Wrong Alert

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&s=s86hkjt7dt5cakq86&w=s942hq932dkqjcj42&n=sakqj753h84da64c3&e=stha65d98732ct975&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2sp2np4sp5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

2♠ was alerted as weak with 5♠ and 4+ in a minor. N-S's agreement is semiforcing 2♠ (five losers). 2NT asked about the minor denying spade fit. North's 4♠ obviously woke South up. What do you rule?

[barmar]

South doesn't have any UI, so there's nothing prohibiting him from being "woken up" by North's bidding.

 

North, on the other hand, has UI from South's alert and explanation. What does 2NT mean in response to their 2♠ opening? Unless 4♠ is the appropriate rebid according to their agreement, I would probably rule that he based his deviation from their system on the mistaken explanation.

[RMB1]

It is difficult to rule without knowing NS methods. It looks like 3♠ is a logical alternative to 4♠. What 3♠ means in response to 2NT (asking for the minor) is difficult to know, but South might pass. Where Law 12C1c) is enabled, I can imagine an adjustment to some of 3♠ and 4♠ (and perhaps 6♠). Ruling under Law 12C1e), playing 3♠ could be "likely" and "at all probable".

[Cyberyeti]

It is difficult to rule without knowing NS methods. It looks like 3♠ is a logical alternative to 4♠. What 3♠ means in response to 2NT (asking for the minor) is difficult to know, but South might pass. Where Law 12C1c) is enabled, I can imagine an adjustment to some of 3♠ and 4♠ (and perhaps 6♠). Ruling under Law 12C1e), playing 3♠ could be "likely" and "at all probable".

To some extent, it is also quite likely 4♠ is solid suit, in which case it's the normal rebid. It's common to limit this sort of 2♠ to exactly 8 tricks, so this hand is maximum.

 

Also what is 2N to a semi forcing 2♠, some people will play pass double negative, 3♣ single negative, 2N=♣ positive or possibly balanced positive. If 2N is either of these then 4♠ is a perfectly reasonable and indeed normal bid with basically the hand being the spade suit. If 2N is the single negative, then how many tricks do you think you have in defence ? 4♠ is still not unreasonable, but could be argued about.

 

What 2N means opposite the major/minor type hand is irrelevant, that is not the agreement they have, what's key is what it should mean opposite the semi forcing version.

[RMB1]

What 2N means opposite the major/minor type hand is irrelevant, that is not the agreement they have, what's key is what it should mean opposite the semi forcing version.

The meaning of the responses to 2NT opposite a major/minor type hand are relevant if we want to establish the outcome(s) of an auction when we rule than North must respond below 4♠, because that is the system that South thinks he is playing.

[Cyberyeti]

The meaning of the responses to 2NT opposite a major/minor type hand are relevant if we want to establish the outcome(s) of an auction when we rule than North must respond below 4♠, because that is the system that South thinks he is playing.

Sorry, I don't get this at all. Why should North be forced to respond below 4♠ ? his partner has responded 2N to what N believes is a semi forcing 2♠ but his pard has given an explanation that indicates he's expecting a different hand.

 

N is playing a semi forcing 2♠ (which is their agreement) and in law hasn't heard his partner's explanation that it means something else, but has heard the 2N response to the semi forcing 2♠.

 

So surely all that matters to N is what the 2N response means in response to the semi forcing 2♠, but there are several explanations that would make 4♠ the only sensible bid.

 

What 4♠ means when it comes back to S is another question (does partner have a weak 7-5 or something), but unless there was body language, I don't believe S has any UI and can do what he likes.

[mrdct]

North clearly has UI from his partner's misexplanation of the 2♠ opening and must make the correct conventional response to whatever their partnership agreement is for a 2NT response to the "semi-forcing 2♠" opening. In the absence of evidence as to the specific partnership agreement, I would assume the agreement to be "progress naturally" in which case I would expect that the only bids we would allow North to make would be 3♠ (extra length) or 3NT (solid suit). In both cases, however, South will get an authorised "wake-up call" due to partner not showing his minor and would surely make a slam try just as he did after the potentially dodgey 4♠ bid. Accordingly, I'm going to let the table result stand unless there is some other conventional response to 2NT which would get NS off the rails. I'm also going to give North a stern talking to about acting on UI and possibly a PP.

 

btw, did 6♠ make?

[f0rdy]

North clearly has UI from his partner's misexplanation of the 2♠ opening and must make the correct conventional response to whatever their partnership agreement is for a 2NT response to the "semi-forcing 2♠" opening. In the absence of evidence as to the specific partnership agreement, I would assume the agreement to be "progress naturally" in which case I would expect that the only bids we would allow North to make would be 3♠ (extra length) or 3NT (solid suit). In both cases, however, South will get an authorised "wake-up call" due to partner not showing his minor ...

 

Not necessarily, if you think North is bidding 3S or 3N; most people around here would have some range-ask element to the 2NT, so that 3S might show an upper range hand with diamonds, for example.

