Unauthorized panic again

[Phil]

Here is a dilemma my opponents had against my teammates last night.

 

x QJxxxx AQx 98x

 

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♥* - (pass)

1♠ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass)

3♥ - (pass) - ?

 

Its the last round of a weekly single session swiss. You play transfers over doubles, so partner alerts 1♥ as "4+ spades", but you forget. 1♠ conventionally promises exactly 3 spades and a minimum.

 

Passing 1♠ looks very wrong, but you are now in possession of some UI with partner's response. Fortunately she didn't bid 2♠!

 

At the risk of skating off onto thin ice, you try 2♥ which ostensibly shows 5♠/4♥ and at least an invite.

 

Pard surprises you by raising.

 

- What now?

- Are you comfortable with your 2♥ call?

 

Thanks.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure this is unauthorized panic, or indeed panic at all. What are the LA's to 2♥? Frankly, I don't think there are any. Partner thinks I have spades and hearts. Fair enough. Now he thinks we also have a heart fit. Funny, so do I. I bid 4♥, not expecting a score adjustment. OTOH, I would accept one, given a reasonable effort to explain to me why it was given (and not just "you had UI, you're not allowed a good score").

[Phil]

What are the LA's to 2♥?

2♣ is certainly on the radar screen once partner has shown ♠+♣.

 

I would agree it isn't a LA however.

[pran]

Here is a dilemma my opponents had against my teammates last night.

 

x QJxxxx AQx 98x

 

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♥* - (pass)

1♠ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass)

3♥ - (pass) - ?

 

Its the last round of a weekly single session swiss. You play transfers over doubles, so partner alerts 1♥ as "4+ spades", but you forget. 1♠ conventionally promises exactly 3 spades and a minimum.

 

Passing 1♠ looks very wrong, but you are now in possession of some UI with partner's response. Fortunately she didn't bid 2♠!

 

At the risk of skating off onto thin ice, you try 2♥ which ostensibly shows 5♠/4♥ and at least an invite.

 

Pard surprises you by raising.

 

- What now?

- Are you comfortable with your 2♥ call? 

 

Thanks.

The question should be: What would you have called if your 1♥ bid (by agreements) had been natural (as you believed) and partner had not alerted, but still bid exactly as he did here?

 

I assume you would expect to find him with something like a 4-3-2-4 distribution and a not too strong opening hand since as far as you know he only bid 1♠ (natural) over your 1♥ (natural bid).

 

Can a pass from you now be considered taking any advantage of the UI you have from his (unexpected to you) alert and explanation? I doubt it.

[gwnn]

Well I don't know about the whole story but I read only the auction and my hand and I thought this was a clear 4H call.

 

So normally we would know that partner has a 4315 15 count but the UI that we should not take advantage of is that he actually has a 3424 ish hand with 13. I'm pretty sure the UI would suggest passing instead of 4H so I should be fine bidding 4H.

[paulg]

I must admit that a pass would never occur to me if I had bid correctly. I would consider 1NT, 2♣ and 2♥. Part of this would depend on whether 2♥ would be constructive or weak if I had bid correctly.

 

As Burn has said in other threads, the laws do not appear to be consistent. The calls that seem to clearly take no advantage of the UI are 1NT and 2♣, as there is no danger of finding a heart contract now.

 

But 2♥ is probably also a logical alternative that is not particularly suggested, as showing 5-4 majors is not quite the same as showing an invitational hand with six hearts.

 

Paul

[awm]

Our obligation is to bid as if we played natural rather than transfers, while avoiding taking close decisions which the UI might help with.

 

On the given hand, after 1♣-1♥-1♠ natural, it seems very clear to rebid 2♥. We have six good hearts and not enough to invite game. Partner's raise to 3♥ would show a heart fit (at least doubleton anyway) and extras, and we have clearly a good hand for the non-invite and must proceed to 4♥.

 

Assuming we have to bid as if we played natural continuations after 1♣, I just don't see any particularly difficult decisions to be made here. I suppose one could make a case for 2♣ or 1NT at second turn, but neither seems really logical, nor is bidding 2♥ particularly suggested by the UI that partner thinks we have spades.

[campboy]

I'm very happy with the 2♥ call as I am certain I would make the same call every day of the week without UI. As for what next, I would probably bid 4♥ which seems normal from the point of view of someone who thinks he has shown a weak hand with long hearts; I think passing is suggested by the UI so I will not do that. The answer might change if we play weak jump shifts over a double, as I now have more like an average 1♥-then-2♥ hand.

 

[edited based on noticing an extra queen :)]

[peachy]

4H, with or without the UI, seems logical and normal to me. The hand is too good to Pass. Passing guarantees that we play in the fit (the only fit) I "know" we have, and avoids the danger of partner correcting back to spades. If Pass were successful, I think adjustment to 4H-1 would be right in the given circumstances.

