DarrenE Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb. At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I would think it is obvious from the auction alone that partner didn't understand the 2NT bid. So while there is UI from the failure to alert I don't think it suggests anything in particular, and therefore either call is legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 East might have a bit of UI. He also has LOTS of AI. I won't say that 4♣ is better than pass, but I will say that East can bid whatever he likes, and that I think this belongs in the "simple rulings" forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 What mgoetze said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [hv=pc=n&e=s43hqdt32cqj65432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)d(Pens)2np3nppp]133|200| The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb. At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)? [/hv] IMO, the affected player (and the director) can perform a simple thought-experiment that may help to decide such cases. Here, over your 2N reply, imagine that partner alerts and explains "A puppet to 3♣. He could have a variety of hands. Some are weak hands that he wants us to play at the three-level. For example, a weak hand with long clubs." (Assuming that this an accurate explanation). Partner persists with 3N. Do you still remove? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 What nige1 said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [hv=pc=n&e=s43hqdt32cqj65432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)d(Pens)2np3nppp]133|200[/hv] The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb. At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)?Why does the auction say "All Pass" then? But I agree that 4C is the only LA, and as an aside I think the right bid was not 2NT but 3C, pre-emptive.And 2NT should be one of three hand typesa ) Both minors, no game interest, not willing to play 1NTxb ) Game-forcing two suiterc ) Single-suited slam try Partner assumes a) and now:3H = hearts and not spades3NT = spades and not clubs4C = clubs and not diamonds4D, 4H, 4S, 4NT = natural slam-try (last in clubs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Why can't partner have:[hv=pc=n&w=sA52hA23dA654cAK7&e=s43hqdt32cqj65432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)d(Pens)2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Four aces and a king seems just a tad strong for a 12 to 14 no-trump. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Why can't partner have:[hv=pc=n&w=sA52hA23dA654cAK7&e=s43hqdt32cqj65432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)d(Pens)2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]Partner could have anything; but hovering over 1NT states that it is 12-14. It is much more likely that partner has misinterpreted 2NT than partner has psyched a weak NT with a 19 count. Where does one draw the line? If East had xx xx xx Jxxxxxx the same hand would make 3NT an even money shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 And 2NT should be one of three hand typesa ) Both minors, no game interest, not willing to play 1NTxb ) Game-forcing two suiterc ) Single-suited slam tryOut of curiosity, and speaking as someone who has played it as either no agreement or as a two suiter excluding spades in all partnerships for many years, why "should" it be one of your three hand types? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfa1010 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I agree with campboy, mgoetze etc. IMO, the affected player (and the director) can perform a simple thought-experiment that may help to decide such cases. Here, over your 2N reply, imagine that partner alerts and explains "A puppet to 3♣. He could have a variety of hands. Some are weak hands that he wants us to play at the three-level. For example, a weak hand with long clubs." (Assuming that this an accurate explanation). Partner persists with 3N. Do you still remove?Such a thought-experiment is not necessarily fair. It is my impression that it is generally accepted that if the bidding looks sufficiently illogical then we are allowed to cater to a misunderstanding in spite of UI. Because of the AI also present. But with the thought-experiment as you describe it that would not be possible because of the assumption that partner reveals that there is no misinformation (however absurd the bidding may look). And in principle we can always play partner for having found a couple of extra aces or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I disagree with the thought experiment. Better is to consider what you would do if (i) you were playing with screens, or (ii) partner alerted 2NT but was not asked to explain it. Partner's explanations are UI to you, whatever they are. In your simple thought experiment, you have the UI that partner bid 3NT whilst being certain you might have a weak hand with clubs. Without that UI you are on a guess whether partner has miscounted his points, or has forgotten how you play 2NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 And I agree with Frances. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 It is my impression that it is generally accepted that if the bidding looks sufficiently illogical then we are allowed to cater to a misunderstanding in spite of UI. Because of the AI also present. But with the thought-experiment as you describe it that would not be possible because of the assumption that partner reveals that there is no misinformation (however absurd the bidding may look). And in principle we can always play partner for having found a couple of extra aces or something like that. I disagree with the thought experiment. Better is to consider what you would do if (i) you were playing with screens, or (ii) partner alerted 2NT but was not asked to explain it. Partner's explanations are UI to you, whatever they are. In your simple thought experiment, you have the UI that partner bid 3NT whilst being certain you might have a weak hand with clubs. Without that UI you are on a guess whether partner has miscounted his points, or has forgotten how you play 2NT. And I agree with Frances.My thought experiment is a bit cruel :( Frances Hinden's "Partner alerted but was not asked to explain" seems more in keeping with the laws :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Out of curiosity, and speaking as someone who has played it as either no agreement or as a two suiter excluding spades in all partnerships for many years, why "should" it be one of your three hand types?Because you have room to show additional hand types without giving up on your preferred method. If you have hearts and clubs, you bid 3H over partner's preference to a minor; if you have both minors, and game-forcing, you have already found your better fit, and if you have hearts and diamonds, you again bid 3H over partner's preference. Partner puppets with 3S and you complete the description. And all six combinations are shown in this way. And as an aside, I believe the three votes for pass in the poll at the start of this thread breach the second sentence of Law 72A. The voters are hanging partner for being a bit dim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Four aces and a king seems just a tad strong for a 12 to 14 no-trump. :D But it can't be much worse than that to make 3NT a serious suggestion if he understood 2NT correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Sure: but there is no connection between the two, is there? 'Two wrongs do not make a right.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Because you have room to show additional hand types without giving up on your preferred method. If you have hearts and clubs, you bid 3H over partner's preference to a minor; if you have both minors, and game-forcing, you have already found your better fit, and if you have hearts and diamonds, you again bid 3H over partner's preference. Partner puppets with 3S and you complete the description. And all six combinations are shown in this way. And as an aside, I believe the three votes for pass in the poll at the start of this thread breach the second sentence of Law 72A. The voters are hanging partner for being a bit dim.That might make it a better method - though I did not quite understand it - but that is nowhere near a sufficient reason to say that "2NT should be one of three hand types" when you are referring to others' methods, rather than your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 That might make it a better method - though I did not quite understand it - but that is nowhere near a sufficient reason to say that "2NT should be one of three hand types" when you are referring to others' methods, rather than your own.I prefaced my recommended treatment of 2NT with: "as an aside I think the right bid was not 2NT but 3C, pre-emptive."I have no idea what the player's methods were, nor does the "should" refer to their methods. It seems clear that they were not on the same wavelength. I did not say that I was referring to their methods rather than my own, and the context made it absolutely clear that it was the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 But it can't be much worse than that to make 3NT a serious suggestion if he understood 2NT correctly.AxAxxJxxAxxxx is not a bad shot ... but yes 3N does not exist on this sequence, so I think you can do what you like. The only time I've ever produced a bid like it was where I realised my 2 4 card black suits were in fact one 8 card suit, and partner had just transferred to the other black suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Sorry: I did not realise you were merely trying to espouse bidding methods. I tend to assume that posts here are aimed at the rulings being discussed. No, I did not read your sentence as being part of your 'aside'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 [hv=pc=n&w=sA2hJT4dA654cA987&e=s43hqdt32cqj65432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(12-14)d(Pens)2np3nppp]266|200|I agree with Hotshot and Cyberyeti that partner may be gambling with something like this. Last night, at the Glasgow Bridge Centre, on a similar deal and auction, we went five down in 3NT. Unfortunately... There was no major-suit game for opponents :( andOur main rivals wrapped up an overtrick: similar auction, same 3N contract, same declarer, but a different lead :([/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 So what if partner is gambling? I'm still supposed to take a safer road after partner's gamble, right? Imo East can do whatever he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.