Portland Pairs 2

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqtha85dkq9ckt87&w=sk753hj72dt53c943&n=s4hqt9da7642caj62&e=sj9862hk643dj8cq5&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1d(Precision)p3n(alerted)p4hp4np5cp5dp6dppp]399|300[/hv]

1♦ is 11-15 pts, no five-card major, could have as few as no diamonds

3NT was intended as "to play", but interpreted by North as RKCB

4♥ was intended to show two key cards without ♦Q, interpreted by South as natural (6-5 minimum)

4NT was intended as RKCB for hearts, interpreted by North as asking for kings

5♣ was intended to show no kings, interpreted by South as showing no key cards

5♦ and 6♦ were to play.

 

The confusion came to light when EW asked about the bidding before the opening lead. It was clear now that NS had spent the auction at cross purposes.

 

Result: 6♦(N)=, NS+1370

 

EW called me at the end of play, concerned that unauthorized information could have affected the auction. I asked NS about their bidding methods. They often use 3NT as RKCB over an opening major suit bid, or when a major suit has been agreed, but never over a minor. They don't have any other common alertable uses for 3NT in uncontested auctions.

 

How do you rule?

[campboy]

So South has UI (from the alert), North doesn't as far as I can see.

 

I don't think 4NT is suggested over any LA. 5♦ looks a bit odd (surely this asks about the ♥Q), but even if we rule that South should have bid 5♥ they will reach the same final contract. So I don't think there is any damage.

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqtha85dkq9ckt87&w=sk753hj72dt53c943&n=s4hqt9da7642caj62&e=sj9862hk643dj8cq5&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1d(Precision)p3n(alerted)p4hp4np5cp5dp6dppp]399|300[/hv]

1♦ is 11-15 pts, no five-card major, could have as few as no diamonds

3NT was intended as "to play", but interpreted by North as RKCB

4♥ was intended to show two key cards without ♦Q, interpreted by South as natural (6-5 minimum)

4NT was intended as RKCB for hearts, interpreted by North as asking for kings

5♣ was intended to show no kings, interpreted by South as showing no key cards

5♦ and 6♦ were to play.

 

The confusion came to light when EW asked about the bidding before the opening lead. It was clear now that NS had spent the auction at cross purposes.

 

Result: 6♦(N)=, NS+1370

 

EW called me at the end of play, concerned that unauthorized information could have affected the auction. I asked NS about their bidding methods. They often use 3NT as RKCB over an opening major suit bid, or when a major suit has been agreed, but never over a minor. They don't have any other common alertable uses for 3NT in uncontested auctions.

 

How do you rule?

Confused

 

Seriously: Why did North alert 3NT and bid 4♥ when they never use 3NT as RKCB over a minor? ("And they have no other alertable uses for 3NT"?) I feel like he in reality is alerting South that he answers to 3NT as RKCB?

 

I can't manage to alalyze the rest of the auction now, but my strong temptation is to adjust the result to 3NT with as many tricks as is reasonable (11 or 12?)

[WellSpyder]

my strong temptation is to adjust the result to 3NT with as many tricks as is reasonable (11 or 12?)

I don't see how you can justify this when north had no UI so was entitled to bid whatever he wanted to.

 

As to why he decided to treat 3N as RKCB despite not having any such agreement over a minor, perhaps it was because he couldn't think what else 3N could be intended to mean? (Not strictly relevant, but the OP made me realise that I don't think I have any real agreement about what 3N means in response to a Precision 1♦ - we just don't use the bid in practice.)

[aguahombre]

If we take South at his word (reasonable here to do so), he ignored the alert explanation. No use of UI.

 

North was bonkers at every turn, not just the mistake of thinking 3N was RKC, but North had no UI.

 

Result stands, IMO.

 

Why was North bonkers? Because, after his "answer" of keys for Diamonds, any sensible set of continuations would not include 4NT or 5D as further inquiries.

[Vampyr]

As to why he decided to treat 3N as RKCB despite not having any such agreement over a minor

 

I think it is a pretty good agreement; I am inclined to think that it is more useful than over a major. Not that this is really relevant. Just saying.

