What is your call?

[jdonn]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

[Phil]

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.

I think we are (in part) saying the same thing:

 

Agreement: Inv+.....Conclusion---> Bid 6

 

Agreement: Inv.......Conclusion---> Pass (and the director should back slam to game, but see below)

 

If, in my own mind, called this hand an invitational hand (and thats what our agreement is, after all, hell, I only have 10 points), then I think I have to pass, but yeah I could get away with somehow saying this hand is worth an upgrade to 6 once pard bids 5. I think it sucks too, since pard's alerting clearly woke us up. Clearly this player is dumb like a fox.

 

You wonder what would have happened in this case with screens.

[Winstonm]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

 

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

 

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

 

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

[kfay]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

 

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

 

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

 

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

[orlam]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

 

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

 

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

 

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

[kfay]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

 

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

 

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

 

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

You're implying partner might say it was invitational when he knows it's actually something else?

 

Now you are getting in much more trouble.

[jdonn]

Winston I don't understand your point lol. Are you saying since we have shown an invitational hand, we aren't allowed to think slam is making since partner hasn't tried for slam opposite an invitational hand? That we can't think our hand is too good for our first bid, since that is the bid that was chosen? I'll keep my brain turned on thanks.

 

To put it another way, take your example auction of 1♠ 2♠ 4♠ 5♠ 6♠. You might say this makes no sense for responder to bid over 4♠ because opener has already rejected searching for slam. True. But what if you were given the problem as responder of what to do over 4♠ with Axxxxx - Kxx xxxx? Would you pass because by golly you have bid 2♠ and partner said there is no slam opposite a 2♠ bid, or would you realize that whatever you bid before, the hand you actually hold can very very easily be good enough for slam (probably due to a misbid last round, but such is the problem as given), and thus bid something?

[JLOL]

I think we are (in part) saying the same thing:

 

Agreement: Inv+.....Conclusion---> Bid 6

 

Agreement: Inv.......Conclusion---> Pass (and the director should back slam to game, but see below)

Uhh no I have said the OPPOSITE twice.

[Winstonm]

Winston it doesn't say anywhere that we intended 2♦ as invitational+. All of us but Justin are simply assuming it.

Josh,

 

Let us not get circular, OK? I never said anyone claimed 2D was invitaional +.

 

I am simply pointing out the post was extremely clear - excessively clear - that the 2D bid was exactly invitaional and no more.

 

To illustrate, I would compare what the poster meant as similar to this auction: 1S-2S-4S-5S-6S.

False. Partner believes 2♦ is invitational.

False. Partner explains that 2♦ is invitational.

You're implying partner might say it was invitational when he knows it's actually something else?

 

Now you are getting in much more trouble.

I am fairly confident that I can read and comprehend English. The original post states:

 

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.

 

There is no doubt - none, zero, nada - about the explained meaning of 2D. The answer is STRICTLY invitational.

 

How am I getting myself in trouble by saying that poster asked us to consider this an invitational only hand?

[Winstonm]

Are you saying since we have shown an invitational hand, we aren't allowed to think slam is making since partner hasn't tried for slam opposite an invitational hand?

 

Ta Da! We have a winner (Or close enough). Exactly what I am saying is that once we have elected to make a bid that is self-limiting, we turn captaincy over to partner and do not have the right to reclaim captaincy after partner makes what he thinks is a sign-off bid. (We can of course speculate that slam might be on but that is different than acting upon that speculation. If we think slam could be on in this sequence we have misbid our hand or partner has misbid his hand.)

 

Josh,

 

Your above points are excellent but make sure to read the part in parenthesis where I answer. My belief is that if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time.

 

At this point guessing about a possible correction of either bid is losing bridge IMO.

 

What prevents partner from holding KQx, AQJ, x, AJxxxx or KQx, AQJ, xx, AJxxx?

[jdonn]

Josh,

 

Your above points are excellent but make sure to read the part in parenthesis where I answer.  My belief is that if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time.

 

At this point guessing about a possible correction of either bid is losing bridge IMO.

I am particularly focused on "if we are concerned that slam has been missed, either partner or ourselves misbid our hand the last time." I agree, we misbid our hand last time. To me that is a terrible reason to fail to correct our misbid if we get the chance.

