Logical Alternatives

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&n=st762h4dakqj5ck43&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1sp3hp4hp]133|200[/hv]

 

New partnership.

 

Agreed in the car on the way to the tournament that jump shifts show a fit.

 

Partner did not alert 3♥.

 

What action do you make?

 

What other actions do you consider?

 

Are there any actions for which you would impose a penalty?

[blackshoe]

1. Bid 4NT, RKCB for spades.

2. 4♠, 5♦, 5♣, 6♠, pass. Some of them not very seriously.

3. No.

[RMB1]

Without UI I bid 4♠ - the chances that partner has misunderstood 3♥ is too great.

 

I consider 4NT and 5m, but I am not sure how seriously. I am worried that 5♦ will attact a club lead, perhaps I should bid 5♣/5♦ at random.

 

With UI, I would not bid 4♠, if only to avoid the scorn of my TD colleagues. But, as a player, I would be worried that there was no logical alternative to 4♠.

 

I would not penalise a player for bidding 4♠ but I would adjust the score if a poll showed there were logical alternatives to 4♠.

[AlexJonson]

I like post #2 as an answer.

 

Be a minor miracle to adjust on this hand and achieve equity.

[Bbradley62]

At what point did North realize he pulled the 3♥ card when he was reaching for 3♦?

[bluejak]

I bid 4NT. I have shown my singleton, partner has made a slam try showing the ♥A. He is unlikely to have poor trumps with no minor ace so 6♠ should be on the position of the ♣A at worst. Still, it does not hurt to use RKCB to check partner's trumps.

 

Alternatives? I suppose 6♠ is not bad: I expect to finish there so perhaps it is best to give nothing away. If opponents look naive, perhaps 5♣ - I might even stop in 5♠ if they double 5♣. Nothing else occurs.

 

4♠? No, why?

 

4♠ is so way out as a bid in my view that a penalty for deliberate use of UI seems reasonable.

 

Having said that, I do not rely on my own opinion: I do take a poll before making a decision.

[gnasher]

2. 4♠, 5♦, 5♣, 6♠, pass. Some of them not very seriously.

I'd also consider 6♦, to protect ♣K opposite, for example, AKQxxx Axx xxx xx.

[mrdct]

More info required.

 

What type of event is this?

 

How strong is the field?

 

What sort of cue-bidding style do North-South use?

 

What would 3NT over 3♥ have meant?

 

Is South a good card-player?

[jmcw]

You cannot allow the NON alert to influence you decisions.

Presumably, partner is supporting your ♥, oops you have only 1. Bidding 4♠ now is perfectly legal, I consider no other action with you hand appropriate.

[mrdct]

You cannot allow the NON alert to influence you decisions.

Presumably, partner is supporting your ♥, oops you have only 1. Bidding 4♠ now is perfectly legal, I consider no other action with you hand appropriate.

If North presumes that partner is supporting ♥, then he is most definately using UI from the non-alert. North needs to proceed as if partner had alerted and described 3♥ as a splinter. North's hand looks pretty good to me opposite a hand that is making a slam try and cueing ♥ control (which can only really be the ♥A as nobody would cue ♥K opposite a splinter). I'm a little bit concerned about the known ♣A sitting over my ♣Kxx, but partner is pretty likely to have some cover in ♣ to be making a slam try.

 

I'm not so sure that 4♠ should be allowed as once North knows about the bidding cock-up, it is demonstrably suggested by the UI that staying low is the best plan as who knows where this might wind up if North starts ace-asking or cue bidding.

 

I think the only ethical options for North are 4NT or 5m (depending on what their cue bidding style is) and I would adjust the score on the board to whatever contract North-South will likely get to after that action, unless the table result was worse.

[Cascade]

I think the only ethical options for North are 4NT or 5m (depending on what their cue bidding style is) and I would adjust the score on the board to whatever contract North-South will likely get to after that action, unless the table result was worse.

 

I can't answer all of your other questions as I don't know.

 

What I know is that the partnership were a new partnership. My guess is that they probably had not agreed on a cue-bidding style. Control showing cuebids may even have been outside south's range of experience. North who bid 3♥ was much more experienced.

 

This was a day long club tournament (equivalent of a day congress in Australia). South is not a regular tournament player. North has played internationally.

 

The real question I want to know is if North chooses other than what one considers an ethical option but even with an ethical option would likely have ended in the same contract do you consider a penalty for attempting to take advantage of the UI? (I suspect David that you might).

