events.

My assumption is that Jan introduced the multi 2♥ opening as an an example of a type of convention that should not be allowed.

I don't understand what there is to disagree with, Richard.

All I was saying was that players should not play systems that are disalllowed according to the conditions of contest.

Surely you agree with that

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Your last sentence can be read more than one way:

Option 1: A simple and straightforward reading. You're later quote

Quote

All I was saying was that players should not play systems that are disalllowed according to the conditions of contest.

is consistent with the reading.

Option 2: A less charitable reading might conclude that the system is question should not be made legal in the first place...

[Free]

glen, on Dec 14 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

imo, in strong competition, these two generic bids should be allowed:

1) A call that shows that a particular point count range, and this call can be pass or, if the opponents bid, double, or if the opponents have doubled, redouble;

2) As with 1), but the hand can be further defined as balanced or close-to-balanced.

However except for 2), 1) should not be legal if the hand type or types are explicitly or implicitly known, and fall outside the legal limits, such as the partnership will only use the opening with specific hand types, or will not open with many specific hand types such that the remainder, that does open, is a predictable set of hand types that would not be a legal bid.

This means that a 13+ pass is legal, a 0-7 2♣ opening is legal, a double that promises 16+ is legal, a double that shows 6-9 is legal, a 1NT opening that shows 2-5 is legal etc.

This means a 0-7 2♣ opening would not be legal if the partnership could also pass 0-7, and thus 2♣ implies a random opening with some decent shape.

Partnerships would be expected to know how to defend against point showing calls, assisted by the publication of recommended methods.

This is completely aimed at HUMs and contradicts other rules... Consider a standard system. Pass = 0-10hcp any (obviously 2-level and higher openings excluded). So pass cannot be defined as balanced, and the player isn't obligated to pass with AQJxxx-x-Qxx-xxx for example.

So I'm not sure if this is the approach you're suggesting.

[DrTodd13]

Assuming for a second that opponents would be silent, I think the pass and 2♠ responses to the 2♥ weak in either major may be pretty straight-forward. If you have the same number of ♥ and ♠ then pass since it is a pure guess as to what suit partner has. If your ♥ and ♠ are not the same length then assume partner's suit is the one you have fewer of. It will be the majority of the time. Add 6 to the number in the shorter suit and add 7/3 to the number of the longer suit. (7/3 is the number of cards outside the 6 card suit divided by the number of other suits = the average number of cards in each other suit.) Now, compare those two numbers and pass if the greater number is ♥ or bid 2♠ if ♠ has the greater sum.

By the way everyone, if you prefer, you can change the number of posts per page that the forums will show you. I think I use triple the normal amount and for threads like this I find 11 pages easier to manage than 33.

[655321]

The_Hog, on Dec 14 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

With all due respects, there is another argument here that is often ignored I know I will probably get howled down, but I genuinely this this to be true:
The last time I looked, Bridge consisted of bidding to a contract and then playing the cards to the best of one's ability as declarer or as a pair of defenders. Bidding, then playing. This means that bidding is an integral part of the game. There is nothing in the rules to allocate geater importance to the three key components, bidding, card play and defence.

This means that if I am interested in bidding and say, (for the sake of argument, though this is in fact not the case), bored by card play and/or defence, I cannot see why I should be penalised for devoting hours of my time to the former. I am not penalised for learning Winkles and other exotic squeezes etc by reading books and studying end positions for hours and hours, yet these affect the outcome of the game as do bidding systems and arcane conventions.

With all due respect, this turns out not to be the case.

Other posters have suggested the same thing - that there are 2 equally valid paths to bridge success. Either learn how to play the cards, or, alternatively, remain a bad card player, yet achieve success painlessly by inventing and playing a complicated bidding system.

But in real life, players following the second path never win. As a general rule, winners of bridge events play and defend better than their competitors. Of course, it is possible to win events playing these systems, but the FP players who win are good players who would also win with standard systems. The point I am disagreeing with is the claim that FP systems, etc, can lead to good results while playing the cards badly.

By all means, spend all your bridge time inventing and playing these systems, why not? Everyone should have a hobby. But if you believe this will lead to actually winning bridge tournaments you are kidding yourself.

[DrTodd13]

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

[TimG]

DrTodd13, on Dec 14 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

That's got to be one of the worst arguments out there. This discussion is about allowing/banning methods in organized competitions. If you're out to "just have fun" there are other venues available to you. Of course, many of us think that the competition adds significantly to the fun.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens.
Fine: You want to focus on methods that are difficult to disclose rather than pairs that practice poor disclosure.

So be it...

This doesn't change the crux of my argument. If the disclosure system is broken, fix the disclosure system, don't ban the methods.