 

If you take a wrong turn and you are headed toward a cliff, do you simply drive off the edge because turning back the way you came would be inconsistent with your previous turn? Or do you accept that you made a terrible decision earlier and do something about it when given the chance?

 

Btw, given that we hold a hand that shouldn't be possible to hold on this auction, passing 5♣ is as much of a guess as bidding 6♣ would be. So you make the guess with the best chance of being right. If you believe that is pass we can mildly disagree on bridge judgment. But if you believe that is 6♣ and you pass anyway then tomorrow we can share a cab on the way to your psychiatrist and my rubber bridge game. :P

 

Edit on seeing addendum to prior post: What is the point of using example hands? (btw he can't have the second one.) The forumula to bid 6♣ isn't p(make 6♣) = 100%. It's E(imps from 6♣) > E(imps from 5♣) + ε (I tossed in epsilon to represent aversion to variance.)

[MickyB]

I don't think there's any UI from the explanation here. What hand could possibly want to play in 5♣ opposite an invite but not have interest in slam opposite a stronger hand? Hell, it's hard enough to find a hand that would bid this way a hand known to be precisely invitational. My only worry is that opener conveyed info to responder with his body language, and that's very hard to prove (or disprove).

[Winstonm]

Btw, given that we hold a hand that shouldn't be possible to hold on this auction, passing 5♣ is as much of a guess as bidding 6♣ would be.

 

Josh,

 

I agree we hold a hand that should not bid an invitational only 2D.

 

The question asked, though, was not what to do when you misbid The question - the way it was framed - was what do you do with this hand after you have deemed it worthy of only an invitational bid.

 

My response to this question is still consistent. If for some reason I decided this hand was only worth an inviation, I would pass the 5C bid for the reasons I have given - the critical one being I forfeited captaincy by making a limit bid.

 

I would be much different if after bidding 2D I discovered I had the club Q hidden behind the K. But according to the post, everyone was aware of his/her hand at the time of the auction. :P

[jdonn]

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

[Winstonm]

What hand could possibly want to play in 5♣ opposite an invite but not have interest in slam opposite a stronger hand? Hell, it's hard enough to find a hand that would bid this way a hand known to be precisely invitational

 

See, this is where I think it gets weird. The way I read the post is that regardless of what we believe about the strength of the hand, the bidder in question judged it to be Exactly invitational. It is not a post about how to correct a misbid after partner shows up with a good hand.

 

I do not think there would be nearly such agreement if the auction had been 1M-3M(Limit raise)-4M-5M-6M. Most I am certain would claim UI in that auction. The fact that although an artificial bid was made, the acution was the equivalent of 1C-3C (limit raise)-5C-6C. How is this so different than the major?

 

Basically, it looks as though this thread has evolved - from what constitutes UI to how to evaluate this hand to how do you correct a bidding/evaluation error at the 5 level in one bid. :P

[Winstonm]

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

Seriously, it would be a guess. Personally, I would pass because I take the partnership unity more seriously than the result of any one hand.

 

Passing captaincy and then taking it back would seriously tilt many of the players I have partnered - it would not be worth the extra bad boards after this one.

[orlam]

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

Unless I am a bridge pro, I would get up, leave the game, and find a better job where I can put my new brain to use.

[jtfanclub]

I don't understand the overall logic here. Does this mean the auction

 

1♠ 1NT

2♥ 4♥

 

is impossible, since 1NT said 'I don't have enough to force game' and 2♥ didn't show any extras?

 

On the specific hand, since it has 6(!) clubs, you knew you had a fit the first time. But I don't think it's uncommon that an invitational hand becomes GF when we find a fit. Even on this hand, with one more diamond and one less club I'd have some sympathy for 2♦ and then 6♣, especially if partner dealt.

[orlam]

I don't understand the overall logic here. Does this mean the auction

 

1♠ 1NT

2♥ 4♥

 

is impossible, since 1NT said 'I don't have enough to force game' and 2♥ didn't show any extras?

 

On the specific hand, since it has 6(!) clubs, you knew you had a fit the first time. But I don't think it's uncommon that an invitational hand becomes GF when we find a fit. Even on this hand, with one more diamond and one less club I'd have some sympathy for 2♦ and then 6♣, especially if partner dealt.

