awm Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sqjtxxxhkqxdxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1♠ and partner bids 2♣. The 2♣ bid is natural, shows a good hand, but not (initially) guaranteeing a game force. You now rebid 2♦, artificial, showing any minimum opening hand without four hearts. Partner bids 3♦. This is natural and game forcing, and there is some inference of extra shape and/or extra values because partner chose such a space-consuming call. Now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Um, can I bid 3♥ without it being 4th suit forcing? I've denied 4 hearts, so my hearts are about as good as he could possibly hope. If not, then I guess I'm bidding 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 I love the way you say 'spades or NT' when it looks obvious to me to bid 4C. I play 2D as you describe it, over which 2H is an artificial game force - I assume you do something similar, so partner should have serious shape for the 3D bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 4♣ seems right. Raise your partner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 3S Since I'm not sure that I've shown a 6-card spade suit, I think I will just do that right now. These are not my methods, but then, so what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 What were partners options over 2D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Partner's options over 2♦: 2♥ artificial game force2♠ non-forcing preference, normally doubleton2NT natural invite3♣ natural invite3♦ natural game force3♥ natural game force, very distributional (i.e. 5♥-6♣)3♠ natural game force, 3+♠3NT to play Also, a direct 3♣ response to 1♠ was available as a strong jump shift, showing a very good six card or longer club suit and game-forcing values, but not necessarily quite the strength that is associated with strong jumps in the Soloway style (i.e. doesn't have to be 17+ hcp). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Then I agree with Frances, partner probably has some extraordinary hand to not go through 2H and eat up all this room, I would think at least a concentrated 4-6 or a 5-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 4C is tempting but i prefer 3Nt. 66% of my values are soft values outside partner suits, this suggest nt for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Think I'll show my 6 spades instead of raising pard. He should be quite strong with some 54 or better, but my major suit holdings are bad for slam. 3♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 4♣ for me and keycard over 4♦ or 4♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I'm not sure how much my opinion counts since I have never played this style after a 2/1, but I would bid 3♠. My second choice is 4♣ since partner should have at least 4-6 minors with most of the values there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 The actual hand was an ethical issue from face to face bridge. The 3♦ bidder failed to alert the 2♦ call. Opener now felt that the UI (3♦ bidder thinks 2♦ shows diamonds and probably doesn't have the degree of shape that 3♦ would normally indicate) implied that 3NT would be the most successful option. After all, it is likely to end the auction when responder has the minimum that he shouldn't really have, and reduces the chance of responder trying to play in diamonds. For this reason, opener felt she could not select 3NT, and chose to bid 3♠. This was a total disaster when responder bid 4♦ and continued trying to play in diamonds (taking all of opener's calls as cuebids) while opener kept trying to return to clubs. Likely a similar disaster would've ensued from a 4♣ call over 3♦ (but probably 3NT would've been passed). The end result was 7♣X-3 for -800. In any case, there was some debate after the hand as to what the logical alternatives were and which (if any) was suggested by the unauthorized information from the failure to alert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 3NT is certainly suggested by the UI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I would say 3NT is suggested by the UI and is the only bid that is suggested, because it's so final. Any other bid is at least continuing the investigation. I guess something like 5♣ is also suggested on the same reasoning. I think 3♠ 3NT and 4♣ are all clearly logical alternatives, although I personally don't care for all of them. This hand made me think of something interesting. Lets consider a 6♣ bid by someone whose partner didn't alert 2♦, as some sort of unethical effort to shut partner up. But 6♣ is not a logical alternative. I feel like it's definitely illegal but how do I prove it, since the laws just say you can't choose a suggested LA, not that you can't choose any suggested bid (don't they?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 This hand made me think of something interesting. Lets consider a 6♣ bid by someone whose partner didn't alert 2♦, as some sort of unethical effort to shut partner up. But 6♣ is not a logical alternative. I feel like it's definitely illegal but how do I prove it, since the laws just say you can't choose a suggested LA, not that you can't choose any suggested bid (don't they?). Yeah, I used to think along those lines. But, I've been told (and it makes sense) that you can't escape the situation by picking an illogical alternative. Here is how it was put to me recently by David Stevenson on RGB: me> If the action taken is DBL, doesn't it matter whether DBL is a logicalme> alternative? DS> No. This has been discussed many, many times, in forums, on BLML,DS> and here. There are various different ways to look at the legalities,DS> but the effect is simple: if you choose A, and B is an LA, and A isDS> suggested over B by the UI, you adjust. Whether A is an LA isDS> irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Well put I'd say, TimG-Stevenson, there is no fancy escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 What is the exact wording of the law? If what he said isn't law it should be, but I think 'technically' it isn't. But I won't say anything definitive till someone shows me (I'm blocked from seeing it at work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I think you will be caught on 70 something or other. 16 is for TDs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 I hope that everyone concerned applauded opener for her ethics... while I hope that most would be as ethical, we all know that some are not, and, anyway, when an ethical player goes for 800 as a result of her good ethics, recognition helps.. As for the dilemma, I think that a good case can be made for 3♥ as the correct call... wo any suggestion of being influenced by the non-alert. To me, it is the better call anyway... while 4♣ is sound, the hand is definitely NOT particularly slam oriented... compare to Axxxx AJx x Axx... now a strong slam move is mandatory while Axxxxx KQx x Axx is also slam suitable. 3♥ preserves 3N and offers a shot at spades should partner be 2=0=5=6 or such. If he bids 3♠, we bid 4♣ now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 What is the exact wording of the law? If what he said isn't law it should be, but I think 'technically' it isn't. But I won't say anything definitive till someone shows me (I'm blocked from seeing it at work).Law16A:After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 What is the exact wording of the law? If what he said isn't law it should be, but I think 'technically' it isn't. But I won't say anything definitive till someone shows me (I'm blocked from seeing it at work).Law16A:After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. So indeed what he said is not really the law. Choosing an alternative that isn't logical is not choosing "from among logical alternative actions". So what am I missing? I reiterate that I think it's normal to rule as he is saying, and I agree that what he says is how things should be. I'm just looking for any legal backup... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 What is the exact wording of the law? If what he said isn't law it should be, but I think 'technically' it isn't. But I won't say anything definitive till someone shows me (I'm blocked from seeing it at work).Law16A:After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. So indeed what he said is not really the law. Choosing an alternative that isn't logical is not choosing "from among logical alternative actions". So what am I missing? I reiterate that I think it's normal to rule as he is saying, and I agree that what he says is how things should be. I'm just looking for any legal backup... I understand exactly what you are saying. I think the answer lies in a liberal interpretation of "logical" meaning more along the lines of "possible". I suppose any insufficient bid would be illogical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 "73 C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner,as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, specialemphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation,he must carefully avoid taking anyadvantage that might accrue to his side." I don't think selecting a call in the hope of getting round Law 16 absolves you from Law 73. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Nice poll: 3 popular answers B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.