Crockfords Final 4 (EBU)

[jallerton]

3♣ was explained as natural and game-forcing, but was actually natural and weak

 

Was 3♣ alerted? At what point did East or West ask about the 3♣ bid and receive the original explanation?

[lamford]

Was 3♣ alerted? At what point did East or West ask about the 3♣ bid and receive the original explanation?

No, 3♣ was not alerted, but East asked the meaning anyway. South responded "natural and game-forcing," as stated by the TD. North corrected the misexplanation prior to the opening lead, and suggested East-West call the TD, as North was aware that East could have her last bid back. The TD allowed East to do so and she substituted double. At the end of the hand, South suggested that East called the TD back, but East did not want to do so. But South insisted, and the TD was called again.

 

It appears from the ruling that the TD did not accept that "East would have bid 3D if she had known that 3C was weak, but was not prepared to bid a forcing 3D when she heard it was strong, as their methods were that it would then have been forcing". Aquahombre, I see, commented on this point.

[lamford]

I think making an undiscussed 3NT intending it to be conventional and subsequently making an undiscussed pass of 3NTx expecting partner to interpret it as forcing is asking for trouble. No-one I play with would do that, so I would be confident that it wasn't a club raise (if it had even occurred to me that it might be).

I think opening 1NT and then bidding a natural 3NT intending it to be natural when partner has shown no values is asking for trouble. No-one I play with would do that, so I would be confident that it wasn't to play, although I would indeed be guessing the likely meaning.

[campboy]

If the auction had gone 1NT-(X)-3C and partner had alerted and explained it as weak, you would bid 4C every day of the week.

If I bid 4C in that situation, it would be because I felt the UI suggested passing and that pass was therefore illegal. I would pass with no UI, which is why I wondered whether pass was an LA.

[lamford]

If I bid 4C in that situation, it would be because I felt the UI suggested passing and that pass was therefore illegal. I would pass with no UI, which is why I wondered whether pass was an LA.

What would you think partner intended her 3NT to mean without UI? Say that you were playing with screens? It is no different from something like (Pass) - Pass - (1C) - 2C (systemically Michaels but explained as any game-forcing hand) - (Pass) - 3NT. Now the UI tells you why partner bid that, but the AI tells you that this is not natural by a passed hand. If you were to pass this out, doubled, I would expect it to be the last hand that you would play with the partner trying it. And again the bid is undiscussed and Pass is not an LA for the pair playing the stated methods.

[campboy]

What would you think partner intended her 3NT to mean without UI? Say that you were playing with screens? It is no different from something like (Pass) - Pass - (1C) - 2C (systemically Michaels but explained as any game-forcing hand) - (Pass) - 3NT. Now the UI tells you why partner bid that, but the AI tells you that this is not natural by a passed hand. If you were to pass this out, doubled, I would expect it to be the last hand that you would play with the partner trying it. And again the bid is undiscussed and Pass is not an LA for the pair playing the stated methods.

Looking at it from the other side, if we had the auction you mentioned with me bidding 3NT and partner leaving it in doubled in a (perhaps misjudged) attempt to be ethical, I would apologise to partner for forgetting the system and we would get on with the next hand. I think that is an appropriate response.

[VixTD]

I agree that pran's opinion is hopelessly wrong, and I am surprised that two senior EBU directors thought that 4C by South was legal.

I was referring to Pran's opinion that East is not permitted an adjusted score on the basis that she would have bid 3♦ because she had already exercised the option to change another call later in the auction. We all agreed that 4♣ by South was not permitted.

[pran]

I was referring to Pran's opinion that East is not permitted an adjusted score on the basis that she would have bid 3♦ because she had already exercised the option to change another call later in the auction. We all agreed that 4♣ by South was not permitted.

There is obviously need for a clarification of laws here:

Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent [...]

East is not offered the option to change her PASS following the 3♣ bid, she is offered the option to change her (closing) PASS following the 3NT bid. In any case the reason for changing a call must be that the particular call to be changed was made under influence of an incorrect information.

 

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

[WellSpyder]

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

Are you envisaging East talking to the TD away from the table? I don't think this is routine in such cases. If not, why should East cause UI problems for her own side when she will not be allowed to change this bid anyway?