Did you notice that 2♦ already promised a fit?

[Hanoi5]

I think TC has made a great job of presenting us with this problem the way he did.

 

No matter what 2♦ means (invitational or invitational +) we have two possibilities in general: Pass or getting to a slam. Our agreement is not the problem! The problem is how we judge the hand, and probably that's why there's so much fighting about it.

 

That has been settled, then the tank before bidding 5♣ is what should lead us to pass (a Logical Alternative), and that's exactly what the Director ruled 5♣ +1.

 

On other point, I do think TC was a bit rude when he said "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you". He's not only implying that the opponent is unethical but also calling him a liar. And I do not know what Zero Tolerance means but, I'm sure calling people liars is very bad.

[blackshoe]

ZT means that if you call someone a liar, you will be taken out in back of the building and shot. :lol:

 

In other walks of life, "zero tolerance" policies have led to all sorts of ridiculous extremes - like the five year old who was suspended (or expelled, I forget which) from school because he drew a picture of a weapon. In bridge that doesn't seem to happen, because (or so it seems to me) the ZT regulation is more often than not ignored by TDs, particularly at club level.

[JanM]

ZT means that if you call someone a liar, you will be taken out in back of the building and shot. :P

I'm reading a book at the moment (Elizabeth Moon - VICTORY CONDITIONS) where the laws of a society make courtesy mandatory, and under those laws it's okay to lie to someone but VERY BAD to call someone a liar. One character, wanting an excuse to prevent his daughter from socializing with a young man, deliberately lied to the boy's guardian so that she would call him a liar and he would have an excuse to cut off relations with the family. And now I read this thread and we're talking about the same sort of thing.

[blackshoe]

Moon is good. I haven't read that one. I'll have to look it up.

[mycroft]

I hate ZT - in general, not just as it applies to the bridge table. I understand that there are stupid people who can't make reasonable judgements, but that's no excuse for building a judgement-free policy that is, by definition, more unreasonable and on occasion, actively ridiculous. And while that "will never happen", it does. And it does because people get pressured to make ZT *Z*T.

 

What happens in practise is that either people don't follow the policy (in which case they're back to making the judgements the promulgators were scared of, and it encourages violation of other, more valid policies), or they do follow the policy, right down to ridiculousness (which is a PR nightmare when it comes out).

 

In anecdotal situations ("bad behaviour", "sexist or racist remarks", and the like) as opposed to evidential situations ("no knives") you have the additional issue that people lie to trigger "bully by proxy". Yes, I have years of experience with that (even before ZT), and somehow I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

VLT is useful and appropriate, but requires intelligence to apply. And a certain cynisicm and a fair bit of training in the part of the administrators. And we will make mistakes, as we do with any of our judgement calls. I still remember (and you can search for the story on this site, I've told it before) the very loud, very NSF(Whatever) comment from the very drunk table that ended with "And another thing I like about directors is that they have selective hearing." Even though it was a blatant violation of ZT, I didn't think it was either impolite (nobody it was aimed at had a problem with the statement) or improper (nobody who could hear it took offense either). Wrong? Certainly. Worth penalizing? I'm guessing the very public embarrassment was punishment enough. But I could have been wrong. I'm sure that using that obvious case as a public example would also have been effective and a correct way of doing things.

[bid_em_up]

Oh geez, now I have to spell it out:

 

Me, politely to director and RHO:

 

"The gentleman took an excessive amount of time, both before 1C and before 5C. Now I don't know what he was considering but it was likely either 1) a systemic strong opening (before 1C) or some sort of cuebid or game try (before 5C)"

 

RHO, quite snippishly:

 

"I was considering nothing of the sort".

 

ME:

 

"Given your hand and the hesitations, I'm sorry, but I find that difficult to believe".

 

I wasn't even "rude" about it. It was a statement of fact. Period. And just because I don't believe him, does not mean that I am calling him a liar. He may well be telling the truth from his perspective, but that does not mean I have to agree with him or believe what he says.

 

If this violates any sort of ZT policy, then it isn't worth playing in f2f tournaments anymore. Kapiche?