LH2650

What is going to happen over the proposed splinter? If opener has a weak notrump, all roads lead to 4 spades. If he has a 2 notrump rebid, probably all roads lead to 6 spades. It is unlikely that he has a distributional hand, since the opponents should be bidding more. My simulations indicate that the slam is in the 53% to 56% range opposite the strong hand, depending on assumptions about opener's diamond length.

Assuming partner never raises with 3 spades and 6 diamonds, and (as many partners would) offer no sympathy or understanding when a 2 club bid doesn't work out, you were brilliant. In 200 simulated hands, you converted a plus to a minus on 25 of them by bidding 2 spades. However, 2 spades makes 68% of the time, while 2 diamonds is only 40%. Also, you got 55 spade game opportunities, 8 slam opportunities, and 1 grand slam opportunity!

I voted for an invitational action, but then ran a simulation and concluded that some game is more than 70% to make. 4 spades is the most likely (55%), followed by 5 clubs (50%), 3 notrump (30%), and 5 diamonds (3%). (Some hands make more than 1 game.) Since there are multiple possibilities that must be considered, it seems necessary to attempt to describe your hand to partner, starting with 2 clubs, and let him make the final decision. If you start with 1 spade, and hear a 2 diamond rebid, you are now less than 50% to make game, so some bailout might be appropriate.

1. 6H, the level where I don't know what I would like them to do. 2. P 3. D 4. 2H, the same bid that I would make if I had opened 1 diamond. Abstainers, partner's hand is Kxx, QTxxx, xx, xxx. Opening 1 diamond and rebidding 2 clubs is not a guaranteed solution to this problem. My partner would put me back in 2 diamonds. 5. 3N

If responder has bad, short hearts, he may be going down in 5. I would play opener for 5♥ and 6♦ if I could think up a hand that matched the bidding. Maybe Ax, Axxxx, AKQxxx, void, but that belongs in 7♦ opposite the actual responding hand, and I don't think I'd bid it this way. Several hands have been proposed by others that could belong in ♦, and I would expect a World Class player to cater to that. Also, the opponent's bidding seems to indicate a lack of distribution around the table.

Need a "None of the above" poll option. I think he is looking for this hand - good hearts plus one trick. The club K would be just as good as the spade K. By the way, I would have bid 3D instead of 2S. Good hearts could have been determined by RKCB. Controls could have been found by bidding 3H instead of 5H.

Would the committee have to drag in some aggressive ZAR people to consult? Not even the NABC Casebook people know. See the New Orleans Casebook, Case 1, for a short debate, and a slightly different definition of Logical Alternative. Partner's extra Ace is just too convenient. I think you lose in committee. And for inquiry's statement "and there is no RULE THAT says partner has to have the minimum hand... even WHEN HE BIDS 3♥ over what ever 3♦ means", that is simply not bridge. As far as he knows, you have merely invited.

This is exactly what the Laws are designed to avoid. If the holder of the strong hand states that he always intended to bid 4H, and feels that a ruling against him is equivalent to calling him a liar, he doesn't understand the law. Likewise, if West feels that he was cheated, Law 16 is not designed to address that. It simply does not matter what anyone intended. The Law only cares about what a player's peers would do. The Bridge World points out that Law 16 is often misinterpreted because it only addresses what a player should not do, not what he should do.

The November 2004 Bridge World has an extensive editorial on this subject, which disagrees with the attached quote. To do as suggested would in fact be using UI. As suggested by inquiry, the only appropriate action is the one you would have taken without the UI. However, it doesn't matter what you would do. What is relevant is whether a significant minority of your peers would take some other action in the absence of UI. Inquiry states that he would ask South if it was always his intention to bid game, but this is also irrelevant, for the same reason.

Let's change responder's hand a little bit. Instead of Kx in spades, make it two small. If you think that this would require a first or second negative at some point, change the club Q to the K. Now I would propose 1S - 1N - 3D - 3N...... Partner should avoid what is now a very poor 6D. Can the responder to the 2C bidder afford to make the same change, or does this hand result in the same auction that previously got to 6D? Responding to Fluffy's comment, my Walsh system notes indicate that 2C - 2N is not a possible auction. All it does is preempt partner. (This is before 2H negative and 2N as a replacement for a 2H positive became popular.)

I consider 3S over partner's 3D on this hand as automatic as I do bidding 2S over partner's 2D rebid. If I had a limit raise, I would bid 4S over 3D. Partner may have invented a jump shift with 6 spades. If you rebid 3N, he has a guess.

IMP odds for a vulnerable game are 10-6 (don't forget the part score bonus), assuming no one doubles when things go poorly. Since game is 20% when partner has the "bid these hands" holding (Kxx of trump, a singleton, and out), and partner accepts on many minimum hands, I still prefer the invitation.

Does opener know more about responder's hand on the above auction than he does after 1S- 1N (forcing) - 3D - 3S - 4D - 5D - ?? I think not.

First, you need an agreement on what a single raise means. My opinion is in line with several in "bid these hands" (3 topics ago), not Inquiry's. Some quick sim results: 4S is less than 50% when partner has 3 - 4 S and 5 - 7 HCP. 4H plays better than 4S when partner has 3 S and 4-5 H. Since 3H may get you to 4H, it seems best.

To Inquiry: I regret my comment that some of your proposed reasons for a hesitation were not credible, because that comment was unnecessary. I will replace it with this: I contend that all reasons suggested for a hesitation, except the inadmissible "3N as a slam try" clearly suggest pulling. Therefore, we have two of the three elements necessary to REQUIRE a score adjustment. The last element is that passing 3N is a Logical Alternative. I think it is. That is why we have committees. To Aljosa: How can you possibly propose a procedural warning to NS and not adjust the score? Unless Unauthorized Information has been used, there is no infraction. If UI has been used, then the score adjustment is required.

ACBL policy can be found on the General Convention Chart. It is: "DISALLOWED - Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP". This is designed to disallow systems that open very light on moderately balanced hands. It is not intended to overrule your bridge judgment. I have no such partnership agreement, and consider this an opening bid. Just to emphasize my point, I will contend that this meets the old ACBL policy about opening a Strong, Artificial 2 Club bid. (I do not propose opening 2C!) It was "A reasonable expectation of making game when played in the best strain". Suppose you caught xxx, xxx, xxx, xxxx. Would you rather hold this hand or the one you last had when you opened 2C?

As for Inquiry's possible reasons for the hesitation, I don't think that 1 and 5 are credible, and the others all suggest pulling to 4 hearts. The unlisted Number 6, Uncertainty about whether to play 3N or 4H is the odds-on favorite. As for comments about a slam try, 3N was not Alerted, and apparently the offending side made no argument to the effect that it was anything special, so it must be assumed that it was an offer to play in that contract. Comments about it necessarily showing enough extra values so that slam should be investigated are also incorrect – hands have been presented where 3N is the highest makable contract, and South is in a position to make that judgement. The solid suit argues strongly for play in 3N. A broken suit would justify pulling. What happened here is that South made a bad bid, but North correctly interpreted his BIT, and took advantage. And by the way, even beginners have to play by the rules. Learning your responsibilities when partner hesitates is part of your bridge education.