[iviehoff]

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

As you may have noticed, people have not called you "disputably wrong", or agreed it is an arguable point. They have called you "utterly wrong" in relation to this. Because your position is not even arguable.

 

"Instead...". This are not alternative remedies. That would be a clearly incorrect statement of law. The right in law 21B3 to obtain rectification is absolute and is nowhere limited by the exercise of any other remedy. Of course if the misinformation had been corrected in time for the player (under 21B1a) to call 3D over 3C, there would be no damage and now 21B3 does not apply. But this has not happened. The player has obtained an absolute right under 21B1a to change their final pass, which does not limit their right to damage under 21B3 to claim for damage for the failure to correct the misinformation earlier, because nowhere in law does it say so.

 

Under your interpretation, the TD would have to say "If you exercise this right, then you lose all rights to claim for damage because of your inability to call correctly informed earlier in the auction". Then the player would have to think, at that moment, about what they would ahve done earlier in the auciton if correctly informed, and then decide whether this inferior remedy adequately compensates them. But fortunately the TD would be quite wrong to say this. Fortunately, I have never heard a TD say it. Nor can I find advice that they should.

[pran]

As you may have noticed, people have not called you "disputably wrong", or agreed it is an arguable point. They have called you "utterly wrong" in relation to this. Because your position is not even arguable.

 

"Instead...". This are not alternative remedies. That would be a clearly incorrect statement of law. The right in law 21B3 to obtain rectification is absolute and is nowhere limited by the exercise of any other remedy. Of course if the misinformation had been corrected in time for the player (under 21B1a) to call 3D over 3C, there would be no damage and now 21B3 does not apply. But this has not happened. The player has obtained an absolute right under 21B1a to change their final pass, which does not limit their right to damage under 21B3 to claim for damage for the failure to correct the misinformation earlier, because nowhere in law does it say so.

 

Under your interpretation, the TD would have to say "If you exercise this right, then you lose all rights to claim for damage because of your inability to call correctly informed earlier in the auction". Then the player would have to think, at that moment, about what they would ahve done earlier in the auciton if correctly informed, and then decide whether this inferior remedy adequately compensates them. But fortunately the TD would be quite wrong to say this. Fortunately, I have never heard a TD say it. Nor can I find advice that they should.

My enhancement in this quote. No, the player has no absolute right under Law 21B1a to change the final pass. This right is dependant on a fact that the final pass was chosen under the influence of the incorrect information! But the Director will very seldom deny a request for a Law 21B1{a} change of a call, simply because such a request (in time) is apparently based on the player's honest opinion and not some knowledge on what will be the eventual consequence of the replacing call.

 

A player claiming damage from misinformation on the ground that (s)he would have made a different call with correct information is supposed to know this at the proper time during the auction, not to discover after the play that "call X instead of call Y" would have been very fortunate.

 

It is quite OK for a player to claim damage from MI at any time such damage becomes apparent. The Director will scrutinize such claims and rule under Law 21B3 according to what he finds probable.

 

In cases when a player is given choices (s)he must select one choice (Law 10C) and stick to that.

 

The Director can of course give a Law 21B3 ruling even when the player has first selected a Law 21B1{a} rectification. He should do so when he finds that the selected change of call was a justified but futile attempt to rescue the board for the non-offending side after misinformation but that the real damage was caused earlier in the auction. I have not been convinced that that is the case in this thread.

[jallerton]

(We actually adjusted to mixtures of 4♣, 4♣X and 3NTX by NS down one or two tricks.)

 

Assuming that you recognise that North and South both have UI demonstrably suggesting pulling over passing, this weighting does not seem legal to me.

 

1. If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for South then the table result should stand.

 

2. If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for South then South is assumed to pass over the double of 3NT and West will pass also. Now either:

 

(i) If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for North, he will be presumed to pull to 4♣. If the TD cannot be sure what would happen next he can award weightings of 4♣, 4♣x, 4♦(E), 4♥(W) making the appropriate numbers of tricks. However, he should not include a proportion of 3NTx as he has judged that pass of 3NTx would not be seriously considered, let alone actually selected, by as many as 20% of North's peers; or

 

(ii) If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for North then that is North's only legal call, so the ruling for the offending side is based on 100% of 3NTx by South, the only opportunity for weighting coming from the potential for 3NT to make a different number of tricks.

