Is West entitled to bid 3N?

[jules101]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa98h54dqj8642ck9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1n(12-14)p2n(trans%20to%20diamonds)p(asks*%20see%20below)3s(brain%20fart)p3n]133|200[/hv]

 

 

North asked the meaning of 2N, and East had a momentary brain fart, and said transfer to ♠ (rather than ♦), and then proceeded to bid 3♠.

 

EW system has the ability to show "liking for ♦", usually Hxx, or not.

 

And West has a hand where she'll bid a thin 3N if partner "likes ♦", and will probably pass if partner denies Hxx in their suit.

 

 

After East describes the transfer as ♠, and bids 3♠ is West not constrained in her next action?

 

ie Should West pass 3♠?

 

Or can she try 3N in hope this might be a better spot in case their partner just has a doubleton or 3 card ♠.

 

 

How do you rule if NS call you?

[ArtK78]

West is supposed to bid as if he did not hear the explanation offered by East to the meaning of the 2NT call.

 

It is up to the TD or the committee to determine whether West's action is reasonable. Assuming, as you imply, that the partnership agreement is that 2NT was a transfer to diamonds, it is not likely that 3♠ can be passed. For a pass of 3♠ to make any sense at all, West would have to treat the 3♠ bid as natural. That does not make much sense in this context.

 

I would allow West to bid.

[StevenG]

What, specifically, does breaking the transfer and bidding 3♠ mean?

[RMB1]

How do you rule if NS call you?

 

I think I need some sort of poll. Possible calls (calls that might be considered) are Pass, 3NT, 4♦, 4♠, 5♦.

If a poll/consultation shows that anyone would actually bid them, then they are logical alternatives.

 

I think the UI suggests 3NT over playing in a suit, so I would "disallow" 3NT if there are logical alternatives to 3NT.

 

My hunch, without consultation is that Pass is a logical alternative, so I would adjust.

[aguahombre]

Isn't this one of those situations where it is an obvious slip of the tongue? Is there any 3S bid which is part of the 4-suit transfer scheme? The only extraneous information for me would be that partner's slip of the tongue was caused by her intent to bid 3S, not that she misinterpreted 2N.

 

I would bid with the given hand as if partner had excellent 3-card diamond support with a 5-card spade suit and raise spades. Passing would be, IMHO, just plain wrong.

[jules101]

1N 2N

??

 

3♣ = denies Hxx in diamonds

 

3♦ = shows Hxx in ♦, although sometimes opener may complete with Ax, AK bare, or maybe even with xxxx.

Responder will pass 3♦ with weak hand, but may try 3N with a 10 hcp as per hand shown.

 

3♥/♠ have no assigned meaning! Given transfer might be made with zero points, it would seem "a bit previous" for the 12-14 NT hand to bid above 3♦.

 

 

With stronger GF hand responder will bid on after 3♣/♦ hand, and this is FTG or more. This isn't relevant here though.

[paulg]

I reckon the 1NT opener has discovered that his clubs are actually spades and he now has eight of them.

[bluejak]

West is supposed to bid as if he did not hear the explanation offered by East to the meaning of the 2NT call.

Not as simple as that: West is supposed to make every effort not to gain from the UI.

 

After East describes the transfer as ♠, and bids 3♠ is West not constrained in her next action?

 

ie Should West pass 3♠?

 

Or can she try 3N in hope this might be a better spot in case their partner just has a doubleton or 3 card ♠.

Certainly West is constrained in her action: she may not a make a call that takes advantage in any way of the UI.

 

But I do not think it necessarily obvious what is suggested. Without the UI 3♠ does not exist as a bid, and the only logical meanings I can think of have been suggested, that partner has found that both his black suits are spades, or that partner has five good spades, three good diamonds, and a very optimistic disposition.

 

So this is not necessarily a case where I would suggest a player must not bid 3NT, though a TD might decide to rule it back if she does. Personally I might bid 4♠, and it is possible a TD might consider 3NT suggested over 4♠ by the UI.

[ahydra]

Surely the only thing suggested by the UI here is that partner has simply messed up. So, who knows what East actually holds or meant by his/her 3S bid?

 

I think one has to look at the partnership's agreed methods over other transfers. If they play, say, control-showing breaks of transfers then 3NT should definitely be allowed. If it always shows a 5-card suit then 4S should be the only alternative available to West. Anything else (including no agreement) and I think we have to give West the benefit of the doubt and allow 3NT (just as when partner bids something you haven't seen or discussed, you're allowed to make any decision you like as to what it could mean).

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

I do not see any particular call as demonstrably suggested in this case. Hence, I rule "result stands" in 3NT (assuming that ends the auction).

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think pass can be a LA, to me, 3N and 4♦ are the only bids in the frame, and I wouldn't seriously consider 4♦.