UI case

[hautbois]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq4hq9842dt2cat&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1ndpp2hpp3cppp]133|200[/hv]

 

X is equal or better.

North grabs at a possible bid and drops it back in the box before selecting pass over the double.

NS play systems on (stayman, 4-way transfers) here.

3♣ made 4, 1NT should go off 3.

 

Would you have pulled to 2♥? How would you likely rule if called?

[nigel_k]

The director would need to poll people.

 

My view is that passing 1NTx is a logical alternative, though I would not choose it. However I don't think the UI makes pulling to 2♥ more attractive.

[ggwhiz]

Where can you find a decent sample of players that would open 1nt with those cards for a poll?

 

1nt dbl -3. When you pick weird on the opening I'm sticking you with it after the table action.

[sfi]

However I don't think the UI makes pulling to 2♥ more attractive.

 

This seems like the most critical question that needs to be answered before adjusting. I don't see how knowing partner was thinking of doing something means that bidding 2H is likely to work here.

[wank]

 

 

1nt dbl -3. When you pick weird on the opening I'm sticking you with it after the table action.

 

does this have any logic behind a desire to punish people for bidding in a different way to you?

[Mbodell]

Clear pass. Partner could have staymaned or could have transferred but didn't. Partner may have enough points to make it for all you know. And the UI definitely suggests partner wants to move out of 1nt, so clearly you should pass.

[gordontd]

I don't see how knowing partner was thinking of doing something means that bidding 2H is likely to work here.

I think the significant thing is that partner was thinking of doing something but then decided not to. To me that suggests that partner is weak enough to be unhappy with playing in 1NTx, but not distributional enough to pull. If I am correct about that, then I think it does suggest that bidding 2H is more likely to work than staying in 1NTx.

[paulg]

I think the significant thing is that partner was thinking of doing something but then decided not to. To me that suggests that partner is weak enough to be unhappy with playing in 1NTx, but not distributional enough to pull. If I am correct about that, then I think it does suggest that bidding 2H is more likely to work than staying in 1NTx.

On the other hand, you could argue that partner was most likely to want to escape to a minor but then remembered he couldn't, so bidding 2♥ is less likely to be successful and is the ethical action.

[gordontd]

On the other hand, you could argue that partner was most likely to want to escape to a minor but then remembered he couldn't, so bidding 2♥ is less likely to be successful and is the ethical action.

That's a fair point, but it does depend on what their agreements are over a double.

[campboy]

Even if partner did want to escape to a minor, it could easily be right to play in 2♥. But if partner wanted to escape, that makes playing 1NTx much less attractive.

[Cascade]

We need to know what redouble is.

 

My first thought was that partner was likely to have some distribution - since they wanted to pull - and some (marginal) values since they didn't.

 

To me that combination does not suggest 2♥ over pass. Possibly it suggests pass over 2♥ since a hand with a long minor and short major(s) is consistent and possibly more frequent than a more fitting hand.

[ggwhiz]

does this have any logic behind a desire to punish people for bidding in a different way to you?

 

Not at all but after treating this as a 1nt opener imo you have to stay the course and I agree with other posters that the table action suggests a pull.

 

That would have been a better post than my first one.

[aguahombre]

Where can you find a decent sample of players that would open 1nt with those cards for a poll?

 

1nt dbl -3. When you pick weird on the opening I'm sticking you with it after the table action.

 

does this have any logic behind a desire to punish people for bidding in a different way to you?

Beyond that desire, it probably doesn't have much logic; but, it is a desire we strain at times to overcome...not always sucessfully, being human.

 

Misuse of "Sewog" by the NOS is different case in point. We are so put off by a bad action that we often forget they shouldn't have been put in the situation to begin with.

[ArtK78]

The UI definitiely suggests running, but so does declarer's hand. Quite frankly, if I were to run from 1NTx, I would redouble and correct partner's minor suit response to 2♥, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Just out of curiosity, would it make sense to pull if the long red suit were diamonds? A lot of people would open 1NT on 4-2-5-2.

 

Passing is clearly a logical alternative.

 

I would adjust to 1NTx -3.

[hautbois]

We need to know what redouble is.

 

My first thought was that partner was likely to have some distribution - since they wanted to pull - and some (marginal) values since they didn't.

 

To me that combination does not suggest 2♥ over pass. Possibly it suggests pass over 2♥ since a hand with a long minor and short major(s) is consistent and possibly more frequent than a more fitting hand.

 

Redouble is undefined.

 

Fuller disclosure. I was south. NS are a new regular partnership, playing about 25 sessions over the past 4 months. North has been playing about 2 years but I've just convinced him to learn and use Lebensohl. I've never seen him make a rescue redouble in any situation.

