Weird problem

[kenrexford]

I had a very unusual problem, with a very unusual unwind, and a very unusual post-mortem.

 

First, the problem. I was dealt ♠Jxxxx ♥xx ♦AQJxxx ♣-- in second seat, white on red, when RHO opened 1♣ as "could be short." My first problem was my first call. I opted 3♦, which seemed practical.

 

Next, however, the auction returns to me with 3NT-P-P-? What to do? White on red is very enticing for a further call.

 

I thought about this for a while and decided upon a plan. I bid 4♣. My theory was as follows:

 

1. If partner prefers diamonds to clubs, I win big. In fact, my partner did prefer diamonds to clubs, which won big as I played 4♦X-1 for -100 against 4NT or 5NT making.

 

2. If partner prefers clubs to diamonds and no one for some reason doubles 4♣, I laugh but probably do OK.

 

3. If partner prefers clubs to diamonds and anyone doubles (as expected), I correct to 4♦. IMO, this should inferentially show diamonds and a major (longer in diamonds), and probably specifically diamonds and spades (for failure to bid Unusual 2NT for the reds earlier -- the treatment with this partner).

 

4. Along the way, my opponents will be baffled and confused, which is a fringe benefit.

 

As I mentioned, this worked wonders, as we played 4♦. The first strange part of the post-mortem was that, despite this being the first round, someone from another table approached me and told me angrily that I already had my one psychic for the evening. I noted that it was extremely odd for her to have ANY clue about the hand, as this should not have been discussed, and that furthermore my bid was not a psychic but rather a call designed to do good things, somehow.

 

Besides the obvious ethical problem in my being confronted by someone not at the table, this brought up a curious concept. First, what the heck would you call a bid of 4♣ on a void when your intention is to have the force of required tactical doubling enable showing a two-suiter that was not obviously shown by the initial call? I mean, if this is a psychic, is it not a tactically-necessary psychic, in a sense, as the only effective means to show spades and diamonds? The call was not an intent to mislead (although the fringe benefit waqs nice); it was a call that was designed to facilitate reaching the right contract by means of a stepping-stone off of the opponents' semi-forced double. I mean, if 4♣ was alerted as "non-forcing, with diamonds and clubs or spades," then the unwind would be the same and no mis-direction involved. Without discussion, this "convention" unwinds the same way, by force of bridge logic and such. Just a weird phenomenon.

 

Adding in the question of whether 4♣ is a "cuebid," and the implications of a "short club," you get a really interesting (to me) auction for discussion of esoteric bridge principles, as to bidding theory, bridge definitions and rules, terminology, ethics, perhaps my sanity, and the like.

 

Any comments at all?

[CSGibson]

Welcome back Ken. I've missed these stories.

[blackshoe]

The someone from another table was way out of line, for several reasons. For one thing, there is no "one psych per evening" rule. Second, if she approached you "angrily", that's a zero tolerance violation. Thirdly, as you say, how did she know what went on at your table anyway? Seems like it's her ethics, if anyone's, that need investigation.

[nigel_k]

It's a psyche - intent to mislead is not required.

 

Overcalling 1♦ would give you a good chance of being able to introduce spades later at the three level or lower. I don't mind the 3♦ bid because it makes them guess, but I would not do it if I intended to give them another chance should they guess wrong.

[kenberg]

As to 3.

After a double of 4♣ and then 4♦ I believe I can say no partner I have ever had would deduce that I hold spades. Nor would I, if pard and I switched seats. That being said, I guess I buy the logic of it. It seems he will infer spades only if he has short spades, and then he won't care.

 

I agree that it is not a psyche. Exactly what it is I am not sure, but it is not a psyche. It's a "guess/analyze what this means" bid, which is different from a psyche.Certainly it is not alertable as it is highly unlikely this is a discussed sequence, implicit or explicit, with any but the longest of long term partnerships.

[Mbodell]

As to 3.