I would love to see you introduce a constructive component to this discussion rather than just complaining about methods, pairs you've encountered, what have you.

You seem to like to focus on on this multi 2♥ opening. (You bring this same example and this same pair up almost every time this topic gets discussed)

Can you describe what you would consider adequate disclosure for this opening?

What do you need?

A WBF convention card?
A written description?
A representative sample of hands?
An algorithm written for dealer or some other program that generates hands?

If you can't describe what you want, there's very little hope that you're going to get it...

Then again, maybe that's the point

You consistently misunderstand what I'm saying. My reason for thinking that multi 2♥ should be banned is that I do not believe it is possible to develop an adequate defense to the bid, in part because I do not believe that the proponents can provide an adequate description. For instance, Dr. Todd (I think) suggested that responder to the 2♥ bid should choose whether to pass or bid based on suit length - if it seems more likely that the partnership has more hearts than spades, responder passes, else responder bids 2♠. So with equal length, or with 2 hearts and fewer than 5 spades (if I'm understanding his formula correctly) responder will pass. That means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with hearts. It also probably means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with at least 2 and preferably cards in the other Major than hands with shortness in the other Major. So if I'm trying to develop a defense, I should probably act in immediate position as if opener has hearts. Ah, but now it becomes more attractive for opener to open marginal hands with spades, since my defense won't work so well against that. Of course, people aren't allowed to change their methods based on the opponents' defense. But changing marginal calls? Perhaps it won't even be a conscious change, just a realization that the hands with spades seem to be more effective.

And then, as Fred pointed out, there's the question of what actions the opener will take after 2♥-P-P-DBL. If the DBL is takeout of hearts and opener knows that responder would have bid 2♠ with 4 more spades than hearts, maybe opener should pass even with spades. But maybe not. And maybe what opener will do in this auction affects when responder should pass. It all gets very complicated. And that complexity makes it more and more difficult to devise an adequate defense. Which makes it more and more likely that the method shouldn't be allowed.

You've been beating up on me for explaining why I find certain methods particularly unacceptable, and you have chosen to focus on disclosure because you think that can be fixed. I keep saying that it isn't disclosure that is the primary concern, it's the fact that these are the sort of bids where the proponents really don't want to decide exactly what they'll bid and how they'll continue, because the primary purpose of the bid is to spread confusion and from their point of view, it just isn't worth the work to figure out the complexities that make preparation of an adequate defense possible. That isn't a criticism of the pairs who like to play these things, it's a criticism of the methods. They are more likely to be effective if they're fuzzy. The choice of whether a fuzzy method that is difficult to deal with should be allowed is up to the regulators, not the players - if it's allowed, and it gives you an advantage, play it. If it turns out that you can't adequately describe it (because you have, sensibly, devoted your energies to defining sequences in your constructive bidding, not in primarily destructive bidding), then you shouldn't be allowed to play it even if it's "allowed." If it turns out that no-one is going to be able to adequately describe it than it makes more sense to bar it outright than to have to go through the whole debate over whether a particular pair has done an adequate job of defining things.

I tend to use multi 2♥ as my example, because it is such a good one. It really is very disruptive and very hard to defend against and very hard to define. 2♣ 0-7 and not mandatory is even worse, but that hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been played by a serious pair in over 15 years.

[DrTodd13]

TimG, on Dec 14 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 14 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

That's got to be one of the worst arguments out there. This discussion is about allowing/banning methods in organized competitions. If you're out to "just have fun" there are other venues available to you. Of course, many of us think that the competition adds significantly to the fun.

Sheesh..so picky. Maybe some people just want to have fun at bridge by experimenting with systems and being with people and don't care to aspire to greatness. Clear enough for you? The argument I am hearing is that at least in part these methods should not be allowed so that people can concentrate on what will make them better bridge players overall. This attitude is to presume that people should want to become better players. Some might like to experiment with systems but not care about getting better.

[Cascade]

DrTodd13, on Dec 15 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 14 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 14 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

That's got to be one of the worst arguments out there. This discussion is about allowing/banning methods in organized competitions. If you're out to "just have fun" there are other venues available to you. Of course, many of us think that the competition adds significantly to the fun.

Sheesh..so picky. Maybe some people just want to have fun at bridge by experimenting with systems and being with people and don't care to aspire to greatness. Clear enough for you? The argument I am hearing is that at least in part these methods should not be allowed so that people can concentrate on what will make them better bridge players overall. This attitude is to presume that people should want to become better players. Some might like to experiment with systems but not care about getting better.

Certainly my experience is that many people playing standard methods are not interested in getting better.

[jdonn]

I don't think anyone was saying methods should be banned as some way to make people better bridge players. That was a seperate comment, and of course would be a silly reason to ban methods (just think how many existing conventions most of us think are terrible.)

