Rights

[Hanoi5]

All red, pairs:

 

♠AQxxx

♥Txx

♦Qx

♣Q9x

 

1♥-3♣*-4♥-4♠

Pa-5♣-Pa-???

 

3♣ shows clubs and spades. Is Pass ethical?

[nigel_k]

You don't have any unauthorised information (assuming partner's face didn't reveal anything) so you can legally do as you please.

 

Whether partner's 5♣ will be allowed to stand if you do pass is another matter.

[blackshoe]

It is, yes. I don't see anything in the OP that suggests 5♣ is "suspect", however.

[mrdct]

Absent UI he can do whatever he likes, but I'm guessing there is some UI going on here.

 

If north pulled a face when 3♣ was described and/or took a long time to bid 5♣, I think south is ethically bound to bid 5♠ as any uncomfortableness on the part of north suggests a hand with ♣ only which makes pass attractive where 5♠ is clearly a logical alternative (particularly given that it's a pairs game). I would speculate that north may have some ethical problems of his own if he heard an explanation of 3♣ that doesn't coincide with what he's holding.

 

Full hand and jurisdiction please.

[RMB1]

3♣ shows clubs and spades. Is Pass ethical?

 

If partner has a history of bidding 3♣ with clubs and not spades, then you (may) have an implicit agreement that 3♣ shows clubs and spades or just clubs; this agreement may not be legal, depending on local regulations (and perhaps on how the bid is explained).

 

If you have got an implicit agreement, then you should call the TD and correct your original explanation. The TD may give you some instruction but you should be free to act, but there may be a rectification if the implicit agreement is not legal.

 

If you have no partnership understanding that 3♣ may be just clubs, then you are free to decide that partner has misbid. Someone might want to record the hand (in case it is evidence that you do have, or will have, and implicit agreement).

[farrnbach]

As there are no UI flowing around, you are free to do what you want

 

the real question is: "What can you do?"

2 quick losers in D, p is presomably void in H with a solid black 2 suiter

[iviehoff]

I don't see anything in the OP that suggests 5♣ is "suspect", however.

We aren't directly told it, but the circumstances surrounding it present a probability that it is. By choosing to pass, South is tending to assume it is suspect. N has UI from S's presumed alert, and although it may prove that N has no LA to 5C if he has misbid, this is rare.

 

I don't think bidding on the assumption that partner has misbid is good for partnership trust, unless there really is no alternative interpretation to the sequence.

[lamford]

We aren't directly told it, but the circumstances surrounding it present a probability that it is. By choosing to pass, South is tending to assume it is suspect. N has UI from S's presumed alert, and although it may prove that N has no LA to 5C if he has misbid, this is rare.

 

I don't think bidding on the assumption that partner has misbid is good for partnership trust, unless there really is no alternative interpretation to the sequence.

There will be some UI, if it is only body language, if partner does not have his first bid. Something like Kxxxx none x AKJxxxx would be what I would place him with, as 5C is a slam-try, and I would not be staying short of slam. 5NT - pick a black suit slam please - seems the minimum I can do; partner might bid 7 with no red losers. Without any UI I would do the same, of course.

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq632ht72dq2cq95&w=sk984hkj865daj4c4&n=sh4d9765cakjt7632&e=sjt75haq93dkt83c8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1h3c(Clubs%20and%20Spades%20according%20to%20the%20agreement)4h4sp5cd]399|300[/hv]

 

That was it. I bid 5♠ which was doubled and passed. Had I passed 5♣, what would the ruling had been from the Director. There was no body language (that I had noticed) but partner heard the explanation I gave when I alerted.

[blackshoe]

I don't think your partner has an LA to 5♣, whatever the agreement is, so that bid is fine.

 

If you had passed 5♣, I would want to know why you did that before making a ruling, and whether, in your system, 5♣ should be considered to have been a slam try.

[RMB1]

That was it. I bid 5♠ which was doubled and passed. Had I passed 5♣, what would the ruling had been from the Director. There was no body language (that I had noticed) but partner heard the explanation I gave when I alerted.

 

Assuming no body language (and no "history" of 3♣ as just clubs) then this leaves 5♣.

 

I guess pass is not a logical alternative to 5♣, but

1. South's spade suit could be as good as North's club suit (without the UI),
   
2. 4♠ has not been doubled.
   

[aguahombre]

Something like Kxxxx none x AKJxxxx would be what I would place him with, as 5C is a slam-try, and I would not be staying short of slam.

5NT (pick a slam) might be right if South had a hand which wanted partner to pick a slam. But 5NT with this one would actually be a hedge against partner not having spades at all. 6♠ with the South hand is correct.

 

Gawd help the passer if there has been no convention disruption, and North was bidding properly and ethically.

 

I rule 6S.

 

Edit:

 

BTW, re whether passing 4S was a logical alternative with the given hand: interesting. North is authorized to know that South wants to play in 4S opposite a 3C bid which was natural. The only reason for bidding 5C would be UI, or (as here) maybe he should have bid 4C the first time. As TD, I would believe the UI part, because he apparently thought 3C was the correct bid when he did it.

