The UI suggests...

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2haj5dakjt763c8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2s3n(Alerted)p4dp]133|200[/hv]

 

Without any specific agreement, you bid 3NT at your first turn to call. You hope that this is to play, although you haven't specifically discussed it. You think 3S would be Western Cue, and a 3NT opening would be gambling (solid minor, no outside stoppers).

 

Unfortunately, partner alerts your 3NT as unusual, showing both minors. He then bids 4D.

 

a) What does the UI suggest here? 4C would be P/C over a 3NT opening, but 4D is undiscussed.

 

b) What do you call now?

[The_Badger]

hi mr1303,

 

I'll bid 5♦ and let the Director sort it out. 6♦ may be on as partner could have in the region of 6-8 points or thereabouts, but the strong hand will be dummy and under the opening bidder.

 

As long as you inform the opponents before the opening lead what has happened I don't thing there will be too much complaint, I feel. It's entirely reasonable to bid 5♦ with your hand given the bidding. And in some ways, it's also entirely reasonable to hint at slam with a cue bid, though on a ♠ lead I feel, partner's going to need to have at least ♥KQxx and it's going to be difficult to establish whether he has those cards given the limited bidding space.

[lamford]

What would you do without an alert, or with screens? You think 3NT is gambling style, so 4D shows a club fit and wants to play there or higher in clubs. I would therefore pass. You know from the UI that partner prefers diamonds to clubs, so I would give a PP for 5D or 6D which is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI".

[wanoff]

What would you do without an alert, or with screens? You think 3NT is gambling style, so 4D shows a club fit and wants to play there or higher in clubs. I would therefore pass. You know from the UI that partner prefers diamonds to clubs, so I would give a PP for 5D or 6D which is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI".

 

Really, without an alert I'd think 4♦ was better minor.

There was no agreement for 3NT, it could be bal., running suit with a stop, minors, any 2 suiter.

Are there that many possible hands that would bid 4♦ showing clubs, when partner has solid clubs ? Or any ?

[lamford]

Really, without an alert I'd think 4♦ was better minor.

There was no agreement for 3NT, it could be bal., running suit with a stop, minors, any 2 suiter.

Are there that many possible hands that would bid 4♦ showing clubs, when partner has solid clubs ? Or any ?

4♦ showing one's better minor is about as daft as the Irish jump cuebid, showing a stopper and asking if partner has a solid minor. We are told that 4C is P/C over a 3NT opening, which shows a solid minor and nothing else. 4D is often played as a singleton ask over 3NT, but this pair had no agreement, and that makes no sense here by a passed hand. The assumption is that a 3NT overcall will be interpreted as showing a solid minor and stops, or at least one assumption, and we are obliged to consider that. That was the player's hand, after all.

 

Our duty is not to take any advantage of the UI, which is that partner prefers diamonds to clubs. We are obliged to select from AIs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. If our partner had, say, x QTxxx xx xxxxx, that is a hand on which he might logically bid 4D, to play there or in Five Clubs. With x QTxxx xxxxx xx, 4D would be barking. If they have a Barking in Birmingham.

 

The AI suggests partner has a very weak distributional hand as he would normally pass 3NT.

[sanst]

The 3NT is a gamble, though not a gambling 3NT. You know that your partner can't have much in the way of HCP, so it's logical that, without having heard his explanation, to assume that partner thinks that 4♦ is a better place to be in. You can pass, seeing to many losers in your hand and expecting nothing but a few diamonds in your partner's, but with a positive outlook on life you might bid 5♦ or even 6♦. I don't think any of this is suggested by the UI, although 5♦ is a good description of your hand in a standard gambling 3NT system.

[Cyberyeti]

What would you do without an alert, or with screens? You think 3NT is gambling style, so 4D shows a club fit and wants to play there or higher in clubs. I would therefore pass. You know from the UI that partner prefers diamonds to clubs, so I would give a PP for 5D or 6D which is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI".

 

No he didn't think it was gambling style, he said he hoped it was to play so with outside cards.

 

As such any removal is a slam try as you could simply have 9 off the top.

 

I can live with 5♦ or 6♦, pass is ludicrous and using the UI. Not sure which of 5/6 is suggested.

[lamford]

As such any removal is a slam try as you could simply have 9 off the top.

You know from the UI that partner is not making a slam try. He could have bid 4S if he were. You have no agreement that 3NT promised nine quickies. You have no agreement as to how it differs from Double followed by 3NT. The hand itself, without solid diamonds, and without 9 off the top, suggests that the most likely implicit agreement is "gambling", making if they lead the wrong suit. You have no agreement as to what 4D means over that. But you do know (from the UI) that partner has diamond support and therefore 5D is demonstrably suggested. If you could PROVE that 4D was a slam-try, then indeed pass would be as ludicrous as your argument that it is.