[Phil]

This hand bid 4H which seems reasonable enough.

 

The partner to this hand held KTx AT9 Jxx KQTx.

 

Are others OK with 3H or the pass of 4H?

 

Game made but was somewhat lucky. The doubler held AQJxxx K Kx Axxx (not my style but w/e).

[awm]

I find opener's bidding to be rather odd. When partner is known (supposedly) to have five spades and four hearts, why did he raise hearts on 3-3 in the majors? Why not correct to spades, or raise spades?

 

However, nothing in the original post suggests that opener had any UI -- just that partner has UI from the alert of 1♥.

 

I think the thing to do is to ask opener some questions about his bidding. Perhaps he will tell you that he read partner's expression or the like.

 

Another question is whether this pair's agreement is really that 1♥ is a transfer, given that responder "misbid" and opener appeared to bid in a way that catered to the "misbid." Certainly recorder-form worthy if nothing else.

[Pict]

In the circumstances I would bid 2C.

 

I showed 5+ hearts and have a poor 6. I have club support.

[pran]

Our obligation is to bid as if we played natural rather than transfers, while avoiding taking close decisions which the UI might help with.

 

On the given hand, after 1♣-1♥-1♠ natural, it seems very clear to rebid 2♥. We have six good hearts and not enough to invite game. Partner's raise to 3♥ would show a heart fit (at least doubleton anyway) and extras, and we have clearly a good hand for the non-invite and must proceed to 4♥.

 

Assuming we have to bid as if we played natural continuations after 1♣, I just don't see any particularly difficult decisions to be made here. I suppose one could make a case for 2♣ or 1NT at second turn, but neither seems really logical, nor is bidding 2♥ particularly suggested by the UI that partner thinks we have spades.

In my world the 1♠ bid shows exactly 4 spades in addition to 4+ clubs, denies 4 hearts and indicates 12-14 HCP.

The 3♥ bid shows secondary heart support and is obviously an invitation, probably because his hand has improved from the knowledge that I have at least 5 hearts and did not suggest 1NT, so the question is if this is sufficient to bid 4♥ with my not too strong hand?

 

Does the UI suggest a raise to 4♥? In my opinion clearly yes: The probability that partner has 4 hearts rather than 4 spades (he did not "super-accept" the transfer) has increased significantly.

[pran]

In the circumstances I would bid 2C.

 

I showed 5+ hearts and have a poor 6. I have club support.

The 1♥ bid doesn't show more than 4 hearts in a natural system? And three small clubs against partner's 4 is a very lousy support, isn't it?

[Pict]

In the circumstances I would bid 2C.

 

I showed 5+ hearts and have a poor 6.  I have club support.

The 1♥ bid doesn't show more than 4 hearts in a natural system? And three small clubs against partner's 4 is a very lousy support, isn't it?

I'll leave it to Phil to say whether his team mate playing transfers would make this error with 4 hearts. I think it is much more likely with longer hearts and short spades.

 

Otherwise we seem to be getting out of this remarkably easily.

[awm]

In my world the 1♠ bid shows exactly 4 spades in addition to 4+ clubs, denies 4 hearts and indicates 12-14 HCP.

 

The 3♥ bid shows secondary heart support and is obviously an invitation, probably because his hand has improved from the knowledge that I have at least 5 hearts and did not suggest 1NT, so the question is if this is sufficient to bid 4♥ with my not too strong hand?

 

Does the UI suggest a raise to 4♥? In my opinion clearly yes: The probability that partner has 4 hearts rather than 4 spades (he did not "super-accept" the transfer) has increased significantly.

I don't think 1♠ shows 12-14 hcp here. What do you bid with 15-17 hcp? A 2♠ jump rebid is normally played as a game force.

 

Looking at this hand of ♠x ♥QJxxxx ♦AQx ♣xxx, it's not really important what the UI suggests because there is no logical alternative to bidding 4♥. This is a very maximum hand for the 1♥...2♥ sequence. Don't you accept invites on a dead max?

 

What the UI suggests is also not clear. The UI suggests that partner has four hearts, but it also suggests that partner is very minimum (not even sure about accepting an invite). Without the UI, we'd expect partner to have only three hearts (maybe even two) but quite possibly in the 15-17 hcp range (or equivalent with distribution).

[Phil]

In the circumstances I would bid 2C.

 

I showed 5+ hearts and have a poor 6.  I have club support.

The 1♥ bid doesn't show more than 4 hearts in a natural system? And three small clubs against partner's 4 is a very lousy support, isn't it?

I'll leave it to Phil to say whether his team mate playing transfers would make this error with 4 hearts. I think it is much more likely with longer hearts and short spades.

 

Otherwise we seem to be getting out of this remarkably easily.

It was my opponent who held this, not my teammate.

 

1 level transfers over doubles are commonly played as 4+ and I believe this is the case here.

