Matchpoints 2

[Echognome]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sqjt8xxhakq6dcjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

3♣ - (4♣)(A) - ?[/hv]

 

Partner opens 3♣ first in hand and righty bids 4♣ which his partner alerts.

 

1) Do you ask LHO what the alert means? If you do, then hidden here:

LHO says "I don't know. Some sort of forcing bid asking me about my hand."

 

2) Do you make a call now?

3) Your LHO will bid 4♦. And partner will pass. If that comes back around to you, what is your call now?

4) What if RHO bids 4♥ over his partner's 4♦?

 

Thanks Alain for pointing out I needed to give the answer to 1).

[joker_gib]

1) Yes

2) depends on 1)

3) depends on 1)

4) depends on 1)

 

So, what is 4♣ ?

 

Alain

[inquiry]

1. Ok I will ask

2. I bid 5♣

3. I will call the director for an insufficient bid

4. I will call the director for an insufficient bid

 

I am assuming partner saw the vulnerability for his 3♣ call.

[Echognome]

If you bid 5♣ you will get to play there. If not, Christmas has come early. I thought it had for us at the 4-level though.

[inquiry]

If you bid 5♣ you will get to play there. If not, Christmas has come early. I thought it had for us at the 4-level though.

Dont you think your opponents with at least 10 diamonds, maybe more, might find their diamond fit here? You really going to double 4♦?

[whereagles]

If LHO can't tell me what 4♣, I have to pass and bid something later. Still, I get the feeling opps are hiding something from me, so I'd summon Director before passing.

[SchTsch]

Usually:

1) No

2) 5♣

3) don't accept

4) don't accept

 

As 4♣ usually shows majors it depends who am I playing against and what are their methods. I guess the best theoretical thing to do is pass and see what happens. I really doubt they will manage to play 4♦ if 4♣ shows majors and I will double everything else they bid.

But, in real life I usually don't ask anything. Sometimes it pays off.

[Echognome]

If you bid 5♣ you will get to play there.  If not, Christmas has come early.  I thought it had for us at the 4-level though.

Dont you think your opponents with at least 10 diamonds, maybe more, might find their diamond fit here? You really going to double 4♦?

I won't double 4♦. Hence my related question of what I did if it came back to me. Over 4♦ I will push them up with 5♣. Over any other 4 bid, I personally smack it.

[luis]

Yes I ask what 4♣ is.

After the answer I call the TD and the hand is over, they can't alert and then provide such an answer. Average+ for us, Average- for them and some procedural penalty.

 

Let's imagine they didn't alert. Then I'm probably going to bid 5♣ but it depends on partnership style for preempts.

[Blofeld]

Yes I ask what 4♣ is.

After the answer I call the TD and the hand is over, they can't alert and then provide such an answer. Average+ for us, Average- for them and some procedural penalty.

 

Let's imagine they didn't alert. Then I'm probably going to bid 5♣ but it depends on partnership style for preempts.

Under EBU rules, they've done the right thing in alerting and then explaining no agreement.

 

I'll definitely ask.

 

I think I'll bid 5♣ now.

 

Second choice (according to mood) is to pass now, and bid 5♣ over 4♦, or pass 4♥ (they'll just run to 5♦).

[luis]

Yes I ask what 4♣ is.

After the answer I call the TD and the hand is over, they can't alert and then provide such an answer. Average+ for us, Average- for them and some procedural penalty.

 

Let's imagine they didn't alert. Then I'm probably going to bid 5♣ but it depends on partnership style for preempts.

Under EBU rules, they've done the right thing in alerting and then explaining no agreement.

 

I'll definitely ask.

 

I think I'll bid 5♣ now.

 

Second choice (according to mood) is to pass now, and bid 5♣ over 4♦, or pass 4♥ (they'll just run to 5♦).

Thanks to god I'm not an EBU player, Imagine alerting every single bid where we have no agreement to say "I don't know" when asked. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Echognome]

I'm not sure I agree it is so ridiculous.

 

Suppose North thinks the agreement shows majors. Or suppose North thinks it shows the extremes (♦ and ♠) or any two-suiter or whatever. But for the time being, suppose that North thinks they have an agreement.

 

Now in england, the alerting rules are that you have to alert any artificial bid. Thus South should alert as long as North's bid is not natural. If south then doesn't have to alert because he doesn't know the agreement, then the non-alert is UI to his partner. That is to say, it is not very good to have an alerting rule that you must alert all artificial bids, BUT NOT ones where you do not have an agreement.

 

So taking the above example, if South alerts AND no one asks any questions, then North is never the wiser that his partner has any doubt. If South doesn't alert, North might be able to bid accounting for the fact that his partner doesn't know the agreement.

 

If however, you would normally not alert such a 4♣ call, then your rules should be consistent here and South should not alert if they have no agreement. I don't think you can call one aspect of an alerting system absurd unless you consider the system in its entirety. Also, note that screen regulations are quite different.

[ArcLight]

I pass their 4♦.

 

Will 4♦ make?

 

 

What tricks will they take, especially if we take a few hearts?

Maybe pard can ruff a Spade, after discarding on hearts?

Maybe they will get 2 Spades, and maybe some ruffs in the short hand/cross ruffs.

