Portland Pairs 2

[aguahombre]

If he had 3 keys and the queen of hearts, suggesting to play in diamonds seems weird. You need "Any bid other than 5H implies the Heart Queen", plus "weird", to bid 7D.

 

Perhaps a committee could get there with the ruling in this case. But, since 6D is not part of any continuation scheme in response to the queen asking bid AND the usual reason for suggesting an alternate strain is lack of quality fillers in the focus suit -- it seems an adjustment to 7D-1 is a bit overboard.

 

The fact that 6D is a lucky make appears to be why we are looking to negate rub-of-the-green here. Would we even be talking about 7D-2 if 6D had been down one?

[lamford]

If he had 3 keys and the queen of hearts, suggesting to play in diamonds seems weird.

If he had something like ♠ none ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxxx ♣ A then suggesting to play in diamonds seems completely normal, as playing in hearts might need the suit to break 3-2 while 7♦ might be cold. I think that 6♦ suggests 5-7 if anything, or the king of diamonds, which he cannot have. Also North should not bid 6♥ in case South Blackwooded for hearts intending to bid 6♦ if North had the queen. In essence, 6♥ should not exist, and North will bid something else descriptive other than 5♥ whenever he has the queen of hearts. Given that the above hand might bid 5♠, perhaps x KQxxx AJTxxx A is more likely. Again, from North's point of view, diamonds could be better than hearts.

 

And I don't think we really look at the score achieved when adjusting. A few matchpoints will still be at stake.

[VixTD]

I guess it is complicated enough that we do not impose a PP on South who made a bit of an effort, albeit a feeble one.

 

And what was the ruling, may I ask?

And perhaps a feeble effort by the TD, as I must confess I let the score stand. I'm pleased to see there are some people still trying to defend this position, but I'm persuaded by the arguments put forward by Paul and Jeffrey. There was a lot to think about here: Is pass a logical alternative to 4NT? (I definitely think not, but some have argued for this.) I wondered whether 4NT was a safer choice than some other alternative (4♠, perhaps?), but I decided if it was it wasn't demonstrably suggested. I think I missed the implication that 5♦ must be asking for the ♥Q, and just thought that it was a waiting bid in an agreed suit to get more information from North (knowing he cannot possibly pass with the higher number of key cards) and that 6♦ was a strong suggestion (from South's point of view) to play there rather than in hearts. Even if all that's so, there's a strong argument for making South correct the contract to hearts, after which North will presumably bid 7♦.

 

Thanks for your contributions.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree that one would bid 5♥ over 5♦ without the queen of hearts. Any other bid shows the queen of hearts. I agree entirely that 6♦ as a suggestion to play in diamonds is one probable meaning. However, opposite three key cards and the queen of hearts, 7♦ is almost cold, and more so if partner is suggesting that we play in diamonds. And this answers Cyberyeti's point too. Pass of 6♦ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Bidding 7♦ is an LA which would be selected by a significant number of South's peers (based on a poll of three at my club last night. All bid 7♦). I guess it is complicated enough that we do not impose a PP on South who made a bit of an effort, albeit a feeble one.

 

And what was the ruling, may I ask?

 

Bidding 6♦ does not say that he has the Q♥ - it says he wasn't responding to Blackwood.

[lamford]

Bidding 6♦ does not say that he has the Q♥ - it says he wasn't responding to Blackwood.

That is a possibility, but if he did not have the queen of hearts and just wanted to play in diamonds, why did he not pass?

[Cyberyeti]

That is a possibility, but if he did not have the queen of hearts and just wanted to play in diamonds, why did he not pass?

 

Because whatever he thought his partner's bidding meant indicated he wanted to play in 6 rather than 5+1 ? I don't understand why N did bid 6♦ at the table on his actual hand, but it's plausible that he could hold one that was suitable. Can he visualise a hand that can blackwood opposite say Q, AJ10x(x), Axxxxx(x), Q and not want to play 6♦ ?

[lamford]

Because whatever he thought his partner's bidding meant indicated he wanted to play in 6 rather than 5+1 ? I don't understand why N did bid 6♦ at the table on his actual hand, but it's plausible that he could hold one that was suitable. Can he visualise a hand that can blackwood opposite say Q, AJ10x(x), Axxxxx(x), Q and not want to play 6♦ ?

