Was South allowed to rescue this contract?

[dkham]

This is about a bidding disaster, where South bid a 2♦ Michaels, and North didn't didn't realise it was Michaels and kept on bidding Diamonds.

None of the players involved was me.

 

[hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d2d2n3dp3h3n4dppdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

Explanations:

 

2♦ - meant as Michaels as per partnership agreement, but not alerted.

3♦ - clearly he's got the wrong idea

3♥ - attempt to rescue into Hearts

4♦ - still got wrong idea.

 

South passed out 4♦x, believing it to be the ethical thing to do. So, questions:

 

1) Is South allowed to realise partner has forgotten Michaels, based on him not alerting 2♦?

2) Is South allowed to realise partner has forgotten Michaels, based on him bidding 3♦ then 4♦, or should she assume he's making some sort of clever forcing bids?

3) In the auction above, is South allowed to correct the contract of 4♦ (and 4♦x)?

 

As you could perhaps guess, 4♦x was not a good contract (and it was aggregate scoring).

[billw55]

1. no

2. probably, unless there is an agreement about 3♦ and 4♦, or maybe unless this has happened before.

3. yes, pending above exceptions. But it likely won't help, north may well "correct" to diamonds yet again.

[trevahound]

1) Definitely not. Law 16 B 1 a. Information from partner's alert or failure to alert is completely unauthorized. In ACBL land, Michaels isn't an alert, however, so there'd by no UI from the lack of alert. I don't see where this takes place, but if in the ACBL there is no UI created. Body language or mannerisms might make UI available, though (and usually do).

 

2.& 3. Not likely. I would assume 3d is bid your better M, partner (especially if overcaller can be 5-4 or 6-5, for example). 4d sounds like diamonds to me, and I certainly think the idea that it's diamonds is at least a LA. I would expect if S rescued this without extraordinary shape the result would be rolled back to 4dx anyway.

 

Stuff happens. Roll your dice, move your mice, and do what the little card you draw tells you to do. In this case, it says take a great big minus number. Hopefully you've now discussed what you play for 1m - 2m more than previously.

 

Brian Zaugg,

Seattle

[blackshoe]

South has UI from North's failure to alert. The UI suggests that North believes 2♦ is natural. South is therefore prohibited from choosing a LA which could demonstrably be suggested over another by the UI. That North believes 2♦ is natural suggests that South should bid 3♥ over 3♦. Pass is probably a LA, so the ethical, legal thing to do at South's second turn is to pass. Same for his third turn to call — bidding 4♥ is not legal. These principals apply unless South has no LA to the bid he wants to make. Without seeing the hands, it's impossible to know whether that's the case. When West doubles 4♦, South may have no LA to taking it out. If so, he can bid 4♥ legally and ethically. As bill says, though, that may not help if North "corrects" to 5♦. And if pass is still an LA it'll be adjusted to 4♦X anyway, if it doesn't get to 5♦X.

[dkham]

Thanks for the replies so far.

 

To give a bit more information, this was in Scotland (where alerting Michaels is required), and the South hand that bid Michaels did not have extreme shape, it was something like:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8652hkj765d93c6]133|100[/hv]

 

(weak, but this was favourable vulnerability).

[barmar]

I don't see where this takes place, but if in the ACBL there is no UI created.

The original poster is in Scotland, and his post implied that an alert was expected. A not-unreasonable guess is that this took place in Scotland.

[CamHenry]

Thanks for the replies so far.

 

To give a bit more information, this was in Scotland (where alerting Michaels is required), and the South hand that bid Michaels did not have extreme shape, it was something like:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8652hkj765d93c6]133|100[/hv]

 

(weak, but this was favourable vulnerability).

 

To me, the 3♦ bid would be strong(ish), asking me to bid my better major. Partner's then bid 4♦ over their 3NT - this clearly reveals his misunderstanding (or possession of many diamonds) in my opinion, because if he knows I have both majors he can double (with no fit) or bid 4M with a fit. There's nothing to stop partner holding x/Qx/KQJxxx/xxxx, in which case 4♦ has good play. Passing 4♦x looks like an LA.

 

As for whether pulling is suggested: partner's bidding diamonds because he thinks I have them, not because he has them. This implies that 4♦x is going to be worse than 4M, and makes the pull more attractive.

[ahydra]

I don't think that pass is an LA over 3D. From South's point of view, 3D must be forcing (perhaps asking for a stop), so I think 3H is fine, since South does not have a stop.