 

4♦ isn't worth that much, I'd let them have it. I wouldn't double.

I wouldn't bid 5♣. 5♣ probably = -100. 4♦ = -130.

At IMPs there isn't much difference.

[Fluffy]

When 4♦ comes back to me I will hate myself for not bidding 5♣ bfore. Then I'll bid them anyway.

[MickyB]

Good points Matt. Also, if the opponents do not alert you should be able to assume that their call is natural.

 

Having said this, most opps don't seem to appreciate an alert followed by an explanation of no agreement, but this is probably just cos they want to know what my pard has :lol:

[MickyB]

Oh yeah... I ask about 4♣ then pass, and bid 5♣ over 4♦.

[david_c]

Also, if the opponents do not alert you should be able to assume that their call is natural.

Right. I believe this is the main reason why we have this rule. Though in this particular case ...

[MickyB]

Oh yeah... I ask about 4♣ then pass, and bid 5♣ over 4♦.

BTW, the reason I pass initially is so that they have little chance to get out in 4♦, if I double then a pass sounds like "pick a major" and 4♦ sounds natural.

[whereagles]

Thanks to god I'm not an EBU player, Imagine alerting every single bid where we have no agreement to say "I don't know" when asked. Absolutely ridiculous.

Well, for your information, that is the correct procedure in most jurisdictions! Not just EBU. Your opponents have the right to know your agreements. If you have none for a particular situation, you should say just that: "no agreement".

 

Having no agreements on common situations like this one is not, however, free of penalty. Depending on the level of the player and level of competition you may be awarded a procedural penalty on grounds that at this level you are expected to have agreements on basic stuff.

[Finch]

Thanks to god I'm not an EBU player, Imagine alerting every single bid where we have no agreement to say "I don't know" when asked. Absolutely ridiculous.

If you know partner's bid is alertable, you should alert it.

If you don't know what it means, you should tell the opponents so if they ask. Why is it ridiculous to suppose it's possible for partner to make a bid about which you have no agreement, but you are certain it is alertable?

[luis]

Thanks to god I'm not an EBU player, Imagine alerting every single bid where we have no agreement to say "I don't know" when asked. Absolutely ridiculous.

If you know partner's bid is alertable, you should alert it.

If you don't know what it means, you should tell the opponents so if they ask. Why is it ridiculous to suppose it's possible for partner to make a bid about which you have no agreement, but you are certain it is alertable?

By definition where I live the only thing that is alertable is a partnership agreement. If you don't have an agreement about what 4♣ is you don't have to alert.

That is why an alert followed by "I don't know" is usually a serious infraction here, since if you don't have an agreement there is nothing to alert and if you have one you have to say what the agreement is. The only exception would be when you know there is an agreement but can't remember it then the fact that you don't remember is UI to your pd and everything continues.

 

Seriously alerting 4♣ here when you haven't discussed with pd is very very comic.

 

If they open 1NT and pd bids 4NT without agreement do you alert and say "don't know, but is probably not to play" ? Either the EBU rules are comic or the interpretation of the rules is wrong.

 

Luis

[luis]

Thanks to god I'm not an EBU player, Imagine alerting every single bid where we have no agreement to say "I don't know" when asked. Absolutely ridiculous.

Well, for your information, that is the correct procedure in most jurisdictions! Not just EBU. Your opponents have the right to know your agreements. If you have none for a particular situation, you should say just that: "no agreement".

 

Having no agreements on common situations like this one is not, however, free of penalty. Depending on the level of the player and level of competition you may be awarded a procedural penalty on grounds that at this level you are expected to have agreements on basic stuff.

Do you read what you just said?

"You have to alert your agrements... if you have none you have to alert no-agreement"

Under that base every single bid you make is alertable.

 

There is nothing to alert when you don't have an agreement.

[han]

I agree that it is nonsensical to alert the 4C bid here (there is no agreement and OBVIOUSLY the 4C bid is not natural, duh). If these are the rules, I don't like them.

 

 

But let me go back to the bridge question. I will assume that the opponents are somewhat decent (I've already heard the story from Matt and know that they were not).

 

I think that double is really bad. It will make it far easier for them to land in 4D. If RHO has both majors then it will be very hard to pass 4D if I haven't doubled, but if I double and LHO bids 4D, then this is clearly a desire to play there. They may not have discussed 4C, but it is likely that they both know it shows the majors. But do they both know that the other knows?

 

I'm torn between a direct 5C and pass, followed by a double of 4M and a pull to 5C over 4D. As I really dislike pass followed by pull here, I will bid 5C directly.

[david_c]

Yawn. I suppose there's not much point in trying to defend EBU regs here. Those of us who actually live in England already know that they work.

 

The silly thing, if there is one, is that any agreement about (3♣) : 4♣ is alertable unless it's natural. You could argue that this should be changed so that cue-bids were not alertable, though personally I prefer the simplicity of the current arrangement.

 

But what people are complaining about is the part of the regulations which says (in effect):

If you believe your partner's bid is artificial, then you should alert even if you're not sure exactly what it means.

This is not the silly part. It really isn't.

[han]

What I dislike is:

 

If you have no agreement whatsoever about a bid, but bridge logic dictates that the bid is artificial then it should be alerted