[lamford]

However, he should not include a proportion of 3NTx as he has judged that pass of 3NTx would not be seriously considered, let alone actually selected, by as many as 20% of North's peers; or

As I stated earlier, I think VixTD might be mistaken. I was told that there were three contracts in the weighting, and they did not include 3NTx. And I am pretty sure it did not include any of 4H-3 either, which is probably wrong.

[jallerton]

Or, of course, has opened 1NT with four aces having noticed only three when he first sorted his hand. The extent to which he will thank you for pulling to a no-play 4♣ instead of a laydown 3NT is a matter of conjecture, but...

 

It is not for you, who have described your hand in detail, to overrule partner when there is any question of UI. If partner (having given some wrong explanation of your actions) appears to have made an "impossible" bid, you are in duty bound to assume that he has some "impossible" reason for it, not to go around concluding that he "must have" misconstrued some bid that you have made. I thought we had abolished this particular cheats' charter long ago, but from the nonsense posted here I am forced to conclude that we have not.

 

There is a recurring theme in auctions where there has been a misunderstanding, but one or both partners is in possession of UI! If the possible explanations are (i) partner has psyched or made a gross misbid earlier in the auction and (ii) partner did not intend the bidding to mean what we originally thought, but the player has UI, is the player ever permitted to come to the correct conclusion, even when the AI suggests one possibility is orders of magnitude more likely than the other? There is no consensus view. Indeed, some people seem to vary their opinion depending on whether it is they or an opponent who is in possession of the UI. For example, consider to words of the North player on this deal:

 

However, when the auction gets round to North, he is allowed to use the authorised information to decide what is happening. If he passes and his partner has xx AKx xxx Axxxx, then his partner will be quite entitled to say, "How on earth can 3NT be natural, you are not promising any values at all; we were making 4C and you have gone for 1100 in 3NT doubled? I wanted you to sac in 5C if they bid 4H you idiot." And would you bid 3NT after 1NT - (X) - 3C (weak) - Pass with four aces. No, of course you wouldn't. So, far from following a cheats' charter, North should, indeed is obliged, not to bid lemming-like but to try to assign a systemic meaning to partner's unusual action. There is no obligation whatsoever to guess that partner has miscounted aces, or has psyched 1NT. Indeed it is illegal to assume that partner has opened 1NT with four aces and to pass 3NT, and if that were the case, it would be a routine adjustment for fielding a systemic misbid, not to mention suspicion of a CPU. That would be the infraction, not the proposed 4C bid. I agree completely with the decision of the TD that 4C by South was disallowed and there would then be no logical alternative to 4C by North, and your pass is actually illegal. I thought we had abolished this particular lemming's charter long ago, but from the nonsense you have written I am forced to conclude that we have not. Now it may be that North should bid 4C on the previous round ... but 3NT - 3 might well be a good result against a possible 4H for example. Not the 4H that West eventually chose mind you.

 

When this same North player asked for a ruling a couple of years ago when one of his opponents had UI in the auction, he argued as follows:

 

Sorry to go on, but as can be seen I feel very strongly about this. I disagree completely that the player in receipt of UI is entitled to conclude that his partner has forgotten the system when he fails to alert and makes an undiscussed bid, particularly if there is a completely normal explanation for both the AI and UI auction

 

In the present case, there is a perfectly normal explanation for partner's bidding in the authorised auction: partner thinks that she might be able to make 3NT! Suppose that she held ♠AJ10 ♥AJ6 ♦KJ10 ♣9764. Would she not open a weak NT? When North shows a weakish hand with a long club suit, might she not deduce that her hand has improved significantly and that 3NT could easily be making? Even opposite the actual North hand 3NT has an excellent chance of making; and if North has the ace of clubs and/or a seventh card in the suit 3NT will be an even better contract. Moreover, when 3NT does go off, it is not clear that 4♣ will make one more trick than 3NT, let alone the two required to make pulling worthwhile.

 

So as North I would just trust my partner and assume she knew what she was doing when she bid 3NT. Pass looks like the correct call absent UI. With the actual UI, pass is the only legal call as far as I am concerned.