 

Over 4D things get a bit more murky. 4D, if it's not natural, must be a cuebid (slam try for hearts) from South's point of view, but there are nowhere enough points in the deck for that given opps have bid 3NT. Perhaps it's a crazy distributional hand with North holding 3505? For me 4H is about the only LA though since South is minimum.

 

Now the focus is on North. Partner has surely shown 6 diamonds 5 hearts with this bidding from his point of view, so he will correct to diamonds, then South bids 5H which gets doubled and that's where it ends. I'll adjust to 5HX making however many.

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

...Pass is probably a LA, so the ethical, legal thing to do at South's second turn is to pass. Same for his third turn to call bidding 4♥ is not legal....

 

This doesn't sound right at all. Firstly, when RHO has opened 1D and LHO is making natural NT bids without trying to penalise majors, partner's Diamond bids don't sound like an attempt to play there, so pass is never an LA. Secondly, it is actually Pass which is suggested by the UI: the UI tells South that a wheel has come off and the only way to prevent the same thing (partner trying to sign off in Diamonds) happening over and over again at every level is to Pass. South's Pass is actually using the UI to prevent the misunderstanding spiralling further out of control. The only way out is for North to remember the agreement without receiving UI himself.

 

The above suggests that South is allowed to run from 4DX because partner cannot be attempting to play in Diamonds opposite Michaels on this auction. Actually the failure to run is not "avoiding taking advantage of the UI" it is "avoiding taking further advantage of the unethical Pass on the previous round". Without the Pass, heart bids look like cue bids with Diamonds agreed; with the Pass they look like a place to run to.

 

Admittedly the auction interpretted as strength-showing cue-bids by North also sounds unlikely, but the UI constrains South to interpret it as such. From North's perspective, Souths repeated heart cues with Diamonds agreed is likely to look odd and he has a reasonable chance of working out what is happening at some stage. So South's best chance is actually to avoid transmitting UI and keep on bidding hearts as required by ethics :)

 

Edit: cross posted with ahydra, who essentially said much the same, although I don't see why 5H is necessarily the level where EW start doubling in direct seat, or why North would necessarily pass doubled cue-bids in Hearts if they did.

Edited November 21, 2012 by c_corgi

[TimG]

I think 3D is clearly a cue-bid and passing it would not be a LA.

 

I also think that 4D is a cue-bid so that passing is not a LA.

 

I really don't see that either 3D or 4D would be considered to be an offer to play there if there had been an alert.

 

I think that North is allowed to wake up at the four level. Unless there has been some mannerism from south that suggests there has been a misunderstanding, North is not in possession of any UI. He's allowed to realize (or guess) that he forgot michaels and pass partner's major suit bid (or correct hearts to spades), certainly at the four level.

[phil_20686]

It seems that south cannot ever pass diamonds. I mean, partner is cuebidding their suit, surely this is forcing in some way.

 

North can wake up at any time, south is banned from passing pretty much any number of diamonds imo.

[trevahound]

Partner is an unpassed hand. I have two diamonds. Opener has 3+ presumably. That means my partner will occasionally have as many as 8 diamonds, certainly 7 are possible. Is it really anyone's opinion that when I've shown a roughly 5-5 shape, an unpassed partner can not ever play in anything but one of my suits at any level after any number of rebids?

 

Sometimes we seem to like to savor our own farts (myself included). Why I even recall making a unusual NT overcall for the minors and my unpassed partner bidding her 8 card Major.

[paulg]

Partner is an unpassed hand. I have two diamonds. Opener has 3+ presumably. That means my partner will occasionally have as many as 8 diamonds, certainly 7 are possible. Is it really anyone's opinion that when I've shown a roughly 5-5 shape, an unpassed partner can not ever play in anything but one of my suits at any level after any number of rebids?

In a Scottish club opener will normally hold 4+ diamonds and it is hard to envisage the 2NT bidder having fewer than two.

[Trinidad]

Partner is an unpassed hand. I have two diamonds. Opener has 3+ presumably. That means my partner will occasionally have as many as 8 diamonds, certainly 7 are possible. Is it really anyone's opinion that when I've shown a roughly 5-5 shape, an unpassed partner can not ever play in anything but one of my suits at any level after any number of rebids?

No, partner can play in the fourth suit (clubs in this case). But playing in the opponents' suit is indeed out of the question, at any level (unless RHO doubles).

 

Rik

[bluejak]

It would be nice of people could state the jurisdiction which is asked in the rules for these forums. Having to guess seems unnecessary. People like myself do not look at where someone is from so if it is not in the text we do not realise it anyway. Please do state the jurisdiction, please, pretty please.

[blackshoe]

I think 3D is clearly a cue-bid and passing it would not be a LA.

