Bidding Problems

[Chris xxxxx]

Matchpoints:

1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10. You like
your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
3S on your right. Your call?

2. You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3. You open 1D
(Precision, but promises 3+.) Partner responds 1S. Partner rebids 2H
(NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid. You now bid 2S.
Partner bids 2NT. Your call?

3. Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753. RHO opens
a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
bid 3C. Partner advances 3D. Your call?

Christopher Monsour

[mirceak]

1. 3S is probably forcing, showing a strong hand. Your partner holds 0
pts. or so. Pass
2. 2NT should mean some extra force from your partner. Bid 4S, with
hope that there is no Slam. I would bid 3S instead of 2S.

[Dave Flower]

1 Pass wtp?

2 3NT Probably either making, or down horribly

3 If 3D is agreed as forcing, then 4D. Otherwise, including no agreement, pass

Dave Flower

[Adam Beneschan]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:23:42 AM UTC-7, mirceak wrote:
> On May 13, 5:55 am, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matchpoints:
> >
> > 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> > your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> > 3S on your right.  Your call?

> 1. 3S is probably forcing, showing a strong hand. Your partner holds 0
> pts. or so. Pass

Doesn't this kind of bid get psyched a lot? (On the other hand, if it's a psych, they'll probably settle at 4D so I'll have another chance to bid 4H anyway.)

-- Adam

[vsp...@hotmail.com]

1. Shocking. It's rare. I'm bidding more than
the other responders to this thread. 4H. What
to do after 4S is less clear.

2. 4S. And yes I would have rebid 2S also.

3. (neither)? I'm used to (both, N-S, E-W, and none)
for vulnerability. 4C. Mostly it is just a guessing
game. I have no idea if 3D promises 4+ or 5+ diamonds.

[Thomas Dehn]

On 05/13/2012 04:55 AM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
> Matchpoints:
>
> 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10. You like
> your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> 3S on your right. Your call?

You need to evaluate opponents here. How likely are they
to have good hands for bidding like that at favorable.

If you think they are trying to push you around, bid 4H.
If you think they are serious even at this vulnerability, pass.

> 2. You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3. You open 1D
> (Precision, but promises 3+.) Partner responds 1S. Partner rebids 2H
> (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid. You now bid 2S.
> Partner bids 2NT. Your call?

Obviously you bid game here. You are vulnerable, this is IMPs,
and your hand is ok.

I think that D suit much more useful in 3NT than in 4S,
and I already gave preference to spades. I thus don't like the
unilateral 4S suggested by other posters. For me, this is
a choice between 3C and 3NT.


Thomas

[Will in New Haven]

On May 12, 10:55 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matchpoints:
>
> 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> 3S on your right.  Your call?

4H unless RHO is an unimaginative putz whom I trust completely. In
that case, I pass.

>
> 2.  You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3.  You open 1D
> (Precision, but promises 3+.)  Partner responds 1S.  Partner rebids 2H
> (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid.  You now bid 2S.
> Partner bids 2NT.  Your call?

3NT.

>
> 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?

4D, wtp

--
Will in New Haven

[OldPalooka]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:55:32 PM UTC-7, Chris xxxxx wrote:

1. Depends on the opponent. I might psych 3S 10%, and your hand suggests this might be one of those times. But given those circumstances I imagine it is about 4 to 1 in favor of passing.

2. 3C is a lovely bid. It implies that 3NT is ok with you but you cannot quite scrape it up on your own. Too bad you were not dealt the hand to bid it [although close]. I guess 3D, but it is very close to 3NT on the basis that if it makes 2NT it will likely make 3, and if not it will fail in 3D also. Since my expectation is already low, I hope to maximize it by cashing in rarely on a miracle.

3. I would have restrained myself the round before unless 3C was defined as preemptive (dubious over 10-12). I am inclined to pass unless 3D is forcing, in which case I will raise.

