Maybe I should have been ruled against

[Cyberyeti]

We don't view a 2 card club as fully natural in system.

 

And our agreement for dealing with a 2 card club doesn't really work other than directly over it or when responder makes a bid that can't be passed. This is something awkward we need to talk about.

 

Over say 1♣-P-1♥ we can pass, then bid clubs naturally later, over 1♣-P-1N which can end the auction, we can't.

[paulg]

I am struggling with the logic that:

 

1. A pair has lots of detailed agreements over a short club, but perhaps not in this precise sequence.
2. One of the pair then makes a Michaels cue bid in clubs, vulnerable against not, with a weak hand opposite a partner who could not overcall 1♣, fully aware that his partner may not understand it.
3. The cue bidder then decides that his partner did not understand his Michaels bid and sacrifices at unfavourable vulnerability
4. The fact that his partner did not alert Michaels is because they have no explicit agreement about this sequence, so cue bidder is allowed to do what he likes

Firstly, I think that bidding 2♣ with no hope of partner understanding it is madness and I believe it shows that the bidder expects his partner to understand it. Either this round or next, there is the expectation that partner will understand it as showing the majors and this implies partnership agreement.

 

If your partner had alerted 2♣, as you would expect, then you would never consider bidding again. If you were playing with screens you would not be bidding again. Without screens I wonder if your partner hesitated before deciding whether to alert or not - my guess is that any lack of hesitation also suggests that your partner thought that 2♣ was natural - when you make an unusual call that may be alertable, partners usually think about alerting.

 

I would definitely rule against you, give you a PP and keep your deposit if you appealed.

 

Apologies for the lack of sympathy especially as you did start the thread against yourself. I just feel it is more blatant than you considered it, although I appreciate that these matters are always a lot more difficult at the table.

[Cyberyeti]

I am struggling with the logic that:

 

1. A pair has lots of detailed agreements over a short club, but perhaps not in this precise sequence.
2. One of the pair then makes a Michaels cue bid in clubs, vulnerable against not, with a weak hand opposite a partner who could not overcall 1♣, fully aware that his partner may not understand it.
3. The cue bidder then decides that his partner did not understand his Michaels bid and sacrifices at unfavourable vulnerability
4. The fact that his partner did not alert Michaels is because they have no explicit agreement about this sequence, so cue bidder is allowed to do what he likes

Firstly, I think that bidding 2♣ with no hope of partner understanding it is madness and I believe it shows that the bidder expects his partner to understand it. Either this round or next, there is the expectation that partner will understand it as showing the majors and this implies partnership agreement.

 

If your partner had alerted 2♣, as you would expect, then you would never consider bidding again. If you were playing with screens you would not be bidding again. Without screens I wonder if your partner hesitated before deciding whether to alert or not - my guess is that any lack of hesitation also suggests that your partner thought that 2♣ was natural - when you make an unusual call that may be alertable, partners usually think about alerting.

 

I would definitely rule against you, give you a PP and keep your deposit if you appealed.

 

Apologies for the lack of sympathy especially as you did start the thread against yourself. I just feel it is more blatant than you considered it, although I appreciate that these matters are always a lot more difficult at the table.

I started this thread because I wanted to know how people would view it, and what the right decision was.

 

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the position.

 

I was 100% clear my bid was two suited, as I thought the 1N bid 100% showed clubs.

 

Partner who was probably more au fait with opps system, decided it didn't and hence was sure 2♣ was natural. Although with no UI, he can do what he likes in response to this.

 

The only issue is what I do over 3N. I described my thought process earlier, partner hasn't passed over 2♣X as a suggestion to play, so doesn't have any real length there or bid 2♦, and honours he has are well placed, and it sounds like he has some sort of real fit in an auction where he wouldn't necessarily bounce it due to the vulnerability. I assessed this on the basis that he had alerted 2♣, and also on the Zia principle that when you're having one of those days where you clearly have the Midas touch, keep going with your instinct so I did (we were in the process of putting together a card that was 20-0 just on our card in a 32 board teams of 8 match).

 

That partner hasn't overcalled is a red herring, we tend to jump overcall on tram tickets, and a simple overcall is opening bid +. Also it seems that partner's spades are only 10 high at best (given the 3N bid), so that would make it a pretty unattractive overcall.

[knyblad]

It is very likely that the missing alert of 2♣ screwed up E-W's bidding. East has no way of knowing that that have a 10 card fit. Assume that West would not bid a four card suit without and honor. Then West could 4342 distribution or even 4441 distribution. I think the score should be adjusted to 5♣ 11 tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

It is very likely that the missing alert of 2♣ screwed up E-W's bidding. East has no way of knowing that that have a 10 card fit. Assume that West would not bid a four card suit without and honor. Then West could 4342 distribution or even 4441 distribution. I think the score should be adjusted to 5♣ 11 tricks.

Objectively there should be no alert, neither opponent has guaranteed clubs, so 2♣ is natural. I didn't realise this at the time which is the cause of the problem. I suspect 1N should have been alerted, but am not sure whether it was.