After a double of 4♣ and then 4♦ I believe I can say no partner I have ever had would deduce that I hold spades. Nor would I, if pard and I switched seats. That being said, I guess I buy the logic of it. It seems he will infer spades only if he has short spades, and then he won't care.

 

I agree that it is not a psyche. Exactly what it is I am not sure, but it is not a psyche. It's a "guess/analyze what this means" bid, which is different from a psyche.Certainly it is not alertable as it is highly unlikely this is a discussed sequence, implicit or explicit, with any but the longest of long term partnerships.

 

Yeah, it seems like it good be really good diamonds and only ok clubs and the X made you chicken out/reevaluate. I don't think you need spades to pull 4♣ to 4♦.

[BunnyGo]

How can it be a psychic bid when you don't have an explicit agreement about it, and furthermore the agreement you expect partner to figure out is the one you intended?

 

Were I the sort of person to say something to this "someone from another table" it would have been, "I'm impressed you can keep track of what goes on at my table, when you don't know what the bids at your table mean."

[rhm]

How can it be a psychic bid when you don't have an explicit agreement about it, and furthermore the agreement you expect partner to figure out is the one you intended?

The trouble here are not explicit agreements, which would have to be alerted.

The problem are implicit ones, coming from previous experiences with partner taking a "flight of fancy" in the auction.

 

Partner is in a much better position to get such calls right, in particular with regard to what distribution and HCP strength to expect, than opponents.

There is definitely an ethical aspect, when such calls occur in established partnerships.

Just claiming to opponents "we never had this particular auction" is naive, even if true.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kayin801]

I don't think this remotely shows spades at all, though I do think it implies a weird hand, giving the willingness of the preemptor to bid twice. If I bid this way it would be to show a diamond preempt with a preference of a club lead if they bid 4 of a major, which is what we have! And therefore it isn't psychic. Though it will work out poorly at 4NT if they decide to compete. Then again, why didn't we bid 4 diamonds at the start? I guess it could be the hand we have, or maybe x, x, Qxxxxx, AJ10xx or the like.

 

I agree with Rainer that there's something weird as using "this bidding is undiscussed" as a cover when you are also using a bid meant to mess with your opponents, even if that explanation is as true as you can get. I don't know if it's inherently WRONG, but it's definitely sneaky and tiptoeing the line. I admit it is the correct thing to do, but I'd hope your partner has a sense of humor when the opponents get pissed at him/her for not being able to give an explanation and therefore confusing them.

 

Person from other table is crazy. You must have really ticked her off with your earlier psyche.

[kenrexford]

One additional issue was spotted, the disclosure problem. But, do you have to alert a tendency to be creative? Is it unethical to have a unique situation, think outside the box as a partnership, and work out the meaning of a doozie on the basis that partner thinks unusually?

 

Alert. This is an undiscussed sequence. But, my partner is of the Austrian School and tends to think along the lines of implied fit or implied split pattern rather than the Chicago School of lead inference or the Stubenville School of angst.

[kayin801]

I think the problem arises as a result of knowingly using an undiscussed bid as a destructive call and knowing it has never come up before. You've already preempted so you've limited your hand, by bidding again you've done something strange, and you know partner can't give the opponents an explanation that can help them deal with it. If you were behind screens, how would you describe this call to your screenmate? Undiscussed? Ew.

 

Then again a preempt is also destructive in the first place. But maybe that's also part of the problem. It's kinda hard to explain why the situation doesn't sit well but it just doesn't, it's like a bridge yuck factor.

 

Edit: Thinking about this some more, I guess I would consider doing something like this at the table, but I would never use the thought line "this is going to mess with my opponents, and it's impossible for my partner to explain!" I dunno, it's confusing.

[blackshoe]

The trouble here are not explicit agreements, which would have to be alerted.

The problem are implicit ones, coming from previous experiences with partner taking a "flight of fancy" in the auction.

