Thank you, "Partner"

[mr1303]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=skxhqxxdqxxxxcaqx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

You are South. Partner opens 2NT in 2nd seat which systematically shows a normal pre-empt in clubs.

 

You decide that for better or for worse, you are happy to bid 3C, which is systematically a sign-off. Partner however hasn't finished yet and decides to bid 3NT.

 

What do you bid here?

[TylerE]

What is the systemic opening with a strong balanced hand, and what are the applicable ranges?

[mr1303]

With 20-22 Balanced we open 2D Multi. 2C - 2 Bananas- 2NT is 23-24

[helene_t]

Let's take revenge with an undiscussed 5NT bid.

[TylerE]

Ok, then my guess is that partner has a hand stronger than that..eg, 25, so I'm gonna bid 7NT. It's about the only logical meaning I can attach to this auction, and anything less feels like fielding a standard 2N opener...

[TimG]

Is there a systemic meaning to 2N-3♣-3♦ or 2N-3♣-3M? If not, would it be legal for responder to guess opener forgot the agreement and opened a strong 2NT?

 

I'm not convinced that opener has the strong (20-21ish) 2NT because with that he would have made his normal response to Stayman.

[McBruce]

What makes fielding an "I forgot" 20-21 2NT opener illegal?

[shyams]

Would it not be relevant to know what happened preceding the 3NT bid?

a. Did you alert partner's 2NT bid? I suppose you were not playing with screens

b. Did opps ask the meaning after the alert?

 

In my opinion (with limited knowledge)

If partner saw your alert and then changed his response to show genuine 2NT (i.e. 20-21 bal) hand, I think your side is already in trouble. I think partner needs to assume 3♣ to be Stayman!

If you are playing online (self-alerting) or behind screens, I think you are permitted to re-evaluate partner's 3NT to mean 2NT was natural and partner forgot. Now a 6NT bid would be acceptable

 

The folks knowledgeable in law matters can correct my opinion (which I suspect is incorrect or incomplete)

[jdonn]

In the laws forum huh?

 

Anyway it's obvious partner forgot, what else can it mean? So I bid 6NT.

[mink]

Ok, then my guess is that partner has a hand stronger than that..eg, 25, so I'm gonna bid 7NT. It's about the only logical meaning I can attach to this auction, and anything less feels like fielding a standard 2N opener...

If partner had really 25, then there are only 2 points left for both opps. This is too unlikely for me so I rather assume he has 20 and bid 6nt, provided that I have received no UI so far.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

If partner opens 2NT, and you alert and explain it as a minor preempt, and then bid 3♣, so far there is no problem. However, your alert and explanation is UI to partner, who must not take advantage of it. IOW, he must assume the 3♣ is whatever it would mean over a strong natural 2NT opening. 3NT then has whatever systemic meaning it has in that case — for example, perhaps it shows 4-4 in the majors. If that's what he's done, then you know two things - partner has not taken advantage of UI, and you don't have any UI. Okay, three things - he has a balanced 21 count (give or take) with 4-4 in the majors. 21+13=34. Bid 6NT.

 

If you would not have a systemic meaning for 3NT, then your partner has taken advantage of UI (presumably he should have bid 3♦ or 3♥ systemically) and the TD will adjust the score if the opponents are damaged - but that's not your fault. However, if the scenario is as above, and you pass 3NT, your partner will (correctly) shoot you. :)

 

The bottom line is that you are allowed to figure out here that partner has misbid, and roughly what he has — unless he's made a habit of forgetting this before. If that's the case, then you have knowledge from partnership experience that must be disclosed to opponents — but you still don't have UI.

 

The answer to McBruce's question is that this isn't fielding (in the sense of illegally]/b] accounting for partner's misbid) unless you fail to disclose any relevant partnership experience.