Something with a black-suit void is more likely. He has to be 6-5, so say he is none AJTxx AJxxxxx A. Now he has shown three-card key cards (he thinks he has) and I agree that he cannot pass 5♦. But on such hands he would just sign off in 5♥, from South's point of view, as he does not have the queen of hearts and South will bid whatever he was going to bid. South only knows that 5♦ has not been interpreted as asking for the queen of hearts from the UI. All hands without the queen of hearts will just bid 5♥. North is being asked a question, not to show judgement. And this thread has gone on too long. I will not comment on it any more. jallerton summed up the situation perfectly in far fewer words than me. The correct ruling was 7♦-1, as I think VixTD realises.

[Cyberyeti]

Something with a black-suit void is more likely. He has to be 6-5, so say he is none AJTxx AJxxxxx A. Now he has shown three-card key cards (he thinks he has) and I agree that he cannot pass 5♦. But on such hands he would just sign off in 5♥, from South's point of view, as he does not have the queen of hearts and South will bid whatever he was going to bid. South only knows that 5♦ has not been interpreted as asking for the queen of hearts from the UI. All hands without the queen of hearts will just bid 5♥. North is being asked a question, not to show judgement. And this thread has gone on too long. I will not comment on it any more. jallerton summed up the situation perfectly in far fewer words than me. The correct ruling was 7♦-1, as I think VixTD realises.

 

You are not listening at all.

 

6♦ is clear cut and unarguably says "I'm in a different auction to you" to S given what he holds for most of the reasons you elaborate. Many pairs will just automatically pass in a situation like this, it's like unopposed P-1N-2red(Xfer)-3N, I don't know what this is, but I'm passing. In this case it could be that N thought he was 5-6 and is actually 4-7, not S's problem.

[jallerton]

Stated range is irrelevant here, there are exceptional hands below 11 that everybody would agree are 1♦ openers, I agree that it's well nigh impossible in this case, but if your style is to sign off opposite zero and let partner always bid on with 3 this is a non problem, but as you say, 5♦ should ask for Q♥.

 

6♦ now tells you a wheel has come off as you're looking at ♦KQ so it's an easy pass.

 

Cyberyeti: this and subsequent posts suggest that you are failing to understand an important principle. Sometimes the authorised information does tell you that wheel has come off, but you cannot use the unauthorised information to infer which wheel has come off.

 

In this case, just because partner can't hold ♦K, you can't conclude that he must have taken the 3NT bid as ace asking.If you were sure that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ asked for ♥Q, then you would be confident that whatever 6♦ was intended to mean, it must imply a hand holding ♥Q.

 

Maybe partner has thought about the situation more deeply. Having already shown or implied ♥KQ and both minor suit aces, and having failed to open a strong club, partner knows that you know that he cannot hold ♦K as well. So 6♦ over the Q ask can't be showing ♦K. If they have the agreement than 5NT shows a useful side queen, then perhaps partner has inferred that the only logical meaning for 6♦ is a suggestion of strain (from his point of view the partnership could be missing a key card in theory and 6♦ may be a safer slam than 6♥).

 

Of course, we don't know that partner has been thinking this way, but when we have UI, we have a responsibility to choose the non-suggested action, not to try to come up with excuses why the demostrably suggested action is 'evident'.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti: this and subsequent posts suggest that you are failing to understand an important principle. Sometimes the authorised information does tell you that wheel has come off, but you cannot use the unauthorised information to infer which wheel has come off.

Do you really think it can be right to bid grand in the hope that one wheel, rather than another, has come off?

 

If I have a clear agreement that 6♦ shows ♥Q and ♦K (which I do; admittedly none of us knows whether the pair involved do), and I can see from my hand that partner doesn't have the ♦K, I don't have any confidence that he has the ♥Q either. I'd never guess the actual wheel involved, but the fact that a wheel, any wheel, has come off is good enough reason to get off the motorway.

[jallerton]

Do you really think it can be right to bid grand in the hope that one wheel, rather than another, has come off?

 

Of course, it can be right. If I guess right I gain a double digit IMP swing (or avoid losing one), or obtain a decent matchpoint score on the board rather than a poor one.

 

On this hand, the only reason why South can infer that it would be wrong to guess to bid a grand is because of the UI.

[campboy]

Well South can infer from AI that if he's bidding a grand he's just guessing. Admittedly the UI tells him that the guess is wrong, and the AI doesn't, but the fact that it is a guess is enough to make it not an LA for me.

