How far do you have to go

[RMB1]

Based loosely on a real hand, but I haven't got the actual hand to hand.

 

You hold AQx KQJ AKxxx Jx.

You open 2NT showing something like 20-21 or 20-22 and receive UI.

The opponents are silent.

 

2NT-3♦-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3♦ was a transfer.

What calls are logical alternatives?

 

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3NT was NF, choice of game.

What calls are logical alternatives?

 

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-4♥-5♦-?

For players in this competition, it be usual for 5♦ to be undiscussed.

What calls are logical alternatives?

[ahydra]

1) 3H (You have a minimum and probably most people don't superaccept without 4 hearts)

2) 4H (I don't think pass is a logical alternative here with no club stop)

3) 5D sounds like a cuebid, looking for heart slam but denying club control, so 5H is the only logical alternative.

 

Easy :) But if you asked me what happens after 5H-6D... then it gets interesting! You might argue grand slam try, or you might argue that 6D can't exist since how could they be trying for grand if they only bid 3NT before.

 

ahydra

[campboy]

I agree with 3♥, 4♥, 5♥ respectively being the only LAs. Not sure what partner can have on the last auction. Jxx, Axxxx, --, Qxxxx I suppose, if he wouldn't have bid 4♣ earlier on that.

[gnasher]

(1) Only 3♥, unless it's usual to break with an average hand and 3-card support.

 

(2) Only 4♥. I think 4♦ isn't a logical alternative: although some might give it serious consideration, this consideration would lead everyone to reject it, because slam is very unlikely, and a 4♦ bid might help them to beat 4♥.

 

(3) Playing transfers, the sequence doesn't exist. It's inconceivable that partner has a slam try in hearts after signing off in 3NT, and after I declined to cue-bid. However, the LAs might depend on what I knew about our methods before I took my hand out of the board.

- If we play 3♦ as natural, and I'd temporarily forgotten, 5♦ is sufficient to remind me, so the only LA is pass.

- If I know that 3♦ is undiscussed, can't remember our agreement, or know that partner has a tendency to forget the system, 5♦ is sufficient to tell me that partner thought 3♦ was natural, so the only LA is pass.

- If I know that 3♦ is a transfer and I am confident that partner knows that, I have a guess as to when partner lost his marbles. In those circumstances I think pass and 5♥ are both LAs.

Edited May 31, 2013 by gnasher

[Vampyr]

Agree with hearts at the lowest level for 1 and 2 and was going to say for 3 as well, but I defer to Andy's deeper analysis.

[StevenG]

in 3) (assuming that partner is rock solid about transfers in this sequence) everyone at the table knows (at least, in the circles I have mostly played) that partner has missorted his hand and that 5♦ is now the last chance to bail in a sensible contract. So the only sensible choice is to pass.

 

Since everybody knows, I don't see how passing can be evidence of a CPU - there is nothing concealed about it.

 

I know that this is not what TDing theory says, especially in the EBU where the concept of "fielded misbid" has been formalised. However, if partner does make an "impossible bid", and you know no more than the opponents, I fail to see why the pragmatic bid is unacceptable. There are no LAs (in the literal sense, not the formal sense) after an impossible bid, as the sequence hes become intrinsically illogical.

 

This does, of course, not absolve partner from any use of UI in bidding 5♦ in the first place.

[Cyberyeti]

1: 3♥ for most people, 4♦ (♦HHxxx/♥Hxx or better, H =AKQ) for us, no LA in either case.

 

2: 4♥ is what bad players bid, 4♦ is certainly LA and best.

 

3: 5♥, looks like a diamond void.

 

The interesting one is 2N-3♦-4♦-5♦ (or 2N-3♦-3♥-3N-4♦-5♦) is it IMPs or MPs ?

[nige1]

Based loosely on a real hand, but I haven't got the actual hand to hand.

You hold AQx KQJ AKxxx Jx.

You open 2NT showing something like 20-21 or 20-22 and receive UI. The opponents are silent.

2NT-3♦-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3♦ was a transfer. What calls are logical alternatives.

IMO, the agreements of other pairs are irrelevant. Whether a call is a logical alternative depends solely on your partnership agreements -- or perhaps on what you thought were your partnership understandings. (Again, the law is unclear).