[bluejak]

Unauthorised panic, huh? :)

 

If he does not have a 3NT response to whatever 3♣ he is playing over a strong 2NT then I am going to get cross. :)

[barmar]

3NT is a valid response to 3♣ if you play Puppet Stayman. Since you don't actually have the agreement that 2NT is a 20-21 NT hand, you obviously haven't discussed whether you're playing regular or Puppet Stayman over it. So is opener allowed to decide in the fly what flavor of Stayman 3♣ represents? This month's Bridge World has an article with a bunch of variants forms of Puppet Stayman, he could probably find some version where the type of hand he held requires a 3NT rebid, and claim he assumed they would play that version if they were playing strong 2NT.

[pran]

3NT is a valid response to 3♣ if you play Puppet Stayman.  Since you don't actually have the agreement that 2NT is a 20-21 NT hand, you obviously haven't discussed whether you're playing regular or Puppet Stayman over it.  So is opener allowed to decide in the fly what flavor of Stayman 3♣ represents?  This month's Bridge World has an article with a bunch of variants forms of Puppet Stayman, he could probably find some version where the type of hand he held requires a 3NT rebid, and claim he assumed they would play that version if they were playing strong 2NT.

With multi the uncontested auction 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♣ is typically identical to the auction 2NT - 3♣ when 2NT shows 20-21 balanced.

 

However, while 3NT is a relevant bid after 3♣ in the second case it is definitely not so in the first case (when using multi).

 

Therefore I would (as director) accept 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT to be evidence from the auction alone (i.e.authorized information) that opener had forgotten the agreement to use multi and having a 20-21 strong balanced hand.

 

(Opener will now have UI from alerts or missing alerts, but responder is not so much restricted)

[greenender]

With multi the uncontested auction 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♣ is typically identical to the auction 2NT - 3♣ when 2NT shows 20-21 balanced.

 

However, while 3NT is a relevant bid after 3♣ in the second case it is definitely not so in the first case (when using multi).

 

Therefore I would (as director) accept 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT to be evidence from the auction alone (i.e.authorized information) that opener had forgotten the agreement to use multi and having a 20-21 strong balanced hand.

Sorry, I don't get why 3NT is a possible response to a 3♣ enquiry after a natural 2NT opener, but not after the strong balanced version of a Multi.

 

Except for the players who distinguish distribution by the two sequences (2N shows 20-22 without a 5-card suit, after which 3♣ is Baron; a 2N rebid after a Multi shows the same range with a 5-card suit, after which 3♣ merely asks for the suit: surprisingly common around here) nearly everybody who uses different sequences to 2NT to show different ranges of strong balanced hand uses the same response structure thereafter (at least if responder has shown nothing in particular with a negative or relay response to a 2♣, 2♦ - or in my case a strong 1♣ - opening).

 

I am therefore with bluejak: if you have a comparable sequence ending in 2NT, to which a 3NT response has an agreed meaning, then you assume that partner has some range of strong balanced with the same hand-type as is shown by 3NT in the comparable sequence.

 

If a 3NT response in the comparable sequence has no agreed meaning, then partner is guilty of unauthorised panic, and bluejak is quite right to be cross with him.

 

In principle, absent UI, you are free to guess a level, as I doubt partner's forget demonstrably suggests any particular range over any other, but if partner's response to Stayman (or whatever you play in comparable sequences) would have got you into trouble, and you fall on your feet after his 3NT rebid, then your side is going to get adjusted against because of partner's actions, not yours, so it matters little what you do. I might well pass as the option best calculated to get partner not to do it (either the initial forget or the UP) again.

[pran]

A pair using multi usually shows either a weak (11-) or a strong (15+) hand, and at least 5 cards in each minor suit with the 2NT opening bid.

Responder bids either 3♣ or 3♦ as suit preference.

 

If the opener has a weak hand he now passes for play, with a strong hand he now makes a cue bid in his shortest major suit. 3NT in this position is meaningless.