[jdonn]

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

You consistently misunderstand what I'm saying. My reason for thinking that multi 2♥ should be banned is that I do not believe it is possible to develop an adequate defense to the bid, in part because I do not believe that the proponents can provide an adequate description. For instance, Dr. Todd (I think) suggested that responder to the 2♥ bid should choose whether to pass or bid based on suit length - if it seems more likely that the partnership has more hearts than spades, responder passes, else responder bids 2♠. So with equal length, or with 2 hearts and fewer than 5 spades (if I'm understanding his formula correctly) responder will pass. That means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with hearts. It also probably means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with at least 2 and preferably cards in the other Major than hands with shortness in the other Major. So if I'm trying to develop a defense, I should probably act in immediate position as if opener has hearts. Ah, but now it becomes more attractive for opener to open marginal hands with spades, since my defense won't work so well against that. Of course, people aren't allowed to change their methods based on the opponents' defense. But changing marginal calls? Perhaps it won't even be a conscious change, just a realization that the hands with spades seem to be more effective.

Jan I don't understand this part of your argument. I think I could make the same argument for any opening bid at all. I could play devil's advocate and agree that the exact agreements and style by which partner responds will impact the precise hands I open (even though I don't think you can ever prove that about a person?) But....so what? The way Todd described it seems fine to me, it's a specific agreement and they will follow it, so what's the big deal?

Of course I would expect a pair to give an equally good explanation for later in the auction too (such as when to p/c after 2♥ p p X), but given that I just don't see the problem. What you are describing seems to me nothing more than completely normal slight stylistic variances. You are arguing something that to me, you don't know is true, and that wouldn't matter even if it were true.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 14 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

Certainly my experience is that many people playing standard methods are not interested in getting better.

My experience is that all bridge players, every single one, would very much like to be become better.

What varies is how much effort people are prepared to devote to improving and what they think are the most effective ways of allocating that effort.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

You consistently misunderstand what I'm saying. My reason for thinking that multi 2♥ should be banned is that I do not believe it is possible to develop an adequate defense to the bid, in part because I do not believe that the proponents can provide an adequate description. For instance, Dr. Todd (I think) suggested that responder to the 2♥ bid should choose whether to pass or bid based on suit length - if it seems more likely that the partnership has more hearts than spades, responder passes, else responder bids 2♠. So with equal length, or with 2 hearts and fewer than 5 spades (if I'm understanding his formula correctly) responder will pass. That means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with hearts. It also probably means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with at least 2 and preferably cards in the other Major than hands with shortness in the other Major. So if I'm trying to develop a defense, I should probably act in immediate position as if opener has hearts. Ah, but now it becomes more attractive for opener to open marginal hands with spades, since my defense won't work so well against that. Of course, people aren't allowed to change their methods based on the opponents' defense. But changing marginal calls? Perhaps it won't even be a conscious change, just a realization that the hands with spades seem to be more effective.

Jan I don't understand this part of your argument. I think I could make the same argument for any opening bid at all. I could play devil's advocate and agree that the exact agreements and style by which partner responds will impact the precise hands I open (even though I don't think you can ever prove that about a person?) But....so what? The way Todd described it seems fine to me, it's a specific agreement and they will follow it, so what's the big deal?

Of course I would expect a pair to give an equally good explanation for later in the auction too (such as when to p/c after 2♥ p p X), but given that I just don't see the problem. What you are describing seems to me nothing more than completely normal slight stylistic variances. You are arguing something that to me, you don't know is true, and that wouldn't matter even if it were true.

The difference is that what you call stylistic differences don't matter when the bid is basically natural, except in the play - obviously, when you're playing or defending, you're going to care whether the opponents would ever open a weak 2 bid with 4 cards in the other Major and if so what sorts of things would influence their decisions. But in the bidding, it really doesn't matter. You're not going to use a different defense depending on whether a 2M opening bid can have 4 cards in the other Major. On the other hand, when the opponents open 2♥ showing either a weak 2[H] bid or a weak 2♠ it makes a HUGE difference to your choice of defense if there is a 70% chance that they will have hearts or a 30% chance that they will have hearts. So advance disclosure of "style" is relevant to that sort of bid, whereas it isn't important to most natural opening bids.

[JanM]

DrTodd13, on Dec 14 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 14 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 14 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

That's got to be one of the worst arguments out there. This discussion is about allowing/banning methods in organized competitions. If you're out to "just have fun" there are other venues available to you. Of course, many of us think that the competition adds significantly to the fun.

Sheesh..so picky. Maybe some people just want to have fun at bridge by experimenting with systems and being with people and don't care to aspire to greatness. Clear enough for you? The argument I am hearing is that at least in part these methods should not be allowed so that people can concentrate on what will make them better bridge players overall. This attitude is to presume that people should want to become better players. Some might like to experiment with systems but not care about getting better.

