Is this hand strong?

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=s543ha3d984cakt76&w=skqjt986hk9d765cj&n=saht8dakqt3c95432&e=s72hqj76542dj2cq8&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2hp3s4dp]399|300[/hv]

 

At this point South, who is considering a raise to 5D, asks about the 3S bid and is told it is a strong hand, possible 16+ points. South passes and West passes. North plays the hand in 4D and makes 12 tricks.

[eagles123]

come on partner has come in VUL at the four level u have 3 card support and 3 quick tricks and can't find a bid. lol really?? I think the explanation is wrong for sure, but east must have something for a vul weak 2 (supposedly) partner surely has a reasonable hand for 4d and the 3s is "strong" how many points does south think are in this deck lol??

[FelicityR]

Irrespective of whether the opponents have provided 'duff' information - what level were they? - South with 3♦s and an AK and an A should raise to 5♦.

 

The West hand isn't strong, just a standard 3♠ pre-empt vulnerable, though some might prefer opening 1♠ and rebidding ♠s twice.

 

Yes, N/S were given wrong information.

[Cyberyeti]

The 3♠ bid is also in a VERY standard psyching position, S not bidding on is simply not playing bridge.

[pescetom]

The West hand isn't strong, just a standard 3♠ pre-empt vulnerable, though some might prefer opening 1♠ and rebidding ♠s twice.

 

I would certainly prefer opening that hand 1♠ but in this case West didn't get a chance to do so, of course.

I think that 3♠ vuln is fine, except for the explanation supplied.

If the partnership is solid and has read Alvin Roth I would expect North to bid 3NT Unusual, at which point South starts to think about 12 tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

I would certainly prefer opening that hand 1♠ but in this case West didn't get a chance to do so, of course.

I think that 3♠ vuln is fine, except for the explanation supplied.

If the partnership is solid and has read Alvin Roth I would expect North to bid 3NT Unusual, at which point South starts to think about 12 tricks.

 

3N to 90% of the world is natural, X for takeout is the normal action.

[barmar]

Yes, N/S were given wrong information.

Were they? If the EW agreement is that West is supposed to be strong, there's no MI, unless they actually consider West's hand to be strong and in conformance with their agreement.

 

Remember, you're only entitled to the opponents' agreements, not what they actually hold.

[pescetom]

3N to 90% of the world is natural, X for takeout is the normal action.

 

Yes X for takeout is far more normal, although if I only had that I'd probably prefer 4♦. I see X here as showing both minors 4+ and general strength, unless partnership has other agreement.

[Vampyr]

The 3♠ bid is also in a VERY standard psyching position,

 

Yes, N/S are very naive if they have not even considered this ossibility.

 

However I must add that 2♠ is the normal psyche; 3♠ probably usually a splinter. I may be wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, N/S are very naive if they have not even considered this ossibility.

 

However I must add that 2♠ is the normal psyche; 3♠ probably usually a splinter. I may be wrong.

 

Psychic fit-jump, I may or may not have used it several times :)

[Vampyr]

Psychic fit-jump, I may or may not have used it several times :)

 

Ah right. Is it a sort-of controlled psyche if the bid never comes up naturally?

. :)

[Cyberyeti]

Ah right. Is it a sort-of controlled psyche if the bid never comes up naturally?

. :)

 

No, If I have 5 spades and 3 hearts I will also use it, allows partner to judge whether to bid 5♥ over 5m if he has 3♠.

 

It doesn't hurt that if I don't have spades it can be bloody awkward for opps to find their spade fit.

[DozyDom]

The hand isn't strong. The bid is. Question answered, boom.

 

 

 

 

Partner has come in at the 4 level opposite a passed hand, you have AKA and 3-card support. 5!D looks extremely conservative. Pass looks inexplicable.

[blackshoe]

Since this a rulings forum, let's look at it in that light. Was there an infraction of law or regulation here? We don't know. What was the actual partnership agreement as to the meaning of 3!S in that auction?

[Chris3875]

The system card and explanation indicated a good suit with 16+ points.

[Cyberyeti]

The system card and explanation indicated a good suit with 16+ points.