[Chris xxxxx]

On May 15, 10:14 am, Will in New Haven

<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 10:55 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Matchpoints:
>
> > 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> > your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> > 3S on your right.  Your call?
>
> 4H unless RHO is an unimaginative putz whom I trust completely. In
> that case, I pass.

I used to feel the same way. I think pass is the "normal" call, and I
don't blame partner for passing. But we were cold for 6H (though I'd
only want to be in 5) on the lie, even though RHO had his bid.
(AQJxxx Q KQx Kxx.)

Maybe LHO is the one you have to watch out for here....If RHO bid on a
joke, it's a forcing joke, and at least you get another call...a
chance to bid 4H over 4D, or maybe to risk an X of 4S.

Unfortunately for us, LHO had the joke....and decided his hand was bad
enough to pass a forcing 3S bid. (Of course, he may have been
influenced by table feel and not just by his wretched 3D opening.)
There are more reasons to pass quickly that just the possibility of
passing UI to partner...you may pass AI to the opponents.

>
> > 2.  You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3.  You open 1D
> > (Precision, but promises 3+.)  Partner responds 1S.  Partner rebids 2H
> > (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid.  You now bid 2S.
> > Partner bids 2NT.  Your call?
>
> 3NT.

In retrospect, that's clearly the right call.

I wimped out at matchpoints, figuring partner likely had only x in
diamonds, and bid 3S, hoping partner might go on, but partner's range
is probably already narrowly enough defined that there's no chance of
that.

Pulling a non-forcing 2NT to 3M late in an auction is one of those
ticklish subjects...sometimes it's clear that it's a forcing choice of
games; sometimes it's clear that it's non-forcing but forward-going;
and sometimes it's just "let's play 3M". I think that the panel here
is right to think that 3S will end this auction 90% of the time, and I
was engaged in wishful thinking at the table.

>
> > 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> > a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> > bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?
>
> 4D, wtp

What would you think of a player who rebid 4C after her partner
alerted 3C and explained it as showing diamonds?

Christopher Monsour

[Thomas Dehn]

It is somebody who has yet to learn that avoiding using
the UI gives him a chance, whereas when he intentionally
uses the UI, he guarantees his side a bad result
(once the TD is called and assigns the worst result
that was at all probable had the irregularity
not occurred).


Thomas

[rhm]

On May 13, 4:55 am, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matchpoints:
>

> 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> 3S on your right.  Your call?
>

It does not pay to assume that an opponent has psyched unless there is
more evidence.
Pass for the moment, the bidding is forcing.

> 2.  You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3.  You open 1D
> (Precision, but promises 3+.)  Partner responds 1S.  Partner rebids 2H
> (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid.  You now bid 2S.
> Partner bids 2NT.  Your call?
>

With an expert partner bid 3D, telling him that diamonds can play
opposite a void.
From this sequence partner should infer that you have 3 card spade
support, else why did you not bid 3D over 2H.
If Partner has no diamond void and quick tricks he can correct to
3NT.
He can also correct to spades if he has a reasonable hand for a spade
contract, but my guess is there is too much duplication in diamonds
for game in spades.

> 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?
>

In any reasonable partnership 3D must be forcing.
I would bid 3H. You can hardly have a heart suit, but if partner is
not on the same wavelength you can always correct to diamonds should
partner raise.
The alternative is to splinter with 4S, but your values are a bit thin
for this approach, but it could hit the jackpot.

Rainer Herrmann

[Eric Leong]

On May 12, 7:55 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matchpoints:
>
> 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> 3S on your right.  Your call?
>

I would chance 4H especially at pairs. With a hand with six controls
and unfavorable vul it is less likely that RHO has serious intent.

> 2.  You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3.  You open 1D
> (Precision, but promises 3+.)  Partner responds 1S.  Partner rebids 2H
> (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid.  You now bid 2S.
> Partner bids 2NT.  Your call?