 

We seem to need to know both their agreement about their continuations to the 2N bid, and the agreements that South thought existed (from playing the Lucas 2S previously, or in a different partnership?)

[campboy]

So surely all that matters to N is what the 2N response means in response to the semi forcing 2♠, but there are several explanations that would make 4♠ the only sensible bid.

Absolutely, and if N/S are playing an agreement which makes 4♠ the only sensible bid we are done. If they are not, though, and North has a logical alternative which is less likely to wake South up then bidding 4♠ is a breach of 16B; in order to determine the likely result without the infraction we then need to know how South would have interpreted the alternative call.

[bluejak]

Certainly we need to know the N/S agreements to decide what are LAs. Having played strong twos for many years, I played 2♠ - 2NT - 4♠ as extra strength, at least nine playing tricks, which seems natural to me, and with the actual hand would bid 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠. If the N/S pair play this way then 3♠ is an LA, and 4♠ is suggested over 3♠ by the UI, so we disallow it.

 

Having disallowed 4♠ we have to adjust, and now we see why the question of what South is likely to think 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠ means where 2♠ shows a weak hand with spades and a minor, and 2NT asks for the minor.

 

I play 2♠ something similar with some of my partners: we play 2♠ - 3♣ asking for the minor. So what would I think if one of them rebid 3♠? I would not know, but my first idea would be a weakish freak, with very good spades. With the actual South hand I would now probably pass. So an adjustment to 3♠ making however many has some validity.

[Cyberyeti]

Certainly we need to know the N/S agreements to decide what are LAs. Having played strong twos for many years, I played 2♠ - 2NT - 4♠ as extra strength, at least nine playing tricks, which seems natural to me, and with the actual hand would bid 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠. If the N/S pair play this way then 3♠ is an LA, and 4♠ is suggested over 3♠ by the UI, so we disallow it.

 

Having disallowed 4♠ we have to adjust, and now we see why the question of what South is likely to think 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠ means where 2♠ shows a weak hand with spades and a minor, and 2NT asks for the minor.

 

I play 2♠ something similar with some of my partners: we play 2♠ - 3♣ asking for the minor. So what would I think if one of them rebid 3♠? I would not know, but my first idea would be a weakish freak, with very good spades. With the actual South hand I would now probably pass. So an adjustment to 3♠ making however many has some validity.

Yes, but do you play your strong 2s unconditionally forcing ?

 

If you don't, as appears to be the case with this pair, I'd suggest it's more normal to play them as precisely 8 tricks and to start with 2♣ with 9, so this hand would not necessarily be minimum, as certainly some pairs take a slightly rosy view of what constitutes 8 playing tricks, and this is a pretty much nailed on 8.

[bluejak]

While I do, lots of players do not, and the style of rebids is the same.

 

Of course, if a 2NT response is game forcing, that's different, but no-one has suggested that, and the hand looks a minimum to me. Why would a minimum want to go to game, absent the UI?

[Cyberyeti]

While I do, lots of players do not, and the style of rebids is the same.

 

Of course, if a 2NT response is game forcing, that's different, but no-one has suggested that, and the hand looks a minimum to me. Why would a minimum want to go to game, absent the UI?

A lot of people play herbert negatives, I think I do in the one occasional partnership in which I play strong NF 2Ms. This I don't think has been established in this thread anywhere.

 

And I might want to bid 4♠ opposite a random 4-7 (presuming you pass most 0-3 without a fit) for a couple of reasons. It might make, and I might have no defence to 4♥ or 5♣ or indeed both sides can make if partner has a lot of diamonds. Also partner can have the same hand with the side suits switched and have no idea whether to bid 4 over 3♠.

[bluejak]

We really have to assume that all the relevant facts are given in the OP otherwise we might as well stop these discussions now. In the OP it neither says 2NT is game forcing nor that they play Herbert negatives. Of course the ruling might be different if so, but we can safely assume not.

 

I really do not believe the opponents are going to reach 4♥ or 5♣ after passing as dealer and twice subsequently.

 

Of course 4♠ might make if partner has the magic hand, but that is true on an awful lot of sequences, such as 1♠ pass 3♠ [limit]: with any opening bid there is always a hand opposite that will make game. But these excuses are reasonable to try to convince partner why you overbid: they are not an adequate excuse for making a bid suggested by UI.

 

I believe 4♠ was suggested over 3♠ by the UI, and none of these arguments really convince me in any way at all that 3♠ is not an LA. More interesting is what we do if we disallow 4♠.

[Cyberyeti]

My suspicion is that nobody asked what 2♠(semi-forcing)-2N meant, so there's nowhere to go with this discussion.

 

I must admit I didn't notice that the 2♠ bid was second in rather than first. Yes that pretty much eliminates the chances of the auction going 2♠-P-2N-P-3♠-P-P-X which was what I was visualising.

[nige1]

Until he discovers likely NS agreements, the director can't make a sensible ruling.