[mrdct]

What is the systemic meaning of 5♣? If it's cue after ♠ had been set as trumps, south's correct bid after East's double is to pass denying ♣ control which may well result in 5♣x as the final contract.

[lamford]

5NT (pick a slam) might be right if South had a hand which wanted partner to pick a slam. But 5NT with this one would actually be a hedge against partner not having spades at all. 6♠ with the South hand is correct.

A hedge is permitted if there is no UI, which we are told there is not. And 6S probably rules out playing in 7, and if partner bids 6D over 5NT I am going to 7S.

[lamford]

Assuming no body language (and no "history" of 3♣ as just clubs) then this leaves 5♣.

 

I guess pass is not a logical alternative to 5♣, but

1. South's spade suit could be as good as North's club suit (without the UI),
   
2. 4♠ has not been doubled.
   

More importantly the preemptor did not promise any spades, and has the AK of his suit. Why cannot South have KQJ10xxxx Axx x x? He will be disappointed by your lack of trumps, but will be more disappointed at having to play at the five level. Pass is a clear LA, especially as you have a duty to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI.

[iviehoff]

I rule 6S.

Under what law?

[aguahombre]

Under what law?

Heck I don't know. But I bet Bobby Wolff would make up one if it doesn't exist. Was thinking about an AC, where we are given the actual laws involved and have decided that pass of 4S was a LA, and South should bid over 5C. It might not go that way, but if it did I would vote for 6SX rather than 5.

 

If the actual result (5SX) was being ruled upon, I would also vote for 6SX.

[Trinidad]

I don't think your partner has an LA to 5♣, whatever the agreement is, so that bid is fine.

I myself wouldn't dream of doing anything but pass. My preemptive overcall is very descriptive. Partner knows that I have a ton of clubs and decides to play 4♠. No reason at all to doubt his decision.

 

Rik

[barmar]

No reason? How about the fact that your club suit is 1 or 2 cards longer than you've promised, and you have a spade void? While it's possible that his spades are as good as your clubs, what's the chance of it?

 

Isn't there an old adage to never put down an 8-card suit in dummy (although I suspect they made that up before transfers were invented)?

[aguahombre]

Partner knows that I have a ton of clubs and decides to play 4♠. No reason at all to doubt his decision.

 

No reason? How about the fact that your club suit is 1 or 2 cards longer than you've promised, and you have a spade void? While it's possible that his spades are as good as your clubs, what's the chance of it?

 

Isn't there an old adage to never put down an 8-card suit in dummy (although I suspect they made that up before transfers were invented)?

There is also an old adage that when you have shown a certain hand, and partner then chooses the final contract ---if you are thinking of pulling it, your previous bid was wrong.

 

Or, I might have made that adage up.

[mamos]

I myself wouldn't dream of doing anything but pass. My preemptive overcall is very descriptive. Partner knows that I have a ton of clubs and decides to play 4♠. No reason at all to doubt his decision.

 

Rik

 

I think it should be clear that no competent TD would allow the 5♣ bid in this auction. North bid 3♣ believing it was a pre-empt in Clubs. South (unpassed) then called 4♠ after alerting the 3♣ bid and explaining the 3♣ bid as Clubs and Spades. That alert and explanation (or for that matter an alert even without an explanation) are/is UI and Law 16 explains very clearly what actions are open to the player who receives UI from his partner.

Here the meaning of the UI is very clear. NS have had a cock-up and it will be clearly better to bid 5♣. Where a choice of calls is suggested by UI a player must not choose that call if "a significant proportion of players would seriously consider an alternative" and "some of those who consider it would choose it" (Paraphrasing I know but anyone who wants to, can read Law 16 for themselves)

 

The point is that a player without UI can bid however they like, but a player with UI is constrained by Law 16. We know some players would seriously consider Pass (add me to that list) and we know some players would Pass (add me to that list) so 5♣ becomes an illegal choice. Please, please don't tell me you'd always bid 5♣, anyone who passes is a fool etc etc, none of that is relevant to the ruling. Some players would seriously consider Pass and some would Pass - that is all that matters.

 

Back to the OP - is Pass of partner's 5♣ bid legal? The answer is probably yes if you have no UI or if partner has no history of this sort of thing - it will depend on TD's investigation. But it won't matter much because partner has already made an illegal call and the TD will adjust on that basis

 

Mike Amos

[alphatango]

Some players would seriously consider Pass and some would Pass - that is all that matters.

 

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

[lamford]

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

But presumably even for them this hand is much better than their minimum WJO, and they have at least two potential tricks in Four Spades. How can Pass not be an LA when you have UI?

[lamford]

I guess pass is not a logical alternative to 5♣,

If you are using guess in the sense: "To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information", then which bit of extra information do you need to decide whether Pass is an LA? A poll of loonies who would overcall 3♣?

[gordontd]

How can Pass not be an LA when you have UI?

This seems like a rather confused question. If it's not an LA, it's not an LA.

 

(I'm not commenting on the hand in question here, just disagreeing with the idea that something that's not an LA becomes one in the presence of UI).