mrdct

What's the full hand?

Good question and right place for it. I agree with everything iviehoff said.

I've finally worked out why my kids never do the dishes even though I've asked them to do it.

Which means "no agreement" unless there are analogous sequences which you have discussed. That is sort of the case in some jurisdicitons where you are required to alert calls which may be forcing or non-forcing in a manner that your opponents are unlikely to expect.

The OP quite clearly stated that "NS are experienced but not brilliant club players, but in a very infrequent partnership". The OP also reported that NS have an agreement to only play superaccepts in the transferor's suit; so absent an agreement to treat 3new as a superaccept, 3♥ must show ♥. Maybe it's a bit different in Lamfordland, but in club duplicates in Australia (and I suspect in most parts of the world) I would suggest that the majority of pairs have no agreements about superaccepts.

The EBU also advises that as the term "puppet" is not well known and confuses players, it's best to describe puppet bids in full. Similar advice prevails in Australia, so I usually say, "that asks me to bid 2♦ but doesn't say anything at all about ♦ - he might pass it if he's weak with ♦ or he can make a natural inviational bid or a GF enquiry".

The full hand would be of some interest also. Assuming conventional passes are alertable in your jurisdiction, I think pass would only be alertable if you had specific agreements about what redbl, 1♠, 1NT and 2♠ mean which give rise to a narrower meaning that can be inferred from the pass other than "doesn't have anything to say at this point". I find it a little bit surprising that a pair would choose to play transfer overcalls but not have any agreements about the continuations after what must be a fairly common occurence of the transfer bid being doubled.

Bear in mind that I'm only talking about the EBU here (a jurisdiction in which I've never played or directed) which seems to have a pretty clear regulation that if you describe a call as forcing and it could be weak, you need to say so. I strongly suspect that this regulation isn't strictly enforced for practical reasons, but don't have any evidence to back that up. In describing a transfer, in any jurisdiction, I would never use the F-word and would simply describe it as "transfer to Y"; although when I'm playing a system which includes transfers on 4-card suits I say, "that shows 4+ Xs". As for Lebensohl, if I'm playing against people who understand Lebensohl, I will simply say "Lebensohl", but if I have any doubt about whether my opponents understand it, I will give a detailed explanation along the lines of, "that's asking me to bid 3♣ which he's either going pass if he's weak with ♣, bid a new suit non-forcing or show a GF hand in which case he'll have a stopper in X".

In several of my partnerships after intervention such as this, 2♥ would be natural and non-forcing, but there would be a strong expectation that the 1NT opener would courtesy raise with 4 or 5 card support especially in a competitive auction. This type of auction is firmly on planet Earth.

Greg, I suggest you get in contact with Joe Stokes who is the USBF youth coordinator (you'll be able to find his details on the USBF website) who might be able to hook you up with someone else in a similar situation. Good luck. Dave. (Australian Bridge Federation Youth Coordinator)

The problem is that in the EBU if a forcing call includes a weak option you are required to explicitly qualify your explanation to make that clear. Even if this is a common treatment in the UK, where I guess weak 1NT openings are fairly prevalent, the disclosure requirements of the Regulatory Authority still need to be followed.

I assume the OP meant 4♥N for both sides. We are told that North-South only play superaccepts in uncontested auctions and then so only in the transferor's suit. Accordingly, North can't treat 3♥ as anything other than a ♥ suit and not necessarily with primary ♠ support. I still think we need to know whether or not 1NT can include a 5-card major, as if it can I don't think North can ethically bid anything other than 4♥. I would be interested know what North would think an uncontested auction of 1NT:2♥:3♥ would mean with South having alerted and described 2♥ as a transfer to ♠. As is usually the case with these sort of rulings, North needs to proceed on the basis that South has alerted and described 2♥ as a transfer to ♠ or that she's playing behind screens. She doesn't have any extra ♠ length or quality, they do not have superaccepts in their repertoire and North doesn't have a ♣ stopper so it's all pointing to a 4♥ bid by North.

How about as a mouse roll-over on the player's name or somewhere in their info there are some details of their star qualification achievement(s). Then the kibitzers can easily see who actually won something of note, but we don't need to take grandfathered stars off people. Another thing that might enhance things for kibitzers who don't know who's who is to include a link in each star's profile to their WBF playing record; although there is a problem with the WBF playing record being very eurocentric in that it includes lots and lots of EBL events but does not include any events from other zones (ACBL, APBF, BFAME, etc.). Linking to the WBF playing record would also have the nice advantage of providing a photo of the player in many cases.

Are North-South allowed to have a 5-card Major in their 1NT opening? If so, 4♥ by North seems to be a logical alternative. But if South can't have 5♥, I don't think pass is an option for North to choose to play in 4-3 fit in partscore where game is quite likely in NT or ♠ and possibly even ♥ in the moysian fit.

