sfi

Partner volunteered it - something along the lines of "oops - I thought that was 1H". It was not the most serious of evenings, wine was involved, and the posited situation did not come up (1NT wasn't accepted and partner bid 2D which ended the auction). But there was some discussion later about options on the scenario posted above. No agreement though.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt8hakq2d62cj83&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np1np]133|200[/hv] You're playing with a pickup partner at the club, and you innocently open this hand playing standard (so 15-17 or 15-18 NT range). When partner also bids 1NT, we call the director and it turns out that partner thought you had opened 1♥. Pretend RHO accepts this bid. Now what? If this hand passes and make 7 or 8 tricks, is there a case for adjustment? If this hand bids 3NT and makes game, is there a case for adjustment?

The relevant issue is misinformation. Law 20F.6 directs us to 47E which covers adjusted score after play based on misinformation. Was it misinformation? If this bid falls within partnership expectation, then there appears to be a pretty good case for it. That being said, if this was at the Association, you should know better than to trust any description of a weak two there. :)

Many years ago I picked up the first of my two 0 loser hands: - AKQT9x AKQxxx A With Paul Soloway on my left and Bobby Goldman on my right partner opened 2S. Not so bad - at the other table Mike Passell had to deal with a 4S opening bid from partner. Partner had: Axxxxx x x Jxxxx Push board in 6H= (Soloway held Jxxx in both red suits, so 6H is the only making slam). The only thing I remember about the other 0 loser hand is suggesting that the person who held it at the other table might want to have bid their long suit at least once in the auction, which would have led to the correct grand.

Partner should bid 2S with almost any 3 card spade suit - they're not likely to have four of them when they opened 2H. Qx is a reasonable 2S bid if they do not have a 4 card minor.

If the partnership is using a double of 4C to suggest a sacrifice and West doesn't move on this hand, you might as well change your agreements. You're clearly not using this one effectively.

Yes, they all would have bid 2NT, or at least didn't comment on that. You did notice that I swapped the majors to make the 2NT bid normal? We don't have any indication that the methods are unusual, despite two followups from the original poster. We do know that the person holding the hand that bid 2NT wanted to show a weak hand. Hence the adjustment to my poll. Are you asking if I can find 'peers' of the bidder, by which you mean 'people who want to sign off over a takeout double of 2H and remember a Lebensohl 2NT is a weaker way to get to the three level but forget that spades outrank hearts'? Not easily, and neither can you. So you do the next best thing. I have provided some results of asking others where they would pass on the actual auction (despite thinking the bidding was bizarre) and other results on a largely equivalent auction where a majority would pass 3NT. If you don't think that's valid evidence, I'm curious to see what you do think is valid.

It got my upvote because your post was almost verbatim what I had decided my line would be (I left out the word 'type'). Nothing earth-shattering, but I was amused.

I gave five people the hand xxx KQJxx xx xxx and the auction (2S) - X - (P) - 2NT; (P) - 3NT. 3 passed without comment. 2 bid 4H but said it was close. I trust this is a close enough approximation of the actual situation to suggest that pass is a logical alternative?

Fair call - the 'why didn't I bid 2S' query has been unanimous so far.

I was explaining my logic for why I think passing 3NT is clear, so that's at least one vote for it. I've polled 2 other people so far (giving them the hand and a random partner with which they do not have in-depth agreements) and both answers were '*shrug* Pass'. On that small sample, 3NT is clearly a LA. I'll ask some more tonight.

My point exactly.

Consider some hands for partner's bidding. How do they bid: x AKx Kx AKQxxxx Ax KQx AKJx AQxx xxx AQJx KQJ AKQ xxx Kx AKQJ AKQJ xxxx KQx AKJ AKQ I'm not sure which ones your partnership bids a direct 3NT on (that would show the first one in most of my partnerships), and which one you double and bid 3NT next, but in all cases 3NT is a safer contract than 4S. Feel free to come up with your own hands, but there are several reasons that mean 3NT is likely to be a better spot to play, including: - you have six points to go along with partner's 22+, so tricks are not likely to be a problem - 3 small hearts suggest possible ruffs in 4S - KQJxx in spades suggests either 4-5 spade tricks or two dummy entries to lead hearts through. And the UI suggests that partner doesn't have any of these hands. Instead it suggests that partner has an 18 count with potentially no heart stopper.

Sure, pass is a LA on this hand. 3NT here does not guarantee a spade fit, and may occasionally even have a singleton. It is affected by what a direct 3NT would be, but I can easily see 9 tricks being the limit of the hand in either contract, or 4S going down on a bad break or heart ruffs with 9+ tricks available in 3NT. The three small hearts are a big negative for 4S IMO. To answer your questions: - Pass is a LA. - The failure to alert suggests bidding 4S rather than passing (4S is more likely to be right opposite marginal values for game rather than the extras that 3NT suggests the side has). I would be inclined to adjust the score to 3NT-1.

Why wouldn't you use your defence against their artificial bid? Their failure to alert means that partner has MI and can reasonably argue for an adjustment if it affects any decisions. Your reasoning is convoluted at best. Given that you do not have misinformation, Law 21B simply does not apply. Therefore, if you bid assuming it is natural, despite knowing that it is artificial, that is your own problem and there is no rectification. Moreover, if your partner now explains your bid correctly (maybe after a late alert or because they look at the convention card as well), you now have UI and have potentially created problems for your own side.

That's my point - nobody could construct a hand where they would double the first time and pass the second time in this auction. Hence the rather unscientific conclusion is that if this person considered it a double and bid hand, then pass is not a LA on this auction.

Heap? Tribulation? Persecution?

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?" The unanimous response was "No." There was discussion about double, 4C, and 4H (with 4H being the majority view), but pass was simply not an option given those conditions. On the original hand 3NT will make barring a double dummy SA lead, so ruling 3NT-1 would seem extreme.

I managed to arrange all four 10s to fall on the last trick in a tournament earlier this year. Not quite as good as all four aces in Right Through the Pack (if memory serves), but I'm still trying.

Typically, next to the bidding pad if you have a long hard plastic board, or underneath it if you have a folding "wallet". It does mean that you cannot have more than one board on the table at any given time, since that would make it inconvenient for the person who has the board between them and the bidding pad.

One of my regular partners and I have been doing something like this for years, and it works fine. The theoretical negatives from having the 4-4-1-4 hands in the 1♥ bid just don't cause problems in practice - we always treat 1♥ as 5 (and actually forget that it may not be most of the time). The real problem auction is 1♥ - 2♦ (which is FG). Sick as it may seem, we rebid 2♥ here and have yet to run into problems. Our 1♦ is actually either natural or 15-17 balanced, which also tends to reduce the threat of preemption, but having it just natural will ease the continuations.

Hmm, our club is currently debating the pros and cons of allowing Brown Sticker conventions in the lower quality of two consecutive daytime sessions. We are planning on the onerous requirement of people having to carry convention cards if they play them, so it really does come down to what you are used to.

Quite easily, actually - it is a skill that people manage to master in the first auction. And if a bid is unclear someone will always ask. The only negative really is the question of how many trees it uses. Apart from that it is fine.

In his book, Hamman attributes it to Phil Feldesman, who compared with Goldman and Eisenberg in the '69 Spingold.

Yes, he would - in gory detail as required by law.