UI - retracted explanation

[wank]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sxxhk9xdkjtxxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

NS are playing strong NT 5cM

 

The bidding goes 1C from north (2+ clubs as 1D would be 4+ unbalanced)

 

1NT from East

 

2D from south, the hand shown. North alerts, west asks and is told majors - for the benefit of the paranoid, there's no reaction from south to betray matters

 

Pass from west

 

North bids 2H then prior to East bidding corrects the explanation to natural

 

EW then silent

 

South bids 3C

 

North bids 3D ending the auction

 

Obviously south has UI that north doesn't have the heart-club hand he advertises with 2H. North obviously has no UI and can do what he likes so is free to revert to diamonds once he's realised the error of his ways.

 

So do you feel south acted properly by giving preference back to clubs then floating 3D or should he be taking north for something strong enough to warrant further action?

 

North-South are experts but not a regular partnership.

 

BTW west is never bidding so has no desire to change his call

[ahydra]

Why would the 2H bid show clubs? As it stands I have no idea why South bid 3C.

 

And should East have not called the director after North changed the explanation? -.-

 

ahydra

[wank]

the director was called. i didn't bother to mention it because there was nothing for him to do though - just record the facts and play continues.

 

north has shown clubs because opening 1C and rebidding a new suit as opposed to no trumps or raising partner promises at least 5-4 in most systems, including the standard americanesque system employed by north-south.

[Cyberyeti]

the director was called. i didn't bother to mention it because there was nothing for him to do though - just record the facts and play continues.

 

north has shown clubs because opening 1C and rebidding a new suit as opposed to no trumps or raising partner promises at least 5-4 in most systems, including the standard americanesque system employed by north-south.

I'd ask whether 2♥ was forcing, what the band of values for 2♦ was, and whether 3♦ showed extra values.

 

My suspicion is that 3♦ shows extras, and a good 1435 hand, and that south is towards the top of the range for his 2♦ (he doesn't need much more to X), so south should be bidding 3♥ or 4♦. If he has that however, there are an awful lot of spades missing. I suppose it's just possible the NT overcaller has 5 and his partner a yarborough with 5.

 

Is x, Axxx, Axx, AKxxx or similar plausible where you're potentially making lots of tricks ?

 

How many tricks were made ? if 10 or more then I don't see any issue at all. If 9 or less I might have to think

[bluejak]

This is another hand which depends on agreements. As I play it, 2♦ shows about 3 to 8, not forcing. 2♥ shows clubs, not for the reason given [i do not play 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ to show five clubs] but because since 2♦ is not forcing, I expect a pretty unbalanced hand to bid a new suit. So a pass of 3♦ for me is bizarre, or because of UI! :lol:

 

But my impression is that lot of players these days have forgotten about penalties, and play 2♦ lot stronger. Some may even play it forcing. Now a pass of 3♦ becomes much more reasonable.

[gnasher]

I think North has shown a pretty good hand - better than the example given by Cyberyeti - and South is also quite suitable. South would have bid the same way without one of his kings. Hence I'd make South move with 3♥.

 

As for where the spades are, one possibility is that the 1NT overcaller has about six or seven of them, and rather less than the traditional values for a 1NT overcall.

[Cyberyeti]

I think North has shown a pretty good hand - better than the example given by Cyberyeti - and South is also quite suitable. South would have bid the same way without one of his kings. Hence I'd make South move with 3♥.

 

As for where the spades are, one possibility is that the 1NT overcaller has about six or seven of them, and rather less than the traditional values for a 1NT overcall.

N can't be too much better than that if the 1N bid hasn't been psyched, but yes, I think it's shown a queen or so better than that normally, although that hand is very pure.

 

Certainly playing the bids as I play them, I'd adjust the score to whatever happens to 4♦ and think about 5♦, but I'd need to hear the explanations given by the people themselves.

[blackshoe]

the director was called. i didn't bother to mention it because there was nothing for him to do though - just record the facts and play continues.

If north subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the director.

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).

There may be nothing substantive for the TD to do when called at the proper time, but it's certainly important to establish that he was called.

[TimG]

There may be nothing substantive for the TD to do when called at the proper time, but it's certainly important to establish that he was called.

How does your answer to OP's question:

So do you feel south acted properly by giving preference back to clubs then floating 3D or should he be taking north for something strong enough to warrant further action?

change depending upon whether the director was called?