 

Logical alternatives are without the UI. What is demonstrably suggested is with the UI.

[Cyberyeti]

You know from the UI that partner is not making a slam try. He could have bid 4S if he were. You have no agreement that 3NT promised nine quickies. You have no agreement as to how it differs from Double followed by 3NT. The hand itself, without solid diamonds, and without 9 off the top, suggests that the most likely implicit agreement is "gambling", making if they lead the wrong suit. You have no agreement as to what 4D means over that. But you do know (from the UI) that partner has diamond support and therefore 5D is demonstrably suggested. If you could PROVE that 4D was a slam-try, then indeed pass would be as ludicrous as your argument that it is.

 

Logical alternatives are without the UI. What is demonstrably suggested is with the UI.

 

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

 

Without any specific agreement, you bid 3NT at your first turn to call. You hope that this is to play, although you haven't specifically discussed it

 

My version of what "to play" means in this type of situation is that partner is required to pass without something wholly exceptional, I don't know what yours is.

 

In that case 4♦ has to be a slam try, what sort is not obvious.

 

The UI suggests passing, I'm saying you have to bid, but not sure whether you have to bid 5 or 6.

[lamford]

My version of what "to play" means in this type of situation is that partner is required to pass without something wholly exceptional, I don't know what yours is.

 

In that case 4♦ has to be a slam try, what sort is not obvious.

 

The UI suggests passing, I'm saying you have to bid, but not sure whether you have to bid 5 or 6.

Your "version" is irrelevant. As is my "version". And they admitted to having "no version". The only way to decide the meaning of 4D is to poll players of like ability with the agreeement for both 3NT and 4D of "undiscussed". Some will play that 3NT is "gambling" and to be removed with a bad distributional hand. That makes sense on the grounds of frequency, as you can double first if you want to insist on 3NT. You would get LAs of Pass, 5D and 6D perhaps. The former would be those that thought 4D was "pass or bid 5C". Then you ask them what is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner prefers diamonds to clubs. I cannot see how the UI can suggest passing. It surely suggests bidding.

 

It is worth reflecting that I would not expect an idiot who thinks 3NT is both minors to have any meaning for 4D. No doubt he thinks 4NT would have been "simple" Blackwood.

[mr1303]

Well, I held the hand in question, and I spent a few minutes thinking about what I should do, before bidding 5D.

 

Partner held:

 

Jx

Q1098

9xxx

Qxx

 

5D made on the nose when they led a club, won by East, followed by a heart switch.

 

The opponents suggested to the TD at the end of the hand that 4D should be treated as a slam try, as that is usual over a gambling 3nt, and that South (me) should bid 4H as a cue or bid 6D.

[Cyberyeti]

Your "version" is irrelevant. As is my "version". And they admitted to having "no version". The only way to decide the meaning of 4D is to poll players of like ability with the agreeement for both 3NT and 4D of "undiscussed". Some will play that 3NT is "gambling" and to be removed with a bad distributional hand. That makes sense on the grounds of frequency, as you can double first if you want to insist on 3NT. You would get LAs of Pass, 5D and 6D perhaps. The former would be those that thought 4D was "pass or bid 5C". Then you ask them what is demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner prefers diamonds to clubs. I cannot see how the UI can suggest passing. It surely suggests bidding.

 

It is worth reflecting that I would not expect an idiot who thinks 3NT is both minors to have any meaning for 4D. No doubt he thinks 4NT would have been "simple" Blackwood.

 

No, completely wrong.

 

There clearly is no agreement, hence you have to ask the player who made the bid to clarify what he meant by "to play" which covers what he is required to do next (and I can see no definition where he would say "to-play" rather than "gambling" where you remove with a bad hand, but he may say different). You can't poll people based on what they think an insufficient phrase means, you need to clarify to get any sort of decent poll.

 

He may think his hand is minimum or maximum for 3N but you have to clarify what he thought he showed by 3N when he bid it, to play is not enough info.

 

System over an opening 3N is irrelevant, there is no earthly reason to play the same over this one, some people even play transfers.

[lamford]

The opponents suggested to the TD at the end of the hand that 4D should be treated as a slam try, as that is usual over a gambling 3nt, and that South (me) should bid 4H as a cue or bid 6D.

I would have suggested to the TD that their defence was a serious error! And I don't think that the comparison with an opening gambling 3NT is correct, so I don't agree with your opponents either. When one opens a gambling 3NT, 4D is indeed a slam-try, asking for a singleton usually. Here that cannot apply. How can somebody who could not bid over 1S, and has now heard partner bid a gambling 3NT, have a slam-try with both opponents bidding?

