Another two-suited overcall

[Finch]

♠J9

♥642

♦AKQ10972

♣4

 

Love all, imps

Playing with screens, so you cannot hear partner's explanations or see his alerts.

You have no UI from tempo, because you don't know how much time is being spent writing down an explanation of the auction.

That is - you have no UI at all... you are a completely free agent.

 

LHO deals

1♥ 2NT Pass 3♦

Pass 4♣ Pass Pass

Dbl Pass Pass ?

 

2NT = spades and clubs. There is no chance you or partner has got this wrong, it's come up loads of times.

You believe that the system file says that 3♦ is natural, to play. You are about 90% confident of this as you were reading it only yesterday at breakfast. It has never come up before, and you know that partner may or may not have remembered, although he's generally pretty good - everything in the file was discussed, although some of it a few years ago (and this agreement is vintage July 2008, as are all your 2-suited overcall agreements). The alternative meaning for 3♦ would have been a game try in clubs.

 

You decide that partner thinks 3D was artificial and pass 4C while things don't look too bad. This may turn out horribly if partner has a good hand with the blacks, but you decide to take the risk. (You couldn't do this without screens.)

 

LHO asks lots of questions, then doubles which he (being your screenmate) tells you is for penalties.

 

Pass or pull?

[paulg]

4♦ looks clear and our pass of four clubs should guarantee that partner passes now. The meaning of the double is probably not that important. Just hope that partner does not have KQJxx xx - KQJ10xxx.

[lamford]

4♦ looks clear and our pass of four clubs should guarantee that partner passes now. The meaning of the double is probably not that important. Just hope that partner does not have KQJxx xx - KQJ10xxx.

I don't think there is any legal issue with any action, but from a bridge point of view, I would agree with paulg that 4[di} looks normal.

[gwnn]

I will just rebid my 7 solid :) it is absolutely clear that this is natural.

[jcrosa]

No legal issue really, I agree.

 

I'd bid 4♦. Unambiguous, and quite likely (though not guaranteed) to be an improvement over 4♣.

[ahydra]

Agree with 4D. But paulg, if partner had that hand he should have called the Director... it has 14 cards. (Talking of which, at the club yesterday we were sitting out, but still had to call the director - to point out the board had somehow arrived with seventeen cards in one hand).

 

ahydra

[paulg]

But paulg, if partner had that hand he should have called the Director... it has 14 cards.

I exaggerated for effect.

 

 

 

[Finch]

The reason I posted this hand was that

- your RHO bid 4H over the double, before you had a chance to pull to 4D

- your RHO was told by her screenmate (your partner) that 3D was a good club raise

- she told the TD that had she known that the agreement was that 3D was natural, she would have passed the double of 4C

- the TD agreed, and adjusted to 4D-1

 

Your LHO says the TD should include a share (possibly a large share) of passing out 4Cx on the basis that partner might be 5107 say. You say that passing it is not a LA, which I think the poll confirms.

 

It never went to appeal because it became irrelevant.

[AlexJonson]

Interesting that you can base your actions on a probability that partner has forgotten the system (or you have).

 

I remember trying that on a much larger probability on these forums, but I forgot my screens.

 

Mmm

[Finch]

Interesting that you can base your actions on a probability that partner has forgotten the system (or you have).

 

I remember trying that on a much larger probability on these forums, but I forgot my screens.

 

Mmm

 

Oh yes, screens are great when partner is going to misexplain your call because you get no UI

[AlexJonson]

Oh yes, screens are great when partner is going to misexplain your call because you get no UI

 

While I understand this, logic would suggest that I must have had some kind of extraneous information in order to conclude that a wheel had come off, otherwise where did my conclusion come from.

[axman]

While I understand this, logic would suggest that I must have had some kind of extraneous information in order to conclude that a wheel had come off, otherwise where did my conclusion come from.