I would bid 3NT automatically. I would expect diamonds to run and the
club queen is the unbid suit is a good asset. On the expected club
lead the club queen may well win a trick.

>
> 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?

I would not have bid 3C in the first place. Over a 10-12 opening
notrump, the main goal is to get to your games after being preempted
with the 1NT opening. I play 3C as showing a good hand and not a
constructive preempt. Over 3D, I would pray and raise to 4D on the
strength of my diamond supports, stiff spade, and the fact the clubs
are headed by the ace which opposite say a stiff club provides some
hope of setting up the club suit.

Eric Leong

>
> Christopher Monsour

[Will in New Haven]

On May 15, 9:31 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 10:14 am, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:55 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Matchpoints:
>
> > > 1. You are 4th seat unfavorable holding K52 KJ10752 A4 A10.  You like
> > > your hand, perhaps, but it goes 3D on your left, pass by partner, and
> > > 3S on your right.  Your call?
>
> > 4H unless RHO is an unimaginative putz whom I trust completely. In
> > that case, I pass.
>
> I used to feel the same way.  I think pass is the "normal" call, and I
> don't blame partner for passing.  But we were cold for 6H (though I'd
> only want to be in 5) on the lie, even though RHO had his bid.
> (AQJxxx Q KQx Kxx.)
>
> Maybe LHO is the one you have to watch out for here....If RHO bid on a
> joke, it's a forcing joke, and at least you get another call...a
> chance to bid 4H over 4D, or maybe to risk an X of 4S.
>
> Unfortunately for us, LHO had the joke....and decided his hand was bad
> enough to pass a forcing 3S bid.  (Of course, he may have been
> influenced by table feel and not just by his wretched 3D opening.)
> There are more reasons to pass quickly that just the possibility of
> passing UI to partner...you may pass AI to the opponents.

That's interesting because "LHO had enough to open 3D" did not figure
into my decision not to pass over 3S. RHO honestly HAD the bid and we
still own the hand.

>
> > > 2.  You are 2nd seat unfavorable with J64 98 AKQ1096 Q3.  You open 1D
> > > (Precision, but promises 3+.)  Partner responds 1S.  Partner rebids 2H
> > > (NF constructive/invitational) over your 2D rebid.  You now bid 2S.
> > > Partner bids 2NT.  Your call?
>
> > 3NT.
>
> In retrospect, that's clearly the right call.
>
> I wimped out at matchpoints, figuring partner likely had only x in
> diamonds, and bid 3S, hoping partner might go on, but partner's range
> is probably already narrowly enough defined that there's no chance of
> that.
>
> Pulling a non-forcing 2NT to 3M late in an auction is one of those
> ticklish subjects...sometimes it's clear that it's a forcing choice of
> games; sometimes it's clear that it's non-forcing but forward-going;
> and sometimes it's just "let's play 3M".  I think that the panel here
> is right to think that 3S will end this auction 90% of the time, and I
> was engaged in wishful thinking at the table.
>
>
>
> > > 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> > > a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> > > bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?
>
> > 4D, wtp
>
> What would you think of a player who rebid 4C after her partner
> alerted 3C and explained it as showing diamonds?

I would put her in prison. Cheat is an ugly word but what else can one
call it?

[derek]

On May 16, 1:52 pm, Will in New Haven

Not cheating. She bid 3C - intending it as natural - he alerted it as
diamonds. She "can't hear" the alert. He bids diamonds, she is fully
entitled to bid 4C. Now, HE has to take an action consistent with her
having diamonds and a reason to bid 4C, along with any other
implications of the 3C-showing-diamonds bid. One would imagine that
whatever the system, 4C was probably a forcing bid.

If 3C really does show diamonds in their system, then she's entitled
to misbid (and not take inferences from his alert - so she must assume
_he_ has diamonds). If it doesn't, she's still allowed to bid as she
would if he hadn't alerted - surely 3D is forcing, if 3C is natural,
so 4C - still natural - would be a proper rebid in any number of
systems.