Assuming that your agreement is "transfer", 3♥ = 10, 4♦ = 8.

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3NT was NF, choice of game. What calls are logical alternatives?

With a similar caveat, 4♦ (slam-trial or cue) = 10, 4♥ = 9, Pass = 4.

If 4♦ is a trial bid, then 6♦ may enter the picture, later.

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-4♥-5♦-?

For players in this competition, it be usual for 5♦ to be undiscussed. What calls are logical alternatives?

Again, on analogous assumptions, 5♥ = 10, Pass = 9.

Close because 5♦ may mean that

• Partner has belatedly found extra values e.g. a ♦ void when his ♦s turned out to be ♥s or
• He has forgotten that you play transfers.

[Zelandakh]

1. For most players 3♥ is the only LA. If the (assumed) agreement is for flags then it possibly qualifies for 4♦ (although 6 controls is probably not enough).

2. 4♦ and 4♥ both seem to be LAs. If 4♣ and 4♦ are not (positive) cues then 4♣ may be a LA.

3. 5♥ is certainly a LA and Pass is probably a LA too, since it is difficult to construct a hand that would bid this way (Cyber's diamond void would not have bid 3NT).

[RMB1]

(3) Playing transfers, the sequence doesn't exist. It's inconceivable that partner has a slam try in hearts after signing off in 3NT, and after I declined to cue-bid. However, the LAs might depend on what I knew about our methods before I took my hand out of the board.

 

The method partner might be playing or the method you remember is that 2NT = minors.

[Cyberyeti]

3. 5♥ is certainly a LA and Pass is probably a LA too, since it is difficult to construct a hand that would bid this way (Cyber's diamond void would not have bid 3NT).

Good point, but what else ? Is this bid such nonsense that you can diagnose what's happening as partner can hardly have stiff/void diamond, and you know he doesn't have a high card cue bid.

 

Is KJx, Axxxx, Q, xxxx in the frame ?

[Zelandakh]

Is KJx, Axxxx, Q, xxxx in the frame ?

No. Even if we accept the 3NT rebid and that they want to make a slam try over 4♥, what reason would they have for not making a spade cue?

[gnasher]

The method partner might be playing or the method you remember is that 2NT = minors.

Minors and limited? If that's what's happened, then partner already has the AI that a wheel has come off, as I've made two impossible bids. I think the only sensible approach is to assume that partner has worked out what's going on, and is now selecting the final contract. It's a bit surprising that he's chosen my five-card suit, but sometimes one does land on one's feet.

[WellSpyder]

The method partner might be playing or the method you remember is that 2NT = minors.

 

Minors and limited? If that's what's happened, then partner already has the AI that a wheel has come off, as I've made two impossible bids. I think the only sensible approach is to assume that partner has worked out what's going on, and is now selecting the final contract. It's a bit surprising that he's chosen my five-card suit, but sometimes one does land on one's feet.

That sounds OK to me provided that the information RMB1 has provided is AI to you - partner surely has the AI that a wheel has come off. But do you have sufficient AI that a wheel has come off? You will presumably have UI that this is the case since partner will have alerted your 2NT bid, but you also have AI that something pretty strange is going on. Supposing that you know you have recently changed your agreement from natural to minors & limited or the other way round. Does it matter which is your actual agreement and which is the previous agreement? Do you have sufficient AI to make the only LAs calls based on this misunderstanding?

[mycroft]

I was going to ask "what's the UI" :-) Some UI tells me one thing, some UI tells me other things.

 

If you're just asking for LAs - not about what was demonstrably suggested - I think 3♥ barring methods is only LA, as is 4♥. I, too, would wonder what 5♦ could possibly be, given only 5 hearts and a willingness to play 3NT opposite 2.

[gnasher]

That sounds OK to me provided that the information RMB1 has provided is AI to you - partner surely has the AI that a wheel has come off. But do you have sufficient AI that a wheel has come off? You will presumably have UI that this is the case since partner will have alerted your 2NT bid, but you also have AI that something pretty strange is going on. Supposing that you know you have recently changed your agreement from natural to minors & limited or the other way round. Does it matter which is your actual agreement and which is the previous agreement? Do you have sufficient AI to make the only LAs calls based on this misunderstanding?

