Tollemache UI

[dburn]

Pass is automatic. 5♦ is illegal.

[barmar]

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.

From the way he wrote it, it seems like 5-card suits are subject to a suit quality test, but practically all 6-card suits are opened. He said "would have", not "might have".

 

So his 4♠ bid means he either violated the agreement about opening all 6-card suits as a weak 2, or he misunderstood 3NT. The UI tells us that it's definitely the latter, so the question is whether you have enough experience with this partner to rule out the former. If so, then there's only one LA, and the UI doesn't constrain you. But if the system violation is a possibility, then pass is an LA, and the UI forces you to choose it.

[Finch]

I gave this as a bidding problem to my bridge partner last night, including all the constraints.

He said

- 4S isn't making

then he thought for a bit and said

- 5D isn't making either

I asked him what he was going to do and he said he didn't know, maybe he would bid 5D maybe he would pass

 

I asked him what he would do if 3NT had been explained as 4441 and he said 'pass, of course'

 

I'm not quite sure why it is "impossible" that partner has a natural 4S bid, given that in an adjacent thread you had a 1444 and made a bid showing 5 diamonds and no 4-card major. Sometimes partners warp the system and hope we field it.

I once passed with 8 hearts in first seat by accident, when I jumped to 4H later I got a long, long pause from partner who (with no UI) eventually shrugged and said 'she forgot to open' and passed.

[Cyberyeti]

I once passed with 8 hearts in first seat by accident, when I jumped to 4H later I got a long, long pause from partner who (with no UI) eventually shrugged and said 'she forgot to open' and passed.

 

I haven't done that, but have opened 1N with a 4234 only to find both black suits were clubs at the point partner transferred to spades.

[GreenMan]

I haven't done that, but have opened 1N with a 4234 only to find both black suits were clubs at the point partner transferred to spades.

 

There's a recent thread on BridgeWinners about Kit Woolsey doing this in a tournament.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Is that standard? It seems to me that constructive is more popular.

[mycroft]

I haven't done that, but have opened 1N with a 4234 only to find both black suits were clubs at the point partner transferred to spades.

I did that, but luckily it was the other way around. Partner actually guessed right when asked what the 4M response to Stayman was.

[jallerton]

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.

 

 

Is that standard? It seems to me that constructive is more popular.

 

No, that's a not a popular treatment of the sequences I asked about because most people tend to have opened most 9-12ish hands with 6 spades either 1♠ or 2♠.

[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).

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

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.

IMO CyberYeti has misread JAllerton's question. Under CyberYeti's agreements a passed hand has at most 5 poor ♠, depending on vulnerability. So JAllerton may be hinting that responding 1♠ and then rebidding 2♠ shows at most 4-5 cards (if 5 then the suit is poor).

[jallerton]

Yes, he probably did misread my question.

 

But I would like Cyberyeti to tell us whether or not these sequences have ever come up when he has been playing with his regular partner. If they were to have this sequence and if Cyberyeti were the opening bidder, what hand type would Cyberyeti play his partner for?

[PhilKing]

Yes, he probably did misread my question.

 

But I would like Cyberyeti to tell us whether or not these sequences have ever come up when he has been playing with his regular partner. If they were to have this sequence and if Cyberyeti were the opening bidder, what hand type would Cyberyeti play his partner for?

 

Five weak spades and five clubs NF? :rolleyes:

[lamford]

One interpretation of 4♠ in the authorised auction is a choice of pointed-suit games, unsuitable for playing 3NT. Probably six spades and four diamonds. And perhaps two aces because of the absence of a weak two opener. LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership, so it is not right to shrug and pass, knowing that Four Spades is not going to make. What is suggested by the UI is only relevant after the LAs have been chosen.

[Fluffy]

I haven't done that, but have opened 1N with a 4234 only to find both black suits were clubs at the point partner transferred to spades.

 

I did that, but luckily it was the other way around. Partner actually guessed right when asked what the 4M response to Stayman was.