[Thomas Dehn]

On 05/16/2012 07:40 PM, derek wrote:
> On May 16, 1:52 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 9:31 pm, Chris xxxxx<mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 3. Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753. RHO opens
>>>>> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
>>>>> bid 3C. Partner advances 3D. Your call?
>>
>>>> 4D, wtp
>>
>>> What would you think of a player who rebid 4C after her partner
>>> alerted 3C and explained it as showing diamonds?
>>
>> I would put her in prison. Cheat is an ugly word but what else can one
>> call it?
>
> Not cheating. She bid 3C - intending it as natural - he alerted it as
> diamonds. She "can't hear" the alert. He bids diamonds, she is fully
> entitled to bid 4C.

L73C:

"C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his
partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture,
mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an
unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid
taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Clearly raising partner's diamonds is a logical alternative here.

And also clearly bidding 4C is "demonstrably" suggested
over the various methods to raise diamonds by the UI.
So 4D is it. The hand is a little bit too weak for a 4S splinter.


Thomas

[derek]

On May 16, 3:10 pm, Thomas Dehn <thomas-use...@arcor.de> wrote:
> On 05/16/2012 07:40 PM, derek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 1:52 pm, Will in New Haven
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>  wrote:
> >> On May 15, 9:31 pm, Chris xxxxx<mc11001...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> 3.  Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753.  RHO opens
> >>>>> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
> >>>>> bid 3C.  Partner advances 3D.  Your call?
>
> >>>> 4D, wtp
>
> >>> What would you think of a player who rebid 4C after her partner
> >>> alerted 3C and explained it as showing diamonds?
>
> >> I would put her in prison. Cheat is an ugly word but what else can one
> >> call it?
>
> > Not cheating.  She bid 3C - intending it as natural - he alerted it as
> > diamonds.  She "can't hear" the alert.  He bids diamonds, she is fully
> > entitled to bid 4C.
>
> L73C:
>

Thank you. I was completely aware of that, as my response to Will
must have made clear. I just disagree with your application of it.

> Clearly raising partner's diamonds is a logical alternative here.

Whether raising diamonds is a logical alternative is irrelevant. You
are required NOT to choose a logical alternative suggested by the UI.
Not to _choose_ LAs counter-suggested by the UI.

> And also clearly bidding 4C is "demonstrably" suggested
> over the various methods to raise diamonds by the UI.
> So 4D is it.

I disagree that there's a "demonstrably" suggested - she has a seven
card suit! Given that she's already shown diamonds, the onus is on HER
partner, not her. As I mentioned in the part you snipped - I fully
expect 4C should be forcing in this sequence, so you can't be stopping
below 4D anyway. In any case, we don't actually know their agreements
(which I also mentioned). You can hardly expect her to pretend she
really has diamonds if her partner's alert was wrong!

> The hand is a little bit too weak for a 4S splinter.

This hand is a LOT too weak to splinter over 3D, even if you don't
require (as many would) four card support for a splinter.

[Thomas Dehn]

On 05/16/2012 09:52 PM, derek wrote:
> On May 16, 3:10 pm, Thomas Dehn<thomas-use...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 05/16/2012 07:40 PM, derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 16, 1:52 pm, Will in New Haven
>>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 15, 9:31 pm, Chris xxxxx<mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 3. Second to speak, neither, you hold 10 Q9 K73 A1098753. RHO opens
>>>>>>> a 10-12 NT, and, with no way to show a club suit at the two-level, you
>>>>>>> bid 3C. Partner advances 3D. Your call?
>>
>>>>>> 4D, wtp
>>
>>>>> What would you think of a player who rebid 4C after her partner
>>>>> alerted 3C and explained it as showing diamonds?
>>
>>>> I would put her in prison. Cheat is an ugly word but what else can one
>>>> call it?
>>
>>> Not cheating. She bid 3C - intending it as natural - he alerted it as
>>> diamonds. She "can't hear" the alert. He bids diamonds, she is fully
>>> entitled to bid 4C.
>>
>> L73C:
>>
> Thank you. I was completely aware of that, as my response to Will
> must have made clear. I just disagree with your application of it.
>
>> Clearly raising partner's diamonds is a logical alternative here.
>
> Whether raising diamonds is a logical alternative is irrelevant. You
> are required NOT to choose a logical alternative suggested by the UI.
> Not to _choose_ LAs counter-suggested by the UI.

