bid_em_up Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 [hv=d=s&s=sxhxdkq109xckq109xx]133|100|[/hv] Opponents are silent. 1♣-2♦*5♣-? Your partner duly alerts and explains that your 2D bid shows an invitational (only) hand in clubs. Inquiry is made by the opponents as to whether or not it can be invitational plus, or is it strictly invitational, and the answer given is strictly invitational. Your call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Pass. No second-guessing myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I would bid slam but I would never have shown an invitational hand so I guess it's pretty moot. I think slam must be percentage now though, partner is a big favorite to hold a diamond void and 2 (or 3) aces I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Was wondering if this would make an appearance at some point or another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why am I told what partner explained? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why am I told what partner explained? :) Because its face to face and you heard it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why am I told what partner explained? :) Because its face to face and you heard it. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why am I told what partner explained? :D Because its face to face and you heard it. Standard operating procedure is post the hand without us knowing partner's alert (just tell us what we thought the agreement was when we bid.) Then ask us what we would do. Then divulge sneakily at a later point that we had UI and that our poll has suggested passing is/isn't a logical alternative. Anyway as you stated the problem (knowing I heard the alert) I pass. There are clearly a number of hands that won't make slam (at least I think it's clear, but who the heck knows what a 5♣ bid is opposite an unlimited limit raise + responder), so I don't see how pass can fail to be a logical alternative. Without the UI I suspect I would have bid 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Why am I told what partner explained? :D Because its face to face and you heard it. Standard operating procedure is post the hand without us knowing partner's alert (just tell us what we thought the agreement was when we bid.) Then ask us what we would do. Then divulge sneakily at a later point that we had UI and that our poll has suggested passing is/isn't a logical alternative. Anyway as you stated the problem (knowing I heard the alert) I pass. There are clearly a number of hands that won't make slam (at least I think it's clear, but who the heck knows what a 5♣ bid is opposite an unlimited limit raise + responder), so I don't see how pass can fail to be a logical alternative. Without the UI I suspect I would have bid 6. The problem is.... this was our opponents bidding. I have no clue what the 2D bidder thought it meant, only what the explanation was. And the 2D bidder heard the explanation. If I didn't post the explanation, I would get berated for not explaining what 2D was...... (It gets better than this, btw). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 They didn't have a convention card? Anyway I know what you are saying. One of my worst experiences with an opponent at the table was along the same lines. My partner opened 1♥ in first seat, 1NT on my right, 3♥ by me, 3NT on my left. My partner doubled and RHO redoubled. LHO alerted the redouble as showing doubt. LHO ran to 4♦ and rho bid 5♦. My partner led something and dummy was exactly AJx Kx KJT9x AQT. Now what I thought might have happened was RHO had redoubled simply to play, but when his partner ran he 'compensated' and bid one more since his partner's alert showed that he now had lots of extra strength. So I called the director and told him that and the opponents were LIVID. How could I accuse them of such a thing, of course he has doubt because he has a single heart stopper, etc etc. It ended up not mattering since 5♦ went down but all I can say is if, as they claimed to me, all minimums and any maximums with a single stopper redouble on this auction, I simply don't believe them even to this day. I mean seriously, does anyone else redouble on this auction 80% or 90% of the time?? At best "doubt" is not really an adequate explanation for such a thing IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Obviously if I meant 2D as inv+ and I had UI I would pass now btw. That wasn't specified though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Assume that both know and vigorously agree that 2♦ is exactly invitational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Assume that both know and vigorously agree that 2♦ is exactly invitational. Sorry for another story, but there was an appeal almost exactly like that in an old NABC casebook where the opponents insisted there was no misunderstanding of any kind, but their hand suggested otherwise. 1♦ p 3♦ p 5♦ p 6♦, 3♦ alerted and explained as weak. The player had like a 2155 9 count. He claimed (and I believe him) it was weak because their range for that is 0-9, but if his partner could make game opposite 0 he could make slam opposite 9. I know he ended up winning, but I don't know if the committee upheld a ruling in his favor or reversed a ruling against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Before this gets any worse, I will just state: I was simply trying to find out if pass was a logical alternative. There was a break in tempo before the 1C opening (this was the last board of a 7 board match, so we had a reasonable feeling for the opponents normal rhythm of bidding). The gentleman thought for about 1 minute before opening. There was a break in tempo before the 2D bid, about 30 seconds. There was a break in tempo of about 1 1/2 minutes before the 5C bid, while the guy stared at his cards, consulted the ceiling, stared at his cards, checked to see if the answer had appeared on the ceiling yet, and finally bids 5C. Then the guy with this hand bid 6C in about 10 seconds, and then neither of them understood why we called the director. The director said, play the hand, call me back if we felt there was a problem. After all the BIT's and then dummy hits with this aceless wonder, we called the director back. They argued back and forth, the director went away and consulted some other directors, and eventually returned stating that pass was a logical alternative and rolled it back to 5C+1. They still wanted to appeal....but eventually changed their minds. To make matters worse, the man held: [hv=s=sakxhaqxdxxcajxxx]133|100|[/hv] and it had become clear and obvious through all of his theatrics that he held some sort of really good hand (imo). He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner. When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you". I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty. Is it any wonder that I no longer play f2f? