Portland Pairs 2

[sfi]

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!

 

Because slam is excellent opposite x KQxxx Axxxxx x. Throw in the CA as well and you will have just played 4H when the rest of the room is in 7NT.

[lamford]

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?

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North should have ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

[aguahombre]

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North has ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

Any sensible rkcb system, 5D (that's trumps) ends the auction, as would 4nt.

[lamford]

Any sensible rkcb system, 5D (that's trumps) ends the auction, as would 4nt.

You are not looking at the hand from South's point of view. Assume screens. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts (the last bid suit) and the response of 5C was 0/3. The OP said zero, but I think that unlikely although the OP might confirm that it was 0/3. Now 5D has to be asking for the queen of hearts, and 6D says. "Yes I have that, and extras in diamonds." So 7D is the only LA using the AI.

[jallerton]

7♦ is not the only LA. I prefer 7NT which (as well as scoring more) is likely to be a better contract when hearts are 4-1 and diamonds not 2-2, especially with South declaring the NT and being protected from an opening spade lead through the AQ.

[jallerton]

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:

 

Yes, and that's a good lesson for TDs to bear in mind. Don't always take what the players say literally. Here "no-one" plays 5♣ as showing 0 key cards but denying 3 (unless there is an inference from the auction that the replier cannot have 3).

[ggwhiz]

Coming in late here but the South actions of 4nt then a sign off in 5♦ are consistent with ignoring the incorrect alert. North carried through with their trip through lala land but are allowed to get lucky and they did.

 

I think South did their duty (especially with the 5♦ to play bid) and any further cock ups lead to 6nt making so result stands.

[lamford]

Coming in late here but the South actions of 4nt then a sign off in 5♦ are consistent with ignoring the incorrect alert.

I strongly disagree, and suggest you read jallerton's posts. South appears to have used UI.

[lamford]

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!

I don't think you will find that anyone who is facing a ?-5-6-? hand would pass 4H when they could be cold for 7D, 7H or 7NT. I suggest you try to construct hands for partner rather than just add up points. And I see now sfi made a similar point.

[blackshoe]

I strongly disagree, and suggest you read jallerton's posts. South appears to have used UI.

You know, when we rule that so-and-so "used UI" we ought to say what the UI was and how it was used.

[pran]

I don't think you will find that anyone who is facing a ?-5-6-? hand would pass 4H when they could be cold for 7D, 7H or 7NT. I suggest you try to construct hands for partner rather than just add up points.

Is there any hand containing 5M that is consistent with a 1♦ opening bid in Precision?

It sure was not when I played Precision (l-o-n-g time ago).

 

And when South bid 3NT for play (after partner's 1♦ opening bid) and then heard partner take out in 4♥ I fail to se how that can be anything but for play (probably with a solid 4-card heart suit) unless South uses the UI that partner alerted the 3NT bid?

[lamford]

You know, when we rule that so-and-so "used UI" we ought to say what the UI was and how it was used.

The UI was that 4H was not natural and therefore was a response to RKCB. Further UI was used later. The UI was used to avoid getting to a grand that did not make.

[campboy]

You are the only person who has hit the nail on the head. 5C is clearly 0/3 in any sensible RKCB system, and 5D must ask for the queen of hearts. North says he has it, plus something extra in diamonds. North should have ♠ x ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxx ♣A and even that hand should just bid 6H over 5D. 6D is surprising and probably should show a bit more than this. Anyway, I hope that we are all adjusting routinely to 7♦-1, and giving South a PP for passing 6D, depending on experience of course.

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

[lamford]

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

I can believe that. However, we are told that 5♦ was to play, rather than asking for the queen of trumps, so I suspect that they have no agreement. And just because Six Diamonds tells him that something has gone wrong, does not entitle to him to Pass. It might therefore be offering a choice of slams or showing extra length. The AI tells South that North is something like x KQxxx Axxxxx A, and even that would not bid on if 5♦ was "to play". All we require to impose 7♦ is that it is an LA which will be selected by some of those only given the authorised auction. Pass does seem to be demonstrably suggested. 5♦ is using the UI in that North will think it is an unexpected sign-off when he has shown 3 keycards and will therefore slow down the auction.

 

And what do we make of North's raise to 6♦? In theory he has no UI (at least we are not told that there was any), but he has a poor 11-count and showed no kings and then South signed off. Why did he raise? I know he can bid what he likes, but I bet there was something about South's manner that suggested that this would be more successful than Pass. Res Ipsa Loquitur as they say in Richmond (London and Yorkshire).

[lamford]

Is there any hand containing 5M that is consistent with a 1♦ opening bid in Precision?

It sure was not when I played Precision (l-o-n-g time ago).

I could not find any positive proof of it on the net, so I asked a couple of Precision player what they would open with x KQxxx AJ10xxx x and they stated 1♦. Precision has an advantage here, in that you can freely reverse and rebid the hearts without showing reversing values, in that hands with reversing values would be upgraded to a strong club.

