UI from opponents enquiring

[mr1303]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saj109xxh10xxdxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

2D (X) 2NT (P)

3D (P) 3S (P)

4S All pass

 

This hand opens a multi 2D (weak 2 either major or 20-22 balanced). Opponents ask at every opportunity.

 

2NT is a strongish enquiry, 3D showed a maximum, but partner explained it as showing a minimum hand with spades, 3S was a sign-off.

 

4S makes 10 tricks. Do you adjust?

[blackshoe]

I don't know. Was there damage?

[jdonn]

I'm a little confused. Is the question essentially whether the UI from partner's explanation is the fault of the opponents for asking a lot of unnecessary questions?

[hotShot]

This one will be tough.

Opener has UI that partner misunderstood the bidding, but he has AI that says about the same.

Opener is stronger than an average maximum weak 2. I've seen 1-level openings that where weaker.

I'm not sure that pass is a LA, I would not consider to pass.

[Vampyr]

Opener has UI that partner misunderstood the bidding, but he has AI that says about the same.

Really? What AI?

[mjj29]

Opener has UI that partner misunderstood the bidding, but he has AI that says about the same.

Really? What AI?

The explanation of 3D. AIUI, 2N could have been made with a hand that wanted to play in game opposite a good weak two in _hearts_, so 3S could legitimately be a signoff after 3D. Hence I'd expect pass to be a LA and I think bidding is suggested over passing

[hotShot]

...

2N could have been made with a hand that wanted to play in game opposite a good weak two in _hearts_,

...

I think that is about the meaning of the 2♠ response in multi.

[peachy]

After partner issues an invitation, this magnificent maximum (which sme might open on the one level) obviously is going to game. I am disturbed by the fact that opponents asked at every turn. I know they have the legal right to ask, but why did they ask? Just to be a nuisance? Anyway, for adjustment, there has to be damage and there has to be a LA that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. If a poll were conducted, my guess is that "nobody" passes so Pass should not be a LA, with or without UI.

[Codo]

I showed my hand and my partner decided to bid just 3♠. Why shall I overrule him?

 

Pass is an LA, so if 4 ♠ is making, I will turn it back to 3 ♠ +1 and find this descission not particular close.

[nigel_k]

Passing 3♠ ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard.

 

3♠ is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2♠ not 2NT.

[Codo]

Passing 3♠ ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard.

 

3♠ is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2♠ not 2NT.

So wait: partner asks you for whatever reason he had. You described your hand quite precisely. (As a maximum weak two in spades). You have no clue how his hand looks like- besides his 2 NT bid- and there is no alternative to overrule partner?

[Vampyr]

Passing 3♠ ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard.

 

3♠ is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2♠ not 2NT.

Why are so many people assuming that this is not a normalish maximum in this pair's methods?

 

As far as the 2♠ bid is concerned, this will elicit from partner only that he has hearts, not whether he is min or max. This information might, obviously, be relevant.

[gwnn]

I have sympathy for Nigel's point. After all, partner could have bid 2♠ if he had no game interest at all in spades.

 

However, Codo is right, and the two possible alternatives are:

• partner misunderstood 3D
  
• partner was messing with opps enquiring again with his 5 count
  

Option 2 is entirely possible and it is impractical to be proven otherwise.

[Vampyr]

Opener has UI that partner misunderstood the bidding, but he has AI that says about the same.

Really? What AI?

The explanation of 3D.

The explanation of 3♦ cannot be AI.

[helene_t]

How can 3♠ be a sign-off? Is 2NT a controlled psyche or something?

 

In normal methods, 2NT forces to game opposite any absolute maximum. It is possible that 3♠ is non-forcing because 3♦ has some range, but at least it must be invitational.

 

My guess would be that the explanation of 3♠ as a sign-off is inaccurate. Not sure if there is an LA to 4♠. Could a multi be any stronger for this pair?

[gwnn]

Not necessarily a psyche. It could be that he was interested in game in hearts and was willing to play 3♠ instead of 2♠ opposite spades just for the sake of generating some chaos.

[nigel_k]

So wait: partner asks you for whatever reason he had. You described your hand quite precisely. (As a maximum weak two in spades). You have no clue how his hand looks like- besides his 2 NT bid- and there is no alternative to overrule partner?

I don't think it is so simple. This is quite different from overruling partner's choice of game, which would obviously be wrong in this sort of situation.

 

Partner has taken a course of action that commits us to 3♠ even if I was minimum with spades. If he has a hand where 4♠ is poor opposite what I have, then we would go down in 3♠ a lot when I have a minimum. And partner could have avoided that by just bidding 2♠.

 

After 2♠ there may not be a way to find out if opener is minimum or maximum, but a hand that strongly prefers hearts to spades will expect that partner usually has spades so will prefer to sometimes get to the wrong level in hearts in order to avoid getting to the wrong level in spades. If you have eg x KQx AKxxx xxxx surely you don't bid 2NT. You just bid 2♠ expecting a pass and raise hearts if not.

 

So I think logic dictates that 3♠ is mildly invitational, though he will have better hearts than spades probably, something like xx AQx Axxx Kxxx. This has good play opposite my rock-crusher but not opposite a more ordinary maximum such as KQJxxx xx Kx xxx.

