Your call?

[gordontd]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq82haq75daqj9ck4&d=e&v=n&b=6&a=1cp1s1np2sp]133|200|

 

1♣=Weak NT, or clubs

1♠= no 4cM, not single-suited GF

 

(spot cards may differ from original - posted from memory)

 

You are in uncharted territory.

Your call now?[/hv]

Edited April 18, 2011 by gordontd

[Bbradley62]

"uncharted"? Do I not know whether my partner and I play 4-suit xfers? Edited April 16, 2011 by Bbradley62

[StevenG]

What would the uncontested auction 1NT-2♠ mean? I'd bid by analogy with that sequence. (3♣ showing a maximum, in my preferred methods). But, that's because I have an explicit "system on" agreement.

[gordontd]

"uncharted"? Do I not know whether my partner and I play 4-suit xfers?

You know that you play them in uncontested auctions, and when there has been a direct 1NT overcall of a suit.

 

You don't usually play them when partner has bid a natural NT in the sandwich position.

 

You have had no discussion about this situation, where neither of the opponents' bids has promised a suit.

[Finch]

I pass. If in doubt, bids are natural.

(And in any case I have the agreement - as does the OP - that bids are natural after a sandwich NT. This will still apply when they haven't promised a suit.)

[gordontd]

What would the uncontested auction 1NT-2♠ mean?

It would be a transfer to clubs, and the correct rebid with this hand in the methods would be 2NT.

[Finch]

As this is in the Laws & Rulings section, I can make life more interesting by giving a slightly different version of events, as related to me by one of the EW pair:

 

- Partner asks "is 1S natural?" before bidding 2S. [i don't know how often, if at all, this auction or any transfer responses have come up already in the match with the NS pair at the table]

- The NS first of all said they were playing transfers after a Sandwich NT, then changed it to them not playing transfers

- The hand in the OP had Kxx not Qxx of spades (probably not relevant to anything)

[blackshoe]

East has an opening bid, West has a game force, North has a strong NT. South has nada, save maybe length somewhere. So either South has spades, or South has one of the minors (2♠ is a relay to 3♣, South will pass with clubs, or correct to 3♦), or South has clubs (2♠ is a transfer). If I have no experience of South's tendencies in these situations, and no experience with this sequence in particular, and we have not discussed it, it's a guess what he has for his 2♠ bid. If I have UI that suggests partner has spades, I can't make that guess. So I bid 3♣ (or possibly 2NT, if that says "I don't like clubs" when 2♠ is a transfer). No doubt if partner has clubs (or diamonds) the TD will decide that the UI suggests I bid 3♣, and will adjust the score. :blink:

[Finch]

West has denied a game force, not shown one (unless he's balanced FG)

[bluejak]

I think Gordon was trying a poll, then going to give us further details. Not unreasonable.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq82haq75daqj9ck4&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1s1np2sp]133|200|

1♣=Weak NT, or clubs

1♠= no 4cM, not single-suited GF

(spot cards may differ from original - posted from memory)

You are in uncharted territory.

Your call now?[/hv]

Gordontd says you are in uncharted territory but you use 4-suit transfers in other auctions. IMO, you can resign yourself to disaster: alert 2♠ (but explain it as undiscussed, if asked). Pass and 2N are LAs (assuming that the latter shows a suitable hand with a club honour opposite a club transfer).

 

BTW what is the technical argument for using natural responses rather than transfers to a (natural) sandwich notrump?

[nigel_k]

If we have agreed to play natural over a sandwich notrump I am sticking to that agreement. Maybe it is more logical to do something else when they didn't show a suit but I wouldn't expect partner to spring something like that on me, so I wouldn't consider any action other than pass.

[Cascade]

BTW what is the technical argument for using natural responses rather than transfers to a (natural) sandwich notrump?

 

You are more likely to want to make a weak takeout into either of the other two suits (maybe three suits if the opening could be a short minor - or even four suits).

[MickyB]

I would consider passing and bidding, and I would conclude that system was on, and bid 2N/3C.

[aguahombre]

You are more likely to want to make a weak takeout into either of the other two suits (maybe three suits if the opening could be a short minor - or even four suits).

 

Yes. It is a low-level partscore battle, and the battlefield's boundaries are between 1NT and 2S. Gadgets which propel us higher than that are just not needed. Each side has less than game values, and neither side will have a big fit very often. The total trumps/tricks will be 14, or fifteen most of the time ---some 16's.

