Year End C #15 - Mixed/Open Pairs - UI/MI

[bluejak]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sj964ht6dak94caqj&w=skq3hkq53djt83c72&e=st75ha974dq652c64&s=sa82hj82d7ckt9853]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 W   N   E   S

             P  P

1♦ 1NT  P 2♠

 P  3♣   P 3NT

 P   P    P

 

Result: 3NT/N =, NS +400

 

1NT showed 15 to 17, balanced with a diamond stop. 2♠ was alerted and showed clubs. 3♣ was agreed as very slow and alerted. South said he was not sure whether 3♣ showed a club fit or not, but thought it probably denied one.

 

When asked why he bid 3NT he said he always intended to go to game, and was merely offering a choice of games.

 

E/W wanted the TD to look at this since South had UI from the hesitation and North had UI from the explanation. They also were curious how South intended to make his choice of games if he did not know what the responses meant.

[blackshoe]

Sounds like neither North nor South were sure what 3♣ meant. <_<

 

Was there UI? Certainly. North's UI, that South "has clubs", does not, it seems to me, demonstrably suggest anything, particularly if he doesn't know what 3♣ will mean. South's UI, that North isn't sure what to bid, demonstrably suggests to me that 3♣ is completely ambiguous - it either shows clubs or denies clubs, but there's no way to know which. So I don't think South's UI demonstrably suggests anything, either.

 

Result stands, tell NS to get their act together on the meaning of this sequence.

 

The "choice of games" thing is nonsense.

[Ant590]

North does not have UI about south holding clubs, the 2♠ bid was agreed to show this.

 

North has UI that south didn't know if 3♣ was a superaccept or not. This may influence his decision to pass 3NT rather than bid 5♣, but IMHO with his holding the UI suggest bidding 5♣, not 3NT.

 

South decides his hand is worth a GF opposite 15-18 balanced, and decided to show his 6-card club suit along the way. Seems ok to me.

 

 

Result stands.

[blackshoe]

I got the seats backwards. Doesn't change the ruling.

[Codo]

I really do not belive souths statement.

 

I would try to check their agreements in similar situations to back up my feeling that he tried to invite in clubs and later took a shoot at game as partner was not sure what to bid.

 

I have two reasons for this:

1. This hand looks more like an invitation opps. 15-17 then a game force.

2. They play mps and he really tries to find out whether 5 club or 3 NT is better despite the fact that they have no idea what any given bid over 2 Spade will show? Not convincing.

 

One possible scenario is that south saw North hesitating and thought that North was not sure whether he should show a good fit or not- maybe a hand like Qxxx, AQx,AQxx,QJ and that this is enough for game.

 

I know that there are many other possibilities- like south not knowing what the hesitation should show- but in doubt I would rule against the offenders.

[duschek]

South has a hand which, having the possibility to invite game, is absolutely perfect for that purpose. North's bid is a signoff in most methods. If South understands the bid and bids on anyway, you should definitely adjust to 3♣, pass being a clear logical alternative, and North's doubt clearly indicating extras.

 

From the comments so far it seems that in such a situation, all you have to say is "we are unsure about our basic rebids" to escape an adjusted score. I do not follow you :)

[jeremy69]

North's bid is a signoff in most methods.

 

If you play 2S for clubs and 2NT for diamonds it is both more common and better(IMO) to play 3c and 3D as the fit bid and 2NT and 3C as denying the fit. Apart from anything else when I next hold a weak 5-5 in the minors I can try to play in the better fit. I'm not sure this has any bearing on the ruling but just that I don't agree with suggesting that 3C is typically a sign off.

[lamford]

If South understands the bid and bids on anyway, you should definitely adjust to 3♣, pass being a clear logical alternative, and North's doubt clearly indicating extras

Then you are misunderstanding the Law. For you to adjust, you would have to decide that 3NT was demonstrably suggested over Pass. It is clear that both are logical alternatives, but it is just as likely that partner was unsure whether he should bid 2NT with a club fit or whether he should bid 3C with a club fit. Why on earth should the hesitation show extras? What was partner thinking of bidding? Something above 3C, maybe! I agree with Jeremy69 that bidding 3C is more likely to be a fit.