 

My hand, when evaluated correctly, is not a normalish maximum two bid in any style except Fantoni-Nunes and they don't play multi.

[Codo]

Nigel,

 

no need to discuss the merrits and pros of bidding 4 spade now. Without the UI there is a big chance that this is the winning call. But you cannot convince me that it is a must and that passing is no LA.

[Finch]

All the replies saying that this isn't a "normal" weak two, it's stronger than many one-bids etc, are missing the point. The player who held this hand clearly considered it to be within range for his multi, or else he would not have opened it 2D.

 

This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.

[greenender]

There is AI that the auction is a bit strange. Partner chose to bid 2NT rather than 3S, which would normally suggest that he would want to be in game opposite a maximum with either major. The TD should explore the actual agreements of the pair, not rely on what he (along with some posters!*) assumes to be the case.

 

If, as seems likely to be the case, this does not shed much light on what 3S opposite a maximum is supposed to mean, then the TD can allow the AI that the auction is a bit strange to affect his assessment of the logical alternatives (NB it doesn't cause him to conclude that there was no UI). I'm with Roland here, however: the possibility of 2N being intended as a tactical manoeuvre of some sort suggests that there is a strong enough possibility that if responder had explained 3D as a maximum but still bid 3S, then opener would have passed, so pass is a logical alternative.

 

I think those that argue otherwise are in some danger of trying to justify what they are sure is the winning call, in the face of the UI, rather than observing the dictates of Law 73C and making every effort to take no advantage.

 

*For example, in my experience the proposition that a 2S response to a Multi does not allow opener to differentiiate between min and max if he has hearts is by no means always correct.

[greenender]

This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.

Quite so, but...

 

I'm not sure that the TD is necessarily going to be able to find this out. Remember that in some parts of the UK the Multi is popular amongst ordinary club players, who don't necessarily think in those terms. IMO there is also likely to be some positive correlation between the sort of players who don't have such precise agreements and the sort of players who forget which of 3D and 3S is stronger.

 

However, if these are the sort of players involved, my instinct is that their philosophy is more likely to be along the lines of "responder is in charge after 2N" rather than having specific agreements as to what is forcing opposite what. This reinforces my inclination to adjust.

[barmar]

I'm with Codo on this. Once you're in receipt of UI, you're often constrained when there are some close calls. Unless this is a 100% 4♠ bid, you're stuck.

 

It's unfortunate that the opponents asked (possibly) unnecessary questions that put you in this situation. But it's not entirely their fault, partner forgetting the system is also to blame. If he'd remembered what 3♦ meant he'd have bid game and you wouldn't have to override his decision.

[phil_20686]

I'm with Roland here, however: the possibility of 2N being intended as a tactical manoeuvre of some sort suggests that there is a strong enough possibility that if responder had explained 3D as a maximum but still bid 3S, then opener would have passed, so pass is a logical alternative.

 

I think those that argue otherwise are in some danger of trying to justify what they are sure is the winning call, in the face of the UI, rather than observing the dictates of Law 73C and making every effort to take no advantage.

1) If west thought he had shown a maximum then some pairs would play 3s as a slam invitaion asking partner to show any control he may have below game. If this is the case obviously there is no adjustment.

 

2) If you think its a tactical manouver then you are surely ethically constrained to bid. Lets say that partner did have a random 6 count with 4-4 in the majors, maybe he was always planning to pllay in 3M if he can sign off - would you then rule this board from 3s-1 to 4s-2 say? on the grounds that bidding was a LA. We surely cannot have a system where he now gets punished whatever he does.

 

3)Even if this isnt forcing, its at least mildly invitational from teh logic of the auction. I have a maximum in an invitational auction i dont think pass is a LA in this sequence.

Partner cannot have a GF/invite in one suit and less than an invite in the other. So either he has invite in both suits, or GF in hearts and invite in spades. Other wise he would just bid his weak suit and raise 2s to 3s (would depend on exact agreements whawt happens when he has weak sapdeas and invitainal hearts but it surely starts with 2s if in any way normal). In short, I dont think there is any hand responder can have legitamately when partner is not at least invitational in spades.

[Vampyr]

2) If you think its a tactical manouver then you are surely ethically constrained to bid. Lets say that partner did have a random 6 count with 4-4 in the majors, maybe he was always planning to pllay in 3M if he can sign off - would you then rule this board from 3s-1 to 4s-2 say? on the grounds that bidding was a LA. We surely cannot have a system where he now gets punished whatever he does.

This really depends on whether 3M is truly a signoff, and we don't know whether it is.

[lamford]

This seems one for a poll, so we would need to know the approximate strength of West - we have a rough idea of the style - someone who doesn't call a spade a spade, and who opens a multi with two aces.

 

Given that partner showed game interest opposite a maximum with hearts, our 10xx in that suit is pulling its weight, and bidding game looks automatic. I polled three people on OKB and all bid 4S. Given that I would not open a multi with 6-4 in the majors, I would bid 4H, which must be this hand type, but it is not clear that this would not show four hearts for the free-wheeling West.

 

And as Frances says, we do need to find out their system.