Systems on over 1NT X

[jeffford76]

[hv=pc=n&w=skq4hj9752d9752cj&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(11+-14)ppd(At%20least%20top%20of%20range)p(No%205-card%20suit)2d(Transfer)p3cp]133|200[/hv]

 

You're playing in a new (3-4 previous sessions) partnership. You have agreed to play "systems on" over doubles of opponent's NT bids. In your NT system, 1NT - 2D - 3C shows a max with 3 hearts and a concentration of values in clubs. Do you assume this applies here? And regardless, what do you bid?

[manudude03]

I'd bid 3D and pass 3H. Bidding game seems reasonable though.

[helene_t]

it probably doesn't apply here as doubler is not necessarily balanced. What else can he do with a 20-count with six clubs and a singleton hearts?

 

I try 3NT, maybe pass is better but by bidding 3NT I cater to the possibility that p actually has a superaccept.

 

btw, why is this in the laws and rulings forum?

[jnichols]

btw, why is this in the laws and rulings forum?

 

 

I suspect that there is a ruling involved that we will hear about soon.

[blackshoe]

Was 2♦ alerted?

[ggwhiz]

Was 2♦ alerted?

 

I assume not since it's in this forum.

 

I think you are obliged to bid 3♥ but not 4♥ with the poor fitting shape. If pard disagrees with the methods, you are allowed to get lucky ONLY if you are consistent with your own interpretation. (I think?)

[Finch]

This is a bit tricky because "system on after our double of their NT" is not something I have ever played, nor could imagine ever agreeing to play.

But having got that far, there seem to be two possible interpretations of 3C: either it's a transfer break, or he's got short hearts and long clubs. Both are possible agreements.

 

Playing with screens I would pass 3C, because I think he needs to be able to bid a good hand with clubs somehow. But it's a guessing game and if I have UI suggesting he doesn't have heart support, then passing 3C is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of it.

[campboy]

I also would never agree to play these methods (nor would I have bid with the West hand in the first place), so perhaps what I think is irrelevant. I am not so sure what the UI suggests. It seems obvious to me that 3♣ has to show long clubs without tolerance for my suit (doubler needs to be able to show an unbalanced hand somehow). In that case, though, the (presumed) failure to alert means that instead of long clubs and few hearts he has long clubs and few diamonds; consequently the UI means we may have a heart fit when I would be confident we did not if 2♦ had been alerted.

[peachy]

If 2D is a transfer, in ACBL it needs an alert.

 

I would prefer an announcement rather than alert, but the ACBL regulation on it is clear, so Alert it is. After a diamond or heart transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid. Bolded emphasis is mine.

 

There are plenty of folks who extend Systems-On to advancing a Dbl of the opposing 1NT opening, and respond as if partner had opened 1NT. Item for Suggestions for Changing laws/regulations, but announcement seems more consistent with the rest of the announcement regulation than an alert, IMO.

 

As to what I would bid, first I need to know what 3C over partner's transfer means in my system.

[Vampyr]

There are plenty of folks who extend Systems-On to advancing a Dbl of the opposing 1NT opening, and respond as if partner had opened 1NT. Item for Suggestions for Changing laws/regulations, but announcement seems more consistent with the rest of the announcement regulation than an alert, IMO.

 

I think that this fad will have died out before the next draft of the alerting regulations is completed!

[jeffford76]

As many of you guessed 2D was not alerted. 3C was passed in a flash. I was curious what the LA's were. In practice 4C also makes, but not 3NT or any number of hearts, so for ruling purposes it only matters if a reasonable number of people bid 3NT or 4H.

 

The director ruled table result stands, and said 5 of 6 people polled passed 3C and the other bid 3H and passed 4C.

 

They actually told us who was polled - is that normal? I thought it was interesting that all of the people polled were substantially better players than the people at the table. So they were polling people who probably would have passed the double, probably wouldn't have agreed to play these methods, and knew that you needed a way to show a strong 1-suiter if partner didn't sit.

[blackshoe]

IME, it is unusual to identify the respondents to a poll like this, but I don't really see a problem with it, so long as any players dissatisfied with the poll results don't go bugging the ones polled.

 

It's not unusual to poll really good players who are better than peers of the players at the table, on the assumption that they can put themselves in the position of the lesser skilled (the opposite, of course, is not possible). The TD would have to say something like "assume you're a beginner" in preface to the problem, though.

[ggwhiz]

This ruling doesn't sit well with me but I bow to more informed opinion.

 

Passing 3♣ solely due to 2♦ not being alerted is an infraction isn't it?

 

I would guess that none of the pollees play these methods, especially the 3♣ bid showing 3♥ and a good hand to account for 5 of them passing 3♣.

 

It would help to know exactly how the polling question was framed as the Director is probably unfamiliar with the methods as well.

 

Ruling no damage because a 3♥ bid would get 4♣ passed out is a stretch at least since at least 11 red cards have been shown here. If the auction had proceeded 3♥ then 4♣ passed out, I wouldn't even call the Director on them but we will never know.

 

Seems really wrong to allow someone who committed an infraction (if it is) to land on their feet assuming they would have negotiated this same benefit as someone who came by it after bidding 3♥ at great risk.

[barmar]

Players who use this treatment are very unlikely to use sophisticated super-accepts where 3♣ promises ♥ support. To them, 3♣ is an impossible bid, and sounds natural, so they pass it automatically.

[ggwhiz]

Players who use this treatment are very unlikely to use sophisticated super-accepts where 3♣ promises ♥ support. To them, 3♣ is an impossible bid, and sounds natural, so they pass it automatically.

 

The OP stated that this is not the case. If you want to play methods that are not mainstream, I think you have a responsiblity here.

[bluejak]

Passing 3♣ solely due to 2♦ not being alerted is an infraction isn't it?

Of course, but that is not what was ruled.

[jeffford76]

The OP stated that this is not the case. If you want to play methods that are not mainstream, I think you have a responsiblity here.

 

My experience is that one-half of a partnership playing system on over the double is quite mainstream around here. :)

[sfi]

This is a bit tricky because "system on after our double of their NT" is not something I have ever played, nor could imagine ever agreeing to play.

But having got that far, there seem to be two possible interpretations of 3C: either it's a transfer break, or he's got short hearts and long clubs. Both are possible agreements.

 

Playing with screens I would pass 3C, because I think he needs to be able to bid a good hand with clubs somehow. But it's a guessing game and if I have UI suggesting he doesn't have heart support, then passing 3C is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of it.

 

Having played this agreement quite a bit in the past (starting in the late 80's so it's not a recent fad), Frances is spot on with her assessment in the second paragraph. The doubler does not need to have an unbalanced hand, so needs the break to be natural. What to do now is less clear, but 3NT and pass seem like the primary choices.

[barmar]

The OP stated that this is not the case. If you want to play methods that are not mainstream, I think you have a responsiblity here.

Oops, forgot that the OP said that they had such an agreement.

 

Now it sounds like doubler thought that "systems on" referred to advancer's bids (2♦ shows ♥), but not doubler's continuations (so breaking the transfer doesn't imply support).

 

They need to be on the same page here, and if they're not they can't complain if they get ruled against.