 

Partner is in a much better position to get such calls right, in particular with regard to what distribution and HCP strength to expect, than opponents.

There is definitely an ethical aspect, when such calls occur in established partnerships.

Just claiming to opponents "we never had this particular auction" is naive, even if true.

 

Rainer Herrmann

I don't see any evidence of a CPU. And if a player says to me that he's never had this particular auction with this partner, unless I know him to be a liar (unlikely) I'm going to believe him, naive or not.

[kenrexford]

I mean, before you address whether the call is a psychic or not, or whether this is messing with the opponents and partner, the first thought should be whether a specific call and/or sequence should be interpreted correctly as what you intended, in theory. If so, then the next question is whether partner will actually reach that conclusion or not. A third question is whether it is critical that he get it right or not.

 

1. Was the meaning of the call/sequence worked out correctly by me?

 

Obviously, 4♣ in this sequence sounds like potentially clubs and diamonds, as natural makes sense. This would be the default understanding. The sequence however of correcting a doubled club contract to a diamond contract seems to only have a few potential meanings.

 

First, maybe this was a lead-directional call. That makes a lot of sense when you are advancing partner's preempt or call, but it seems rather rare to have this lead-directional problem crop up.

 

Second, maybe this was a panic call. But, there are two problems with this. First, assuming a meaning as "panic" is a dumb approach. Second, "panic" is frought with UI risk, such as Advancer's tempo in passing.

 

Third, this sequence shows diamonds (already shown) with a two-suiter, but not clubs. Obviously, because there are two suits above diamonds, costly to actually introduce, this would be a convenient way to introduce clubs and diamonds but also spades and diamond sor hearts and diamonds.

 

Think about a parallel. RHO opens 1♦, alerted as 5+ diamonds. After you jump to 3♥, LHO bids 3NT, passed to you. 4♦ as "hearts plus four spades" makes obvious sense, as a cuebid. Here, we have a "short club," where it might be a cue but it might not.

 

2. Can the call/sequence be worked out?

 

The curious thing is that the complete sequence can be worked out, IMO. Working out that 4♣, at the point of the 4♣ call, shows both minors OR both pointed suits is tougher, though. But, that is really a function of Advancer not visualizing/anticipating the entire sequence until it happens. A truly imaginative Advancer, thinking this problem through, might actually woprk this out, but that would be a rare person.

 

3. Is it tactically critical that partner work this out?

 

Not necessarily. 4♦ might be an OK spot on its own. In fact, at another table, a friend of mine presented with the same problem just rebid diamonds, the practical call, which worked OK (the opponents persisted in notrump against him). If partner shakes her head and passes the correction to 4♦ in my sequence, I end up in the same gamble spot. Plus, as I mentioned, if partner passes 4♣ and this is not doubled, this also is probably OK.

 

But, the "problem" might be disclosure. Still, I re-ask, how can it be a non-disclosure situation for a sequence that assuredly no one on earth (except us now) has discussed to be incapable of specific explanation other than something like "general bridge principles must apply?" Moreover, and more specifically, how can "general bridge principles" be as a matter of bridge laws subject to a requirement to describe the theoretical schools of your partner, his predisposition to the creative or the lack thereof, and such other esoteric theoretical nonsense? I suppose that if pushed my partner that evening might have given a more expansive explanation, like, "Partner sometimes makes calls or executes sequences that seem to him to be logical, per his understanding of bridge theory, with complete disregard for my ability to work it out in practice. At the moment of this 4♣ call, I cannot anticipate myself some weird development that might occur later to correct my first, best guess of clubs and diamonds." But, that seems tough -- defining ALL calls as subject to this unusual caveat?

[BunnyGo]

The trouble here are not explicit agreements, which would have to be alerted.

The problem are implicit ones, coming from previous experiences with partner taking a "flight of fancy" in the auction.

 

Partner is in a much better position to get such calls right, in particular with regard to what distribution and HCP strength to expect, than opponents.