Generally, if responder makes a slam try and then 1NT opener asks for keycards and then signs off in 5♠ that will be where the auction ends. West is a minimum with poorly placed and wastage in ♣ so I think that absent the UI, 5♠ would certainly be in her considerations. The TD should ask, "did you give any consideration to bidding 5♠ over 5♣ (you'd be surprised how often you get an honest response to this question if phrased the right way). The UI that partner is making a keycard response and has gone through so many steps demonstrably suggests 6♠ over 5♠ so I think an adjustment to 5♠ making 12 tricks is in order. Taking exclusion off the table, and not taking advantage of the UI that East thinks 4♣ is keycard, in the absence any agreement the only other other options are a big two-suiter in the blacks or control in ♣ but denying control in either red suit. The double of 4♣ discounts the likelihood of the black two-suiter, so West might need to work on the assumption that East has ♣ shortage but no ♥A and no ♦AK. With the ♣K thought to be in North, this doesn't really leave much room for East to have made a slam try with, at best, ♠KQ10xxxxx, ♥Qx, ♦QJ and ♣x. Accordingly, West may argue that once the 5♣ bid hit the table she has AI that the bidding is off the rails as 5♣ just doesn't fit any agreement or potential holding partner can have. In these circumstance, we might allow West to bash out 6♠ given that partner must have something extra over there to by-pass 4♠.

Thanks for the posting the hand - it always makes things easier. I'm still a little bit concerned about West's 6♠ bid in possession of the UI that partner thinks he is responding to keycard blackwood. The TD needs to ask West what he thinks 5♣ would mean opposite a 4♣ cue agreeing ♠. I can't really think of anything sensible other than exclusion, so West really should've bid 5♥ (one keycard excluding the ♣A) after which there is a strong chance that East-West will miss slam as West is looking at a minimum with lots of wastage in ♣

I think you need to reread the thread. At no point is there any suggestion that North may have or should have thought South had splintered.

I don't think that's adequate disclosure. The pass by responder carries with it some quite detailed information about the sorts of hand-types it may include that your opponents could not reasonably be expected to work-out for themselves and, indeed, by only saying that it's "forcing (usually) to a redouble" it could quite easily be miscontrued as showing strength which certainly isn't always the case. The Orange Book requirement is that you must have "no agreement that this might happen" which seems to contemplate even the rarest of transgressions from the "forcing" nature of responder's pass. You are probably right that 2 or 3 times in 15 years wouldn't lead to a CPU, but if you've actually discussed it with your partner or your partner happens to read this forum, it's starting to look like an agreement to me. Adding to my earlier comments about members of a partnership playing a different style from each other, I must say that in the real world there are plenty of partnerships, including some fairly high-profile partnerships, where the two players do have quite different pre-empting styles in particular, but I can't recall ever seeing that disclosed on a convention card for a major event. If anyone can dig-up an example I'd be pleased to see it.

It's a big assumption to assume that your opponents are competent and in this case East did in fact screw-up his keycard responses. Knowing your customer is important and a quick glace at their convention card will shed some light on whether or not they have any agreements about what to do after intervention. In a club duplicate you might find a handful of players who may have heard about DOPI, ROPI, PODI, PORI, PIDS, PIRS, DEPO and REPO and may even know what the acronyms stand for; but to find a pair that has actually made an agreement and remembers it would be rare amongst the ignoranti. Against club players doubles can be particularly confusing as many simply won't know what to do with the extra two steps. Even in higher-level competition, keycard intervention stuff-ups can and do occur with surprising regularity. I'm quite sure I've seen such stuff-ups on BBO vugraph on several occassions.

I actually posted before seeing the poll results. In coming to my opinion that pass is not a logical alternative for this particular player, I put myself in the shoes of a hand-hogging pro who knows a thing or two about playing matchpoints. The test for whether a bid is a logical alternative is by reference to bids which would be in the serious consideration of players of the same class as South. A poll here is only relevant if it is limited to South's peers; and if there aren't enough of them floating around to conduct a sensible poll, all you can do if put yourself in his shoes. In a fairly weak field where I expect that few if any would open 1NT on this hand, I'm already behind the eight-ball with the opponents preempting me (note "me" not "us") at favourable vul before I've had a chance to show either of my suits. As I opined before, any result between 6 and 9 tricks in 3♣ is more than likely to be well below average so it would be lunacy to sell-out to 3♣ and condemn myself to a score between 0% and 25% (let's say an expected score of 12.5%) when I can risk so little in rolling the dice for an above-average score. I take comfort that two of the people on the AC (a real one I assume) who obviously know South a lot better than I do came to a similar conclusion. What did the traveller look like?