[bluejak]

I am not sure that it is much more likely to be a fit. I am in the process of changing from no fit to fit with my partners, and I think no fit was quite popular.

 

What worries me about this whole hand is South's comment on choice of games. First, his hand is totally unsuitable for a choice of games. Second, how is he expecting to choose? Perhaps you think partner will pull with the right hand? No, that does not work: if he has shown a fit and partner bids 3NT he will pass because he expects partner was not going to game without a fit: it is not a choice auction. And if he has no fit, he will always pass anyway. So the sequence cannot indicate a choice of games to someone who does not know what the responses mean.

 

The main reason I think South used UI is that he has told us so by his incredibly silly remark about choice of games. The evidence suggests he originally thought he knew which was fit, and was going to game opposite a fit. Then his partner hesitated and he realised that even if he did know which was fit, his partner did not, so he bid game anyway.

 

No, I do not like this scenario: but can anyone tell me an alternative one that fits the facts?

[duschek]

Then you are misunderstanding the Law. For you to adjust, you would have to decide that 3NT was demonstrably suggested over Pass.

I did, thinking that nearly everybody plays 3♣ as the negative bid, as is the case here. I am now told that this is not the case in your area.

[gnasher]

If you play 2S for clubs and 2NT for diamonds it is both more common and better(IMO) to play 3c and 3D as the fit bid and 2NT and 3C as denying the fit.

Strange. Jeremy and I live in the same city, play at the same club, and play in most of the same events, but in my experience it's more common to use the intermediate step to show the better hand.

 

As for which is better, it depends partly on your requirements for showing the better hand: you should aim to maximise the frequency of opener's playing the hand when responder is signing off. If you often show a fit, you should play it Jeremy's way; if you rarely show a fit you should play it the other way.

[jvage]

No, I do not like this scenario: but can anyone tell me an alternative one that fits the facts?

I have actually never used this method (2♠ as transfer to clubs) so I can't comment on what is the best or most popular responses. I am still pretty sure I would not have used the method on this hand, but I can think of 2 explanations for South's bidding.

 

1: The "Blackwood-syndrome" often seen with weaker players. They want to use their methods and see the wheels moving even if there is very little to gain. The player sees a gamegoing hand with six clubs and goes on to show it. This may have been what he meant by "choice of game". A weak player may not have considered what strength (if any) he shows and that partner would not have enough information to make an educated decision. In this scenario he doesn't care much if partner shows a fit or not, he thinks he has left the decision to partner.

 

2: He either believed he knew how they played this sequence or did not consider it, but the UI from the hesitation told him that partner was not sure. I still don't think I would adjust, since it is unclear that the hesitation shows anything substantial (a fit/maximum). In this scenario the decision is however much closer, since pass is probably a Logical Alternative. His statement of "choice of games" may still show a lack of bidding judgement, but if we believe him it does indicate that he would always move to game.

 

John

[campboy]

I don't see why it is relevant in this particular case whether 3♣=fit or 2NT=fit is more prevalent in the wider community. What matters is what this South thought 3♣ was likely to mean, and he has told us that.

[hotShot]

How do you define fit?

 

South has 6 cards in ♣ and North promised a balanced hand, usually holding at least 2 cards in a suit. So South "knows" about an 8 card fit in ♣.

 

I can't think of convincing upsides to the 3NT bids (so I don't think it's a good choice), but it's not mentioned that South is a good player, so he probably is not.

 

North has a 5/7 (Edit: was 3/7) chance to have a ♣ honor, leading to a chance to develop the ♣ suite as source of tricks. The ♠ A could be an entry.

I don't advertise this as good bridge, but it's not difficult to imagine a hand that fits North bidding, where 3NT is a playable contract.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sqj96hkqxdkqjxcqx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

South has 8HCP + some shape, opposite a hand with 15-17. Going for game is aggressive but not unseen. If I don't have reason to think that South statement is not fitting his level of expertise, I don't see a reason not to believe his intentions.