 

Alex,

 

Not all things happen by logic. Some years ago at unfavorable pard opened 1N and next hand spent two minutes squirming before he passed. It took about 30 sec for me to decide that he had a good hand with spades and by the time 90 secs had passed I was mad enough to do something about it. I responded 2H in normal tempo [1/4 sec]. and then LHO went into a dither for quite some time before he passed. Pard passed routinely and after another production so did RHO. At which I called the TD- to report the failure to alert [transfer to spades]. Well, RHO finally decided** he was damaged so he eventually doubled and LHO finally decided to sit for it.

 

The point is that partner had no inkling from me to pass 2H, but I can see how the theatrics of the opponents could have been a distraction. Strange things do not ‘always’ happen because of UI from pard.

 

As for the story its ending was very sad. I held 2533 with a KJJ and dummy held two hearts and a minimum. By the time the dust cleared the opponents had turned my 6 tricks into 8. and the TD decided to turn my top into a zero since he thought this hand was made just for the rule of coincidence.

 

** I personally think that it had everything to do with the gesticulations of his partner, but what do I know? The TD didn’t agree.

[nige1]

...Your LHO says the TD should include a share (possibly a large share) of passing out 4Cx on the basis that partner might be 5107 say. You say that passing it is not a LA, which I think the poll confirms ...

IMO, The director should accept FrancesHinden's argument, provided that the director polls players who, given relevant information, would pass 4♣ on the previous round of the auction.

[olegru]

For whatever ever it cost I think passing 4♣ doubled and pulling to 4♦ are the very close alternatives depending of partnership style.

[AlexJonson]

Alex,

 

Not all things happen by logic. Some years ago at unfavorable pard opened 1N and next hand spent two minutes squirming before he passed. It took about 30 sec for me to decide that he had a good hand with spades and by the time 90 secs had passed I was mad enough to do something about it. I responded 2H in normal tempo [1/4 sec]. and then LHO went into a dither for quite some time before he passed. Pard passed routinely and after another production so did RHO. At which I called the TD- to report the failure to alert [transfer to spades]. Well, RHO finally decided** he was damaged so he eventually doubled and LHO finally decided to sit for it.

 

The point is that partner had no inkling from me to pass 2H, but I can see how the theatrics of the opponents could have been a distraction. Strange things do not ‘always’ happen because of UI from pard.

 

As for the story its ending was very sad. I held 2533 with a KJJ and dummy held two hearts and a minimum. By the time the dust cleared the opponents had turned my 6 tricks into 8. and the TD decided to turn my top into a zero since he thought this hand was made just for the rule of coincidence.

 

** I personally think that it had everything to do with the gesticulations of his partner, but what do I know? The TD didn’t agree.

 

You/partner made some deductions at your own risk from opponents behaviour. Well done. Quite legal I believe.

 

I'm just interested in whether I can make similar deductions about partner's tendency to forget. Is that or is that not extraneous (I don't know, but I would like to know).

[campboy]

If you are going to make deductions based on partner's tendancy to forget then you should certainly also be disclosing such tendancies, otherwise it is a concealed partnership agreement and so prohibited by law 40. Even if disclosed, the agreement you are thinking of acting upon may not be legal. In the EBU you can't, for example, have the agreement that (1♥) 3♣ shows spades+diamonds, unless partner has forgotten in which case it shows clubs; "clubs or spades+diamonds" is not a permitted meaning.

[AlexJonson]

If you are going to make deductions based on partner's tendancy to forget then you should certainly also be disclosing such tendancies, otherwise it is a concealed partnership agreement and so prohibited by law 40. Even if disclosed, the agreement you are thinking of acting upon may not be legal. In the EBU you can't, for example, have the agreement that (1♥) 3♣ shows spades+diamonds, unless partner has forgotten in which case it shows clubs; "clubs or spades+diamonds" is not a permitted meaning.

 

Fielding is a bit out of fashion, I suppose - fine by me, themes wax and wane.

 

But if screens scrub all clean, let's all have them, and reduce the load on TDs.

[campboy]

But if screens scrub all clean, let's all have them, and reduce the load on TDs.

I don't think the presence or absence of screens makes any difference to what I said. In this situation you are entitled to use your knowledge that 3♦ has not come up before; you would of course disclose this if asked about it but you haven't been. There are no licensing restrictions at this point in the auction.