[1eyedjack]

Seriously: Why did North alert 3NT and bid 4♥ when they never use 3NT as RKCB over a minor? ("And they have no other alertable uses for 3NT"?) I feel like he in reality is alerting South that he answers to 3NT as RKCB

Seriously: Why would North contemplate bidding 4H over 3N UNLESS it was because he had interpreted 3N as RKCB

[pran]

Seriously: Why did North alert 3NT and bid 4♥ when they never use 3NT as RKCB over a minor? ("And they have no other alertable uses for 3NT"?) I feel like he in reality is alerting South that he answers to 3NT as RKCB?

 

Seriously: Why would North contemplate bidding 4H over 3N UNLESS it was because he had interpreted 3N as RKCB

 

And with his alert of 3NT making quite sure that South should understand his 4♥ bid as a response to RKCB, a convention they according to their own statements never used in this position?

 

South intended 3NT for play and was alerted by North that North understood it differently.

 

Question: Was the continued calls by North and South compatible with their alleged partnership understanding?

 

I cannot help smelling a rat here but will not elaborate further because I find that impossible without slandering someone.

[pran]

I don't see how you can justify this when north had no UI so was entitled to bid whatever he wanted to.

 

As to why he decided to treat 3N as RKCB despite not having any such agreement over a minor, perhaps it was because he couldn't think what else 3N could be intended to mean? (Not strictly relevant, but the OP made me realise that I don't think I have any real agreement about what 3N means in response to a Precision 1♦ - we just don't use the bid in practice.)

 

Why not take South's word for it that it was for play? Wouldn't that be quite sensible?

[gordontd]

1♦ is 11-15 pts, no five-card major, could have as few as no diamonds

<snip>

4♥ was intended to show two key cards without ♦Q, interpreted by South as natural (6-5 minimum)

Do they see no contradiction?

 

This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqtha85dkq9ckt87&w=sk753hj72dt53c943&n=s4hqt9da7642caj62&e=sj9862hk643dj8cq5&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1d(Precision)p3n(alerted)p4hp4np5cp5dp6dppp]399|300|

1♦ is 11-15 pts, no five-card major, could have as few as no diamonds

3NT was intended as "to play", but interpreted by North as RKCB

4♥ was intended to show two key cards without ♦Q, interpreted by South as natural (6-5 minimum)

4NT was intended as RKCB for hearts, interpreted by North as asking for kings

5♣ was intended to show no kings, interpreted by South as showing no key cards

5♦ and 6♦ were to play.

The confusion came to light when EW asked about the bidding before the opening lead. It was clear now that NS had spent the auction at cross purposes.

Result: 6♦(N)=, NS+1370

EW called me at the end of play, concerned that unauthorized information could have affected the auction. I asked NS about their bidding methods. They often use 3NT as RKCB over an opening major suit bid, or when a major suit has been agreed, but never over a minor. They don't have any other common alertable uses for 3NT in uncontested auctions.

How do you rule?

[/hv]

North wasn't in receipt of UI (although he may have suspected a wheel had come off and punted 6♦ to try to beat sensible biddiers who subsided in 3NT). Hence, IMO, the director should rule result stands.

Do they see no contradiction?

This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.

Agree that NS understandings and explanations seem weird

 

What does North open with ♠ A x ♥ x x x x x ♦ A K Q J T x ♣- (OK: I'm told Steve Robinson recomends 1♥ in Washington Standard)

It can't be sensible for South's 3N to be RKC for ♦, when North can have a ♦ void.

[aguahombre]

Do they see no contradiction?

 

This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.

I don't have a problem with players who say that and perchance partner holds a 5-6 hand. Seems like an obvious exception which discloser is not allowing for until it pops up later.

 

It simply means (to me) that they are not playing a canape system and there are limits to the randomness of the 1D opening bid. It also provides inferences about their weak or strong NT hands and whether a 1H opening might have been made with a 5-3-3-2 hand in one of their NT ranges.

[blackshoe]

"Denies a five card major" is pretty much absolute. "Tends to deny a five card major" leaves a little wiggle room.

[1eyedjack]

"Denies a five card major" is pretty much absolute. "Tends to deny a five card major" leaves a little wiggle room.

 

I agree it is lazy, but is there any scope for damage? By the time you are on lead any MI will have been corrected, should opener have a 5 card major. So the issue revolves around whether the distinction between "denies" and "tends to deny" is ever going to have a practical effect on the auction. I suppose it might, but can’t see it.

