UI - England

[gnasher]

[hv=d=a&v=s&s=skj9hj109xxdaqxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs

1♥ pass 1♠ dbl

1NT(1) pass 2♦(2) pass

3♦ pass 3♠ pass[/hv]

(1) 1NT = 3-card support, forcing. Not alerted.

(2) 2♦ = not discussed.

 

NS system: 5-card majors, 15-17. With 4 spades and 5 diamonds, responder would bid 1♠ unless he had a game-force. Facing a natural 1NT rebid, 2♦ would have been an artificial game-force.

 

South bid 4♠, reasoning that:

- This is equivalent to a support double sequence.

- In such sequences, "everybody" plays a bid like 2♦ as a signoff with only four spades. If that's what North has, 3♠ is impossible, so South knows that a misunderstanding has occurred.

- If North had an invitational hand with five spades and four diamonds, he would never risk an undiscussed 2♦ when he could bid an invitational 3♠.

- If North has an invitational 4-5, 3♠ says that he now wants to bid game, and suggests playing game in the 4-3 fit. This hand is well-suited to that.

- There are two similar sequences (see below) which suggest that the partnership would not bid 2♦ with five spades.

 

Would you allow the 4♠ bid?

 

Two potentially relevant auctions where NS did have agreements:

 

(a) Uncontested 1♣ - 1♥ (transfer); 1♠ (3-card support):

- 2♣ = artificial, invitational, only 4 spades

- 2♦ = artificial, game-force

- 3new = natural game-try with five spades

- 3♠ = invitational with five spades

 

(b) Uncontested 1♦ (5 cards) - 1♠; 1NT (3-card support, F1):

- 2♣ = artificial, invitational+, only 4 spades

- 2♦ = signoff

- 3new = natural game-try with five spades

- 3♠ = invitational with five spades

[karlson]

South's points seem reasonable to me, so I think it should be allowed.

 

Edit after a second look: those are all about the 4♠ bid, which I still agree with. But are we so sure that 3♦ should be allowed? It seems fairly normal to play 2♦ as NF here to me (and south mentioned this as well), and while you might argue south has a pretty normal 3♦ bid, not passing 2♦ is certainly suggested by the UI.

[Vampyr]

North/South play a bonkers system (does bridge really need to be that difficult?) and it seems bizarre that if they have agreed on a bonkers meaning for 1NT they have not considered the fact that there might be continuations.

 

However, North has bid 2♦, which, whatever it means, is forcing, and then bid 3♠. This sounds forcing to me, so I will allow the 4♠ bid and then take up a collection to send NS to Beginning Acol lessons at the ARBC.

[wank]

yes the lack of alert of 1NT suggests p is treating it an natural and that 2D may perforce artificial GF, in which case the UI suggests not passing 2D and not passing 3S.

 

however, i wouldn't consider passing 2D to be reasonable (i.e. a LA) with a double fit even if NF - one would expect the opps to have a club part score available.

 

once an unexpected 3S call subsequently appears it's perfectly reasonable to reasses and work out that partner may have misunderstood 1NT or that partner is indeed suggesting 4S.

 

opposite such a suggestion i think it's a clear 4S bid - 10 points in partner's supposed suits and only 1 point wasted in hearts which sounds like partner's short suit.

 

as such i'd say that opener has sufficient AI to render passing 3S not an LA too.

 

 

and as for north/south playing a bonkers system, that's obviously a bonkers comment, not least because there's a paucity of sensible alternate meanings for 1NT here - 18-19 bal hands can XX and weak NTs can pass.

[Vampyr]

and as for north/south playing a bonkers system, that's obviously a bonkers comment, not least because there's a paucity of sensible alternate meanings for 1NT here - 18-19 bal hands can XX and weak NTs can pass.

I wasn't actually suggesting that the 1NT bid was the most bonkers part of the system, but the fact that NS have not considered the fact that there might be a further auction after 1NT is certainly bizarre.

[jallerton]

The TD would also need to consider North's actions on this hand. I suspect that either:

 

(i) 2♦ was not alerted; or

 

(i) if 2♦ was alerted, it took a lot longer then normal for South to produce the alert card.

 

Is 3♦ a plausible response to Checkback in an uncontested auction? Did North have logical alternatives to bidding 3♠? I can think of North hands which might bid Checkback and then retreat to 3NT when partner makes a bid which implies lack of extra spade support.

[hotShot]

I won't allow 4♠, it seems to me that North took the 1NT call as natural and made a GF 2♦ bid. The UI suggests bidding game, any reasoning to allow bidding game has to be beyond doubt.

The reasoning from South is not convincing. It's base is that the 2♦ bid is undiscussed. Why should the continuations on the artificial 1NT be undiscussed? Especially since the 2 suggested auctions have agreed continuations.

The sequence seems frequent enough to assume it happened before.

[gnasher]

The sequence seems frequent enough to assume it happened before.

That seems an odd assumption. Anyway, if you ask North-South whether the sequence has occurred before, they will tell you that it hasn't.

[jdonn]

His reasoning for bidding 4♠ all seems good but why would 3♦ be allowed? The player even stated "everybody" plays the 2♦ bid as a signoff, and he has UI suggesting he not pass.