 

At the table north chose 6♠ which avoids enhancing the misunderstanding that hearts have been agreed. Compared with 4NT or 5m there is a smaller chance of a subsequent misunderstanding. The cost is occasionally you might be off two key-cards.

 

On the actual hand 7♠ and 7NT will both make so partner can't really do anything bad that you cannot correct and survive.

[gordontd]

I still don't understand. Did North intend to bid 3♦, or did he think that's what 3♥ shows? If I thought I had bid correctly thus far, I'd bid 5♦ now.

[mrdct]

The real question I want to know is if North chooses other than what one considers an ethical option but even with an ethical option would likely have ended in the same contract do you consider a penalty for attempting to take advantage of the UI? (I suspect David that you might).

 

At the table north chose 6♠ which avoids enhancing the misunderstanding that hearts have been agreed. Compared with 4NT or 5m there is a smaller chance of a subsequent misunderstanding. The cost is occasionally you might be off two key-cards.

 

On the actual hand 7♠ and 7NT will both make so partner can't really do anything bad that you cannot correct and survive.

It seems fairly clear to me that North has taken advantage of the UI and selected a bid (6♠) that is less likely to "enhance the misunderstanding" when there were logical alternatives of 4NT and 5m available. For an experienced international representative player this is definately in PP territory for me, but it may be sufficient just to have a chat to him about the hand and make sure that he understands that what he did was dodgey.

 

To gauge my response as TD, I would need to ask North what he would've done if 3♥ had been alerted and described as a splinter. If North is on the ball he will say that they hadn't discussed any of their continuations after a splinter; nor their cue-bidding or Blackwood style so he decided to just punt 6♠ knowing that it has the advantage of potentially minimising the chances of the opps getting the lead right. Did the regulations for the event require players to know their system?

[Cascade]

I still don't understand. Did North intend to bid 3♦, or did he think that's what 3♥ shows? If I thought I had bid correctly thus far, I'd bid 5♦ now.

 

She intended 3♥. I am not sure that she thought specifically that this is what 3♥ shows except that they had made an agreement in the car on the way to the tournament that a "jump shift shows a fit". That is I don't think they had specifically discussed what other feature they were showing.

[mrdct]

I still don't understand. Did North intend to bid 3♦, or did he think that's what 3♥ shows? If I thought I had bid correctly thus far, I'd bid 5♦ now.

Assuming this took place in New Zealand, I'm guessing written bidding would've been in use so a mechanical misbid (i.e. pulling the wrong card) just doesn't happen. It's one of the many advantages that written bidding has over bidding boxes, including:

 

• 
   
  
• cheaper (certainly up-front and likely long-term as bidding pads are dirt-cheap);
  
• easier for TDs as there is a written record of the auction (including which bids were alerted);
  
• never any dispute over what the final contract was or whether or not it was doubled;
  
• easier to comply with Law 20C as with bidding boxes the bidding cards are usually put away when one or more players still has a right to review the auction;
  
• less space taken up on the table;
  
• less time to set up a room for play; and
  
• no mechanical misbids.
  

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I still prefer bidding boxes for the following reasons:

 

• 
   
  
• less mess;
  
• environmentally friendly;
  
• no need to decipher peoples' poor hand-writting;
  
• persistent non-compliance with Law 20C as 99.9% of the time the bidding pad remains of the table throughout the play as it's only the serious SB-types who remove it after everyone has followed to the first trick;
  
• no questionable variations in the size or manner of bids and calls (an occassional source of cheating allegations); and
  
• much clearer for people with failing eyesight.
  

 

My local bridge club (a typical country town senior citizens centre twice-weekly duplicate) acquired bidding boxes four or five years ago, but only used them three or four times before reverting back to written bidding following a poll of members which was about 75% in support of written bidding.

[Siegmund]

I am quite puzzled to see so many people disallowing 4S.

 

I showed some kind of spade raise. Partner failed to cuebid 4C. For slam to be solid I need partner to have SAKQ and a singleton or queen of clubs; for slam to even be 50-50 I need most of this. I might go so far as to say that anybody who bids 4NT or 5m is taking a very strange position that it's possible for us not to have a sure club loser here. [Edited to add: I see Cascade added the possibility that partner doesn't know how to cuebid at all. That might be a reason to believe "anything is possible" now. Of course, if 3H cannot elicit any useful information at all from partner, I might as well have just responded 4NT to 1S...]

