Looking for LAs

[CamHenry]

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hqj9dak9876ca98&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2n(Transfer%20to%20diamonds)p3c(Superaccept)p]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid, and what do you consider?

[Vampyr]

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hqj9dak9876ca98&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2n(Transfer%20to%20diamonds)p3c(Superaccept)p]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid, and what do you consider?

 

I will bid whatever shows a major fragment or shortage. If my major-suit bids would be 4-card suits, I am a bit stuck. Probably 4 of whatever suit is KCB for diamonds. I will not bid QJ9 of hearts.

 

I don't consider anything except changing the bid I use for super-accepting; but that is not relevant here.

[mink]

I bid 4♦, rkcb for ♦. If the superaccept creates a gameforcing, I would also consider 3♦.

 

Karl

[Codo]

3 ♠ (shortness)

4♣(control in case 3 M wasnot avaiable as such)

4♦ (Slam invitational)

 

All these bids looks like LA.

 

If something unusual is in the system notes (like 3 ♦ forcing) I would accept that too. In fact in that case, 3 ♦ looks like the only sensible alternative.

[mr1303]

I think 4D looks a good call no matter what it shows. If partner passes it, I go to e-bridge-partners.com

 

If partner bid 3C slowly, I don't really see what it suggests.

[c_corgi]

Whatever the options available, probably the only one that is not an LA is 3NT. However any combination of actions that doesn't add up to at least a slam try is also not an LA.

[Trinidad]

Depends on agreements.

 

I would bid 3♠, since for me that shows shortness. It would be the only thing I would consider.

 

If 3M would be natural, I would bid 4♣, but would consider 4♠ as an autosplinter (if I play those).

 

Rik

[RMB1]

If any of 4C/4D/4H are RKCB for ♦ that is an LA

4NT is usually an LA in these auctions whatever it means

Any retransfer that gets partner to play ♦ is probably a LA

I suspect that bidding 6D now is a LA

[Zelandakh]

You need to tell us the methods of the partnership to answer the question.

[Fluffy]

3♠, 4♦ and 4NT, 4♣ if the partnership is well stablished only and 3♠ short is not avaible, in that case 4NT would not be a LA

[Fluffy]

oh I forgot, 6♦ is a LA also, if partnering a pickup intermediate with no agreements I might avoid missunderstandings using it.

[billw55]

This must be a UI question, and evidently there is a whole raft of LAs.

[gnasher]

If 3♠ would show shortage by agreement, I'd bid 3♠ and not consider anything else.

 

If 3♠ would be natural and 4♣ would be a cue-bid, I'd bid 4♣ and not consider anything else.

 

If all new suits would be natural and 4♦ would be natural, I'd bid 4♦ after considering 3♥ and 4♣.

 

If all new suits would be natural and 4♦ would be Keycard, I'm not one of "the class of players in question".

[CamHenry]

This must be a UI question, and evidently there is a whole raft of LAs.

 

Bill's hit the nail on the head here. The UI was, in fact, worse than a slow bid: opener mumbled, grabbed the alert card, and then said (unprompted) "I think that's probably a transfer to clubs". That UI definitely suggests getting out in 3NT, I think.

 

Given the fact that "some appropriate slam try" is generally considered the only LA, I am quite happy that my slam try (4NT keycard; we don't have sophisticated methods) was required by ethics. Unfortunately, partner's hand was AKJT/Kxx/xx/Kxx, and with a club and a heart to lose we did not score well. The fact that diamonds were 4-1 offside made the loss easier to bear!

[Sjoerds]

Depends of agreements

 

I guess 2Nt is transfer for ♣/♦ and now you have a strong hand and don't know how to go on.

I assume 1NT is 15-17

 

If so, I would bid 4♦ looking for slam in ♦After 4♥ (cue) I would aim for 6♦ or else 5♦

[Cascade]

Bill's hit the nail on the head here. The UI was, in fact, worse than a slow bid: opener mumbled, grabbed the alert card, and then said (unprompted) "I think that's probably a transfer to clubs". That UI definitely suggests getting out in 3NT, I think.