[lamford]

you have to ask the player who made the bid to clarify what he meant by "to play"

Wrong. What he intended 3NT to mean is completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is any agreemeets on the bid and continuations, and, of course, the UI for the second part (what is demonstrably suggested). As you say (and I agree) there is no agreement, then 4D cannot have an agreed meaning. So, you poll people with two "undiscusseds". They can see from the hand you give what you intended it to mean.

[Cyberyeti]

Wrong. What he intended 3NT to mean is completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is any agreemeents on the bid and continuations. As you say (and I agree) there is no agreement, then 4D cannot have an agreed meaning. So, you poll people with two "undiscusseds". They can see from the hand you give what you intended it to mean.

 

You have to bid as if with screens, so what YOU thought you'd shown is extremely important. Obvious example, you make a bid (1x-p-p-2N) on a balanced 20 count that you intended as strong balanced, partner alerts as unusual (which is actually your system or it's undiscussed). He bids 4N to pick a minor at the 5 level. Whether you thought you were playing 18-20 or 20-22 is now massively important as to what you are ruled to do next and you can't poll without that info.

[lamford]

You have to bid as if with screens, so what YOU thought you'd shown is extremely important. Obvious example, you make a bid (1x-p-p-2N) on a balanced 20 count that you intended as strong balanced, partner alerts as unusual (which is actually your system or it's undiscussed). He bids 4N to pick a minor at the 5 level. Whether you thought you were playing 18-20 or 20-22 is now massively important as to what you are ruled to do next and you can't poll without that info.

You do bid as if there were screens (with the additional requirement to avoid taking advantage of the UI), but it is your agreement that is relevant, NOT what you intended the bid to show. If you had screens, and you bid 2NT on a balanced 20 count, then you would use what you thought your agreement was to decide on what to bid. Of course, with screens you can do anything. And you would take into account that partner did not bid over 1X. Having decided on the LAs, you then go back to the UI to decide what is demonstrably suggested. When polling in this case, if there was no agreement you would say so, and if there was an agreed range you would say so. If I was asked what I intended 2NT as, I would just reply, "We have no agreement on the range". In this example, you would state, as with many pairs, "We have not discussed either 3NT or 4D; and I would be making it up if I elaborated."

 

The relevant clause is: 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. (my emphasis). So you poll players of the same ability with the same methods. Here "undiscussed". You don't make up extra stuff about what you intended the bid to show.

 

And if 6D was an LA in the poll, then 5D is demonstrably suggested by the UI over that, as partner is merely giving preference from the UI, so I would impose that. It scores worse than 4D+1 or 4D=. On reflection, I should give a PP just for 5D, but in practice it is complicated enough that I would not.

[pran]

South had the following authorized information:

The entire auction

The fact that he made his 3NT bid without any partnership understanding

The fact that North bid 4♦

 

He has the following extraneous (unauthorized) informaton:

The fact that North alerted the 3NT bid

The explanation given by North on the 3NT bid

 

South is free to make whatever call he wants so long as his selection in no way can be suggested over another logical alternative from the facts listed above as extraneous information. Thus he must treat the 4♦ bid by North as he should understand it absent any unexpected alert and absent any corresponding explanation.

 

Given that there is no hidden knowledge about the mutual experience in the North/South partnership I would accept a raise to 5♦ by South. (ref Law 40!1a: Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players.)

[Cyberyeti]

You do bid as if there were screens (with the additional requirement to avoid taking advantage of the UI), but it is your agreement that is relevant, NOT what you intended the bid to show. If you had screens, and you bid 2NT on a balanced 20 count, then you would use what you thought your agreement was to decide on what to bid. Of course, with screens you can do anything. And you would take into account that partner did not bid over 1X. Having decided on the LAs, you then go back to the UI to decide what is demonstrably suggested. When polling in this case, if there was no agreement you would say so, and if there was an agreed range you would say so. If I was asked what I intended 2NT as, I would just reply, "We have no agreement on the range". In this example, you would state, as with many pairs, "We have not discussed either 3NT or 4D; and I would be making it up if I elaborated."

 

The relevant clause is: 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. (my emphasis). So you poll players of the same ability with the same methods. Here "undiscussed". You don't make up extra stuff about what you intended the bid to show.

 

And if 6D was an LA in the poll, then 5D is demonstrably suggested by the UI over that, as partner is merely giving preference from the UI, so I would impose that. It scores worse than 4D+1 or 4D=. On reflection, I should give a PP just for 5D, but in practice it is complicated enough that I would not.

