UI & insufficient bidding

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj9873hqt6djct963&n=skthakj3dkt64cak5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2dp2hp2np3hp4hp4sp5cp5sp]266|200[/hv]

 

2D was a multi, and 2NT showed 20-22 HCP

 

3H was a transfer to spades (not alerted), and it now starts getting murky. South thinks 4H is a superaccept, and signs off in 4S. North thinks 4S is a cue, and cue bids 5C, to which South retreats again to 5S.

 

At this point, North bids 5H (insufficient), which when the director is called, is accepted by East.

 

How do you rule if a} South passes 5H

b} South corrects to 5S, and North passes

c} South corrects to 5S and North corrects to 6H, which South passes.

[campboy]

I don't see any reason to adjust in any of those cases. South had no LA to bidding 4♠; after 5♣ the auction makes no sense (to South) so I think it is sufficiently clear that a wheel has come off that nothing is particularly suggested. North has no UI and so if he realises that partner might have spades he is entitled to act on that realisation, so long as South isn't pulling faces or whatever.

[bluejak]

I am not sure I understand why a wheel has come off. Speaking from nearly 50 years' experience of crazy partners and insane opponents when an auction sounds nearly impossible it means something has gone wrong about half the time, and one player has got some strange idea in his head about half the time. When there is UI involved, of course, we know it is the former.

 

Should North bid this way with

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakt4hakj4d76cakj]133|100[/hv]

 

??

 

No, of course not, but I have seen people bid this way. How do we know he did not? Because of the lack of alert.

 

I think it is time Burn came up with a name for a new principle: if partner does something strange, and UI tells you why, you never get it wrong but you always argue your bidding is obvious.

[lamford]

I think it is time Burn came up with a name for a new principle: if partner does something strange, and UI tells you why, you never get it wrong but you always argue your bidding is obvious.

Can I suggest the Crèche Principle. Willie Rushton described a crèche as a car accident in Surrey, so a crèche might be a bidding accident involving an inexperienced Surrey partnership ...

[campboy]

Ok, then, so either partner has randomly decided to force to slam after I've attempted to sign off in a partscore or something has gone wrong. I don't think these possibilities are anything close to equally likely, but whatever. Even if we assume that partner has a 50% chance of being a maniac I don't see how the UI suggests anything in particular.

[lamford]

Ok, then, so either partner has randomly decided to force to slam after I've attempted to sign off in a partscore or something has gone wrong. I don't think these possibilities are anything close to equally likely, but whatever. Even if we assume that partner has a 50% chance of being a maniac I don't see how the UI suggests anything in particular.

I agree; it is overwhelmingly likely that partner has forgotten the system. Once partner bids 5C, I think you are fully entitled to know that a wheel has come off, as the bid is non-systemic, and can have no logical meaning, as you could have a yarborough. Now nothing is demonstrably suggested and Pass and 5S are both LAs, or any other bid you like for that matter.

[AlexJonson]

For me the question is, had South bid 3S natural and non-forcing, would he have bid on over 4H from North. Be interesting to poll that.

[lamford]

For me the question is, had South bid 3S natural and non-forcing, would he have bid on over 4H from North. Be interesting to poll that.

No it wouldn't. 100% of people would sign off in 4S.

[gordontd]

For me the question is, had South bid 3S natural and non-forcing, would he have bid on over 4H from North. Be interesting to poll that.

For whom would 3♠ be non-forcing?

[AlexJonson]

For whom would 3♠ be non-forcing?

 

What a feeble post. At least Lamford (albeit with his usual arrogance)replies to the question, rather than asking an entirely pointless question.

[AlexJonson]

No it wouldn't. 100% of people would sign off in 4S.

 

Good to discover that with Lamford in the world, polls are unnecessary, since their results can be judged to infinite precision.

[mrdct]

It might be useful to ascertain what north-south's agreements are, but I think as soon as north bids 5♣, south is pretty much off the hook as he now has clear AI that partner has interpreted the 3♥ bid as natural and can therefore proceed however he likes.

 

Was 4♥ alerted by south, or are 4-level bids non-alertable in your jurisdiction?

 

In south's mind, what other super-accepts were available to north (i.e. what would 3NT, 4♣ and 4♦ have meant)? A super-accept with 4♥ with three lower bids available seems extremely odd and I think on that basis I would be quite willing to let south pass 4♥.