There is definitely an ethical aspect, when such calls occur in established partnerships.

Just claiming to opponents "we never had this particular auction" is naive, even if true.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Very reasonable answer to the first part of my question. As to the second part, when we expect partner to figure it out with our implicit understandings (be them an alignment of the minds through ages of conversation or a similarity to other situations) does it constitute a psychic bid still?

 

I'm all for full disclosure, but I think the ethical issue you raise of not disclosing the potential meanings is something else. it's the partnership's responsibility to address the questions honestly and completely during the auction, and inform of the various possibilities at the end of the auction if not already discussed. When an esoteric possibility is not explained because it was forgotten or not considered because it is so esoteric, is that an ethical lapse?

[ggwhiz]

I consider creative smoke blowing within the confines of full disclosure to be the most entertaining part of the game ie. I play an impossible 3nt bid usually after partner pre-empts to invite pard to dive higher but I'm afraid of the big one. Fully alerted and explained as either to play or this joke.

 

This particular one has nothing to alert or wrong with it but the interloper has a serious nerd/secretary bird complex.

 

Perhaps a pre-alert that "My partner is occasionally criminally insane" is called for but locally in my case and probably yours it's common knowledge.

[Phil]

Reminds me of this problem: Unusual Sequence

 

Well bid!

 

It is certainly not foolproof. A construction I have in mind is LHO having Ax KJxxx KTxx Qx and partner KQx xx x Jxxxxxx. Over 4♣ LHO now shows hearts, and partner is, well, not happy. If partner passes 4♥, this looks like fielding, and would expect an adjustment based on prior partnership tendencies. If your partner thought it was a weird bid, then I would expect partner should alert 4♣ as either natural or a runout to spades.

[kenberg]

If your partner thought it was a weird bid, then I would expect partner should alert 4♣ as either natural or a runout to spades.

 

Should he? I admit to having at best a vague understanding of the rules but generally I prefer that my opponents alert agreements only. There is certainly a murky area where they do not exactly have an agreement but still can work it out but here I don't think I would expect Ken's partner to commit to this at the time of the 4♣ bid. I doubt it would occur to him. And if it goes 4♣-X-Pass-Pass-4♦ it hardly seems to need an alert to indicate something is weird. Expecting an alert is too much like asking "Well, what do you think it means?".

 

 

All in all, I don't think I would want the standard for alerts to be that if you can figure out what you think is probably going on in an unusual sequence then you need to alert and explain.

 

I recognize some vagueness around the edges of my thoughts here.

[Phil]

Should he? I admit to having at best a vague understanding of the rules but generally I prefer that my opponents alert agreements only. There is certainly a murky area where they do not exactly have an agreement but still can work it out but here I don't think I would expect Ken's partner to commit to this at the time of the 4♣ bid. I doubt it would occur to him. And if it goes 4♣-X-Pass-Pass-4♦ it hardly seems to need an alert to indicate something is weird. Expecting an alert is too much like asking "Well, what do you think it means?".

 

 

All in all, I don't think I would want the standard for alerts to be that if you can figure out what you think is probably going on in an unusual sequence then you need to alert and explain.

 

I recognize some vagueness around the edges of my thoughts here.

 

This is a murky area of the rules AFAICS and I don't want to derail this discussion because the auction itself is very interesting. However, I don't think its clear to the world that pulling 4♣ x'd to 4♦ shows spades. 4♣ might be jokering to get a momentum double (instead of defending 4N) of 4♦. Or it might just be a "I chose to bid 4♦, don't ask me why".

 

Where the rubber meets the road (for me) is if partner is constrained about bidding 5♣ later, which he might do over 4♥ or (more likely) 5♣.

[barmar]

My general feeling is that the first time you perpetrate something like this, partner can't be expected to expect this is what you're doing. It's not until you pull the double that he might be able to figure out what you were up to.

 

My question is what happens if this auction occurs a SECOND time. If this come up only once a year or so, do you expect him to remember what it was the last time, so he can alert the opponents to the possibility?

