Matchpoints 2

[Kalvan14]

I will not ask, and bid 5♣.

I would expect that RHO has a good 3-suiter (or - just possibly - 3-4-5-1).

I would not be happy to let them find their best fit at 4-level.

[luke warm]

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

i agree han, that doesn't make much sense to me... is bridge logic limited to the partner of the 4C bidder here?

 

i wouldn't ask what 4C means

i'd bid 5C over 4D

i'd double 4H

[Double !]

lol

 

can I bid 4 diamonds over rho's 4 club bid and watch the opps start reaching for my convention card? (Talk about UI).

 

DHL :rolleyes:

[cherdano]

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

Whose bridge logic? I am sure many would then argue that 2♦ over 1♦ can't be natural by bridge logic.

At least it is a simple rule that can be applied easily regardless of the level of players.

 

Arend

[Gerben42]

I ask then bid 5♣. I double 5♦ and lead ♥A

[P_Marlowe]

1) Yes, I would even ask, if the bid is not alerted, sry, if they

bid our suit, I want to know, what's going on

2) Tough, but after the answer, I will pass to see what happens

I am not sure, we can make 5C, it depends a bid on style

in my partnership, 3C promises -3 and it is unclear if I have 5

tricks for partner

3) 5C

4) Dbl, and I will happily dbl 5D as well, because it will gurantee a

sure plus

 

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

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

The alert gives the you the chance to ask.

If they dont alert, and you asked, you give UI to

partner, because you should only ask, if you are

interested in bidding.

 

In F2F and not playing behind screens:

If the 4C bid gets not alerted, because one guy in

the partnership believes that there is no agreement

UI flows as well.

 

Marlowe

[whereagles]

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

Well, we were talking about different things. Nevermind.

[Finch]

By definition where I live the only thing that is alertable is a partnership agreement.

Fine. But we don't all live in the same place.

By definition where some of us live, you alert calls that are not natural.

(The minor difficulty comes then in deciding what 'natural' means).

 

Yes, this leads to a few fatuous alerts.

But it also means that when partner bids the opponents' suit and you know it isn't natural but you also know you have no agreement, you must alert. Otherwise you are telling partner that you don't know what his bid means.

 

This is poor case to illustrate the point, because nobody plays 4C as natural whether or not they have an agreement, so the alert is pretty meaningless.

[Chamaco]

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

Whose bridge logic? I am sure many would then argue that 2♦ over 1♦ can't be natural by bridge logic.

At least it is a simple rule that can be applied easily regardless of the level of players.

 

Arend

Agree with Arend.

 

When we do know a bid is not natural (even if it's obvious), logic dictates it should be alerted even if we ignore the meaning: we need to inform opps that the bid is artificial, because there will be rare- but still possible- cases when the bid is NATURAL (even if it sounds artificial) and it will be impossible to discriminate.

 

If we stop alerting a cuebid of opp suit because it MUST BE ARTIFICIAL, then shall we alert it when it's natural ?

We cannot adopt the same procedure for both cases.

[Echognome]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sxhxd98xxxcakqxxx&w=sxhxxdqtxxxxct9xx&e=sakxxxhjt98xxdakc&s=sqjtxxxhakq6dcjxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

This was a wild hand. You might recognize partner's hand from problem 6.

 

At the table, partner chose to open 3♣ and RHO bid 4♣. I asked and doubled (both which I don't think I should do) and LHO bid 4♦. RHO bid 4♥ and I doubled and that's where we played.

 

We misdefended and set it for 800.

[han]

Nice score Matt.

 

I think that asking about their agreements might have helped you. East probably thought that 4C showed the majors, and might very well have passed 4D if it wasn't for the fact that his partner didn't know what 4D showed. So I think that East was acting on UI, but it worked against him.

 

4D should show a strong desire to play diamonds, so east should have passed.

[luke warm]

my thinking was, don't ask and don't double and make lho bid (guess?)...

[HeartA]

nobody want to try 6♣?