technically speaking

[wank]

i was a little surprised to be ruled against on this deal. retrospectively i should have appealed as it was the difference between winning and losing the tournament - a 12 VP swing against the leaders - but i don't like appealing in regional tournaments.

 

the bidding was as per the diagram. 2NT was 17-18 apparently. At the key point, north bid 3 hearts after a great deal of agonising. it felt clear to me that he had half the deck, but obv what's clear to me and what's clear to other people are not one and the same thing. anyway, south raised to 4♥ and north keycarded before bidding 6 and slotting in 1430. as south was putting the dummy down he said '3H was technically non-forcing' but he bid 4 anyway because he had good controls.

 

you may think that's an absurd agreement, but that's by the by.

 

i felt that the difference between a technically non-forcing bid and a non-forcing bid was when one's partner gives you enough UI to let you know he doesn't want it to be passed, so i called the director.

 

The director commented that north's pause didn't suggest anything as he may have been contemplating a weaker action. Obviously he may be considering pass, but i would think the decision whether to play in one's 6 card suit or not when partner has shown a balanced hand would be quite swift. he also said that the table feel from my viewpoint that LHO had a strong hand may have been influenced by my bad hand (i had 2 kings which doesn't seem like an unusually weak hand when RHO has shown 17-18).

 

Anyway, eventually the director said he polled some players and all bid on, albeit mostly 3NT so he was letting the score stand. I can't recall responder's hand to comment whether they would get to slam after 3NT, but let's assume they would.

 

i couldn't understand why it's so clear to bid on over 3 hearts assuming that was one's system - partner has shown a sub-minimum response with 6 hearts. yes you have 3 aces, but you've only got 2 hearts. i wonder if people when polled are very good at putting themselves in the position of playing unusual/absurd methods whereby 3H is a weak call.

 

north thought 3 hearts was forcing btw.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq6h92da72caqj64&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1hp2np3hp]133|200[/hv]

[BunnyGo]

I am not an expert on laws (nor bridge), but if my agreements are that 2NT is 17-18 and 3H is non-forcing, then I've already overbid my hand and I pass...Yes, it's a prime 15 (3 aces and a good 5 card suit) but I have no ruffing values and I'm a King short of my bidding so far--why would I bid on?

[wank]

overbid my hand and I pass...Yes, it's a prime 15

 

i missed off the queen of spades in the diagram. it wasn't that absurd ;-)

[gwnn]

I agree with you and I think the polled people were silly. 3NT seriously??

[jallerton]

Anyway, eventually the director said he polled some players and all bid on, albeit mostly 3NT so he was letting the score stand. I can't recall responder's hand to comment whether they would get to slam after 3NT, but let's assume they would.

 

i couldn't understand why it's so clear to bid on over 3 hearts assuming that was one's system - partner has shown a sub-minimum response with 6 hearts. yes you have 3 aces, but you've only got 2 hearts. i wonder if people when polled are very good at putting themselves in the position of playing absurd methods whereby 3H is a weak call.

 

I wonder if the TD made it sufficiently clear to those polled that 3♥ was non-forcing. I can construct some 2NT rebids where it is percentage to bid on over a 3♥ sign-off, but for sure this isn't one of them.

 

The UI does not necessarily imply that Responder considered 3♥ to be forcing. Maybe Responder was deciding between a 3♥ sign-off and an optimistic jump to 4♥ (in which case the slowness of the 3♥ bid suggests bidding on). Could Responder have a weak hand with a 5-card heart suit, say ♥QJ1087 and little else, and be trying to decide which part score out of 2NT and 3♥ is more likely to make? I suspect not.

[ggwhiz]

I do play that 3♥ is non-forcing in this auction, indeed a drop dead bid. There is no weaker option and you win the appeal with me at the speed of light.

 

I can only assume that the players polled were Bonnie and Clyde.

[gordontd]

The director commented that north's pause didn't suggest anything as he may have been contemplating a weaker action.

I wonder what action he thinks is weaker than a non-forcing 3H?

 

Anyway, eventually the director said he polled some players and all bid on, albeit mostly 3NT so he was letting the score stand. I can't recall responder's hand to comment whether they would get to slam after 3NT, but let's assume they would.

 

i couldn't understand why it's so clear to bid on over 3 hearts assuming that was one's system - partner has shown a sub-minimum response with 6 hearts. yes you have 3 aces, but you've only got 2 hearts.

I play those methods with one of my partners. With him, I would pass 3H with the given hand.

 

i wonder if people when polled are very good at putting themselves in the position of playing unusual/absurd methods whereby 3H is a weak call.

Do you consider all methods that allow you to stop short of game with a mis-fitting combined 22-count after a 2NT rebid to be absurd, or just these particular ones?

[wank]

 

 

Do you consider all methods that allow you stop short of game with a mis-fitting combined 22-count after a 2NT rebid to be absurd, or just these particular ones?

 

to be fair, my attitude towards the method is slightly prejudiced based on this result. however, i would think it makes bidding slam a little tricky [assuming one doesn't have a 2 minute tank available to clear matters up] if you can't repeat your suit below game on a good hand

[BunnyGo]

i missed off the queen of spades in the diagram. it wasn't that absurd ;-)

 

I'll still pass.

[ggwhiz]

to be fair, my attitude towards the method is slightly prejudiced based on this result. however, i would think it makes bidding slam a little tricky [assuming one doesn't have a 2 minute tank available to clear matters up] if you can't repeat your suit below game on a good hand

 

It is not tricky at all to play that 3♣ (checkback stayman) creates the game force and slam tries that follow, ie. 3♦, then 3♥ instead of 4.

[wank]

It is not tricky at all to play that 3♣ (checkback stayman) creates the game force and slam tries that follow, ie. 3♦, then 3♥ instead of 4.

