PeterAlan Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 What call(s) should East (a) consider (b) make in the following scenario: [hv=pc=n&e=st65h6dk6543ckt93&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)d(Single-suited)2d("Transfer%20to%20hearts")p2h(Transfer%20completion)p]133|200[/hv] NB (amplifying diagram's notes) (1) W's 1NT: 12-14(2) N's X = single-suited hand; asks partner to bid 2♣ for Pass / Correct(3) E's 2♦: both alerted by W and announced (without any N/S question) as "exit" transfer to ♥(4) W's 2♥: transfer completion. E/W are not a regular partnership, but W's explanation is what they had on their card. Please don't concern yourself with the technicalities of W's breach of Alert / Announce regulations (which of course had the effect of making E's misbid absolutely clear). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 FWIW if this happened to me (without UI, say with screens) I would pass, expecting partner to have five hearts. If it came back round to me doubled I would probably run to 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 In a weak NT setting, it feels like 2♥ does not exist if 2♦ is a natural signoff. This might reveal the situation even without the UI. Perhaps a good 5 card heart suit with ♦xx is almost plausible. I guess east might now consider 3♣, 3♦, and pass, but I don't think it's going to end well for them in any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 It is so common for there to be a mis-understanding on these sequences that I do not think the explanation tells East anything that the 2♥ bid does not. I would bid here on the assumption that partner thinks 2♦ is a transfer to ♥. But I don't know what to bid. I suspect ♥ is North's suit, so I don't want to Pass and go off in 100s. 3♦ is likely to work: partner will probably recognise the mis-understanding. It is a shame the opponents have not started to double, then it would be clear that I was trying to scramble to my suit(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Without the UI, I consider pass, 3♣, and 3♦. Bidding does not appeal; I probably choose to pass, thinking partner has opened 1NT with a decent 5 card heart suit. If he "never" does that, well, I don't know what to think, except that now pass is probably not an LA. Either way, the UI suggests I get the hell out of hearts, so bidding is suggested over passing. So I pass. As the saying goes "sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue". :D 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I would pass at the speed of light expecting that opposite a heart suit (which is what I'm entitled to expect) any bid now will get hammered. I'll run if they double this and should probably do it with 2nt consistent with my natural diamond bid and showing a side order of clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Without a misunderstanding, I think partner's 2♥ shows diamond support and some heart feature, just like breaking a transfer. However, I agree with Robin that it's far more likely to be a misunderstanding than anything else, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevahound Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I've already shown a 5 card diamond suit, and this is a pretty poor suit. Pass and 3♣ are what I suspect the LAs are, with 3♣ being "more likely to be successful". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenG Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Is pass a LA if partner never opens 1NT on a 5-card major? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Without a misunderstanding, I think partner's 2♥ shows diamond support and some heart feature, just like breaking a transfer. However, I agree with Robin that it's far more likely to be a misunderstanding than anything else,I agree too, to the extent that I don't think I've ever seen anyone make one of these support-showing bids after a weak takeout, even though it's always presented as the obvious meaning of the bid, whenever consulting about a ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffford76 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I've already shown a 5 card diamond suit, and this is a pretty poor suit. Pass and 3♣ are what I suspect the LAs are, with 3♣ being "more likely to be successful". It's more likely to be successful if you give partner a meaningful glare first. :) But won't partner take you for hearts and clubs if you bid it in tempo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I think it is what some would bid, and some would "seriously consider" glaring at partner when they bid. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Does it really matter all that much? Aren't you screwed no matter what you do? Passing 2♥ is probably the only way to stay out of game. But if you pass you'll be in at best a 4-1 fit. Maybe the only difference is that if you pass now you won't be doubled, or the opponents may rescue you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 If my partner isn't a cheat, then if I bid 3C/D now I'll end up in game. So I pass. If 2H gets doubled, then I might bid 3C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 If my partner isn't a cheat, then if I bid 3C/D now I'll end up in game. eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Well, if I "bid" hearts and then show another suit, it is (commonly around here) gameforcing two-suiter. So if I bid 3m, I'll be in some game (why did I run? maybe I don't have a business XX? maybe I'm 6-6 and 1NT could go down but 4♥ or 5♦ is cold?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Well, if I "bid" hearts and then show another suit, it is (commonly around here) gameforcing two-suiter. So if I bid 3m, I'll be in some game (why did I run? maybe I don't have a business XX? maybe I'm 6-6 and 1NT could go down but 4♥ or 5♦ is cold?)that's lovely, but west doesn't have any UI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 We make the bid that we would make if partner had not alerted, and, when he was asked, stated, "natural, non-forcing". 2H should therefore be a four-card diamond raise with heart concentration, fit non-jump style, helping us judge whether to compete over 3M, and the hands therefore fit badly. It seems that 3D is the only LA. Law 75 corrects the error in 16b in that East does not select LAs using the partnership methods, but using the methods he perceived at the time. Your manner may now convey UI to partner based on my experience of this type of problem at club level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 that's lovely, but west doesn't have any UIHe will have when East alerts 2♥ and explains it as showing a diamond fit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 He will have when East alerts 2♥ and explains it as showing a diamond fit. Which he doesn't do if he realises W was right when he explained the transfer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Right so West has no UI, assuming I don't squirm. So he can either decide I've misbid, or he's misremembered the agreement, or I have a game-forcing two-suiter like I said. Which one do I want partner to follow, in general? Having said that, I wonder if passing 2♥ is illegal. I know it's suggested by the UI - especially if partner *is* going to put me in game if I pull; I don't know if another call is an LA, however. In order to say it is, however, there has to be a call that is legal; usually it's "pass partner's suit". So to say that "pass partner's suit" is requiring an adjustment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 The UI tells you that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only question is which circle of hell you'll end up in after various actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 I think it is what some would bid, and some would "seriously consider" glaring at partner when they bid. :)But does the UI demonstrably suggest glaring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 This situation is so comon that I think the rules should address it specifically awarding no UI after a no transfer completion. I don't think pass is a LA, however I've seen 2 of my partners passing out, one of them even let me play 4-1 fit at the 4 level when slam could be on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 What you're proposing is an exemption from Law 16A4 in some cases. Fair enough, but it would require a change in the laws. A regulation won't cut it, since it would conflict with this law, and so be illegal. If you want to discuss changing the law, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.