 

Missing the entire intent of what I'm saying. Until you know what the bidder thought he showed, you can't evaluate the LAs, nor can you poll. (and very often in cases like this the bidder is playing the system he plays with a different partner so has a very good idea what he thinks he's shown)

 

It's more obvious to explain in the 1x-p-p-2N case, if you thought partnership methods were 20-22, there is no LA to pass, if you thought you were playing 18-20, there is no LA to bidding on and either you're bidding 6N directly or if you think you've got some agreement to say show a blackwood response on the way, do that.

 

If I bid 3N thinking I was showing 9 solid tricks (or close), then 4♦ is forcing and I'm sub minimum so 5♦ is the only possible bid.

If I bid 3N thinking I was showing a spade stop and a diamond suit but needing help then partner is showing weakness so pass is in the frame

 

It's come up before and "using the methods of the partnership" has been interpreted in this sort of case as "using the methods you thought you were playing". The one I recall is where somebody opened a multi 2♦ and heard it correctly announced by partner as an Acol 2, he was expected to carry on bidding his 6 card spade suit as if partner's bids were in response to a multi so 2♦-2N was the strong enquiry instead of a negative etc and he was to carry on using the methods he played opposite his more regular partner where they played a multi.

**edit, there's no point polling whether 3♦ or 3♠ shows the good weak 2 in spades, opener will know, if it's clear cut min/max with no judgment involved there is only one bid he can make, but you can't poll to find out what it is.

[lamford]

Missing the entire intent of what I'm saying. Until you know what the bidder thought he showed, you can't evaluate the LAs, nor can you poll

Let us just agree to differ; I will not post on this thread again, as it has become too time-consuming. I think you only need the methods and agreements of the partnership, and the Law book agrees. Law 75 clarifies the duties of the player, but 16B makes it clear that LAs are not decided based on what you thought you were showing. They are based on the methods of the partnership, which here is "no agreement". Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.

 

There is a difference when the alert wakes you up that you have misbid, but that does not apply here. You knew that 3NT was undiscussed.

[weejonnie]

Without the alert surely this is "No partnership agreement"? So nothing is demonstrably suggested.

[barmar]

Let us just agree to differ; I will not post on this thread again, as it has become too time-consuming.

Does this mean you've passed the facts on to SB, in case he remembers a similar situation occurring in a certain North London club? :)

[Zelandakh]

The opponents suggested to the TD at the end of the hand that 4D should be treated as a slam try, as that is usual over a gambling 3nt, and that South (me) should bid 4H as a cue or bid 6D.

I do not really follow the opps' argument. Even if we accept that the same system should apply, which in itself is a stretch, the correct call over 4♦ in the most common rebid structure is 5♦ to show club shortage. So by their own logic you did the right thing. A stronger argument from their side might be that partner's 4♦ call might reasonably be a transfer after a "to play" 3NT overcall. That is the only logic I can see to make a good case against N-S here. After bidding 3NT to play and partner describing the call as "a big balanced hand", would noone consider that possibility even if they played it over 2♣ - 2♦; 3NT? The whole Gambling 3NT opening sub-thread looks like a complete red herring to me and essentially irrelevant as far as a ruling goes.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2haj5dakjt763c8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2s3n(Alerted)p4dp]133|200|

Without any specific agreement, you bid 3NT at your first turn to call. You hope that this is to play, although you haven't specifically discussed it. You think 3S would be Western Cue, and a 3NT opening would be gambling (solid minor, no outside stoppers).

Unfortunately, partner alerts your 3NT as unusual, showing both minors. He then bids 4D.

a) What does the UI suggest here? 4C would be P/C over a 3NT opening, but 4D is undiscussed.

b) What do you call now?

[/hv]

Whatever North intends by 4♦, on any sensible interpretation it is forcing in the context of your hand. If North imagines that your 3N overcall shows a

• Big balanced hand (e.g. 23+ HCP), then it's likely to be a transfer to ♥.
• Minor 2-suiter (what North guessed South meant) then it shows diamond preference. which is good news.
• Solid minor with little outside (Such a gambling overcall would be a peculiar understanding), then 4♦ is natural or a slam-try and you have extras.
• A hand playable in 3N (Something like what South actually held) then again 4♦ is probably a transfer (or perhaps a natural slam-try).

Hence, IMO, Pass is not a logical alternative. Among LAs might be: 4♥, 4N, 5♦, 6♦, 6N. Of these, the least suggested by UI is probably 4♥ (completing the putative transfer).

 

Anyway, if you have agreed methods over a natural 3N overcall, then it's easy. You interpret 4♦, according to those methods and make the appropriate conventional response (ignoring the UI from partner's earlier explanation).