 

As for partner's non-alert... well.. fit-jumps and splinters were both conventions under the pre-2007 laws; I can't think of any jurisdiction where one is alertable and the other is not. The only UI I have is that partner is a sloppy alerter.

[Cascade]

The only UI I have is that partner is a sloppy alerter.

 

That can't be. There has to be a serious chance that partner has forgotten and thinks you have hearts. Which is in fact what partner had done.

[mrdct]

I am quite puzzled to see so many people disallowing 4S.

You may have fallen into the common trap of applying a test of "Is 4♠ the normal bid to make absent to UI?" whereas the test that needs to be applied is a more severe, "Is 4♠ demonstrably suggested by the UI and do other logical alternatives (absent the UI) exist?". Basically, if several logical alternatives are in the serious consideration of your peers in a poll absent the UI, you are not allowed to select a call which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Here, North has pulled a safe and practical 6♠ bid with a rationale of, at least in part, to seek to avoid an enhancement of the misunderstadning that ♥ may have been agreed as trumps. She is not allowed to do that.

 

A possible irony here (or maybe even Karma at work) is that if North had pulled out RKCB over 4♥ and found out that South held ♠AKQxx and the other two aces, the grand slam would've been quite easy to bid, so her apparent use of the UI seems to have worked to her disadvantage.

[Cascade]

You may have fallen into the common trap of applying a test of "Is 4♠ the normal bid to make absent to UI?" whereas the test that needs to be applied is a more severe, "Is 4♠ demonstrably suggested by the UI and do other logical alternatives (absent the UI) exist?". Basically, if several logical alternatives are in the serious consideration of your peers in a poll absent the UI, you are not allowed to select a call which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Here, North has pulled a safe and practical 6♠ bid with a rationale of, at least in part, to seek to avoid an enhancement of the misunderstadning that ♥ may have been agreed as trumps. She is not allowed to do that.

 

A possible irony here (or maybe even Karma at work) is that if North had pulled out RKCB over 4♥ and found out that South held ♠AKQxx and the other two aces, the grand slam would've been quite easy to bid, so her apparent use of the UI seems to have worked to her disadvantage.

 

I said 7♠ makes I didn't say that it was a good contract. The trump king was missing my onside.

[pretzalz]

That can't be. There has to be a serious chance that partner has forgotten and thinks you have hearts. Which is in fact what partner had done.

 

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift. Now most of my partner's have never played strong jump shifts and don't even know how to play strong jump shifts so I would be 100% certain that partner didn't think it was a strong jump shift therefor his failure to alert wouldn't suggest any possible interpretation over any other possible interpretation. The problem with an argument like 'what would opener do after hearing his partner explain it as a splinter' is that that would be UI as well.

[mrdct]

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift.

The most likely reason for South failing to alert 3♥ must surely be because he or she did not think it was alertable (i.e. strong and natural). The failure to alert has done two things:

 

- woken-up North as to her misbid; and

- conveyed to North that South is treating 3♥ as natural, in which case 4♥ takes on a completely different meaning to what it would've meant opposite a splinter.

 

North has UI that South has a different interpretation of the 3♥ bid to what North initially intended and is ethically bound to avoid selecting actions suggested by that UI when other logical alternatives exist. Generally speaking, one will meet one's ethical obligations by bidding one's hand as if no UI had been transmitted (including not being woken-up to your earlier misbid) but even then you may still be subject to an adjusted score if some other logical alternative within the serious consideration of your polled peers was going to be less successful.

 

There may be situations where partner's bid opposite your non-alerted, but intended artificial, bid is sufficiently weird that it can only mean partner has misinterpreted your bid which would be AI. For example, a 5X response to a 4NT bid which was intended as quantitative would carry the reasonable AI that partner took it as Blackwood and you would be ethically able to proceed on that basis even if 4NT was alerted and described as Blackwood contrary to your original intent. We might be able to throw a lifeline at North here if it can be established that South has no idea about cue bidding and this is a fact known to North, as in that case 4♥ couldn't really be anything other than a natural suit and would legally wake-up North to the misunderstanding.

 

Perhaps a good question to ask North is, "when you bid 6♠ did any other potential bids cross your mind and why did you rule those out?"

[bluejak]

I am quite puzzled to see so many people disallowing 4S.