Well, I was arguing that 5♦ is impossible in the authorised auction, so I'm allowed to know that we've had a misunderstanding.

 

If you accept that (which you might not), then I think it becomes legal to remember our real agreement, or to assume that partner is playing our old agreement, or to assume that partner is playing what he plays with all his other partners. If that other agreement is to play 2NT as minors, it's AI to me that my bidding is impossible under the other agreement, AI that partner knows we're in a hole, and AI that partner will also be trying to dig us out of it.

[Finch]

2) Only 4♥. I think 4♦ isn't a logical alternative: although some might give it serious consideration, this consideration would lead everyone to reject it, because slam is very unlikely, and a 4♦ bid might help them to beat 4♥.

 

 

2: 4♥ is what bad players bid, 4♦ is certainly LA and best.

[gnasher]

[two quotes]

Yes, quite a good demonstration of the benefits of polling.

[Codo]

I am still surprised of the many votes for 5 ♥ in Nr. 3....

A slam try after 3 NT?

Showing a void over 3 NT?

 

Impossible.

Partner and I had a mixed up and the choices are pass, pass or maybe pass...

[campboy]

Even if you think that there is no hand which will bid 3NT and then 5♦, I think it is more likely that partner has realised he is stronger than he thought than that he has realised all his hearts were actually diamonds.

 

Of course, I posted before Robin mentioned the possibility that 2NT was minors. I've never played that method, so it didn't occur to me as a possibility; I suspect that if I did play it then the auction would be enough to wake me up.

[Codo]

So to find out which LAs we have, we have to consider these possibilities.

 

1. Partner thinks that 3 NT is fine without a heart fit, but now is looking for slam without a club control- but with a diamond control which happens to be a void if you look at your hand- or a singleton if this is allowed.

2. Partner miscounted his hand, woke up and tried to make a slam try instead of just blasting to makes things clearer.

3. Partner mixed some diamonds in his hearts.

4. Partner took 2 NT for the minors and acted accordingly.

 

Everything quite unlikey, but for all my partners I would bet it is nr. 4...

[RMB1]

Of course, I posted before Robin mentioned the possibility that 2NT was minors. I've never played that method, so it didn't occur to me as a possibility; I suspect that if I did play it then the auction would be enough to wake me up.

But presumably it would only be the third auction (the 5♦ bid) that wakes you up.

[campboy]

But presumably it would only be the third auction (the 5♦ bid) that wakes you up.

Yes, there's no reason to think anything is wrong until the 5♦ bid.

[gnasher]

Even if you think that there is no hand which will bid 3NT and then 5♦, I think it is more likely that partner has realised he is stronger than he thought than that he has realised all his hearts were actually diamonds.

It's not just that he can't have the strength for a move. It's also that he apparently has no black-suit control, hearts headed by at best the A10, and a mediocre side-suit. And he bid 5♦ rather than 5♥ or 4NT. Jx A109xx - Q109xxx ?

[jallerton]

Based loosely on a real hand, but I haven't got the actual hand to hand.

 

You hold AQx KQJ AKxxx Jx.

You open 2NT showing something like 20-21 or 20-22 and receive UI.

The opponents are silent.

 

2NT-3♦-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3♦ was a transfer.

What calls are logical alternatives?

 

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-?

For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3NT was NF, choice of game.

What calls are logical alternatives?

 

2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-4♥-5♦-?

For players in this competition, it be usual for 5♦ to be undiscussed.

What calls are logical alternatives?

 

1. 3♥ is the only LA playing standard transfer methods.

 

2. 4♥ and 4♦.

 

3. This auction does not really make sense. To assess the logical altrenatives, I ask myself what I would do if playing behind screens. The answer is that I would go back and review the whole auction to check I haven't got an earlier bid wrong. Depending on the situation, this might cause me to wake up to the meaning of 2NT being conventional. Or it might make me recall that over a natural 2NT opening 3♦ was a game forcing transfer , 3♥ showed 3-card support and that 3NT was a slam try with spade shortage (as I play with one partner). Or, if I am confident about the meaning of the auction up to 4♥, I might just assume that partner has found an extra ace!