bidding & director call

[jillybean]

Here's a hand a friend gave me. Your hand is 3352 I dont know the hcp, I don't think it is important.

 

Your RHO opens

 

(1♠) P (3♦) P*

(3♠) P (P) (P)

 

*before your partner passes she asks about the 3♦ bid and is told it is a

strong hand, with diamonds.

 

Before the opening lead, LHO announces that there was MI, 3♦ is a bergen raise.

Your partner calls the director and is told that she can take back her final pass. She does

so and bids 3N

 

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (P) 3N

(P) ?

 

Your call.

[mgoetze]

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (3N) P

(P) ?

 

Your call.

 

Uh, you mean

 

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (P) 3N

(P) ?

 

perhaps?

 

I have no idea what partner is up to here. Anyway, if I bid 4/5♦, director will surely be back at the table momentarily. Good job, partner. Maybe I'll just pass.

[RMB1]

... She does so and bids 3N

 

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (3N) P

(P) ?

 

I think this should be

 

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (P) 3NT

(P) ?

 

Partner's question is UI but partner's original pass of 3♠ is authorised.

[jillybean]

auction corrected

[campboy]

Agree with Robin, though I don't see how either the UI or the AI give me any more information than I would otherwise have. If partner has a strong hand, suitable for bidding 3NT after a spade raise, then of course she will ask about 3♦, since it is unlikely to be a strong jump shift given her hand, and of course she will pass -- presumably intending to double in due course -- when told it really is a strong jump shift.

[jillybean]

3N bidders hand was 1255, 3N intended as take out to the minors. Is that standard?

[blackshoe]

Not standard, but I don't see how it can be to play on this bidding.

[mycroft]

I'm assuming this was from the Nationals, so ACBL. Therefore:

 

1) Strong Jump shift is the only unAlertable meaning for 1S-p-3D. In an ideal world, no Alert, no worries, and asking the question passes LOTS of UI (hi, pard, I have the rest of the deck (if it is strong)/a WeaSeL overcall if it turns out to be weak). However, I realize that 90% of the players (especially at the lower levels) play it weak, and a significant minority of those (again, especially at the lower levels) don't know to Alert it/fail to Alert it/"Isn't that the meaning?". So, you pretty much have to ask/check the card, and the UI is reduced. What that means, I don't know.

 

Please note, it's a much more important question after opening 2D - "what is that?" Fortunately, I can be more obnoxious about that one (as the TD), as those who play it not as a weak 2 *do* tend to remember to Alert it - even if they play it as a Strong 2.

 

2) The pass of 3S should be a red flag - but that's okay, pass and find out, then call the TD, who will let you take it back, I guess.

 

3) After the correct explanation, partner should be allowed to take her last pass back *and* be "informed" that if she would have made a different call over the correct explanation of 3D, that would be taken into account in by the TDs while investigating a potential adjusted score. (In the ACBL, I would expect that "information" to be done by taking partner aside and asking her - and asking you if you would have changed your call over 1S-p-3D!-p;3S; you wouldn't, of course, but if we *always* do it, it minimizes the UI generated by the process). Did the TD ever tell the original person the result of that consideration?

 

4) 3NT is a brilliant bid, and should be easily understandable as "unusual". However, it falls afoul of one of my Imperious Rules: 'if no other meaning has been explicitly agreed to for 3NT in an auction, it is either "why don't we play here?" or "we're playing here". Even if that meaning is insane, or impossible.' (That applies to agreements I make, as well: I will and do play 2NT-3S "forces 3NT, shows a slam try in either or both minors"; I will not play 2NT-3NT as anything but "to play", even though it's a "free bid" because we can always go 2NT-3S; 3NT-p. We'll forget, guaranteed). Therefore, in my partnerships, if it goes wrong, it's the 3NT bidders fault, no matter how simple it should have been to figure out.

 

3a) If the real explanation had been given in time, I bet 3NT wouldn't have been "unusual" over 3S - she'd have to have bid 4NT. 3NT would have been DAKQJxxx or DAKQxxxxx and stoppers in spades and at least one other suit.

