A ruling

[phil_20686]

you pick up

 

T9xx

T87x

JTxxx

-

 

 

the auction proceeds

 

(1c) x p 1d

(2c) P* p ?

 

Where the * indicates a BIT by partner.

You are playing MP and are green vs red.

Are you now constrained from bidding? Am I in receipt of UI, given that it seems clear from normal bridge knowledge that partner has a strong hand with at least 4 clubs who is looking for a penalty pass.

 

At the table I bid 2H this got us to a beatable game which the opponents let through, and it was ruled back to 2c-2.

Is this the correct ruling?

 

(Also, is 2h a normal bid at MP?)

[blackshoe]

You have fallen into a common trap. When you have UI that suggests you do some thing, and you also have AI that suggests the same thing, you cannot do that thing, unless given the AI you have no logical alternative. IOW, UI trumps AI, not the other way 'round. In the case you posit, you got the correct ruling.

[jdonn]

With all due respect, I don't think someone who responds 1♦ to a takeout double with this can make any argument based on normal bridge knowledge.

 

Anyway I agree with the ruling. The 2♣ rebid can often be heavy and the responder to the opening bid could have some values as well. Partner doesn't need that much extra. Haven't your opponents ever messed up before?

[aguahombre]

With all due respect, I don't think someone who responds 1♦ to a takeout double with this can make any argument based on normal bridge knowledge.

May I assume you would have bid 2C? I would have.....and have, and have been pleased with the result ---more than once.

[jdonn]

Whether that's a joke or serious comment it gets a lol, just for different reasons.

[aguahombre]

Ty

[jallerton]

the auction proceeds

 

(1c) x p 1d

(2c) P* p ?

 

Where the * indicates a BIT by partner.

You are playing MP and are green vs red.

Are you now constrained from bidding? Am I in receipt of UI, given that it seems clear from normal bridge knowledge that partner has a strong hand with at least 4 clubs who is looking for a penalty pass.

What would double of 2♣ by partner have meant?

 

Why does it seem clear that partner has at least 4 clubs? Partner has doubled 1♣ and then passed on the next round. In principle, partner has shown a hand with relative shortage in clubs and support for the other three suits.

[Pict]

Better than dburn, I haven't a clue what anyone is doing here.

 

But if you thought partner had good clubs and hearts for his hesitation, you can't bid.

[jallerton]

At the table I bid 2H this got us to a beatable game which the opponents let through, and it was ruled back to 2c-2.

Is this the correct ruling?

 

(Also, is 2h a normal bid at MP?)

In which country was the hand played?

 

The TD should have polled players of a similar standard and style, restricting his sample to those who agreed with (or at least didn't object to) the 1♦ bid. This would have enabled him to assess whether or not Pass was a logical alternative.

 

Assuming that Pass is a logical alternative, The TD would then need to assess what action(s) the UI suggested. In my view, the UI suggests that partner has extra values with no clear bid, so he probably lacks primary diamond support. Does that make bidding 2♥ more attractive than an in tempo pass, at this (favourable) vulnerability?

[mycroft]

1C-X-p-1D

2C-X-p

 

Isn't penalty to me...I guess it could be good 18+ balanced with say CAQTx or CKJTx, but partner can count this, too. I would take that as "bid something, partner - preferably not diamonds." How often does your partnership make "offshape takeout doubles"?

 

1C, then 2C into a live auction with an unlimited LHO and only mildly limited RHO is something you do with some surety. Yeah, it might be 12, but the clubs'll be pretty solid, and a trick outside besides. On the other hand it could be 2336 and he has the 17, 18 count...

 

The question (given the pass, not the double) is not "isn't 2H normal at MPs?" it's "is Pass an option at MPs?" I don't know, actually - that's a pretty "no defence, better than a 1-count on offense" hand, and we should be safe somewhere unless partner has the big balanced hand - and even then we should have *some* fit somewhere, and they're not likely to double. Of course, double isn't pure takeout, is it (and after the BIT pass, likely to be ruled back no matter what partner does, if it's right).

 

The BIT shows extras, definitely. It denies diamonds, too (say Qxx, unless partner has the big balanced hand). 2H is *clearly* indicated. So yeah, you have to convince people that, effectively, "nobody would pass" in this auction. And that's where the polling comes in.

[phil_20686]

the auction proceeds

 

(1c) x p 1d

(2c) P* p ?

 

Where the * indicates a BIT by partner.

You are playing MP and are green vs red.

Are you now constrained from bidding? Am I in receipt of UI, given that it seems clear from normal bridge knowledge that partner has a strong hand with at least 4 clubs who is looking for a penalty pass.

What would double of 2♣ by partner have meant?

 

Why does it seem clear that partner has at least 4 clubs? Partner has doubled 1♣ and then passed on the next round. In principle, partner has shown a hand with relative shortage in clubs and support for the other three suits.

Well, partner can double again for further t/o (t/o with extra values). He obviously cannot be balanced. Opposition are playing acol so 1c is always at least 4 cards, so rho can make a simple or pre-emptive raise with as few as 5 HCP if he has club support.

 

It is hard to imagine a hand where partner has 3 clubs that is unsuitable for either doubling or showing a 5 card suit or making a 1NT call initially. It is equally unlikely that partner has a "minimum t/o double" since that would give lho a 22 count (12+<=5+1)<=18).

 

I would say his BIT strongly indicates that double or PASS will lead to at least two off, and hence it is Pass that should be the unethical bid here. (200 is likely to be a very good score on this board). If both biding and Pass are logical alternatives, and the auction suggests that partner has a penalty pass, isnt pass disallowed?

 

To Josh:

Bidding 1d was an obvious attempt to mastermind, as i didnt fancy partner producing 3 or 4 spades at his next turn if the auction went 1s-3c-? and partner has 18-19 bal with 4 card support.

[aguahombre]

To Josh:

Bidding 1d was an obvious attempt to mastermind,

Anyone starting to like my 2♣ advance, yet?

 

Hold on; ok, I have my earplugs in :P

[Pict]

Probably keep the earplugs in.