[blackshoe]

In my world the 1♠ bid shows exactly 4 spades in addition to 4+ clubs, denies 4 hearts and indicates 12-14 HCP.

Ah, but the question is not what it shows in your world, but what it shows in the world of the pair who held these hands at the table.

[nige1]

♠ x ♥ QJxxxx ♦ AQx ♣ 98x

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♥* - (pass)

1♠ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass)

3♥ - (pass) - ?

Its the last round of a weekly single session swiss. You play transfers over doubles, so partner alerts 1♥ as "4+ spades", but you forget. 1♠ conventionally promises exactly 3 spades and a minimum.  Passing 1♠ looks very wrong, but you are now in possession of some UI with partner's response. Fortunately she didn't bid 2♠! At the risk of skating off onto thin ice, you try 2♥ which ostensibly shows 5♠/4♥ and at least an invite. Are you comfortable with your 2♥ call?

IMO 2♣ is a logical alternative, not suggested by the unauthorised information.

Pard surprises you by raising. - What now?

IMO 4♥

This hand bid 4H which seems reasonable enough. The partner to this hand held ♠ KTx ♥ AT9 ♦ Jxx ♣ KQTx.  Are others OK with 3H or the pass of 4H?

IMO

• 3♥ is peculiar unless it is forcing.
  
• Failing to give preference to 4♠ is more peculiar.
  

All these decisions are worth investigation by the director.

[bluejak]

It may be unauthorised panic, but the player is lucky that 2♥ is also the obvious call. Over 3♥ there is no sensible alternative to 4♥, so he is just a lucky bunny.

[dburn]

I'm not so sure this is unauthorized panic, or indeed panic at all. What are the LA's to 2♥? Frankly, I don't think there are any. Partner thinks I have spades and hearts. Fair enough. Now he thinks we also have a heart fit. Funny, so do I. I bid 4♥, not expecting a score adjustment. OTOH, I would accept one, given a reasonable effort to explain to me why it was given (and not just "you had UI, you're not allowed a good score").

One may need to determine what 1♣ - 1♦ (hearts) - 1♠ means in the partnership methods. If the answer to that is "unbalanced with spades and clubs", then I am not convinced I would bid 2♥ - I might well just bid 2♣, in the hope that if we could make a game, partner would take another bid. Certainly I would do that without the jack of hearts, and I am not sure the jack of hearts by itself is enough to say "there are no logical alternatives to 2♥".

 

However, the player who bid 2♥ has the UI "partner thinks I have spades" and the AI "if I bid 2♥, partner will think I have five spades and four hearts, and the resulting auction may not go very well for us." That, it seems to me, suggests bidding 2♣ (which at least will be a safe haven) and not 2♥ (over which partner is presumably at liberty to bid 4♠, which will not lead to any safe haven at all). Thus, I would not necessarily classify 2♥ as a breach of Law 16, whereas I might so classify 2♣.

 

In the actual case, it appears that it was perfectly safe to show five spades and four hearts, because partner with three spades and three hearts chose to raise 2♥ to three and then to pass 4♥. I should like to know why he did that, but since no one saw fit to raise the issue, perhaps I will not have my wish.

[aguahombre]

I find opener's bidding to be rather odd. When partner is known (supposedly) to have five spades and four hearts, why did he raise hearts on 3-3 in the majors? Why not correct to spades, or raise spades?

 

However, nothing in the original post suggests that opener had any UI -- just that partner has UI from the alert of 1♥.

disagree. There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring. It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support.

 

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum). And it is something the opps are entitled to know.

 

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

[Phil]

disagree.  There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring.  It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support. 

 

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum).  And it is something the opps are entitled to know. 

 

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

Indeed. As a matter of fact at my table the auction was:

 

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♦* - (pass)

1♥** - (1♠) - 3♥ - AP

 

* hearts

** - 3♥

 

(both alerted)

[mrdct]

I find opener's bidding to be rather odd. When partner is known (supposedly) to have five spades and four hearts, why did he raise hearts on 3-3 in the majors? Why not correct to spades, or raise spades?

 

However, nothing in the original post suggests that opener had any UI -- just that partner has UI from the alert of 1♥.

disagree. There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring. It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support.

 

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum). And it is something the opps are entitled to know.

 

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

I think you are right on the money. If 1♠ wasn't alerted, the 1♠ bidder has huge UI that partner has stuffed-up and probably doesn't have a ♠ suit at all.

 

Bidding 3♥ rather than 2♠ is clearly suggested by the non-alert of 1♠ so I would wind the auction back to west bidding 2♠ and then things get interesting. In the absence of the wake-up call, east should think his partner has 6♣ and 5♠ so I think the normal action would be 3♣ which will end the auction.

 

3♣ looks like it will make comfortably, but no game bonus for EW.

[mrdct]

Jurisdiction is probably important here as a 1♠ response to a transfer may not be alertable in some places. It would be alertable in Australia if it denied 4♠.