[lamford]

When North shows a weakish hand with a long club suit, might she not deduce that her hand has improved significantly and that 3NT could easily be making? Even opposite the actual North hand 3NT has an excellent chance of making; and if North has the ace of clubs and/or a seventh card in the suit 3NT will be an even better contract. Moreover, when 3NT does go off, it is not clear that 4♣ will make one more trick than 3NT, let alone the two required to make pulling worthwhile.

You would be right if 3C had any invitational element, but it is likely to be weaker than you suggest, not stronger; I might well have passed 1NTx on the actual hand. 3C will normally be terminal (for our side), but it does say "it is not our hand". In my opinion your suggestion that partner is bidding 3NT to play (in the authorised auction) is about as far-fetched as your suggestion that partner has 5-6 in spades and diamonds in another thread; constructed to try to support your point. I was not called upon to decide whether Pass was an LA at the table, but I would have agreed with the TD that it was not. You are entitled to think otherwise. And my stance two years ago is exactly the same as now. I am not allowed to conclude partner has forgotten the system (when I have UI), and must attach a logical meaning to her action, so your quoting is not reinforcing your argument. Now if you were to argue that I had to bid 5C over 4H, as partner's 3NT must be a club raise, and 4C suggests saving over 4M, I could buy that. Indeed with ♣QJ10xxxx, I think I must do so. Now that I think about this some more, on the actual hand, 5C over 4H must be an LA, and should be imposed. This would be -500, and -9 IMPs. So, it could be argued that the weighted score was 12 IMPs out, in total, from the correct decision!

 

Indeed the whole area of impossible 3NT bids is an interesting one. I have seem some theorists recommend that they should invite saving. For example, a passed hand bidding 3NT when partner makes a weak jump overcall. But I have never seen bids of this type treated as natural; maybe they are in Surrey.

[dburn]

Well, partner could have five clubs to the ace and another couple of aces - that would make 3NT facing queen-seventh of clubs and out, assuming the opponents could not both lead and run the unstopped suit for five tricks. And even if they could, 3NT might be cheaper than 4♣, depending on partner's exact distribution. One can almost hear partner's anguished wail with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦xxx ♣Axxxx: "you idiot, why didn't you let me go down one in 3NT doubled instead of making you go down two in 5♣ doubled, when they were cold for 4♥ all the time?"

 

Sure, 3NT shows club support - no one doubts that. What everyone except you seems to doubt is that partner "must have" some ulterior motive for bidding 3NT other than the pious hope that it might make. When I last played "for Surrey" (that is: in a team including Frances and Jeffrey), sequences were being discussed such as 3♣-double-3NT (by an unpassed hand) in which the last bid was either to play if the opponents didn't double, or suggested that partner save in 5♣ if the opponents did double and thereafter reached a major-suit game, whereas 3♣-double-4♣ barred partner from saving. Or it may have been the other way round; I pleaded that I was too old to remember the method then, and I am even older now, but I expect it had some merit - most of what they suggested did, apart from some barmy doubles. But this was the first time I had heard of such a thing, and I have heard of almost everything.

 

The principle remains the same: you can't, in the presence of UI, make it up as you go along. That's why, for example, with some 0=5=6=2 shape you can't pull after pass -1♣ - 2NT (explained by partner as spades and diamonds when the systemic meaning is hearts and diamonds) - double - 4♠ - double. Maybe partner forgot, but maybe partner was "doing a Collings" with nine or ten spades. Unless the alternatives are categorically impossible, they are logical, which is why in the original deal no one can pull to 4♣.

[lamford]

Sure, 3NT shows club support - no one doubts that. What everyone except you seems to doubt is that partner "must have" some ulterior motive for bidding 3NT other than the pious hope that it might make.

We are making progress. We have established that 3NT shows club support; and you say that no one doubts it - yet campboy seemed to do so. What nobody surveyed here at Bournemouth thinks is that in the authorised auction it is to play. And partner will not be bidding 3NT with these hands with three aces. It looks a bit silly to suggest sacrificing when, as you suggest in another thread, partner has some stray value that allows us to beat four of a major.