 

If there had not been screens you might have seen an alert from partner, and then what is permitted depends on the logical alternatives. Since we don't know how many people "seriously considered" another action we can't be sure whether there are any.

[AlexJonson]

I don't think the presence or absence of screens makes any difference to what I said. In this situation you are entitled to use your knowledge that 3♦ has not come up before; you would of course disclose this if asked about it but you haven't been. There are no licensing restrictions at this point in the auction.

 

If there had not been screens you might have seen an alert from partner, and then what is permitted depends on the logical alternatives. Since we don't know how many people "seriously considered" another action we can't be sure whether there are any.

 

The OP says 3D has come up before but some time ago - the norm perhaps for almost all agreements(?). Did you not notice that Campboy, you are usually very precise.

 

So if screens are irrelevant then why do I ignore my 90% certainty about our agreement, or why do I field it.

 

Yes, common sense... maybe.

 

So we have 100% abandoned 'fielding misbids' as a concept, in the EBU?

[campboy]

The OP says 3D has come up before but some time ago - the norm perhaps for almost all agreements(?). Did you not notice that Campboy, you are usually very precise.

No, she said it had never come up but had been discussed circa 2008.

So if screens are irrelevant then why do I ignore my 90% certainty about our agreement, or why do I field it.

Just because something is AI doesn't automatically mean you are free to use it. You may not use UI, so if you have AI suggesting that partner may have forgotten, but also you have UI telling you that he has forgotten, you can't allow for him forgetting if it is an LA to do otherwise.

So we have 100% abandoned 'fielding misbids' as a concept, in the EBU?

No, of course not. You are not permitted to base a call on a concealed partnership agreement. Provided an implicit agreement is legal and disclosed adequately you are permitted to act on it.

[AlexJonson]

No, she said it had never come up but had been discussed circa 2008.

 

 

So an agreement discussed and agreed but not yet bid on a particular hand, is not an agreement? Do you really want to support this argument?

[campboy]

So an agreement discussed and agreed but not yet bid on a particular hand, is not an agreement? Do you really want to support this argument?

What? Because I corrected a false statement you made about what was said in the OP I automatically agree with some random argument you just made up? Of course I don't.

[AlexJonson]

What? Because I corrected a false statement you made about what was said in the OP I automatically agree with some random argument you just made up? Of course I don't.

 

See below. The OP statement pasted below says there was an agreement about the 3D bid. I am frankly astonished that you contest this, and surprised you talk aout correcting a false statement by me.

 

'You believe that the system file says that 3♦ is natural, to play. You are about 90% confident of this as you were reading it only yesterday at breakfast. It has never come up before, and you know that partner may or may not have remembered, although he's generally pretty good - everything in the file was discussed, although some of it a few years ago (and this agreement is vintage July 2008, as are all your 2-suited overcall agreements). The alternative meaning for 3♦ would have been a game try in clubs.'

 

I think the bit about the 'alternative agreement..' introduces the fielding question.

[campboy]

See below. The OP statement pasted below says there was an agreement about the 3D bid. I am frankly astonished that you contest this, and surprised you talk aout correcting a false statement by me.

Of course there is an agreement, and of course I don't contest this. The false statement by you was

The OP says 3D has come up before but some time ago - the norm perhaps for almost all agreements(?). Did you not notice that Campboy, you are usually very precise.

In fact, the OP said, as you quote in your most recent post

It has never come up before [...]

Now I wouldn't even have bothered correcting what you said about the original post had you not addressed it directly to me. I don't appreciate being accused of believing something ridiculous which I never said, merely on the basis of that correction.

[AlexJonson]

Of course there is an agreement, and of course I don't contest this. The false statement by you was

 

In fact, the OP said, as you quote in your most recent post

 

Now I wouldn't even have bothered correcting what you said about the original post had you not addressed it directly to me. I don't appreciate being accused of believing something ridiculous which I never said, merely on the basis of that correction.

 

Lovely piece of nonsense, Campboy. 'Never came up', pointless ambiguity and literalness. Discussed, agreed, but never came up.

 

And as to the substance of the matter? Is there a potential issue of fielding?