[blackshoe]

Probably not, but I was really only suggesting that using "tends to" rather than the absolute in one's explanations might lessen some of the opponents' angst. B-)

[paulg]

And with his alert of 3NT making quite sure that South should understand his 4♥ bid as a response to RKCB, a convention they according to their own statements never used in this position?

 

South intended 3NT for play and was alerted by North that North understood it differently.

 

Question: Was the continued calls by North and South compatible with their alleged partnership understanding?

 

I cannot help smelling a rat here but will not elaborate further because I find that impossible without slandering someone.

I think you are being a little unfair here. It seems that North has had a 'senior moment' but we are consistently told on these forums that you should alert a call when you think it is alertable or are going to interpret as alertable. The concept of alerting to wake partner up is always said to be unimportant compared to the potential misinformation for the opponents.

[jallerton]

So South has UI (from the alert), North doesn't as far as I can see.

 

I don't think 4NT is suggested over any LA. 5♦ looks a bit odd (surely this asks about the ♥Q), but even if we rule that South should have bid 5♥ they will reach the same final contract. So I don't think there is any damage.

 

Why is 5♦ odd? If 5♣ shows 0 or 3 KC for hearts, doesn't this have to be 3KC to give North an opening bid with 5/6? Now South wants to be in a grand slam opposite the ♥Q does he not?

[campboy]

Well, 5♦ is inconsistent with South's claimed interpretation of 5♣ as showing none. I didn't stop to think about whether that interpretation actually made sense :unsure:

[WellSpyder]

Why not take South's word for it that it was for play? Wouldn't that be quite sensible?

Sure, I'm happy to do that.

 

But how is that relevant to North's decision to bid on over 3N? Surely you can't be suggesting that he should take South's word for what 3N shows (even supposing he happens to have heard South's word at the point at which he has to make a decision)?

[gordontd]

I don't have a problem with players who say that and perchance partner holds a 5-6 hand. Seems like an obvious exception which discloser is not allowing for until it pops up later.

 

It simply means (to me) that they are not playing a canape system and there are limits to the randomness of the 1D opening bid. It also provides inferences about their weak or strong NT hands and whether a 1H opening might have been made with a 5-3-3-2 hand in one of their NT ranges.

I suppose the reason it irritates me is that if focuses our minds on something that is not only incorrect but also doesn't help us get a feel for what the bid really shows. I think they should say something like "diamonds, or balanced with at least 2 diamonds, or three-suited with short diamonds". I think it's better to be told what a bid shows than what it denies.

[VixTD]

Do they see no contradiction?

 

This is one of my pet peeves - players who say that a minor opening denies a five-card major when it's not true.

This may have been my mistake in transcribing their methods, they may have explained it as "no five-card major, except if there are longer diamonds".

[aguahombre]

I suppose the reason it irritates me is that if focuses our minds on something that is not only incorrect but also doesn't help us get a feel for what the bid really shows. I think they should say something like "diamonds, or balanced with at least 2 diamonds, or three-suited with short diamonds". I think it's better to be told what a bid shows than what it denies.

Yeh, I sure see that point. Disclosing that a bid denies something we would not likely expect it to show in the first place does seem a bit silly --even if it does provide us some inferences about those possible balanced patterns.

 

It other cases, however, what a bid denies is vital disclosure..such as a Negative double of 1H which denies a spade suit.

[pran]

Why not take South's word for it that it was for play? Wouldn't that be quite sensible?

 

Sure, I'm happy to do that.

 

But how is that relevant to North's decision to bid on over 3N? Surely you can't be suggesting that he should take South's word for what 3N shows (even supposing he happens to have heard South's word at the point at which he has to make a decision)?

 

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

 

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

 

PASS!

[jallerton]

This may have been my mistake in transcribing their methods, they may have explained it as "no five-card major, except if there are longer diamonds".

 

Gordon's point is that even this is not a complete explanation. Presumably the 1♦ opening also denies whatever hand types would open 1NT and 2♣ in their system.

[WellSpyder]

Then why did South not pass the 4♥ bid?

 

With max 15 HCP in North he has little reason to explore slam, his suggestion to play 3NT was turned down by partner who (for whatever reason) preferred to play in 4♥ instead.

 

PASS!

That is indeed a reasonable question to consider. But you said earlier that you wanted to adjust on the basis of North passing the 3NT bid, which is a completely different, and in my view irrelevant, issue.