 

So we're down to asking whether there's any history of this pair psyching this bid before, otherwise no redress.

[Chris3875]

Thanks to Blackshoe for asking about the RULING on this situation. I don't really want to hear supercilious comments about what South should have bid, or what North should have done. Both are reasonably new players and I thought South showed a few brains asking whether the West 3S bid was strong (which it should have been over the pre-empt opening). He was told it WAS strong, about 16 points so if he added that to the possible 8 points in the East hand and 11 I think in his own hand, it doesn't leave a lot for his partner - someone is obviously telling porkies - and based on the information he was given, he passed. Misinformation, in my opinion. I thought this was a Simple Rulings forum, not an advanced play group.

[sanst]

Thanks to Blackshoe for asking about the RULING on this situation. I don't really want to hear supercilious comments about what South should have bid, or what North should have done. Both are reasonably new players and I thought South showed a few brains asking whether the West 3S bid was strong (which it should have been over the pre-empt opening). He was told it WAS strong, about 16 points so if he added that to the possible 8 points in the East hand and 11 I think in his own hand, it doesn't leave a lot for his partner - someone is obviously telling porkies - and based on the information he was given, he passed. Misinformation, in my opinion. I thought this was a Simple Rulings forum, not an advanced play group.

You might have noticed before that quite often the merits of bidding and playing are discussed here, not always useful in regards to a ruling. But that’s life on web fora.

As far as the ruling is concerned: S was given the correct explanation, so this is definitely not a case of MI. Law 75C: “When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction.” Maybe a hard way to learn for N and particularly S to trust his partner more than the opponents.

Another question which remains open is, whether a strong answer to a weak opening is forcing for EW. Over here it’s usual to play 2NT as forcing and 2♠ - or another suit - as a good hand but not forcing. About 3♠ most not to strong pairs would have no agreement.

And yes, this is a simple ruling, given the right information. Your original post didn’t give the EW agreement which lead to speculation.

[Cyberyeti]

Also there is a principle that in bidding, when you know somebody is lying, you get into trouble if you assume it's partner as you're effectively fielding a psyche he hasn't made, you must assume partner has his bid. If he has his bid and you field, you get a crap result, if he has psyched, you get the director coming down on you like a ton of bricks, just make the normal bid which is 5♦.

[Vampyr]

So we're down to asking whether there's any history of this pair psyching this bid before, otherwise no redress.

 

How much history? What % turns a psyche into a CPU?

[blackshoe]

It's a judgement call, not a matter of some specific percentage. Has the player psyched in this way frequently enough that his partner begins to expect it? If so, then it's an implicit agreement, the possibility has to be included in disclosure ("he has A or B", not "he has A or he psyched", because it's no longer a psych).

 

If you want a more specific guideline I suggest three times in six months, but as I said, it's a judgment call for the TD.

[Chris3875]

So in the OP it says South asked about the 3S bid and was told "strong, possibly 16 points" - the system card indicates 16+ points and 5+ of the suit to make this call, which is forcing. To me that is not what the 3S bidder held and South passed on the basis of that explanation. Looking at the West hand I did think it held a lot of merit for the call - from memory only 6 losers, but also held heart support for partner. I think players, new players in particular, are entitled to an accurate explanation of a bid if they ask. Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments which were most interesting.

[smerriman]

I think players, new players in particular, are entitled to an accurate explanation of a bid if they ask.

You are entitled to an accurate explanation of how the partner of the bidder understands the bid. The bidder themselves is perfectly entitled to make any bid they like.

[helene_t]

What's the point of asking that question? At best, it serves to allow S to double-shoot. If partner made a stupid bid or the splits are horrible, 4♦ can be a good contract, and otherwise they can always ask the TD for a better score.

 

S has to trust p, not opps. Make a slam try, or at least bid 5♦.

 

Result stands.

[Cyberyeti]

You are entitled to an accurate explanation of how the partner of the bidder understands the bid. The bidder themselves is perfectly entitled to make any bid they like.

 

Nitpick - not "how he understands the bid" but "what their agreements are" (matters if undiscussed particularly), and the partner of the bidder can be held to account if he bids as if the bidder doesn't have what he should. In this case the preempter has no bid to make.