A ruling from this evening

[mr1303]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=skjtxxhkdqxckqjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Bidding proceeds:

 

P P 1S( by you) 1NT (raptor)

 

Partner now takes the 1NT card out of the box, half turns it over, then replaces it, saying "I can't bid that", thinks about it, then passes. RHO now bids 2H.

 

Is it now ok to bid 3C?

[inquiry]

I would guess not. The reason being although you have nice distribution, your partner thinkng about bidding makes it safer to bid. So you have to consider would a reasonable number of players of like ability bid 3C if partner had passed in tempo and not fiddled with the bidding cards.

 

I would have to think the answer to that question is no. So 3♣ would be barred after your partners actions.

[hrothgar]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ KJTxx ♥ K ♦ Qx ♣ KQJxx

 

Bidding proceeds:

 

P P 1S( by you) 1NT (raptor)

 

Partner now takes the 1NT card out of the box, half turns it over, then replaces it, saying "I can't bid that", thinks about it, then passes. RHO now bids 2H.

 

Is it now ok to bid 3C?

MickyB presented the hand to me without noting the fumble with the NT card...

 

Here are my thoughts (predicated on the assumption that there is no UI): I don't consider pass a logical alternative over 2♥. I have heart shortage. I need to do something. I'm torn between Double and 3♣. In an ideal world, I'd like to be playing a good/bad 2NT or some such... Bidding 2NT and then passing partner's 3♣ rebid is the most attractive alternative for me.

 

With this said and done, I'd very much like to know what a double over 1NT would have shown... What hand types has he denied? Partner's inability to take any kind of action does concern me somewhat. Its possible that the meaning of a direct double might convince me to change my bid from 2NT to Double. However, I would not pass

[luke warm]

this is one of those circumstances where i'm always at a loss.. it's impossible to ignore partner's almost-bid.. what's he saying? 2 spades, 3 hearts but no stopper, 6, 7 hcp? i don't know, but the very fact that i'm thinking about it means *some* info was passed.. i'd have to pass

[david_c]

I'd probably say that if you have methods available to show a "bad" 3♣ bid, then pass is not a LA. But, as it happens, 2NT would have been natural here.

 

The player holding this hand said that he hadn't seen which card his partner had been fumbling with. Then, when it came to his turn, he said, "Well, it doesn't make any difference anyway," and bid 3♣. If this player was "advanced" then I would be fairly confident in disallowing the 3♣ bid. But let's assume that he is at the wrong end of "intermediate" - for this sort of player, is pass a LA? I'm not sure.

[helene_t]

I think "pass" is a logical alternative. I would pass unless 2NT shows this hand.

 

It's IMPs and you're vulnerable. You have 15 HCPs but 5 of them may be worthless. Partner can still double or bid 2♠ if he has some values. 3♣ may take you too high if partner has preference for spades. It could be a total misfit with LHO having clubs.

 

Partner's "I can't bid that" can only be interpreted as 1NT, so whether you noticed what card partner was fumbling with is irelevant. Then again, I'm not sure if that information could influence your decision much.

[Brandal]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=skjtxxhkdqxckqjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Bidding proceeds:

 

P P 1S( by you) 1NT (raptor)

 

Partner now takes the 1NT card out of the box, half turns it over, then replaces it, saying "I can't bid that", thinks about it, then passes. RHO now bids 2H.

 

Is it now ok to bid 3C?

I have no idea what is ok to do,but I would pass if my pd

fumbled with any bid then put it back and passed.

[hotShot]

I don't think it is ok, because your not allowed to make a bid that "may be suggested" by partners action. But it's close! Make it a ♣ more and eg. a ♥ void, and i'd allow it.

Abd if partner decides to make a move now, i would allow any bid after that.

[cherdano]

Given no hesitation etc., I would pass this hand with some partners. It's really tough to do this logical alternative test when it is quite a style question (how much extras does 3C promise)?

Arend

[hrothgar]

One quick comment:

 

This key issue surrounding this ruling is whether or not pass is a logical alternative over 2♥ ABSENT the UI.

 

They only way to determine this is to present the hand ABSENT the UI. It would have been preferable to leave out all information surrounding the fumble of the the 1NT card during the initial posting. This will allow you to get an unbiased sample regarding how people would have bid...

 

As things stand now, you are polling people regarding their assumptions about how the field would bid in the absence of UI which is substantially less accurate.

[luis]

I think 3♣ can be accepted since in my opinion more than 50% of the field would bid 3♣ without any UI in this situation.

[helene_t]

But 3♣ is only acceptable if 80% of players of comparable level would bid that, I suppose.