 

I don't have any problem with being in the minority on here, and that does not mean I am wrong. Even Wilberforce was in a minority at one time. Your Collings example, and your last sentence says it all. The 16B test uses "the methods and style of the partnership". In Collings' case an opening pass did not stop him having an opening Four Spade bid, and his frequent creative efforts made this an implicit part of his system, which nowadays might be regarded as a CPU. However, the duties on the partner of a modern-day Collings are stringent, to select an LA not suggested by the UI, and partner's previous variation from system should not allow you to pass 4S in the Collings example, if there is a logical alternative meaning such as "diamonds, but lead a spade against 5 or 6C" - after all he does not know you are void. And when you do pass, and he does have eight or nine spades, it is a routine adjustment. If, systemically, one can show an opening Four Spades by "Pass", then you would indeed be able to pass here, but I suspect that the "Pass" would need to be alerted.

 

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered. Here the only plausible meaning, even without discussion, is a club raise suggesting sacrificing, and I am surprised that the first time you had heard that it should suggest sacrificing is from Frances and Jeffrey, as I have seen several such examples on BBO Vugraph over the last few years, in different auctions of course. Sometimes the suggestion came from one of the excellent commentators ... but I cannot recall seeing it while you were commenting, I must admit. But "good-bad" style 3NT was standard in methods I played with Fegarty over 10 years ago, and certainly I have met it many times from others.

 

In conclusion, those on here who try to disallow pass of 3NTx in the auction after South passes are missing the point. There is no LA to 4C - partner did not bid 3NT to play in the authorised auction as those I have surveyed here agree. But nobody has focused on the pass of 4H, which I think is the infraction and the correct adjustment is to 5C x -3. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have appealed against the TD decision somewhat in our favour.

 

Now the fascinating thing is that if 4H causes North to bid 5C in the authorised auction, does it loses its SeWoG status? I must confess I have no idea.

[VixTD]

As I stated earlier, I think VixTD might be mistaken. I was told that there were three contracts in the weighting, and they did not include 3NTx. And I am pretty sure it did not include any of 4H-3 either, which is probably wrong.

I recall the TD who gave the ruling going through the proposed weightings with me and saying something like: "How often do you think North is going to bid 4♣? You don't think he will, so let's say less than half the time...."

 

What I wrote down was 20% of 4♣-1, 20% of 4♣X-1, 30% of 3NTX-2, 30% of 3NTX-1. I also overheard him giving you the ruling, and I'm pretty sure it included all of these contracts, but I can't be completely sure I heard it correctly, and I'm not going to argue.

[VixTD]

Assuming that you recognise that North and South both have UI demonstrably suggesting pulling over passing, this weighting does not seem legal to me.

As I said, I didn't like including any part of an adjustment that included 4♣ bid by North, so had it been down to me I would have been more likely to go for your option (ii). I see what you mean about the final ruling being inconsistent, though.

[dburn]

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered.

I am not sure I follow this. 3NT has no "systemic meaning" - partner is not allowed to bid it according to "the system", unless "the system" says that it shows, more or less strongly than 4♣ would, a desire for the 3♣ bidder to bid 5♣ if there is further competition.

 

It seems to me that you are arguing that "the system" does in fact say this, because "the system" says otherwise that 3NT does not exist, yet partner must have had some "possible systemic" reason for bidding it. But I don't think you can argue that way in the presence of UI; you cannot make up "the system" as you go along. 100% of four pretty good players surveyed this afternoon at TGRs shrugged and passed in the given circumstances: one said explicitly "if partner hadn't alerted 3♣ as strong I would pull, because to me this auction suggests a save, but once partner's done that I can't pull."

 

Your argument appears to me to be begging the question: "partner wouldn't suggest a save with three aces, so she can't have three aces, so she can't be bidding 3NT to play." But partner isn't "suggesting a save with three aces" - you are making up that bit; partner is bidding 3NT to play with three aces because she thinks it might make.

 

In short: where a call has no "possible systemic meaning", all possible anti-systemic meanings must be considered, because all possible meanings are by definition anti-systemic. By the way, was 3NT alerted? If not, why not?