I wish people would post the full hands when seeking the forum's opinion on rulings. Even if you can't remember the full hand, make something up that fits your scenario and use the "hand editor" to insert the diagram, auction and play (if relevant). I think there are plausible reasons to double 4♣ with North's hand irrepective of whether 4♣ is keycard for ♠ or a cue agreeing ♠. For the former explanation, it is not uncommon that partnerships don't have their agreements sorted-out for dealing with intervention over blackwoood, so if you can intervene safely with a low risk of going for a number, it often pays dividends to muck-up your opponents slam bidding auction (indeed in this case East did in fact get his keycard responses wrong after the intervention). For the latter explanation, double looks quite reasonable as we might beat slam in a flash on a ♣ lead with my K sitting after the A. It seems to be a finding of fact that the partnership agreement for 4♣ is "no agreement" so I would proceed on the basis of a misexplanation of 4♣ and the associated UI to West. However, I'm not buying North's suggestion that he wouldn't have doubled 4♣ if it had been described differently so I'm probably not going to assess any damage arising from the misexplanation, but I would need to see South hand to be sure. The OP states that North queried the 5♣ call and made his highly inappropriate comment about not doubling 4♣ before seeing dummy, so are we to assume that this occured after South made a face-down lead? If not, I think PP or at least a strong talking-to could be in order for North. As for whether or not West has used UI, again, we need to see the hand and know more about East-West's methods. In particular, what does 5♣ mean after 4♣ showing ♣ control? Some partnerships may play 5♣ as exclusion over the cue agreeing ♠ so if West's systemic response to 5♣ happens to be 5♠, there may be a case to adjust to 5♠+1. I sure am looking forward to seeing this hand, as on the limited information provided thus far I'm having difficulty contructing a hand where on a ♣ lead declarer managed to get into a position where he could make 13 tricks unless 4♣ was a psyche.

I'm not expert on EBU requirements, but flicking through the Orange Book, I think you are OK: 10 A 2: Both members of a partnership must have the same bidding agreements and play the same system of leads, signals and discards. 4 D 5: The two members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Such differences in style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where suitable, disclosed on the convention card. However, you do need to be careful with your disclosure obligations, starting with indicating on your convention card the different styles adopted for your 1NT openings and the implications this has on your escape mechanism after you've been doubled. You also need to be careful with using the term "forcing" in the EBU as it is regulated there that if the term is used without qualification it must convey that the forcing nature is based on strength, refer: 3 B 6: ‘Forcing’ means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear. 3 B 7: Whilst all agreements must be disclosed, they do not constitute an undertaking to the opposition. For instance, a player is quite entitled to pass a forcing bid, as long as the partnership has no agreement that this might happen. Under EBU regulations, if you have a partnership agreement that partner's forcing pass can be passed you must explicitly disclose that agreement in your explanation. I'm not sure what your 1NT escape mechanism is, but if there are negative inferences from responder's failure to redouble or bid a suit at the two level, this should also be disclosed in your explanation of the pass. For example, if you play something like SWINE where single-suiters redouble as a puppet to 2♣ you need to describe responder's pass as something like, "pass asks me to redouble which he's either going to pass to play or bid the lower of his two-suits, so he's either a hand suitable to play 1NTxx or a weak two-suiter; but if I've got a good suit of my own I can bid that rather than redouble and I could even pass 1NTx".

If North-South's real agreement is "pass forces a redouble but if you sniff (from AI of course) that we might be making, you can pass if you want" then this is a CPU which should be disclosed to East-West so it is relevant. However, if through experience playing against this North-South pair East knows that quizing the forcing nature of responders pass will likely result in 1NTx being passed by opener and East then proceeds to ask about North's pass with no real bridge reason and with an objective to fool South into passing, that's cheating - but virtually impossible to prove. Two wrongs probably make a right here I think!

I disagree. The manner in which explanations of partnership agreements are disclosed is largely a matter for Regulatory Authorities, in this case I assume NZ Bridge, but I don't think there is too much variation around the principle that you should never inform your opponents as to how you are interpreting a bid if you're uncertain. Generally in this situation you should say "no agreement", "undiscussed" or "I can't remember" but you should also add pertainent information about analogous agreements; for example it would be appropriate to say, "directly over a strong club we play double is majors but I can't remember if we agreed to do the same thing after a negative 1♦ response". It could be argued that any words that come after "I think" should be discounted or disregarded, but in this case I believe the poor explanation did disuade North from an otherwise obvious 4♠ bid so I'm adjusting to 4♠=.

The most likely reason for South failing to alert 3♥ must surely be because he or she did not think it was alertable (i.e. strong and natural). The failure to alert has done two things: - woken-up North as to her misbid; and - conveyed to North that South is treating 3♥ as natural, in which case 4♥ takes on a completely different meaning to what it would've meant opposite a splinter. North has UI that South has a different interpretation of the 3♥ bid to what North initially intended and is ethically bound to avoid selecting actions suggested by that UI when other logical alternatives exist. Generally speaking, one will meet one's ethical obligations by bidding one's hand as if no UI had been transmitted (including not being woken-up to your earlier misbid) but even then you may still be subject to an adjusted score if some other logical alternative within the serious consideration of your polled peers was going to be less successful. There may be situations where partner's bid opposite your non-alerted, but intended artificial, bid is sufficiently weird that it can only mean partner has misinterpreted your bid which would be AI. For example, a 5X response to a 4NT bid which was intended as quantitative would carry the reasonable AI that partner took it as Blackwood and you would be ethically able to proceed on that basis even if 4NT was alerted and described as Blackwood contrary to your original intent. We might be able to throw a lifeline at North here if it can be established that South has no idea about cue bidding and this is a fact known to North, as in that case 4♥ couldn't really be anything other than a natural suit and would legally wake-up North to the misunderstanding. Perhaps a good question to ask North is, "when you bid 6♠ did any other potential bids cross your mind and why did you rule those out?"