 

Gotta be common, my father did that with a 7330 in a european championship, got transfered into one of the 3 card suits, and eventually partner invited to grand slam, he gladly sayd yes :)

[Cyberyeti]

No, that's a not a popular treatment of the sequences I asked about because most people tend to have opened most 9-12ish hands with 6 spades either 1♠ or 2♠.

Sorry, missed the passes on the front.

 

The first will be 5♠/5-7♣ not quite enough to open 1, unsuitable for 2♠ so Jxxxx, xx, void, AQxxxx maybe.

 

The second I can't see at all, no idea.

 

Neither has actually come up.

[lamford]

But if the system violation is a possibility, then pass is an LA.

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

[nige1]

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.

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

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.

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.

Pass is automatic. 5♦ is illegal.

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

Lamford notes that for CyberYeti, pass isn't an LA, because, according to his partnership methods, partner has fewer than 6 ♠. Other opinions seem right in common sense but wrong in Bridge-Law.

[blackshoe]

It probably has nothing to do with the ruling, but if N bid 3NT naturally, he should have a heart stopper. So with what kind of dreck did East overcall 1♥?

[Cyberyeti]

It probably has nothing to do with the ruling, but if N bid 3NT naturally, he should have a heart stopper. So with what kind of dreck did East overcall 1♥?

 

Kx, QJ98xx, 10x, A9x

[Cyberyeti]

Lamford notes that for CyberYeti, pass isn't an LA, because, according to his partnership methods, partner has fewer than 6 ♠. Other opinions seem right in common sense but wrong in Bridge-Law.

 

This is not the first time I've had a ruling which is tantamount to saying "We don't believe you play this".

[campboy]

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

[dburn]

I believe I have the answer. When South passed at his first turn, this was because he had picked up a twitch from West that he interpreted as showing a good hand with spades. East had also twitched to show a good hand with short spades. When the auction developed as it did, South concluded that these must have been psychic twitches, so he had better show his jack-seventh of spades after all.

[nige1]

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.

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

This is not the first time I've had a ruling which is tantamount to saying "We don't believe you play this".

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

We can take another Rorschach test and judge for ourselves :)

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

[mycroft]

All I'm saying is that "partner forgot the system/misguessed what I had" is, given how well you know your system, about as high on the list as "partner psyched/partner missorted his cards". But of course, with the UI, you have a pretty good idea that the latter didn't happen. Is it enough? I don't know. I would certainly poll people *with the correct system* and see.

 

I won't say (having played weird systems that I've had to ask "did you tell them that my partner can't have that hand?" myself) "I don't believe you play that", but I will say that "okay, this happened" (without the Alert and, when asked, the confident explanation, of course) and see what it gets me. If everyone says "so, partner can't have 6 spades, at all? Even a zero count? Then I have no clue what's going on", then fine, you get to use your experience to guess - and, of course, correct the explanation at the right time and see what happens. If not...

[lamford]

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

However, 40B2a empowers the RA to insist that both halves of a partnership are playing the same methods, and they have done so; from the Blue Book:

 

5 A 2 The members of a partnership must have the same bidding understandings and play the same system of leads, signals and discards.

 

I repeat, LAs are decided using the partnership methods, not based on some guess as to what partner's motives might have been. So, when polling, one is told the partnership methods, and then asked to make a decision. I don't think it makes two hoots of difference what style of weak twos one is playing here. As FrancesHinden's partner says, "4S isn't making." I did not understand why her partner concluded that 5D was not either. If 4S was a choice of pointed-suit games, I would be worried I was missing 6D. Or even 7D, opposite ATxxxx x xxxx Ax.

 

As an afterthought, 5C should be last-train here. A good hand for a diamond slam with or without a club control. Or perhaps it should be reverse last-train - a puppet to 5D, and either terminal in diamonds or a slam force, releasing 5D to be last train. Now what should 4NT be?