 

I didn't think passing would be a logical alternative. I have 4 quick tricks outside of hearts and likely no tricks in hearts unless it's trumps. I felt assured of adding 1-2 heart tricks to my total, unlikely losing a spade to a ruff, while only raising the level 1. Besides, hearts weren't doubled yet and ultimately weren't.

 

I thought the UI suggested 2H would be less successful than it would be without the UI, but not so much it would suggest pass over 2♥. The hands partner is most likely to have don't help me much in hearts, but I still expect to gain by being in hearts. Partner's hand was 3253 with a lone honor in diamonds.

 

EW are old hands, best players in the club that day. Director was never called. East confirms that I have 5 hearts for the pull but suggests I should still just take my medicine and sit for 1NT*. I promised I'd ask around and it seems I owe her an apology as enough commenters believe pass is a LA and 2♥ demonstrably suggested. They then bring partner up to speed on what XX means, confirming he never thought of that action.

 

Prior to this summer I haven't played regularly in about 6 years. Would partner have to alert (ACBL) in the auction 1♥ - pass - 1NT - pass; 2♣ (could be 2)?

[ArtK78]

Would partner have to alert (ACBL) in the auction 1♥ - pass - 1NT - pass; 2♣ (could be 2)?

No. This is a common situation for partnerships that do not play Flannery. It is understood that you might have a 4522 hand and that you have to bid 2 of a minor.

 

If you were playing that 2♦ promised 4 cards, you would have to alert the 2♣ bid, as it could be as short as 1.

[nige1]

Pass must be a logical alternative; partner seems to have considered a weakness take-out; that suggests that bidding may be more successful than festering in 1NX. After all, 2♥ hasn't been doubled yet (and opponents may be unclear about the meaning of such a double).

[mycroft]

No. This is a common situation for partnerships that do not play Flannery. It is understood that you might have a 4522 hand and that you have to bid 2 of a minor.

 

If you were playing that 2♦ promised 4 cards, you would have to alert the 2♣ bid, as it could be as short as 1.

Small correction - it is only not Alertable if it is 3 cards or exactly 4=5=2=2. If it could be 3=5=3=2, for instance, it's still Alertable.

 

Reference: the Alert Procedure.

Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing notrump response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor).

 

There are several in my area who open 1NT with 5332s and feel they have no alternative to bidding their 5-carder if it gets around to them again, even with a passing partner, even at the 3 level. Usually they survive it. Sometimes they go for 800, and I smile. My guess is that the number of times they'd go for X00 would go up behind screens. I have no way of proving this.

[nige1]

4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor

In spite of previous evidence to the contrary? :)

[aguahombre]

In spite of previous evidence to the contrary? :)

Are you referring to some evidence that the framers of the ACBL Alert Procedure were unaware of?

 

"Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing notrump response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor)."

 

I will admit it seems to be strange wording, since we don't expect 3 or more cards in the minor when Opener is 4-5-2-2. And because their wording in-fact makes no sense to us, we do alert the 2C rebid. If the opponents don't want the information, they can sue us.

 

The circumstance is identical, IMO, to the singular case where Opener with 4=4=3=2 will open 1C. Three or more clubs are expected except when Opener has exactly that distribution, and it must be announced "could be short".

[mycroft]

The ACBL uses this wording frequently, when their intention is "partner will not play for...and the system has no way to find out if..." whatever minor exception they're allowing.

 

I don't run from 2♣ with "best chance of a fit", even if the fit on very rare occasions could be X-2. I don't bid as if it could be 2. I just don't worry about it. I don't alert the 2♣ rebid. If you do, then you should.

[hautbois]

Pass must be a logical alternative; partner seems to have considered a weakness take-out; that suggests that bidding may be more successful than festering in 1NX.

 

I don't follow the reasoning here, or I misinterpret the first semi-colon. I thought the determination of LA was completely separate and distinct from determining whether the action is demonstrably suggested. That is, pass can only be a logical alternative if other players in a similar position but without the UI would seriously consider the action and some actually take it or whatever the current ACBL definition is. The UI should have no determination on whether an action is an LA.

[nige1]

I don't follow the reasoning here, or I misinterpret the first semi-colon. I thought the determination of LA was completely separate and distinct from determining whether the action is demonstrably suggested. That is, pass can only be a logical alternative if other players in a similar position but without the UI would seriously consider the action and some actually take it or whatever the current ACBL definition is. The UI should have no determination on whether an action is an LA.

A poll seems unnecessary because, surely, it would confirm pass as a logical alternative. Partner's bidding box shenanigans imply he contemplated a take-out bid. That seems to imply weakness. Suppose, instead he fingered the redouble card, before, apparently, remembering that redouble was SOS? IMO that might suggest pass over 2♥.