[campboy]

Was 4♥ alerted by south, or are 4-level bids non-alertable in your jurisdiction?

I think this is in the EBU, where bids above 3NT are not alerted unless they are opening bids.

[lamford]

Good to discover that with Lamford in the world, polls are unnecessary, since their results can be judged to infinite precision.

I was actually wrong. I have no idea what the four lowest IQ sets - the moron, imbecile, cretin and idiot, would have done. And I am only offering the opinion that 100% of the remainder would have signed off in Four Spades.

[lamford]

What a feeble post. At least Lamford (albeit with his usual arrogance)replies to the question, rather than asking an entirely pointless question.

If you suggest that you are of feeble mind with the question, expect a feeble post in reply. I actually think gordontd's brief response was succint and to the point. Apart from the ridiculousness of bidding above Four Spades, and the even greater ridiculousness of passing, who on earth plays a non-forcing 3S? So "am I bovvered?" would be as good an answer.

[gordontd]

For me the question is, had South bid 3S natural and non-forcing, would he have bid on over 4H from North. Be interesting to poll that.

Very interesting. A powerful question in fact.

[lamford]

Very interesting. A powerful question in fact.

Indeed; perhaps AlexJonson should use the poll facility; he can ask how the player would bid on as well. The choices appear to be:

a) 4NT (presumably simple Blackwood)

b) 5D (if one cues second-round controls)

c) 5H (showing where your value lies)

d) 5S (how do you like my hand?)

[lamford]

A super-accept with 4♥ with three lower bids available seems extremely odd and I think on that basis I would be quite willing to let south pass 4♥.

Again the "I am not going to cheat and use the UI ... 'but there is nothing else it can mean' " principle. What about something like: AKQx AKJx xx KQx? Many play that one breaks to a concentration, but if you would bid 4C with that, then change the minors slightly.

[AlexJonson]

I can't be bothered to use the quotation features, whatever they are.

 

GordonTD.

 

When you approach the supplicants and they present their piteous System Cards to you.

 

Do you ask them 'who in the world bids the way you do'.

 

Would you mind answering yes or no rather than asking me another question.

 

Lamford.

 

Let's say that just 'today', at the End of Time, after 2NT, all artificial and forcing sequences start with 3C/3D and 3H/3S are sign-offs.

 

When partner (possibly/probably/certainly) shows a very good maximum with two spades and five good hearts, when he bids 4H.

 

How many polled players bid on. GTD says they all get cross about it. You say... who knows.

[mr1303]

Just breaking up this flame war to suggest that 4C & 4D would also be super-accepts suggesting first round controls. We would not normally bid 3nt here as it is undiscussed.

[lamford]

Just breaking up this flame war to suggest that 4C & 4D would also be super-accepts suggesting first round controls. We would not normally bid 3nt here as it is undiscussed.

I agree, which is why I gave an example without a first round minor-suit control: AKQx AKJx xx KQx. And if 3S were non-forcing, I would still expect something like this - partner probably thinks 3S is forcing, and is making a super-accept in case it is.

[AlexJonson]

OK guys.

 

I wanted to investigate what happens when South doesn't have UI from lack of alert.

 

But if the interest is that North has not just forgetten a transfer, but a whole lump of system, then fine I'll lose interest.

[lamford]

OK guys.

 

I wanted to investigate what happens when South doesn't have UI from lack of alert.

 

But if the interest is that North has not just forgetten a transfer, but a whole lump of system, then fine I'll lose interest.

I think I understand. If you bid 2NT (or through a multi) - 3S which is a sign-off and partner does not alert and bids 4H, you can of course do as you want. But I would not play partner for a doubleton spade and five hearts. If it goes through the multi, maybe with 2S, showing hearts, in response, and then 3S is not alerted, that could be more complicated.

[campboy]

OK guys.

 

I wanted to investigate what happens when South doesn't have UI from lack of alert.

 

But if the interest is that North has not just forgetten a transfer, but a whole lump of system, then fine I'll lose interest.

The problem with this idea is that if 3♠ were natural and non-forcing the meaning of 4♥ would be different since in that case responder has limited his hand and opener can't be trying for a spade slam.