Tollemache UI

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&n=s5hakt3dakqj83cq4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1d1h1sp3np4sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Explanations:

 

1♦(4+ cards)

1♠ (5+ cards - almost certainly due to the note below exactly 5 and not of great quality)

3N in the unopposed auction 1♦-1♠-3N would show a big 4441 with diamonds, spades and one of the others, S thought this still applied, N didn't so S alerted and bid 4♠

 

The other thing you need to know is that NS play somewhat unconventional weak 2s, so S as dealer at game all would have opened any 6 card spade suit, and any good 5 card spade suit unsuitable for a rule of 19 1 opener (and not containing 2 aces).

 

Is pass a LA here or is 5♦ automatic ?

[ahydra]

Tricky... at first pass looks like an obvious LA but when you factor all the stuff about bad-quality weak 2s etc it becomes more blurry. Would they open, say, A109xxxx x xx Axx?

 

That kind of hand is about the only one I can come up with where S wouldn't open but does have 6+ spades, so chances are pass is not "demonstrably" suggested.

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Tricky... at first pass looks like an obvious LA but when you factor all the stuff about bad-quality weak 2s etc it becomes more blurry. Would they open, say, A109xxxx x xx Axx?

 

That kind of hand is about the only one I can come up with where S wouldn't open but does have 6+ spades, so chances are pass is not "demonstrably" suggested.

 

ahydra

 

That's rule of 19 by my somewhat warped evaluation, and would be opened 1♠ (2 aces, no random minor hons, 109 in my suit, that's a 9 count to my mind). You can basically assume that the spade suit is only 5 cards in length, Axxxxx, xx, xx, Axx is the only problem hand. I'd certainly pass a natural 3N with that anyway as we have many other ways to show big hands where I should be bidding on.

[lamford]

The authorised information, that partner pulled 3NT to 4S, but did not open a weak two spades, makes 5D automatic for me. If partner does have two aces, then 5D will be fine.

[RMB1]

Playing with some of the imaginative players who play in the Tollemache, it would occur to me that partner had lurked on the first round with (say) 8 spades. Given this pair's agreements, does 4♠ exist? Or does it show a hand that should have bid on the first round?

 

I can't help thinking that if we had different UI (which suggested partner had eight spades?), there would be a suggestion that we could Pass because there were no other logical alternatives.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing with some of the imaginative players who play in the Tollemache, it would occur to me that partner had lurked on the first round with (say) 8 spades. Given this pair's agreements, does 4♠ exist? Or does it show a hand that should have bid on the first round?

 

I can't help thinking that if we had different UI (which suggested partner had eight spades?), there would be a suggestion that we could Pass because there were no other logical alternatives.

 

Style would be to open 4♠ with 8, we view first seat as a gun position for preempts (2/3 chance of stitching opps), I do have history for lurking with 10 more than once, but I might be bidding more than 4♠ in that case over 3N. I don't believe 4♠ exists, and that pass was not a LA, but the director didn't believe me.

[nige1]

The other thing you need to know is that NS play somewhat unconventional weak 2s, so S as dealer at game all would have opened any 6 card spade suit, and any good 5 card spade suit unsuitable for a rule of 19 1 opener (and not containing 2 aces).

First seat, vulnerable, at teams, It is unusual to agree to open 2♠, religiously, whenever you hold a weak hand with 6 cards but If that is specified in the NS system-card, preferably also in the pre-alert section, then pass is less likely to be an LA for North.

[c_corgi]

After the unopposed auction 1♦-1♠-3NT-4♠, what would 5♦ mean?

[RMB1]

I don't believe 4♠ exists, and that pass was not a LA, but the director didn't believe me.

 

If 4♠ doesn't exist then I think it is clear that Pass is a logical alternative.

[wank]

it's easy to use this kind of soft logic to justify using UI (i'm guessing 3nt was alerted as some sort of raise), but it's all a fallacy. there are plenty of other reasons why partner might choose not to open a pre-empt with a long spade suit - a heart suit on the side, or a plan to be sneaky later in the auction, for example.

[Cyberyeti]

it's easy to use this kind of soft logic to justify using UI (i'm guessing 3nt was alerted as some sort of raise), but it's all a fallacy. there are plenty of other reasons why partner might choose not to open a pre-empt with a long spade suit - a heart suit on the side, or a plan to be sneaky later in the auction, for example.

 

A heart suit is no bar to our style of weak 2s, technically the weak 2 only promises 4, but at this vul will usually be at least a decent 5 card suit. The explanation of 3N is in the OP.

[Finch]

What RMB and wank said.

Partner pulls our 3NT bid to game in spades. Pass is always a logical alternative. More so if the bid systemically doesn't exist, not less so.

[Finch]

That's rule of 19 by my somewhat warped evaluation, and would be opened 1♠ (2 aces, no random minor hons, 109 in my suit, that's a 9 count to my mind). You can basically assume that the spade suit is only 5 cards in length, Axxxxx, xx, xx, Axx is the only problem hand. I'd certainly pass a natural 3N with that anyway as we have many other ways to show big hands where I should be bidding on.

 

In most EBU events you are not allowed to agree to open that hand 1S.

(You are in the Tolle which was a Level 5 event.)

[Cyberyeti]

What RMB and wank said.

Partner pulls our 3NT bid to game in spades. Pass is always a logical alternative. More so if the bid systemically doesn't exist, not less so.