 

4a) It could still be over 3S...

4b) even if it was understood, 4m is going to push them to 4S, so she'd better be able to set that, or she's just let the MIers off the hook for missing game (remember, opener thought 3S was forcing!)

[jillybean]

Thanks, Mycroft. This was from a local club game,ACBL.

 

The auction didn't end there, 3N was doubled and the 3N bidder bid 4♣

over the X. Her partner still didn't, or felt they couldn't, bid ♦'s.

[mycroft]

I'm a big one for not using UI, but I think after

1S-p-3D*-p

3S-p-p (WTF?)-p/3NT

p-p-X-4C

p

 

, then I don't think any UI is going to help figure it out. If partner turns out to have CAKQxxxx and a spade stopper, oh well.

 

If opener's side gets better than what they'd get in 3S, I'd expect an assigned score. No matter what idiocy was perpetrated after the MI was corrected, if they had done the right thing in the auction, it would have gone 1S-p-3D Alert, and the question would have been expected and not passed enough UI that there would be a problem. Then, if the "non-offending side" did anything obscure or silly, it would be their problem.

 

Do we know what the minors-hand would have done over 3D, given the right information at the time?

[jillybean]

Do we know what the minors-hand would have done over 3D, given the right information at the time?

 

Perhaps 3N, I don't know for sure. They did say that they did not want to bid 4N and force to the 5 level

[Siegmund]

To me, 3NT is going to sound like gambling with long clubs. It's not 100% clear to me if I am supposed to pass with a spade stopper and pull to 4C if not, or pull only if very weak, or always pass expecting partner to have the spade stop and the club suit. (If I am 3352 and they've shown a 9+ fit, I am going to guess #1.)

 

With both minors I'd have to double 3D to show diaonds, and then bid clubs over 3S if partner didn't show interest in the diamonds. (That requires 'your partner' to tell the director that the MI changes his first-round bid, not just his action over 3S, and falls under the adjusted-score department, not the what-do-I-bid-now department.)

[han]

3N bidders hand was 1255, 3N intended as take out to the minors. Is that standard?

 

Yes.

[nige1]

Here's a hand a friend gave me. Your hand is 3352 I dont know the hcp, I don't think it is important.

Your RHO opens

(1♠) P (3♦) P*

(3♠) P (P) (P)

*before your partner passes she asks about the 3♦ bid and is told it is a strong hand, with diamonds. Before the opening lead, LHO announces that there was MI, 3♦ is a bergen raise. Your partner calls the director and is told that she can take back her final pass. She does so and bids 3N

(1♠) P (3♦*) P*

(3♠) P (P) 3N

(P) ?

Your call.

IMO 4♦ = 10, _P = 7.

Given the belatedly revealed real meaning of the original auction, a likely explanation for partner's later 3N is that it shows the minors. The laws exhort players to protect themselves by asking about strange auctions, so the potential unauthorised information from partner's question and pass was a consequence of opponents' failure to alert and misinformation,

 

IMO, the director may take that into account. You could ask him, away from the table, about your ethical dilemma but a clear answer may not be forthcoming. Another illustration of Bridge-law disadvantaging victims rather than law-breakers.

 

There may still be a problem if you didn't alert 3N or 4♣ (Of course, in some jurisdiction, such bids aren't alertable at this level).

[jillybean]

Yes.

 

Not to be confused with gambling 3N, which is also on the card.

[bucky]

Perhaps 3N, I don't know for sure. They did say that they did not want to bid 4N and force to the 5 level

Or maybe doubling 3♦, followed by 4♣ over opp's 3♠? A confusing 3NT should be avoided if possible.

[bucky]

3N bidders hand was 1255, 3N intended as take out to the minors. Is that standard?

I probably wouldn't want to risk it at the table, but the 3N bid really ought to be for minors. Had partner wanted to bid a natural 3NT (unlikely, but I imagine some running minors with spade stopper is not impossible), he/she could have bid 3NT right after the 3♦ call.