 

ok fair enough. i still won't be putting it on my christmas list though

 

a ) you can't bid hearts if opener rebids 3S (or is it a puppet?)

B ) you lose your natural 3 club bid, which if it's opener's suit, is a prime prospect for slam in itself, so you've substituted the heart problem for a club problem.

 

slight tangent ;-)

[BunnyGo]

ok fair enough. i still won't be putting it on my christmas list though

 

a ) you can't bid hearts if opener rebids 3S (or is it a puppet?)

B ) you lose your natural 3 club bid, which if it's opener's suit, is a prime prospect for slam in itself, so you've substituted the heart problem for a club problem.

 

slight tangent ;-)

 

As another option, my partner and I play a variant where all bids EXCEPT 3♣ are game forcing and 3♣ is puppet to 3♦ pass or correct to play.

 

Yes, we have lost the 3♣ bid...but many systems sacrifice the lowly suit for gain elsewhere.

[ggwhiz]

As another option, my partner and I play a variant where all bids EXCEPT 3♣ are game forcing and 3♣ is puppet to 3♦ pass or correct to play.

 

Yes, we have lost the 3♣ bid...but many systems sacrifice the lowly suit for gain elsewhere.

 

This is a very useful tool that I am aware of but found a bit too memory intensive to use in my partnerships given the lack of frequency. If you are up to it though, it's probably best. Google Wollf sign-offs??? Just a guess but I'm still ruling for the poster in committee.

[Bbradley62]

I do play that 3♥ is non-forcing in this auction, indeed a drop dead bid. There is no weaker option and you win the appeal with me at the speed of light.

 

I can only assume that the players polled were Bonnie and Clyde.

It is not tricky at all to play that 3♣ (checkback stayman) creates the game force and slam tries that follow, ie. 3♦, then 3♥ instead of 4.

My partner and I play that over 2N, 3♣ and 3♥ are both signoffs and 3♦ is new minor forcing to game.

 

When you say "2NT was 17-18 apparently", is this just based on the fact that he made the bid? Maybe they play 1NT=15-17 with this sequence as 18-19, but he judged his hand to be too good to be called 17? This, of course, would make his action worse than you already think it is.

[aguahombre]

if 2nt is 18-19....as in ours....we are already committed to game. 3h is forcing, but could be only five. Then, by inference, 4H over 3NT is stronger than 4H directly over 2nt. Old fashioned system based on responder having a response and 2H/1m being less. We don't find the need for artificial "Wolves" to sign off after 2NT, so every bid by responder over 2NT is forcing. Maybe the opponents are old people like us with simple methods advocated back in the 60's.

 

So opener decided his hand was not a 1NT opener.....o.k., once he decides it is 18, he must stick with it.

[mrdct]

The TD needs to go to some effort at least to establish what the north-south agreement is for the 3♥ bid as they can't both be right. Enquiries need to be made about what 3♣ and 3♦ mean and whether or not north had a weak jump shift available. Did the TD have a look at their convention card?

 

If they play 1♣:2♥ as weak, I don't think pass of 3♥ is a logical alternative, but if 3♥ is the only bid north can make with a pile a crap with 6♥ I think pass is most definately a logical alternative and bidding-on is quite likely suggested by the tank.

[gordontd]

if 2nt is 18-19....as in ours....we are already committed to game. 3h is forcing, but could be only five. Then, by inference, 4H over 3NT is stronger than 4H directly over 2nt. Old fashioned system based on responder having a response and 2H/1m being less. We don't find the need for artificial "Wolves" to sign off after 2NT, so every bid by responder over 2NT is forcing. Maybe the opponents are old people like us with simple methods advocated back in the 60's.

 

So opener decided his hand was not a 1NT opener.....o.k., once he decides it is 18, he must stick with it.

Interesting system notes (including that you play a 2NT rebid as forcing) but I can't see what it has to do with the original post.

 

Maybe they were playing traditional Acol, with a 12-14 NT, 15-16 1NT rebid, and 17-18 2NT rebid? If so it wouldn't be surprising for 3H to be non-forcing.

[gordontd]

The TD needs to go to some effort at least to establish what the north-south agreement is for the 3♥ bid as they can't both be right.

If South believed that 3♥ was non-forcing, he can't make use of UI to be put back on track, even if 3♥ really was forcing.

[campboy]

Agree with everyone who would be adjusting the score to 3♥+3. FWIW if 2NT rebid could be as little as 17 and I wasn't playing weak jump shifts I would want some way to stop in 3♥ after this start.

[Cyberyeti]

If you're playing 17-18, 3♥ NF is normal, and no reason to bid on, adjust to 3♥+3.

 

A lot of people play a wider range 1N rebid, and if your 2N rebid is 18-19, on grounds of frequency I would play 3♥ forcing.

 

We would rebid 1N with the 17 count without a problem, with 2N as artificial GF unbalanced.

[bluejak]

How other people play the sequence is hardly relevant. In fact some people play it as signoff and some as game forcing. I ought to know: I play it both ways with different partners. Whether one method is better than the other is irrelevant for ruling purposes, as is how this pair plays it.

 

All that matters is that South thought is was not forcing, he had UI from partner, playing it as non-forcing enough people here pass that pass is clearly an LA. So the only question of any interest, surely, is whether the BIT suggests bidding on over passing.

 

I think yes and rule it back.

[Poky]

Opponents probalbly play 18-19 2NT rebid but they upgraded a beautiful 17 count (as anyone should do).

The first thing director should do is to check what's 1m-pass-2M in their system.

If they have an agreement that's a weak-2 then it is clear 3♥ now should be treated as forcing.

But obviously, opener's comment makes clear this is hardly their agreement, so, an adjustment to 3♥ could be in order as a slow 3♥ cannot suggest a weak hand.