 

Does every act of improvisation automatically become a partnership understanding that must be alerted and disclosed from then on?

 

Consider the MSC Death Hand. Should everyone have to explain all their reverses and opener jump shifts as potentially being into a 3-card suit with a strong 6331 hand? Maybe this case doesn't count -- it's well known enough to have a name, which presumably makes it GBK.

[CSGibson]

They bid it first. 4c is technically a cue bid, and it's above 3n. And, to be fair, you do have 1st round club control...all of which adds up to "suck it opps"

[ggwhiz]

All in all, I don't think I would want the standard for alerts to be that if you can figure out what you think is probably going on in an unusual sequence then you need to alert and explain.

 

I agree in that in an unusual sequence....

 

1. If you guess on an explanation and are wrong, you are in jail.

 

2. If your guess is based on the cards you hold, not subject to disclosure.

 

3. This kind of action doesn't work very well unless it sandbags partner equally as much as the opponents.

[kenrexford]

They bid it first. 4c is technically a cue bid, and it's above 3n. And, to be fair, you do have 1st round club control...all of which adds up to "suck it opps"

 

Funny you say this, as that was one of my points to the interloper.

 

By the way, as no one else has come up with a term to describe this call, I will share again my term. In other sequences, I have used a call that I describe as a "Steppingstone Bid." The concept is this. In some sequences (this being an example), a call might be made where the opponents are the ones who are forced. Most calls force partner to bid, invite paretner to bid, do not induce any calls at all from partner, suggest that partner not bid, or demand that partner not bid. The unique situation here is that the OPPONENTS are forced to act. They are "forced" because the situation requires them, for bridge scoring reasons, to either bid or to double, as they cannot afford to defend the contract undoubled.

 

In that situation, this force on the opponents allows partner to not be forced (he can clearly pass), and it has an advantage of allowing better stacking, For one, as one option for the opponents is to double, this "Steppingstone Bid" often induces pass and redouble as options at your next move. But, it also allows what might normally be a relay to actually be one of the options.

 

Consider Cappelletti 2♣ (one-suiter). Normally, this forces a 2♦ relay, although an override is possible (pass with long clubs). If Advancer is known to be weak, and Overcaller is known to be weak, such that the opponents have GF strength, and the colors white on red, then playing 2♣ as non-forcing makes some sense. If no one bids, play 2♣, potentially -8 for -400 and a probable top. So, the opponents have to bid. Because they have to bid, you now can show all four suits at the two-level, meaning that you can get out at 2♣. So, the call is a "Steppingstone Bid," because the opponents must cooperate with a double, which then allows you to unwind your hand off of their double. (By the way, this sort of NF Capp 2♣ also allows 2♣ to show any one suit OR any two-suiter, as you can redouble with the two-suiter hands, proving well the value of the Steppingstone Bid as a stacking tool.)

 

In this actual situation, bidding 4♣ as "diamonds plus either clubs or spades" works as a steppingstone bid. Granted, this was an undiscussed steppingstone bid, but the beauty of steppingstone bids is that they generally are self-executing even without discussion, assuming that a double-enabled later move can be properly interpreted.

[blackshoe]

My question is what happens if this auction occurs a SECOND time. If this come up only once a year or so, do you expect him to remember what it was the last time, so he can alert the opponents to the possibility?

Not unless he is Carrie Wells (main character of the TV series "Unforgettable" - she literally cannot forget anything).

[jdeegan]

:P Thanks for the story. Real bridge is, in part, about a battle of wits. Too many players today are like simpleton robots. They faithfully rely on the opponents' bidding. You have to be careful about psyching in a pairs game that your partner doesn't know more about the situation than the opponents due to past experience. Otherwise, f**k'em if they can't take a joke.

[Quantumcat]

I love it!! Great thinking! Sounds like one of those funny stories on PoorBridge, except not actually poor.