[paulg]

I would consider passing and bidding, and I would conclude that system was on, and bid 2N/3C.

I would also conclude that system was on and pass. If we do not play transfers over a sandwich 1NT it seems quite bizarre to make the decision that they do.

[gnasher]

I might interpret our agreements differently depending on how and why we agreed what we did. If the agreement was simply one player saying "system on except in the sandwich position" and the other one saying "OK", I'd tend to assume 2♠ was natural. If we had had a discussion of the merits of transfers, and agreed not to play transfers because the opponents had shown two of the four suits, I'd tend to assume 2♠ was a transfer.

 

Anyway, I'd certainly consider both treating it as a transfer and treating it as natural. If I had no other clue, I would pass, because it seems more likely that partner has five spades than that he has six clubs.

[gordontd]

- The hand in the OP had Kxx not Qxx of spades (probably not relevant to anything)

Probably not relevant, except to indicate that at least in this detail you have been misinformed. His partner had ♠KJxxx.

[nige1]

Yes. It is a low-level partscore battle, and the battlefield's boundaries are between 1NT and 2S. Gadgets which propel us higher than that are just not needed. Each side has less than game values, and neither side will have a big fit very often. The total trumps/tricks will be 14, or fifteen most of the time ---some 16's.

I would argue that after a natural sandwich one notrump, the case for transfers by advancer is more persuasive than usual.. Why make a special exception for a rare eventuality? Advancer is weak and it is better for the strong hand to be declarer, especially with the opening-bid hand leading up to it. The main downsides seem to be that

• You can't reach 2♣ undoubled (an unlikely final contract, anyway) and
• As usual, transfers give opponents more options in the auction (less of a disadvantage when both opponents have already bid)

[gordontd]

I think Gordon was trying a poll, then going to give us further details. Not unreasonable.

Yes, that's the case, and I'll give further details now.

 

South is a very experienced but elderly player who is not especially comfortable with complicated system. At the beginning of the match he remarked on the EW system, and said that he would ask a lot and that nothing should be read into it. They discussed how to defend against responses of 1♦ & 1♥, but not 1♠, and it was a point of uncertainty to both of them whether 1NT in the sandwich position should be natural or two-suited.

 

The 1♣ opening had come up several times already and he had asked about it, so he didn't ask again in this auction. The 1♠ bid (alerted) had not come up before and South asked whether it showed spades, before bidding 2♠ himself. Both he and North said that he was asking to try to work out whether the 1NT bid was strong balanced or two-suited, but it did have the unfortunate effect of removing any doubt that North might have had as to the nature of the 2♠ bid.

 

EW reserved their rights at the time and called for a ruling at the end of the match when it transpired that they had lost the match by 3 IMPs. They said that NS had said in discussion that they usually play transfers over a sandwich 1NT. NS were both adamant that they had not made this statement, that this is not so, and that they only play transfers in situations where they have specifically discussed it - they do not extend their agreements to other unknown situations. I concluded that there had been a misunderstanding, and that NS had not claimed to play transfers in this situation.

 

I discussed the case with bluejak, and considered that the question about the 1♠ bid prior to bidding 2♠ provided unauthorised information, and that bidding on (with 2NT, which is what I was told is the system bid) was a logical alternative to passing. It was this question that led me to post the hand here, to see how many would bid on and how many would pass. My expectation was that most would pass, but that enough would bid on to make it an LA.

 

From there I thought that there were various outcomes, bearing in mind that both players knew they were in uncharted territory. I gave a weighted ruling based on equal percentages of 3♠=, 3♦=, 2NT= and 3NT-1. This gave the EW team 1 more IMP (the score at the other table had been 4♠=).

 

By the time I had finished all this, at a bit after 1.30am, only one player remained in the club - a member of the EW team. He thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score. However, I believe that had they been playing with screens, and knowing of the uncertainty of their agreements, they might well have stopped (South held KJxxx, xx, Kxxx, xx). And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

[gnasher]

EW ... had lost the match by 3 IMPs

...

the score at the other table had been 4♠=

...

a member of the EW team ... thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score ... And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

If the table result was EW+140 or EW+170, that was 7 or 6 IMPs to NS.

 

If you'd changed the result to EW-50, that would have been 10 IMPs to NS.

 

So it seems to me that an adjusted score of 4♠-1 would have led to either a tie or a win to EW. Have I misunderstood?