The UI demonstrably suggests bidding 4C. Partner forgot that 3C shows
clubs here, and 4C might make partner wake up.

>> And also clearly bidding 4C is "demonstrably" suggested
>> over the various methods to raise diamonds by the UI.
>> So 4D is it.
>
> I disagree that there's a "demonstrably" suggested - she has a seven
> card suit! Given that she's already shown diamonds, the onus is on HER
> partner, not her. As I mentioned in the part you snipped - I fully
> expect 4C should be forcing in this sequence, so you can't be stopping
> below 4D anyway. In any case, we don't actually know their agreements
> (which I also mentioned). You can hardly expect her to pretend she
> really has diamonds if her partner's alert was wrong!

This player has bid 3C, intending to show clubs.
Now partner has alerted 3C as showing diamonds.
That unexpected alert is UI.
It is UI that partner thinks that you have diamonds.
It is UI that partner is not aware that you
already showed a one-suiter in clubs.
Partner bid 3D, showing diamonds over the natural 3C bid.
It is UI that partner does not have diamonds.
The player has three card support for partner's diamonds,
and now must show that support. This is an excellent hand
opposite Axx,x,Axxxxxx,Kx partner might
have if partner actually has a 3D bid.

Yes, raising diamonds will likely lead to a bad score.
That happens when you or your partner
forget your system.


Thomas

[Will in New Haven]

It would take some systemic quirk to justify not raising Diamonds at
this point. Surely she has shown Clubs about this good, probably
better, and about this long. She has KXX in partner's suit.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:52:17 PM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> On May 16, 3:10 pm, Thomas Dehn <thomas-use...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > On 05/16/2012 07:40 PM, derek wrote:

> > Clearly raising partner's diamonds is a logical alternative here.
>
> Whether raising diamonds is a logical alternative is irrelevant. You
> are required NOT to choose a logical alternative suggested by the UI.
> Not to _choose_ LAs counter-suggested by the UI.

I don't think this makes sense, logically. If you have two choices, A and B, you have to choose one of them; you can't abstain. If both A and B are logical alternatives, and the UI suggests that A would work better than B, then A is suggested by the UI *and* B is counter-suggested by the UI. So saying that you are not allowed to choose something suggested by the UI is the same, I think, as saying that you must choose an alternative that is counter-suggested by it, as long as both are logical alternatives.

In this case, it's clear from the UI that 4C is likely to work better than 4D. To me, that's what "demonstrably suggested" means.

> > And also clearly bidding 4C is "demonstrably" suggested
> > over the various methods to raise diamonds by the UI.
> > So 4D is it.
>
> I disagree that there's a "demonstrably" suggested - she has a seven
> card suit!

If partner had said 3C was natural but then bid 3D, then it wouldn't be clear whether 4C or 4D is a better bid, since the bidder has a 7-card suit. But that's not the right criterion. The question isn't whether 4D would be a better bid if there were no misunderstanding. The question is whether the bidder can tell, *from* *the* *UI* that there *was* a misunderstanding, that 4C will work better.

I think that about 80-90% of the time, when one player has the UI that there has been a misunderstanding, it's correct to bid as if you had not heard your partner's alert or failure to alert or misexplanation or whatever. This case seems to fall into the other 10-20% where you do have to "bend over backward" to avoid taking advantage of UI.

-- Adam

[derek]

If it wakes partner up that's partner's problem.