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Of course with ALL that UI, you've got to pass 5♣. Since that's obviously a logical alternative. Btw, unless the pair in question were true beginners, I'd apply a procedural penalty, in addition to rolling back to 5♣+1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I think I would have passed even without the UI, although as Josh says, who the heck knows what 5♣ is. As for the situation with UI I agree with Harald and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I don't know if passing 5♣ is really a LA, but we can't tell now. If I thought our agreement was limit or better, personally I would have gone to 6 (pard isn't interested in 3N; so one of my stiffs is facing garbage yada yada). If our agreement was exactly invitational, clearly I have misbid or forgot our agreements until pard woke me up, and bidding 6 ain't allowed. Frankly, I'd vote for flogging. What exactly was their agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 What exactly was their agreement? Both players swore up and down vehemently that 2D was "Strictly Invitational", and that it was not "invitational or better". While I don't know the players (maybe Tyler does and can verify), the director did explain to our team later that they did tend to be on the slow side normally. Unfortunately, they had not been so for the duration of the match prior to this hand, and that was all I (we) had to base it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Technically, the ZT regulation does not give the TD discretion - if there's a ZT violation, it's an automatic quarter board penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner. When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you". I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty. Well saying "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you" is really saying "I'm sorry, but you are an unethical liar". And while that may be what you feel, that is subject to ZT type behavior. Since you are talking about his behavior I think you could just say something along the lines of "While you may not have realized it, it was clear to us that you were acting in this manner" or something along those lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner. When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you". I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty. Well saying "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you" is really saying "I'm sorry, but you are an unethical liar". And while that may be what you feel, that is subject to ZT type behavior. Since you are talking about his behavior I think you could just say something along the lines of "While you may not have realized it, it was clear to us that you were acting in this manner" or something along those lines. Nonsense. I said what I meant. If I wanted to call the guy an unethical liar, that is exactly what I would have said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 What exactly is the UI supposed to be? If you are suggesting there was UI from the BIT before opening 1C showing a good hand, well maybe but when they bid 5C they also are showing a good hand anyways and it's not clear to me what a BIT before opening 1C shows (maybe 55 blacks, maybe a marginal opener, maybe a hand that is upgrading from 1N, maybe... etc). Not much there. If you are suggesting there was UI from teh BIT before bidding 5C I disagree, that doesn't really show anything in particular. Maybe they are thinking of trying for 3N, maybe they're thinking about whether to jump to game or just try for game, maybe they're thinking of trying for slam etc... If you are suggesting there is UI from the explanation of 2D=invitational and not inv+ then that is only true if 2D was actually inv+. If the opps can show that their agreement is inv then there was no UI, responder just made a dumb bid (I had only 10 points!). If the opps cannot show that their agreement was inv then you just have to judge it, but depending on the level of the players I don't think treating this hand as inv is TOO outlandish (10 points LOL) to just say that it is impossible that someone did that so they must be lying and you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. So basically I'm not clear what UI there was that people think the player took advantage of that suggested bidding 6C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 If I thought our agreement was limit or better, personally I would have gone to 6 (pard isn't interested in 3N; so one of my stiffs is facing garbage yada yada). If our agreement was exactly invitational, clearly I have misbid or forgot our agreements until pard woke me up, and bidding 6 ain't allowed. Frankly, I'd vote for flogging. Huh? This seems backwards. If your agreement is inv+ and partner said it is just inv then he might have a hand worth a slam try opposite an inv+ 2D bid but no slam interest opposite just an inv hand. This suggests bidding 6 since our hand is the "plus." On the other hand if our agreement is inv then I have no UI if I meant it as inv and am just gambling. I think you really cannot rule against someone if they say they meant it as inv and that is their agreement. The hand is 10 HCP and I could see a lot of bad players not thinking it's worth a GF (partner could have 3C and 12 points!) but then bidding slam. There are a lot of instances in bridge laws where the honor code applies and someone can lie and get away with it, but that's the nature of the game. You can't just say they are lying without a really conclusive example imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Doesn't this all depend on what our agreement actually is? If our agreement that 2♦ is GF or inv+ fit jump or something then I'm not barred from bidding 6♣. After the tank I think I'm barred. Pass is a LA, imo. Maybe I'm wrong about the rules. I never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Obviously if I meant 2D as inv+ and I had UI I would pass now btw. That wasn't specified though. You didn't read the whole post? Your partner duly alerts and explains that your 2D bid shows an invitational (only) hand in clubs. Inquiry is made by the opponents as to whether or not it can be invitational plus, or is it strictly invitational, and the answer given is strictly invitational. This was the basis for my answer. Obviously, the post wasn't intended to get responses into the evaluation of the hand, but what to do once a certain evaluation (forced by the post) has been made. My answer is the same still: if I make the judgement that my hand is limited, it doesn't become unlimited when my partner signs off. 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.