 

Therefore the sequence 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT for a pair using multi implies that the opener has forgotten the system and probably has 20-21 balanced. (His correct opening bid should then have been 2♦ with a rebid of 2NT after partner's expected bid in 2♥ or 2♠)

[hotShot]

I'm missing some information.

 

1) Did you alert the 2NT bid?

If you did, opener would be very surprised to see an alert of his strong natural bid.

In this case we would have to debate an UI case.

 

2) Did your partner alert 3♣ ?

If your partner alerted your 3♣ bid, at least you don't have an UI problem (yet).

If your partner did not alert your 3♣ bid or explained it any other way than "executed transfer", you have the UI that partner is on he wrong track.

[gnasher]

Even if partner has done something improper, we're not likely to suffer an adjusted score. If he had bid 3♦, 3♥ or 3♠ in reply to my 3♣ I'd have had a 6NT bid. The worst that can happen to us is a procedural penalty.

[gnasher]

A pair using multi usually shows either a weak (11-) or a strong (15+) hand, and at least 5 cards in each minor suit with the 2NT opening bid.

"Usually" is a big word. I don't know anyone who plays that.

[mr1303]

Sadly (and fairly predictably) partner did have a 20-22 2NT opening. I alerted and bid 3C, after which LHO enquired and I answered. Partner (bless her) announced to the whole table that she had made a mistake and bid 3NT. We don't have an agreement that this is Stayman since in the analogous sequence 2D 2H 2NT responder has denied a 4 card heart suit (else 2S or higher). We would show a feature that responder would be interested in, with 3H showing a 5 card suit. We therefore bid 3NT fairly frequently.

 

Anyway, I tried a what's going on 4NT which got raised to 6NT. I also called the director on myself to give a ruling.

 

6NT made exactly (and was laydown)

 

How do you rule? Sadly I do not have partner's hand.

[blackshoe]

If it's not Stayman when opener shows the bid balanced hand, what is it?

[jdonn]

I think 6NT is the only LA since it's obvious (from the 3NT bid, not from the comment!) that partner has a 2NT opening bid. I do believe the comment demonstrably suggests 6NT, but there are no other LAs anyway IMO.

 

So since I believe the comment didn't suggest 4NT (over 6NT anyway), and that your chosen bid wasn't logical, and that the opponents weren't damaged, no adjustment.

[hotShot]

So your alert and opponents question made your partner notice the misbid.

 

This creates the problem that this information is UI.

 

But (without any evidence from the actual hand) I don't think there is an alternative to 3NT.

 

Now thanks to her remark the information that she is stronger is UI to you, but fortunately after her 3NT bid that information is legally available too.

 

So I guess, I would let the score stand.

[gordontd]

We don't have an agreement that this is Stayman since in the analogous sequence 2D 2H 2NT responder has denied a 4 card heart suit (else 2S or higher).

What about in the analogous sequence 2C-2D-2NT?

[mrdct]

If I was EW, I would be focussing on North's actions for potential redress. NS must surely have some ascribed meaning for a 3♣ bid after 2♣:2♦:2NT or 2♦:2♥:2NT and if North has by-passed a normal response to 3♣ of 3♦, 3♥ or 3♠ I think NS might be in trouble.

 

Say, for example, North bids 3♦ over 3♣ South will now have to devine which misbid or engineering exercise North has perpetrated. The error could be that North thought 2NT was a preempt in either minor, or perhaps North is irrationally deciding to introduce a side suit. Now pass or 3NT become potential logical alternatives for South.

 

Given North's inappropriate verbal announcement to the table that she misbid, I am inclined to give EW a fair chuck of the benefit of the doubt and probably come down hard on NS if North happened to have a 4-card Major that she has failed to show with either 3♦ if they play puppet stayman in the comparable sequence or 3M if they play normal stayman. I think opposite a non-3NT response to 3♣ South must surely have 3NT as a logical alternative as it is quite plausible that either North has a ♦ pre-empt or a 7-4 that she's decided to upgrade.