[gordontd]

If the table result was EW+140 or EW+170, that was 7 or 6 IMPs to NS.

 

If you'd changed the result to EW-50, that would have been 10 IMPs to NS.

 

So it seems to me that an adjusted score of 4♠-1 would have led to either a tie or a win to EW. Have I misunderstood?

 

I see now that I had the vulnerability wrong in the original hand record - corrected now.

 

Table result: 620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP

 

Weighted ruling:

620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP

620-120 = 500 = 11 IMP

620-110 = 510 = 11 IMP

620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP

Average = 11 IMP

 

Ruling argued for by EW team:

620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP

Edited April 18, 2011 by gordontd

[jallerton]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq82haq75daqj9ck4&d=e&v=n&b=6&a=1cp1s1np2sp]133|200|

 

1♣=Weak NT, or clubs

1♠= no 4cM, not single-suited GF

 

(spot cards may differ from original - posted from memory)

 

You are in uncharted territory.

Your call now?[/hv]

 

I agree with Gnasher: it depends on what agreements we have got about potentially analogous sequences.

 

What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-1NT-(P)-?

What do we play after (1suit)[natural]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-?

What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-?

 

If, in the light of our actual agreements, I think that "natural, weak" and "clubs" are both significant possibilities, then I'll bid 2NT. If partner has clubs, he'll bid 3♣ or 3NT. If partner has spades, he might interpret 2NT a natural with a spade fit, but I don't mind that: opposite ♠AJ10xx and litle else, 3NT could easily make, whilst if he has a bad hand with spades, he can sign off in 3♠.

 

3♣ is another possible call to hedge my bets, although I prefer the more flexible 2NT.

 

South is a very experienced but elderly player who is not especially comfortable with complicated system. At the beginning of the match he remarked on the EW system, and said that he would ask a lot and that nothing should be read into it. They discussed how to defend against responses of 1♦ & 1♥, but not 1♠, and it was a point of uncertainty to both of them whether 1NT in the sandwich position should be natural or two-suited.

 

The 1♣ opening had come up several times already and he had asked about it, so he didn't ask again in this auction. The 1♠ bid (alerted) had not come up before and South asked whether it showed spades, before bidding 2♠ himself. Both he and North said that he was asking to try to work out whether the 1NT bid was strong balanced or two-suited, but it did have the unfortunate effect of removing any doubt that North might have had as to the nature of the 2♠ bid.

 

The uncertainty about the meaning of 1NT makes life more complicated. If I judge from my partner's question (UI to me, of course) that he might think my 1NT bid is a 2-suiter then perhaps a bid of 2NT now (which "confirms" the natural nature of the 1NT bid) is not permitted by Law 73C.

 

Therefore if I consider 3♣ to be a plausible action, that is the call I should make.

[nige1]

I discussed the case with bluejak, and considered that the question about the 1♠ bid prior to bidding 2♠ provided unauthorised information, and that bidding on (with 2NT, which is what I was told is the system bid) was a logical alternative to passing. It was this question that led me to post the hand here, to see how many would bid on and how many would pass. My expectation was that most would pass, but that enough would bid on to make it an LA. From there I thought that there were various outcomes, bearing in mind that both players knew they were in uncharted territory. I gave a weighted ruling based on equal percentages of 3♠=, 3♦=, 2NT= and 3NT-1. This gave the EW team 1 more IMP (the score at the other table had been 4♠=).

Judgement of Solomon, as usual :)

Solomon invented weighted rulings :(

[lamford]

By the time I had finished all this, at a bit after 1.30am, only one player remained in the club - a member of the EW team. He thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score. However, I believe that had they been playing with screens, and knowing of the uncertainty of their agreements, they might well have stopped (South held KJxxx, xx, Kxxx, xx). And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

Based on the facts as presented, I agree that asking and then bidding 2S conveys UI. And I agree with the member of the E/W team that there is no reason to allow North-South to stop below game. After North's 2NT, South will interpret this as a super-accept, and will surely jump to 4S. This will be a bit of a shock to North, as 2S showed clubs, and might be interpreted as a forward-going move for clubs, perhaps exclusion RKCB, or just a void (although in Surrey it might be interpreted as five spades and six clubs). North, visualising something like none xx Kx AQxxxxx opposite, will jump to 7C and someone might double this. East-West win the match, and everybody lives happily ever after. How North-South might bid with screens is not so relevant. When they have UI they have to carefully avoid ...