 

Given the fact that "some appropriate slam try" is generally considered the only LA, I am quite happy that my slam try (4NT keycard; we don't have sophisticated methods) was required by ethics. Unfortunately, partner's hand was AKJT/Kxx/xx/Kxx, and with a club and a heart to lose we did not score well. The fact that diamonds were 4-1 offside made the loss easier to bear!

 

I would still like to know what your unsophisticated methods were. Whilst you have agreed that there are many logical alternatives without knowing your precise, even if unsophisticated, methods it is impossible to judge which of those logical alternatives may be suggested over another.

 

In particular after partner has announced a misunderstanding then, in general, i think it would be inappropriate to choose a logical alternative in which you take control if there is another logical alternative in which partner may take control or even be consulted. Unless in taking control you know you are going to get bad information that will lead you to a poor contract. These auctions sometimes go completely off the rails and i think there is a responsibility to not prevent that based on the UI that is available to you.

[c_corgi]

What was the final contract?

[barmar]

I would still like to know what your unsophisticated methods were.

Sounds like Blackwood is the only slam exploration method he has.

[Fluffy]

I would still like to know what your unsophisticated methods were. Whilst you have agreed that there are many logical alternatives without knowing your precise, even if unsophisticated, methods it is impossible to judge which of those logical alternatives may be suggested over another.

 

In particular after partner has announced a misunderstanding then, in general, i think it would be inappropriate to choose a logical alternative in which you take control if there is another logical alternative in which partner may take control or even be consulted. Unless in taking control you know you are going to get bad information that will lead you to a poor contract. These auctions sometimes go completely off the rails and i think there is a responsibility to not prevent that based on the UI that is available to you.

 

So there is a whole lot of LAs, he picks one that is not suggested by UI but yet you wanna require him to do a complete deep analysis of all LAs and their consequences to determine wich one is the least suggested? maybe you are right on the rules, but this looks insane to me.

[blackshoe]

So there is a whole lot of LAs, he picks one that is not suggested by UI but yet you wanna require him to do a complete deep analysis of all LAs and their consequences to determine wich one is the least suggested? maybe you are right on the rules, but this looks insane to me.

This is why we have Law 73C for players: just try to be sure you're not taking advantage of UI, don't worry too much about LAs as such.

[Cascade]

So there is a whole lot of LAs, he picks one that is not suggested by UI but yet you wanna require him to do a complete deep analysis of all LAs and their consequences to determine wich one is the least suggested? maybe you are right on the rules, but this looks insane to me.

 

Maybe you are right but maybe not.

 

My understanding is that he is not allowed to select one alternative that is suggested over another. I have not seen enough evidence that Blackwood is not suggested over another call e.g. 4♦. Not until I know what options were available can i determine whether or not 4NT was suggested over some other alternative and therefore was a legitimate alternative.

[vigfus]

There is a lot of LA's. But PASS is NOT one of them.

[CamHenry]

Maybe you are right but maybe not.

 

My understanding is that he is not allowed to select one alternative that is suggested over another. I have not seen enough evidence that Blackwood is not suggested over another call e.g. 4♦. Not until I know what options were available can i determine whether or not 4NT was suggested over some other alternative and therefore was a legitimate alternative.

 

4♦ would be... I think an invitational hand with long diamonds (we're a relatively new partnership; partner is used to an agricultural style of bidding). There's no discussion of relative strength of options.

 

4♣ is a first-round club control; 3M is probably a second suit (6-4) and 3NT is to play. I suspect 4M is a splinter, so maybe I should choose 4♠ over the 4NT I selected.

 

The final contract was 6♦-2, for a 9IMP swing. The standings for the event as a whole would not have been affected by another +- 8 IMPs on this board, so it's mostly an academic question on this occasion :)

[bluejak]

If 3♠ would show shortage by agreement, I'd bid 3♠ and not consider anything else.

 

If 3♠ would be natural and 4♣ would be a cue-bid, I'd bid 4♣ and not consider anything else.

 

If all new suits would be natural and 4♦ would be natural, I'd bid 4♦ after considering 3♥ and 4♣.

 

If all new suits would be natural and 4♦ would be Keycard, I'm not one of "the class of players in question".

Works for me.