[blackshoe]

The answer to that question depends on their agreements, not on whether the TD was called. That said, when the TD is called, one of the things he should do is remind south of his obligations wrt to UI. So maybe there is something substantive for him to do after all. B)

[jdonn]

I'm fine with allowing south to pass 3♦. There is no way north would bid 2♥ (not forcing!) with real diamond support so to me the 3♦ bid itself tells south something is very fishy. And he has already shown himself to do the ethical thing with his 3♣ call rather than 3♦ (of course this should be expected of all players, but few live up to that expectation).

 

I just don't think this is a possible auction without a special agreement so I would know for sure partner was bidding 3♦ in case I really had diamonds and I would always pass.

 

Of course if 2♥ is forcing I'm way off base and there's no way south could pass 3♦. But 2♥ forcing seems very strange to me after a 1NT overcall and a competitive and potentially very weak 2♦.

[blackshoe]

If you make a forcing bid, and your partner passes it, do you shoot him, or stake him out on an anthill?

[gnasher]

Did all four players count their cards before looking at them? And was everyone at the table dressed in accordance with the EBU's dress code?

 

These questions seem about as relevant as the question of whether the director was or was not called at the proper time, or what the director did or didn't say once he got there.

[jdonn]

One other authorized clue that partner doesn't have some 1435 hand. Um, where are the spades hiding?

[aguahombre]

This is another hand which depends on agreements.  As I play it, 2♦ shows about 3 to 8, not forcing.  2♥ shows clubs...since 2♦ is not forcing, I expect a pretty unbalanced hand to bid a new suit.  So a pass of 3♦ for me is bizarre, or because of UI!  :)

 

Just included the parts of the quote with which I entirely agree. If their real agreement is about the same as yours, then it follows that 2H is both unbalanced and strong ---thus forcing to at least 3D, and passing 3D is indeed bizarre.

 

As for where the spades are, as South I would think it much more likely that West has six spades and a yarb --and in fact might have bid 2S without the misinformation but doesn't want to get involved now (by claiming he would have bid). So, the mystery of the missing spades should not really be an excuse for not bidding 4D.

[jdonn]

Yeah my point about spades was terrible since LHO wouldn't show them if he thinks we have majors, I must be tired. But I still agree with my main post.

[awm]

From the 2♥ call, it sounds like partner has hearts and clubs and very few diamonds. That makes this hand something of a misfit, and it's unlikely we can make a game even if partner has a bit extra. Especially at matchpoint scoring, playing 2♥ in the known 4-3 fit must be a logical alternative to pushing to the higher and lower-scoring 3♣ (quite possibly a 5-2 fit, although it could also be 6-2 certainly).

 

Correcting to 3♣ caters to the possibility that opener doesn't have four hearts (a possibility that exists only because of the UI) or that opener actually has some diamonds (another possibility that exists only because of UI). I think such a correction (rather than passing 2♥) is suggested by the UI and should be rolled back.

[jdonn]

I think partner's minimum shape is 4-6 (or maybe 4405?), so passing 2♥ is not a logical alternative in my book. Until reading your post the possibility didn't even occur to me.

[awm]

I think partner's minimum shape is 4-6 (or maybe 4405?), so passing 2♥ is not a logical alternative in my book. Until reading your post the possibility didn't even occur to me.

Interesting. Especially given the form of scoring (MP) I would pass this 2♥ bid 100% of the time. Might be good to poll.

[jdonn]

Good idea. Certainly the possibility should have at least occured to me if nothing else.

[Mbodell]

I definitely thought that passing 2♥ was a LA to correcting to 3♣. I was thinking that without UI I'd probably bid 3♣, but I might well pass 2♥, and that with the UI 3♣ is certainly suggested over 2♥. I didn't even think about the pass of 3♦ as being an issue until reading the other posts.

[ggwhiz]

The nail has been hit on the head for me.

 

Passing 2♥ IS a logical alternative and quite likely given the absence of the spade suit. Especially at MP's

[drankin]

Since East has not yet called over 2H, the director has a duty to explain to West that he may change his call if it was based on the incorrect explanation. Since E/W made no further bids, this may not seem important, but East is entitled to know that West would still pass a natural 2D bid, before he has to consider his action over North's 2H bid. No doubt this is why the director is to be called.

[Finch]

It wouldn't occur to me to pass 2H, I would always give preference back to clubs because I would expect at least a 4=6.

 

It's a bit of a side issue, because as it happens 2H will play incredibly well for NS and will make easily, possibly with overtricks. 3D will not score as well.