[dburn]

If 2♦ was a sign-off with four spades and longer diamonds, why did South raise it? Surely it could not be that South was taking a two-way action, designed to cater both for North having diamonds and North having a game force with spades?

[campboy]

I agree with the last two posters and would disallow the 3♦ bid.

[655321]

Maybe South did raise to 3♦ as a 2 way action, and maybe it is correct to disallow it, but FWIW I think it is clearly right to raise a 2♦ signoff with the South hand.

[campboy]

Why does 3♦ not show a much stronger hand than this? 1NT was forcing, so presumably unlimited.

[lamford]

I agree that it is the 3D which caters for the possible misunderstandings, and should be disallowed, under 73C again.

[Pict]

If passing 2♦ works out and I explain ... sign off etc. I am in the clear and on the moral high ground.

 

If I don't pass 2♦ I am not a cheat (may be a Bridge Aesthete), but I am a foolish and misguided person, in my pinion.

[jallerton]

The sequence seems frequent enough to assume it happened before.

That seems an odd assumption. Anyway, if you ask North-South whether the sequence has occurred before, they will tell you that it hasn't.

If I have guessed the identity of the North player correctly, South would find it hard to deny that North frequently forgets the system. A sequence which has never come up sounds like a prime candidate!

 

(1) 1NT = 3-card support, forcing. Not alerted.

 

Are you sure that N/S play this as forcing after the double? The pair I am thinking of certainly used to play this as non-forcing after a double (a sensible arrangement, as 1NT is limited by the failure to redouble).

 

Maybe South did raise to 3♦ as a 2 way action, and maybe it is correct to disallow it, but FWIW I think it is clearly right to raise a 2♦ signoff with the South hand.

 

I agree. Partner rates to have a few clubs, as the opponents have not competed in the suit, despite the take-out double. That barely leaves room for any hearts at all in partner's hand.

 

If partner has:

 

♠A10xx ♥ none ♦Kxxxxx ♣xxx,

 

game is excellent. In fact, with that shape, partner needs little more than ♠Q to give the contract some play.

 

So whilst I agree that pass may be a logical alternative (under the Law 16B1b definition) , jumping to 5♦ may also be. Which of these actions most carefully avoids taking advantage of the UI?

[gnasher]

Are you sure that N/S play this as forcing after the double?  The pair I am thinking of certainly used to play this as non-forcing after a double (a sensible arrangement, as 1NT is limited by the failure to redouble).

The North-South system file does, indeed, read "After 1H (pass) spades (dbl): as uncontested, except 1NT = 3-card support, NF"

 

However, South (me) believed that 1NT was forcing. Presumably South's peers are limited to players who believe that 1NT was forcing and therefore unlimited? Hence the question of what South would do with a good hand after 2♦ is still relevant.

 

So whilst I agree that pass may be a logical alternative (under the Law 16B1b definition),  jumping to 5♦ may also be.

Curiously, when our opponents asked for a ruling about this hand, the only person who mentioned the possibility of doing something other than 3♦ was me. Neither the opponents nor the director seemed at all interested in this question.

 

Anyway, for pass or 5♦ (or 4♦?) to be a logical alternative, we have at least to find someone who would actually make one of these calls in the absence of UI. I note that nobody has yet said that they would not bid 3♦ in an unpolluted auction.

[dburn]

Anyway, for pass or 5♦ (or 4♦?) to be a logical alternative, we have at least to find someone who would actually make one of these calls in the absence of UI.  I note that nobody has yet said that they would not bid 3♦ in an unpolluted auction.

I wouldn't. If the opponents compete in clubs, maybe I can out-compete them in diamonds. If not, maybe partner will somehow scrape together eight tricks with diamonds as trump; it would be a shame if this wonderful effort were rewarded with a minus score instead of a plus.

 

Still, even if no one in the world would actually pass 2♦ in an unpolluted auction, it will come as no particular surprise to learn that I strongly believe you should pass it in an auction polluted in this particular fashion. Raising to 3♦ may be OK under Law 16, but it is not OK at all under Law 73.

[jdonn]

Anyway, for pass or 5♦ (or 4♦?) to be a logical alternative, we have at least to find someone who would actually make one of these calls in the absence of UI. I note that nobody has yet said that they would not bid 3♦ in an unpolluted auction.

I would absolutely pass. I have an 11 count and partner signed off, and though the opponents may have a good place to play it doesn't seem likely they will find it at this point, as it's either a level higher or in a suit we have bid. In fact I find raising quite strange, it should show a much better hand than this as we are unlimited.

[gnasher]

OK, it sounds as though passing 2♦ would be a logical alternative, notwithstanding what I think of the call.

[jallerton]

Well, it's hard to argue that this hand is an 11-count. But it's also hard to think of a hand improving quite so much during the auction.

 

Still, pass is seriously considered by a significant proportion, of whom some actually would choose the action; so I agree that pass is a logical alternative.

[Finch]

I play this "bonkers" system, although I also play 1NT as non-forcing.

 

I have discussed this auction, and 2D is natural and weak, usually canape. I would pass it without thinking too hard. I would definitely pass it if (i) I thought 1NT was unlimited AND (ii) I had UI that partner might think it was an artificial game force.