> This player has bid 3C, intending to show clubs.
> Now partner has alerted 3C as showing diamonds.
> That unexpected alert is UI.

Absolutely.

> It is UI that partner thinks that you have diamonds.

Absolutely.

> It is UI that partner is not aware that you
> already showed a one-suiter in clubs.

You don't even know that's what _she_ thinks the bid is.

> Partner bid 3D, showing diamonds over the natural 3C bid.
> It is UI that partner does not have diamonds.

Absolutely.

> The player has three card support for partner's diamonds,
> and now must show that support. This is an excellent hand
> opposite Axx,x,Axxxxxx,Kx partner might
> have if partner actually has a 3D bid.

phhht. With a 7 card suit, I am _never_ going to insist you bid at
the four level to show a fit in minor suit.

> Yes, raising diamonds will likely lead to a bad score.
> That happens when you or your partner
> forget your system.

And as I've already said - this pair can't get out in less than 4D,
anyway, so the score is not the issue.

[blackshoe]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:24:55 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:

> And as I've already said - this pair can't get out in less than 4D,
> anyway, so the score is not the issue.

The issue is whether there are logical alternatives to 4C, whether 4C is suggested over the alternatives by the UI, whether the 3C bidder *bid* 4C over 3D, and whether the opponents were damaged thereby. That last bit means "whether the opponents got a worse score than they would have obtained had the bid not been 4C. If the diamond bidder bids 4D over 4C, and the argument is that the 4C bidder should bid 4D himself, then there's no damage (assuming the 3D bidder wouldn't bid 5D over 4D).

A more interesting question is what the ruling might be if 3C bidder *passes* 3D and they get a good score. Yeah, I know. 3D is forcing. So?

[Thomas Dehn]

That should end up in a hefty PP for flagrant use of UI,
in addition to an adjusted score.


Thomas

[blackshoe]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:43:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> That should end up in a hefty PP for flagrant use of UI,
> in addition to an adjusted score.

Should it? *Is* it "flagrant use of UI"? The UI is that the diamond bidder thinks the club bidder actually has diamonds. How then does the UI demonstrably suggest passing in what could be a 3-3 fit?

[Thomas Dehn]

On 05/17/2012 08:05 AM, blackshoe wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:43:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> That should end up in a hefty PP for flagrant use of UI,
>> in addition to an adjusted score.
>
> Should it? *Is* it "flagrant use of UI"?

Would anybody even consider passing a forcing 3D bid absent the UI?

> The UI is that the diamond bidder thinks the club bidder actually has diamonds.
> How then does the UI demonstrably suggest passing in what could be a 3-3 fit?

3D undoubled is cheaper than 4D doubled or
5D doubled, which are possible when overcaller raises diamonds.


Thomas

[blackshoe]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:23:08 AM UTC-4, Thomas Dehn wrote:

> Would anybody even consider passing a forcing 3D bid absent the UI?

Some of my partners do some pretty bizarre things at the bridge table. :-)

There was an expert who, playing Precision, opened 1C, which is of course forcing. His expert partner had long clubs and no points. He passed. They missed a game.

> > The UI is that the diamond bidder thinks the club bidder actually has diamonds.
> > How then does the UI demonstrably suggest passing in what could be a 3-3 fit?
>
> 3D undoubled is cheaper than 4D doubled or
> 5D doubled, which are possible when overcaller raises diamonds.

Hm. Okay, fair enough.

[derek]

If you're lucky - there's no guarantee the 3D bidder has any diamonds.

This time I agree with Thomas.

The diamond bidder thinks the club bidder has diamonds, and the club
bidder is _required_ to think the diamond bidder has diamonds, so
playing in diamonds (if you can't find NT) certainly seems properI -
but it's a gamble that stopping in 3D is better than trying to get out
in some number of clubs, and possibly finding yourself even higher in
a bad fit. I agree that it's difficult to be sure its "demonstrably
suggested", but if you polled the bidders peers what you should do
with that hand after it goes:
(1N!) 3C (P) 3D
I doubt many would suggest pass.