 

I'm intrigued by this, my thought process would be with screens, "I wasn't 100% sure whether 3N was natural or 4441, partner can't have a 4♠ bid here so he's probably misinterpreted my 3N, 5♦ must be better than 4♠". I thought you were supposed to take the imaginary screen test before bidding in this situation.

[iviehoff]

I'm intrigued by this, my thought process would be with screens, "I wasn't 100% sure whether 3N was natural or 4441, partner can't have a 4♠ bid here so he's probably misinterpreted my 3N, 5♦ must be better than 4♠". I thought you were supposed to take the imaginary screen test before bidding in this situation.

No, you are misinterpreting the screen test. The screen test is that if you would have made the damaging bid behind the screen, then you have to make it in the open. But it doesn't work the other way. Bids that are legal behind screens can be illegal if you actually have the UI. You can choose freely among plausible alternatives when you are behind screens, and be lucky and land on your feet. But take the screen away and add the UI you have to choose the plausible alternative that doesn't take advantage of the UI. UI is costly and screens can avoid the cost.

 

Since it was so remarkable, I recall seeing Auken and von Arnim having two successive misunderstandings in the Venice Cup once a while back. One they landed on their feet, and the other they ended up in a silly high contract going a lot off. The latter was a good example of the screen test - it illustrated just the place you should end up if you don't have the UI to abuse. But the other was probably an outcome that couldn't have been achieved without screens if an open alert or non-alert had exposed what was going on. There were plausible alternative bids, and all the other ones were leading to awkward places.

[jallerton]

I'm intrigued by this, my thought process would be with screens, "I wasn't 100% sure whether 3N was natural or 4441, partner can't have a 4♠ bid here so he's probably misinterpreted my 3N, 5♦ must be better than 4♠". I thought you were supposed to take the imaginary screen test before bidding in this situation.

 

You said in the opening post that the 3NT bidder believed that 3NT was natural, not that he was unsure of its meaning. Playing with screens, he would presumably still be under this impression. For most people the reaction would be "what sort of hand must partner have for this sequence", not "Oh, I must have got the sytem wrong when partner rebids his suit"!

 

Tell me: in your system, what do the following uncontested sequences mean:

 

(i) Pass-1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠

(ii) Pass-1♦-1♠-2♣-2♠?

[Cyberyeti]

You said in the opening post that the 3NT bidder believed that 3NT was natural, not that he was unsure of its meaning. Playing with screens, he would presumably still be under this impression. For most people the reaction would be "what sort of hand must partner have for this sequence", not "Oh, I must have got the sytem wrong when partner rebids his suit"!

 

Tell me: in your system, what do the following uncontested sequences mean:

 

(i) Pass-1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠

(ii) Pass-1♦-1♠-2♣-2♠?

 

Both constructive but NF for us, not passed often, 9-12 ish 6 spades (or occasionally less with more spades prepared to bid 3♠), it's not the standard drop dead for us.

 

I said he believed 3N was natural when he bid it as is clear from the hand, I haven't asked him how sure he was at the time, but he was aware of the meaning of the uncontested auction, so it would have been in the back of his mind that he might be wrong.

[mycroft]

Interesting. In the OP, those hands don't exist ("S as dealer at game all would have opened any 6 card spade suit,...") Now he might have them. I guess he might have them for his 4♠ call opposite my 3NT hand as well?

 

I'm sure that this last response is actually wrong, and it means something else, but - momentary lapse of reason. Having said that, could there have been a momentary lapse of reason in the original hand, and partner passed a preempt, which will want to play 4♠ opposite a 20-ish semi-bal with a heart stopper?

[Trinidad]

Partner can't have 7 spades and 4 hearts?

 

Rik

[MickyB]

1♦-P-3♦ denies a four-card major but a vulnerable weak two can be 5-4 in the majors? :blink:

[Cyberyeti]

1♦-P-3♦ denies a four-card major but a vulnerable weak two can be 5-4 in the majors? :blink:

 

Strangely yes, NV a weak 2 can be a 4-4 0 count.

[PhilKing]

Had you alerted the 1♠ response as showing specifically 5 bad spades you would have been better placed ...

[Cyberyeti]

Had you alerted the 1♠ response as showing specifically 5 bad spades you would have been better placed ...

 

Does it need alerting ? I hadn't considered that. Basically it's going to be a hand like AKJx, xxxx, xxx, xx unsuitable for our "other 2 suits" negative double or 5 non good spades (the break probably comes somewhere between AJxxx and AJ109x) all the time.

[paulg]

The other thing you need to know is that NS play somewhat unconventional weak 2s, so S as dealer at game all would have opened any 6 card spade suit, and any good 5 card spade suit unsuitable for a rule of 19 1 opener (and not containing 2 aces).

I guess, like many others, that although I believe you may open any 6 card spade suit, that is not the same as opening every hand with a 6-card spade suit. And perhaps a hand with a couple of points and seven spades to the 10 might decide to pass when vulnerable and then bid like this.

[Cyberyeti]

I guess, like many others, that although I believe you may open any 6 card spade suit, that is not the same as opening every hand with a 6-card spade suit. And perhaps a hand with a couple of points and seven spades to the 10 might decide to pass when vulnerable and then bid like this.

 

We have many many examples of hands like 7 spades to the 10 being opened 3 NV and 2 V, this is just routine for us, I certainly never pass them, partner has occasionally, usually for bad results when I've assumed he can't have that hand, so I think he's now over that and also opens all of them. There are hands that we might conceivably pass, 10xxxxx, x, x, AQJxx, or as quoted above Axxxxx, xx, xx, Axx, but we won't ever be pulling a natural 3N to 4♠ on those.