[lamford]

Objectively there should be no alert, neither opponent has guaranteed clubs, so 2♣ is natural. I didn't realise this at the time which is the cause of the problem. I suspect 1N should have been alerted, but am not sure whether it was.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Cyberyeti]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

So they're allowed to screw me up by not telling me that a 3361 hand responds 1N to 1♣, but when I misinterpret this and screw them up by making the wrong bid which partner in system correctly interprets, they can get me for messing up their auction, but I don't have the same rights ?

 

The question of whether I should have bid 4♠ is relevant and whether that should have been put back to 3N, but I would feel very upset if there was an adjustment to 5♣ for MI, when the opps caused it.

[lamford]

So they're allowed to screw me up by not telling me that a 3361 hand responds 1N to 1♣, but when I misinterpret this and screw them up by making the wrong bid which partner in system correctly interprets, they can get me for messing up their auction, but I don't have the same rights ?

Codswallop; where do you get the idea that they would respond 1NT on a 3-3-6-1 hand? Did they tell you this? 1NT was natural and non-forcing, and therefore not alertable. If you wanted to know about any distributional constraints before bidding 2C you could ask. You knew 2C was Michaels; your partner knew 2C was Michaels; the caretaker's dog knew 2C was Michaels. Please stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes - it is not getting you anywhere.

[Cyberyeti]

Codswallop; where do you get the idea that they would respond 1NT on a 3-3-6-1 hand? Did they tell you this? 1NT was natural and non-forcing, and therefore not alertable. If you wanted to know about any distributional constraints before bidding 2C you could ask. You knew 2C was Michaels; your partner knew 2C was Michaels; the caretaker's dog knew 2C was Michaels. Please stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes - it is not getting you anywhere.

They play a staymanic 1♦ guaranteeing a 4 card major unless they follow up with 2♦ which means they respond 1N on hands where the rest of the world bids 1♦. I think I'm entitled to know that. This came out afterwards. The only diamond only hands in this range they respond 1♦ on are hands where they wish to repeat the suit as a weak sign off, so at the bottom of the 6-11 range with 6 or more. Not sure what 1♣-2♦ is.

 

They certainly respond 1N with ALL 3352s in range which I wouldn't expect either.

[Trinidad]

My two cents:

 

South intended 2♣ as showing both majors.

South has UI from the fact that North didn't alert his 2♣ bid. This UI tells South that North's 2♠ bid was not a mere preference for spades over hearts, but rather a voluntary offer to play in spades (as long as South had clubs and values).

Without the UI, South will play North for a poor to so-so hand with about 3 spades. South should be happy that he got out of the auction with his skin intact. He has already overbid his hand.

With the UI South will play North for a 5+ spade suit. That makes it very interesting to bid 4♠. Opposite a 5+ spade suit his hand will be much better for 4♠ than "an opening bid with lots of clubs" would have been.

 

Conclusion: South's 4♠ could have demonstrably been suggested over Pass by the UI from the lack of alert of the 2♣ bid. Pass is certainly a LA.

 

How about the AS? There is damage. An AS will be based on a contract of 3NT by West. The OP says that North would lead a spade, but I don't agree with that. The fact that South passed 2♠ shows a mere tolerance for spades (something like Hx), along with his club suit and 14 points that he (from North's perspective) showed by the 2♣ bid.

My ruling would be that North will lead a club from his Axx. After this start, West will make 3NT (1 spade, 4 hearts and 4 clubs). AS: 3NT W, 9 tricks. NS -400, EW +400.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

My two cents:

 

South intended 2♣ as showing both majors.

South has UI from the fact that North didn't alert his 2♣ bid. This UI tells South that North's 2♠ bid was not a mere preference for spades over hearts, but rather a voluntary offer to play in spades (as long as South had clubs and values).

Without the UI, South will play North for a poor to so-so hand with about 3 spades. South should be happy that he got out of the auction with his skin intact. He has already overbid his hand.

With the UI South will play North for a 5+ spade suit. That makes it very interesting to bid 4♠. Opposite a 5+ spade suit his hand will be much better for 4♠ than "an opening bid with lots of clubs" would have been.

 

Conclusion: South's 4♠ could have demonstrably been suggested over Pass by the UI from the lack of alert of the 2♣ bid. Pass is certainly a LA.

 

How about the AS? There is damage. An AS will be based on a contract of 3NT by West. The OP says that North would lead a spade, but I don't agree with that. The fact that South passed 2♠ shows a mere tolerance for spades (something like Hx), along with his club suit and 14 points that he (from North's perspective) showed by the 2♣ bid.

My ruling would be that North will lead a club from his Axx. After this start, West will make 3NT (1 spade, 4 hearts and 4 clubs). AS: 3NT W, 9 tricks. NS -400, EW +400.

 

Rik

As Jallerton pointed out, it's South's lead, and he WILL lead a spade from KQJxx.

 

Also had it been N's lead, he knows what's going on, 2♠ is 100% forcing so he is free to reinterpret when I pass.