[jallerton]

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered. Here the only plausible meaning, even without discussion, is a club raise suggesting sacrificing, and I am surprised that the first time you had heard that it should suggest sacrificing is from Frances and Jeffrey, as I have seen several such examples on BBO Vugraph over the last few years, in different auctions of course. Sometimes the suggestion came from one of the excellent commentators ... but I cannot recall seeing it while you were commenting, I must admit. But "good-bad" style 3NT was standard in methods I played with Fegarty over 10 years ago, and certainly I have met it many times from others.

 

In conclusion, those on here who try to disallow pass of 3NTx in the auction after South passes are missing the point. There is no LA to 4C - partner did not bid 3NT to play in the authorised auction as those I have surveyed here agree. But nobody has focused on the pass of 4H, which I think is the infraction and the correct adjustment is to 5C x -3. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have appealed against the TD decision somewhat in our favour.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you were playing with your regular partner on this deal.

 

In that case, it's not relevant how David or some other excellent vugraph commentator might interpret this sequence; all that is relevant is how this particular South might interrpret this sequence. As Campboy has already pointed out, in the hypothetical authorised auction where 3NTx is passed round to North, there is some strong evidence that South has intended 3NT as a suggestion to play in that contract: otherwise she would have pulled the double; the fact that South's options were constrained by UI is itself not authorised information to North.

 

With this partner, do you have any agreements or partnership experience of 3NT being save suggesting in any analogous sequences?

[campboy]

We are making progress. We have established that 3NT shows club support; and you say that no one doubts it - yet campboy seemed to do so.

I'm a simple soul. In my world, 3NT is to play unless there is an agreement otherwise.

 

Now even if you think that there is no hand which will both open 1NT and bid 3NT to play on this auction then all you can conclude is that either partner doesn't have a 1NT opening or she doesn't want to play in 3NT opposite your hand. You can't tell which from the authorised information available. The unauthorised information, of course, tells you exactly what is going on.

[lamford]

With this partner, do you have any agreements or partnership experience of 3NT being save suggesting in any analogous sequences?

For example, Pass-(Pass)-3C-(double)-3NT. We thought of playing that to show that we had forgotten to open, but decided that playing it as inviting a save was better. Of course 3NT was intended to play in the unauthorised auction; nobody is disputing that. What is relevant is what is a logical alternative to 4C for somebody playing the methods of this partnership, which, of course, is that 1NT - (Double) - 3C - (Pass) - 3NT is undiscussed. If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

 

I keep on submitting the same arguments and keep getting the same nonsense in reply, so this is the last time I will post on this thread; I have given my opinion and have nothing more to say. The decision by the TD was completely wrong, but in our favour - and the weighted scores stated by VixTD do not produce the score we were advised which was -2 IMPs. It should have been a routine adjustment to 5Cx-3 or -11 IMPs for us. Some people at Bournemouth were in fits of laughter at the suggestion of you and Burn that 3NT could be to play, in the authorised auction.

[dburn]

If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

Yes, of course. How else should I describe it?

 

campboy and I are equally simple souls. jallerton might be a more complex soul when he plays with his soulmate, but should he and I ever play together, I hereby serve notice that 3NT is to play despite previous waffle. With Callaghan, it was always to play - he always had the "three aces" type and so did I. Maybe we should have alerted, just to let unsuspecting opponents in Bournemouth know that when we bid 3NT, it was because we hoped to make it.

 

Some people at Bournemouth were in fits of laughter at the suggestion of you and Burn that 3NT could be to play, in the authorised auction.

Must have been the way you tell 'em.

[jallerton]

If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

 

I would regard it as natural, i.e. a suggestion that 3NT might be the right contract. I have already constructed a hand that makes 3NT good opposite the North hand. David's 3 ace hand (and variants therof)is another categoty of hand where Opener can envisage 3NT could make opposite a lot of hands which might make a "pre-emptive" 3♣ bid.

 

I hope that your partner is not reading this thread; she should be disappointed to read that you don't even consider the possibility that she might have made an intelligent call.

 

I keep on submitting the same arguments and keep getting the same nonsense in reply, so this is the last time I will post on this thread;

 

There seem to have been a few surplus words in your last paragraph. I have put a line through the words you need to delete for it to be accurate.