 

I also think that 4D is a cue-bid so that passing is not a LA.

 

I really don't see that either 3D or 4D would be considered to be an offer to play there if there had been an alert.

 

I think that North is allowed to wake up at the four level. Unless there has been some mannerism from south that suggests there has been a misunderstanding, North is not in possession of any UI. He's allowed to realize (or guess) that he forgot michaels and pass partner's major suit bid (or correct hearts to spades), certainly at the four level.

The definition of "cue bid" is "a bid in a suit the opponents have bid or shown" so sure, 3♦ and 4♦ are cue bids. So?

[TimG]

The definition of "cue bid" is "a bid in a suit the opponents have bid or shown" so sure, 3♦ and 4♦ are cue bids. So?

 

Also a bid to show control of a suit, often also called a "control bid".

 

I guess "cue-bid" was the wrong term, at least for the bid of 3♦ (4♦ showing control of diamonds seems to fit one definition of cue-bid).

 

Neither 3♦ nor 4♦ would be considered natural (or an offer to play) by the vast majority of tournament bridge players.

[blackshoe]

Also a bid to show control of a suit, often also called a "control bid".

 

I guess "cue-bid" was the wrong term, at least for the bid of 3♦ (4♦ showing control of diamonds seems to fit one definition of cue-bid).

 

Neither 3♦ nor 4♦ would be considered natural (or an offer to play) by the vast majority of tournament bridge players.

The Bridge World deprecates the use of "cue bid" as synonymous with "control bid". I agree with them, preferring to use "control bid" when I mean that, and "cue bid" when I mean "a bid of a suit the opponents have bid or shown". Yes, I do recognize that this is (at the moment) a minority view.

[Vampyr]

The Bridge World deprecates the use of "cue bid" as synonymous with "control bid". I agree with them, preferring to use "control bid" when I mean that, and "cue bid" when I mean "a bid of a suit the opponents have bid or shown". Yes, I do recognize that this is (at the moment) a minority view.

 

It's not so much a "minority" view -- it's just that not a lot of people know about it. I suspect that people would be pleased to have two different words for two different things.

[gnasher]

Why didn't South alert 3♦? If 2♦ is systemically Michaels, 3♦ is presumably artificial and therefore alertable in Scotland.

[dkham]

So, having read all the posts so far, am I right in thinking:

 

 

South should basically "bid as if partner had properly alerted her bid", i.e. assume partner knows what he's doing.

 

So if you think an alert partner would bid 3♦ as "pick a major" you should pick a major, and if you think partner could be bidding 4♦ as natural you should pass that.

 

And if the only possible reason partner would bid 4♦ is because they've forgotten the system (and I'd say that is the case here), then you are ethically allowed to try 4♥, but this probably won't help anyway as he might then just bid 5♦ over you.

 

 

Incidentally 4♦x went seven off for 1700. But for mild compensation, the opponents did have their 3NT game.

[blackshoe]

Well, hopefully, mentioning it here will widen the range of people who know about it. B-)

 

I find it interesting that the ACBL alert regulation, in its definitions section, differentiates between "cue bid" and "control bid", which to me implies that the alert rules on "cue bids" do not apply to "control bids". What makes that interesting? "Control bids" are not mentioned at all anywhere else in the alert regulation than the definitions. So a "control bid", since it is not natural according to the alert regulation, always requires an alert (no exceptions), though frequently the bid will be above 3NT and at or after opener's second turn to call, so the alert will be delayed. I've never seen anyone do this. :o :blink:

[barmar]

It would be nice of people could state the jurisdiction which is asked in the rules for these forums. Having to guess seems unnecessary. People like myself do not look at where someone is from so if it is not in the text we do not realise it anyway. Please do state the jurisdiction, please, pretty please.

I don't generally look, either. But if they don't state the jurisdiction, I do, since I'd rather make an educated guess than a wild guess. And it's not like you have to make any great effort: the OP's location is about 2 inches below the thread title.

 

Of course it would be better if posters were explicit. It would also be better if people provided complete explanations when claiming, but we make do without that as well.

[blackshoe]

And yet we still ask them — repeatedly — to provide a complete claim statement. B-)

[Trinidad]

I don't generally look, either. But if they don't state the jurisdiction, I do, since I'd rather make an educated guess than a wild guess. And it's not like you have to make any great effort: the OP's location is about 2 inches below the thread title.

I agree. Most likely the OP lives about 30 miles South of Indianapolis along I65. But don't underestimate the possibility that he lives somewhere in say err.. Scotland.

 

Rik