[Vampyr]

I was 100% clear my bid was two suited, as I thought the 1N bid 100% showed clubs.

so that would make it a pretty unattractive overcall.

This still strikes me as really weird. Anyway, if 1NT guaranteed a club suit, surely they would have alerted.

[WellSpyder]

.. if 1NT guaranteed a club suit, surely they would have alerted.

Really? When I play traditional Acol, I bid suits upwards. If partner opens 1♣ I will bid a 4+ card suit if I have one, so if I bid 1N I must have 4+♣ since I don't have 4♦,♥ or♠. Should my partner therefore be alerting the 1NT response?

[paulg]

5 F 'Natural' bids and passes

 

 

5 F 1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes:

...

(b ) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement. ...

 

Just a question of what you would think is unusual.

[bluejak]

Really? When I play traditional Acol, I bid suits upwards. If partner opens 1♣ I will bid a 4+ card suit if I have one, so if I bid 1N I must have 4+♣ since I don't have 4♦,♥ or♠. Should my partner therefore be alerting the 1NT response?

No. An unalerted 1NT response is natural with no agreements that are sufficiently unusual that opponents might not expect them. So none of the following are alertable:

• 1NT may contain four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain five diamonds
  
• 1NT never contains four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain a poor four card major
  
• 1NT never contains a four card major
  

[Cyberyeti]

No. An unalerted 1NT response is natural with no agreements that are sufficiently unusual that opponents might not expect them. So none of the following are alertable:

• 1NT may contain four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain five diamonds
  
• 1NT never contains four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain a poor four card major
  
• 1NT never contains a four card major
  

May contain 5 diamonds is the only one I find unusual in this list (at least for UK viewing). I think if you give 90%+ of players in the UK a 3352, they will respond 1♦, so this would be an unexpected holding for a 1N bid.

[Trinidad]

As Jallerton pointed out, it's South's lead, and he WILL lead a spade from KQJxx.

Shame on me!

:(

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Really? When I play traditional Acol, I bid suits upwards. If partner opens 1♣ I will bid a 4+ card suit if I have one, so if I bid 1N I must have 4+♣ since I don't have 4♦,♥ or♠. Should my partner therefore be alerting the 1NT response?

Would you respond 1NT with 5 or even just 4 small diamonds?

 

Mainly the issue here, I think, is that "inferentially holds" different to "promises". In the auction 1♦-(P)-1NT, responder also has a good chance of holding clubs. How far do you want to take this?

 

I think if you give 90%+ of players in the UK a 3352, they will respond 1♦, so this would be an unexpected holding for a 1N bid.

 

Where did you come up with that figure?

 

Naturally it depends on "which" 3352. The presence of tenaces and the quality of the diamond suit will count for much here.

[Cyberyeti]

Would you respond 1NT with 5 or even just 4 small diamonds?

 

Mainly the issue here, I think, is that "inferentially holds" different to "promises". In the auction 1♦-(P)-1NT, responder also has a good chance of holding clubs. How far do you want to take this?

 

 

 

Where did you come up with that figure?

 

Naturally it depends on "which" 3352. The presence of tenaces and the quality of the diamond suit will count for much here.

1♦-P-1N may hold 4 diamonds and not 4 clubs if you play inverted minors as a decent number of people do.

 

I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ as acol does with any hand with 5 diamonds or indeed 4 diamonds, 1N is precisely 3334 in response to 1♣ in the acol I was taught.

[gordontd]

1N is precisely 3334 in response to 1♣ in the acol I was taught.

Not in any Acol book I've read.

[StevenG]

I learnt that 1♣-1NT showed four clubs and 8-10 points, when relearning the basics in the early 90s. My copy of "All about Acol" states this (not entirely clearly, though).

[campboy]

It hardly matters whether you, or I, expect 1NT to always have four clubs. A 1NT (nonforcing, suggesting playing in NT) which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings is not alertable, and since this 1NT conveys *less* information about suit holdings than you expect, how can it be alertable?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, I am very reluctant to ever use the "c" word. But once in a while I am sorely tempted.

[Cyberyeti]

It hardly matters whether you, or I, expect 1NT to always have four clubs. A 1NT (nonforcing, suggesting playing in NT) which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings is not alertable, and since this 1NT conveys *less* information about suit holdings than you expect, how can it be alertable?

There is a requirement that where a bid may be made on an unexpected hand even if natural, then you should alert it. While it may be normal in the US to bid 1N on a 3352, in the UK it is normal to bid 1♦, hence the meaning is unexpected. cf 1♦-3♦ on a weak hand because you're playing inverted minors, perfectly natural, just not as strong as you'd expect so alertable.

[gordontd]

I learnt that 1♣-1NT showed four clubs and 8-10 points, when relearning the basics in the early 90s. My copy of "All about Acol" states this (not entirely clearly, though).

I learned that it shows 8-10 points with four diamonds in basic Acol. With fewer points you can respond 1♦. With four clubs you can raise, since opener is also known to have four.