 

I don't really know why I'm arguing about this, though, since I do agree it is right to adjust at pairs, just by a different auction: I think 6♥ is an LA and partner will correct it to 7♦.

[JanM]

It's been suggested to me that if 3NT is natural but can be made with a hand as strong as this one, it is probably an alert. If that's correct, there wasn't any UI from the alert (and from the OP I think that no explanation was sought or given until after the auction was over). In the absence of UI, both players bid somewhat reasonably in their own "worlds." North thought that 3NT and 4NT were RKCB and responded to both of them properly. S/he didn't pass 5♦ because S had asked for Kings, which is surely forcing to slam. S/he bid 6♦ to show a minimum with no interest in bidding more. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ was to play if partner had 0 Keycards. S/he passed 6!d because at that point s/he knew that partner was apparently on a different wavelength.

[PeterAlan]

Jan, I don't think that a natural 3NT would be alerted here just on the grounds that it could be very strong, but I'm sure you're right on the mark when you talk of both players being in their own "worlds". I happen to know the couple in question (I was playing at the same event) and, whilst I fully understand the UI ruling process, the idea that the kind of analysis conducted on this thread is going to be found in real time at the table is fantasy. They just aren't going to have thought as clearly and deeply about the hand as, say, jallerton has post hoc. Nor will they have analysed in such depth how to handle any UI.

[VixTD]

It's been suggested to me that if 3NT is natural but can be made with a hand as strong as this one, it is probably an alert. If that's correct, there wasn't any UI from the alert (and from the OP I think that no explanation was sought or given until after the auction was over). In the absence of UI, both players bid somewhat reasonably in their own "worlds." North thought that 3NT and 4NT were RKCB and responded to both of them properly. S/he didn't pass 5♦ because S had asked for Kings, which is surely forcing to slam. S/he bid 6♦ to show a minimum with no interest in bidding more. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ was to play if partner had 0 Keycards. S/he passed 6!d because at that point s/he knew that partner was apparently on a different wavelength.

I asked South why they had bid 3NT, and they realised it was not a good call, but considered it preferable to making a forcing bid in a major (promising 4+ cards) and in clubs (promising 5+). They didn't have a forcing diamond raise available. I went to some lengths to find out whether there might have been another alertable meaning for 3NT in their system (e.g. a natural bid with a hand very limited in strength and shape), but I couldn't find any.

 

I think NS bid reasonably in their own worlds, but the law requires more than that when they're in receipt of unauthorized information.

[pran]

I asked South why they had bid 3NT, and they realised it was not a good call, but considered it preferable to making a forcing bid in a major (promising 4+ cards) and in clubs (promising 5+). They didn't have a forcing diamond raise available. I went to some lengths to find out whether there might have been another alertable meaning for 3NT in their system (e.g. a natural bid with a hand very limited in strength and shape), but I couldn't find any.

 

I think NS bid reasonably in their own worlds, but the law requires more than that when they're in receipt of unauthorized information.

I still miss a truthworthy explanation when OP clearly stated that the 1♦ opening bid denies 5(+) cards in either major and that South intended 3NT for play, why he continued the auction, apparently with some assumption that North had shown 5 Hearts (and 6 Diamonds).

 

Would South have bid anything but PASS if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥ ? ?

[lamford]

Would South have bid anything but PASS if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥ ? ?

South would always make a slam try, or bid slam, if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥. If an AC allowed Pass in the UK, I would appeal to the national authority on the basis of a grossly inappropriate hand evaluation.

[pran]

South would always make a slam try, or bid slam, if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥. If an AC allowed Pass in the UK, I would appeal to the national authority on the basis of a grossly inappropriate hand evaluation.

Then please explain the 4♥ bid (on the basis that 3NT is understood by North as for play).

(And forget any idea about North showing 5 Hearts, we have specifically been told that the 1♦ opening bid denies any 5 card major.)

[lamford]

Then please explain the 4♥ bid (on the basis that 3NT is understood by North as for play).

(And forget any idea about North showing 5 Hearts, we have specifically been told that the 1♦ opening bid denies any 5 card major.)

VixTD admitted that his explanation of 1D was incomplete, and ?-5-6-? with 11-15 was a permitted hand type. It is a bit like people stating that 2C is their "strongest opening bid" or "only strong bid". When I ask the supplementary question, "Stronger than an opening 7NT, eh, we had better not bid!" they agree that their explanation is incomplete. So, I will not forget any idea about North showing 5 hearts. That is what he shows.