 

I showed some kind of spade raise. Partner failed to cuebid 4C. For slam to be solid I need partner to have SAKQ and a singleton or queen of clubs; for slam to even be 50-50 I need most of this. I might go so far as to say that anybody who bids 4NT or 5m is taking a very strange position that it's possible for us not to have a sure club loser here. [Edited to add: I see Cascade added the possibility that partner doesn't know how to cuebid at all. That might be a reason to believe "anything is possible" now. Of course, if 3H cannot elicit any useful information at all from partner, I might as well have just responded 4NT to 1S...]

 

As for partner's non-alert... well.. fit-jumps and splinters were both conventions under the pre-2007 laws; I can't think of any jurisdiction where one is alertable and the other is not. The only UI I have is that partner is a sloppy alerter.

Perhaps you would like to give some sort of hand consistent with partner's heart cue-bid that means slam is not a reasonable idea.

 

Remember that, to allow 4♠, if we poll the player's peers with the sequence and no UI, we have to find that either a bid other than 4♠ is not considered by a significant proportion - so over 80% bid 4♠ and consider nothing else or that a bid other than 4♠ is not found by a number of players - so over 95% of players actually bid 4♠.

 

Once you consider what partner needs for his bid I think you will realise this is nonsense. Most people will not bid 4♠.

 

What you and others in this thread are doing is using totally muddled thinking. The question is whether 4♠ is legal, not whether it is reasonable. To be legal either

 

• the UI does not suggest it - and in face of a misunderstanding known by UI "unauthorised panic" is always suggested, trust me! :lol: , or
  
• alternative calls are not LAs. But they clearly are.
  

Let us go back to what you think partner has. Consider his hand, and ignore UI. What hand will cue bid the ♥A after 1♠ 3♥ fit jump? One with no minor ace, remember, and no high cards in diamonds at all. I thing AKQ of spades outstandingly likely, don’t you?

 

:ph34r:

 

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift. Now most of my partner's have never played strong jump shifts and don't even know how to play strong jump shifts so I would be 100% certain that partner didn't think it was a strong jump shift therefor his failure to alert wouldn't suggest any possible interpretation over any other possible interpretation. The problem with an argument like 'what would opener do after hearing his partner explain it as a splinter' is that that would be UI as well.

"most"? Does "most" mean everyone? If you consider my area of England there are only two players who play Gazilli, a 9-12 1NT opening, and various other things: me and my regular partner. But because “most” players do not play something, strong jumps shifts or Gazilli or whatever, does not mean that this player can be automatically assumed not to play it or to assume partner is not playing it.

[jallerton]

[hv=pc=n&n=st762h4dakqj5ck43&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1sp3hp4hp]133|200[/hv]

 

New partnership.

 

Agreed in the car on the way to the tournament that jump shifts show a fit.

 

Partner did not alert 3♥.

 

What action do you make?

 

What other actions do you consider?

 

Are there any actions for which you would impose a penalty?

 

I'm surprised that you have received so many strong opinions in reply to this thread. In my opinion, we can't give a sensible answer to these questions until we know what sort of 'fit' hand North thought 3♥ showed. Did North think that 3♥ showed shortage in hearts? What did North consider to be a typical minimum hand to bid 3♥ here?

[Cyberyeti]

Absent UI I bid 4♠. Why doesn't partner have AKQJx, AKQ, xx, xxx, the one thing they can't have is A♣ or surely they'd have bid 4♣ not 4♥. Admittedly slam could well be 50-50, but needn't be that good AKJxx, AKQ, xx, Jxx for example, and you have no guaranteed 5 level safety.

 

If partner has the A♣, he may well continue with 5♣.

[sfi]

Absent UI I bid 4♠. Why doesn't partner have AKQJx, AKQ, xx, xxx, the one thing they can't have is A♣ or surely they'd have bid 4♣ not 4♥. Admittedly slam could well be 50-50, but needn't be that good AKJxx, AKQ, xx, Jxx for example, and you have no guaranteed 5 level safety.

 

If partner has the A♣, he may well continue with 5♣.

 

Surely if you're going to play partner for either of these hands, you would prefer to guess 6NT rather than 4♠?

 

As for the original questions, blackshoe pretty much covered them in the first response. Although I would not "impose a penalty" for either 4♠ or 6♠, I would consider adjusting the score. 4♠ looks suggested by the UI, and there are clear alternatives. 6♠ is worthy of further scrutiny since it would seem to be an attempt to avoid further confusion when asking for key cards.