And maybe some people (probably the majority) want to have fun by playing against methods that they can understand and not having to spend hours and hours developing defenses to unusual methods. That's much more likely to be the reason to ban a method than Fred's (IMO correct) assertion that not spending time on complex methods is a better road to becoming a good bridge player.

[jdonn]

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

You consistently misunderstand what I'm saying. My reason for thinking that multi 2♥ should be banned is that I do not believe it is possible to develop an adequate defense to the bid, in part because I do not believe that the proponents can provide an adequate description. For instance, Dr. Todd (I think) suggested that responder to the 2♥ bid should choose whether to pass or bid based on suit length - if it seems more likely that the partnership has more hearts than spades, responder passes, else responder bids 2♠. So with equal length, or with 2 hearts and fewer than 5 spades (if I'm understanding his formula correctly) responder will pass. That means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with hearts. It also probably means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with at least 2 and preferably cards in the other Major than hands with shortness in the other Major. So if I'm trying to develop a defense, I should probably act in immediate position as if opener has hearts. Ah, but now it becomes more attractive for opener to open marginal hands with spades, since my defense won't work so well against that. Of course, people aren't allowed to change their methods based on the opponents' defense. But changing marginal calls? Perhaps it won't even be a conscious change, just a realization that the hands with spades seem to be more effective.

Jan I don't understand this part of your argument. I think I could make the same argument for any opening bid at all. I could play devil's advocate and agree that the exact agreements and style by which partner responds will impact the precise hands I open (even though I don't think you can ever prove that about a person?) But....so what? The way Todd described it seems fine to me, it's a specific agreement and they will follow it, so what's the big deal?

Of course I would expect a pair to give an equally good explanation for later in the auction too (such as when to p/c after 2♥ p p X), but given that I just don't see the problem. What you are describing seems to me nothing more than completely normal slight stylistic variances. You are arguing something that to me, you don't know is true, and that wouldn't matter even if it were true.

The difference is that what you call stylistic differences don't matter when the bid is basically natural, except in the play - obviously, when you're playing or defending, you're going to care whether the opponents would ever open a weak 2 bid with 4 cards in the other Major and if so what sorts of things would influence their decisions. But in the bidding, it really doesn't matter. You're not going to use a different defense depending on whether a 2M opening bid can have 4 cards in the other Major. On the other hand, when the opponents open 2♥ showing either a weak 2[H] bid or a weak 2♠ it makes a HUGE difference to your choice of defense if there is a 70% chance that they will have hearts or a 30% chance that they will have hearts. So advance disclosure of "style" is relevant to that sort of bid, whereas it isn't important to most natural opening bids.

So the pair tells you, we have hearts 50% of the time (or 70%, or whatever). I'm still not seeing the problem. Nor am I seeing why you believe a pair wouldn't be able to do this. You seem to be implying this is some sort of endless game theory loop on a subconcious level (I have hearts 55%, so partner plays me for hearts 100%, so i up it and have hearts 75%, but then the opponents' defense works too well, so i decide to have hearts 40%....) I'm really not buying that, any more than I would for any other bid. It seems to me like a clear example of cognitive dissonance by regulators, perhaps also on a subconcious level, a thought process like "we don't want this to be allowed, and this is the best reason we can think of for why it shouldn't be allowed, so in our minds it will be a true reason" even without any real reason to believe it would be true.

[glen]

Free, on Dec 14 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

glen, on Dec 14 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

... 1) A call that shows that a particular point count range, and this call can be pass or, if the opponents bid, double, or if the opponents have doubled, redouble ...

This is completely aimed at HUMs and contradicts other rules... Consider a standard system. Pass = 0-10hcp any (obviously 2-level and higher openings excluded). So pass cannot be defined as balanced, and the player isn't obligated to pass with AQJxxx-x-Qxx-xxx for example.

So I'm not sure if this is the approach you're suggesting.

A normal 0-10 pass is covered under 1 (bid shows a point range, does not imply specific hand types) - there is such a variety of hand types for pass that the partner of the passer can't assume anything.

[fred]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 12:10 AM, said:

So the pair tells you, we have hearts 50% of the time (or 70%, or whatever). I'm still not seeing the problem.

Here is an example of why these sort of numbers are important...

Suppose they open 2H and you overcall 3D (natural). If you knew that they had hearts 99% of the time, you would certainly play that a 3H advance was a cuebid and a 3S advance was natural. Probably you would do the same if you knew they had hearts 90% of the time. I have no idea where the cutoff would be before it became right to change the meaning of 3H to something else, but in principle you could at least estimate this via a simulation.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com