[blackshoe]

Further UI was used later.

See there? You did it again! :P

[lamford]

See there? You did it again! :P

I should have explained more clearly. When 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, this appears to be the only piece of UI. However, the later auction is affected by the same UI in that the meaning of subsequent bids is different. It would be more correct to state "there was UI, in that a natural 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, and South must continue to bid as though North did not alert, and must attach the meaning to North's bids which he would have done without the alert." This he did not do if he attempted to sign off in 5D opposite what should have been interpreted as three key cards, and his pass of 6D might have used the same UI. To establish whether UI was used we poll peers with the authorised auction.

[jallerton]

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

 

It might be a common agreement, but when South infers from his own hand that North does not hold ♦K, there are alternative explanations to a wheel having come off earlier in the auction. For example, 6♦ might be offering an alternative strain, as Paul suggested upthread. The UI demonstrably suggests that a wheel has come off, so Law 73C/16A demand that South bids on the assumption of a different logical explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

I should have explained more clearly. When 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, this appears to be the only piece of UI. However, the later auction is affected by the same UI in that the meaning of subsequent bids is different. It would be more correct to state "there was UI, in that a natural 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, and South must continue to bid as though North did not alert, and must attach the meaning to North's bids which he would have done without the alert." This he did not do if he attempted to sign off in 5D opposite what should have been interpreted as three key cards, and his pass of 6D might have used the same UI. To establish whether UI was used we poll peers with the authorised auction.

 

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine, when partner bids 6♦ he's saying "I have 3 and nothing else" so he expects x, Kxxxx, Axxxxx, A or similar which is no play for more than 6♦. Looking at ♦ KQ himself, 6♦ must be choice of contracts and 6♦ is better than 6♥ if the hearts misbehave as you may have a spade finesse option if they don't lead one.

[aguahombre]

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine, when partner bids 6♦ he's saying "I have 3 and nothing else" so he expects x, Kxxxx, Axxxxx, A or similar which is no play for more than 6♦. Looking at ♦ KQ himself, 6♦ must be choice of contracts and 6♦ is better than 6♥ if the hearts misbehave as you may have a spade finesse option if they don't lead one.

We have a different approach. If we can't tell whether Partner has zero or 3, we should not have been asking the question.

 

Painful as it may be, I believe Lamford has a point this time. South was doing the correct thing ignoring the UI, then all of a sudden we don't know if 6D was impossible on South's interpretation of their agreements about RKC when hearts are trump OR if he just got tired of continuing the pretense of ignoring the UI.

 

I don't see where South was asked why he passed 6D. If he said something like Cyber says, or just that the bid was impossible/undiscussed, we should probably believe him based on the reasonableness of the rest of his explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

We have a different approach. If we can't tell whether Partner has zero or 3, we should not have been asking the question.

 

Painful as it may be, I believe Lamford has a point this time. South was doing the correct thing ignoring the UI, then all of a sudden we don't know if 6D was impossible on South's interpretation of their agreements about RKC when hearts are trump OR if he just got tired of continuing the pretense of ignoring the UI.

 

I don't see where South was asked why he passed 6D. If he said something like Cyber says, or just that the bid was impossible/undiscussed, we should probably believe him based on the reasonableness of the rest of his explanation.

 

It's a different emphasis, we assume partner has 3, but by signing off opposite 0, we give him the chance to show what else he has (which in the context of a precision 1♦ will be only one other card), if he bids 5♠ showing the K, we bid 7N.

[lamford]

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine

Here we disagree. 4NT was RKCB for hearts; how can North have 0 keycards yet be 5-6 in the reds? Even if he has ♠K ♥QJxxx ♦Jxxxxx ♣Q, he does not have a 1♦ opener with the stated range. And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

[aguahombre]

And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

I agree with you, for the sake of getting past that. But, I seriously doubt the answer (6D) is an answer to the question for them. (We could ask, however.)

 

For instance, over 5D we would bid 5H without -5N with (but no kings)- and cue a king if holding the trump queen. Some of those are not possible with opener's range on this hand, but anyway 6D would not have any agreed meaning and could be considered a suggestion that Diamonds, not hearts be trump (thus lawfully passable).

[Cyberyeti]

Here we disagree. 4NT was RKCB for hearts; how can North have 0 keycards yet be 5-6 in the reds? Even if he has ♠K ♥QJxxx ♦Jxxxxx ♣Q, he does not have a 1♦ opener with the stated range. And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

 

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.

[lamford]

I agree with you, for the sake of getting past that. But, I seriously doubt the answer (6D) is an answer to the question for them. (We could ask, however.)

 

For instance, over 5D we would bid 5H without -5N with (but no kings)- and cue a king if holding the trump queen. Some of those are not possible with opener's range on this hand, but anyway 6D would not have any agreed meaning and could be considered a suggestion that Diamonds, not hearts be trump (thus lawfully passable).

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?