Edited January 8, 2010 by hotShot

[Ant590]

North has a 3/7 chance to have a ♣ honor

Really? Doesn't knowledge that he has (1) at least two clubs, (2), 15-17HCP and (3) the possibility that he could have more than one honor, each increase this chance significantly?

[hotShot]

You're right, it may be bigger.

My focus was on the "fit" discussion, that I find misleading.

[Finch]

If you play 2S for clubs and 2NT for diamonds it is both more common and better(IMO) to play 3c and 3D  as the fit bid and 2NT and 3C  as denying the fit.

Strange. Jeremy and I live in the same city, play at the same club, and play in most of the same events, but in my experience it's more common to use the intermediate step to show the better hand.

Strange. I play quite often with many of the same people that gnasher does, and as far as I know they all use 3C/3D to show the fit.

 

As far as I can remember, I see both played against me with about equal frequency. Anwyay, what this conversation tells us is that it's hardly surprising if North or South couldn't remember what they had agreed, or had not discussed it.

[vigfus]

When asked why he bid 3NT he said he always intended to go to game, and was merely offering a choice of games.

Table score stands.

South says that he is not sure what the 3♣ bid means. I believe that.

I can not see what kind of UI south is getting from his partner's slow bid.

Now we come to the last part. South was asked why he bid 3NT ? I believe him very well when he says he is always going for game contract. The later explaination makes little sense, and I ignore that part.

South gambled for 3NT. That is OK.

[helene_t]

2♠ followed by 3NT over overcaller's negative is obviously choice of game and/or a mild slam invite. However it is not clear to me on what basis overcaller is supposed to make his decision. Maybe he needs a double diamond guard to pass 3NT? Or does he need guards in both majors? If South wasn't sure what 3♣ means he probably didn't know on what basis North should decide either. Anyway, it is hard to see what UI South has. Maybe that North wasn't sure what 3♣ means either? Given that South thought that 3♣ denied a fit it is possible that South abused the UI that the 3♣ was likely to be borderline because of the BIT. But South cannot assume with much certainty that that was what the BIT meant. Besides, It would be almost absurd not to force to game with South's hand so I see no reason not to believe his explanation.

 

Result stands is quite clear, but it falls short of an AWM.

[bluejak]

2♠ followed by 3NT over overcaller's negative is obviously choice of game and/or a mild slam invite.

That may be true, unless, as someone suggested, it is just "seeing the wheels go round". Over the years, I have known the natural sequence 1NT - 3♣ - 3NT so many times: amongst poorer players opener always rebids 3NT whatever his fit or stoppers, and responder often has a hand where showing the clubs is totally unnecessary.

 

But what of 3NT if the 3♣ bid shows a fit? Now there is no choice, surely, since responder might have been going to play 3♣ without a fit. So the sequence 2♠ then 3NT is useless as choice of games unless responder will bid something else not 3NT over a fit - and in this case he cannot because he does not know what bid shows a fit.

 

:ph34r:

 

The TD felt that responder's actions suggested he would have stayed out of game without a fit, since they made no sense otherwise, and the UI told him that opener might or might not have a fit. So he adjusted to 3♣ +1.

[greenender]

If you play 2S for clubs and 2NT for diamonds it is both more common and better(IMO) to play 3c and 3D  as the fit bid and 2NT and 3C  as denying the fit.

Strange. Jeremy and I live in the same city, play at the same club, and play in most of the same events, but in my experience it's more common to use the intermediate step to show the better hand.

 

As for which is better, it depends partly on your requirements for showing the better hand: you should aim to maximise the frequency of opener's playing the hand when responder is signing off. If you often show a fit, you should play it Jeremy's way; if you rarely show a fit you should play it the other way.

Probably correct in theory, but in practice only the better players (amongst which I include all of Andy, David and Jeremy) are likely to choose for technical merit. Of the club players in England who play full transfers, the vast majority (IMO) play that completion of the transfer denies a fit, just to avoid memory strain - other transfer breaks show something extra in terms of the anchor suit, so they play the intermediate bid over the transfer to a minor to show the better fit. The fact that the logic is different because the transfer "break" is below the cheapest level of the anchor suit doesn't come into it.