[Will in New Haven]

Could be in a 3-3 fit is optimistic. Partner isn't showing a Diamond
fit as much as he is accepting a transfer of sorts. Passing is not
suggested by the UI. It would be attempted suicide and the opponents
would be unlucky if they got a bad result.

4C IS suggested by the UI. 6.25 of those Clubs, and usually beter
ones, have been shown. 4D, without any black magic show of reluctance
is the bid that will keep that player out of prison.

[Adam Beneschan]

I think one could make a case. The UI suggests that the partnership is off the rails; with one partner thinking he has one suit, and the other partner thinking they're heading toward another suit, overcaller could predict that the auction is going to get way too high, doubled, before either of them is able to stop. Given that, it makes sense to pass even in a bad fit to cut the losses. But this logic only makes sense if you're taking advantage of the UI. I think that's what Thomas is thinking: the only logical reason one would pass here is that they know from the UI that a train wreck is about to happen (although one could come up with illogical reasons such as being distracted by an attractive young female player in a miniskirt---no, wait, this is the ACBL...).

-- Adam

-- Adam

[Will in New Haven]

And that happened in the ACBL. It was 1968 but it was the ACBL.

[OldPalooka]

If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit. If reasonable, then it is not flagrant use of UI, it is selecting a suggested alternative and the contract should be adjusted. Since Pass was my choice without UI, and I think that 4D is distinctly inferior unless forced, I would cry murder if assessed a penalty, and appeal if the contract was adjusted.

[Thomas Dehn]

On 05/17/2012 08:44 PM, OldPalooka wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:43:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 05/17/2012 03:58 AM, blackshoe wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:24:55 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> And as I've already said - this pair can't get out in less than 4D,
>>>> anyway, so the score is not the issue.
>>>
>>> The issue is whether there are logical alternatives to 4C, whether 4C is suggested over the alternatives by the UI, whether the 3C bidder *bid* 4C over 3D, and whether the opponents were damaged thereby. That last bit means "whether the opponents got a worse score than they would have obtained had the bid not been 4C. If the diamond bidder bids 4D over 4C, and the argument is that the 4C bidder should bid 4D himself, then there's no damage (assuming the 3D bidder wouldn't bid 5D over 4D).
>>>
>>> A more interesting question is what the ruling might be if 3C bidder
>>> *passes* 3D and they get a good score. Yeah, I know. 3D is forcing. So?
>>
>> That should end up in a hefty PP for flagrant use of UI,
>> in addition to an adjusted score.
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>
> If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context
> that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit.

Under the conditions discussed here, 3D was assumed to be forcing.

Look a couple of lines above, it is still there.


Thomas

[Adam Beneschan]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:44:03 AM UTC-7, OldPalooka wrote:


> If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit.

Everyone else seems to have assumed it was forcing, and I went along with this because the notrump opening was 10-12 and partner was unpassed. Over an opposing mini-notrump, I believe that your side needs tools that will let you get to your games despite the opening--i.e. you're not just competing. So it makes sense to me that 3D should be forcing. Over a 15-17 notrump opening, it would make more sense for 3D to be nonforcing.

If 3D really is nonforcing, that changes things--now pass should be legal since it's not the alternative suggested by the UI (since the UI suggests that partner doesn't really have diamonds). If this is undiscussed and you're not clear on whether 3D is forcing or not, then I don't know. That would be a more difficult situation for the director to sort out.

-- Adam

[Will in New Haven]

On May 17, 2:44 pm, OldPalooka <ashut...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:43:52 PM UTC-7, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> > On 05/17/2012 03:58 AM, blackshoe wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:24:55 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:
>
> > >> And as I've already said - this pair can't get out in less than 4D,
> > >> anyway, so the score is not the issue.
>
> > > The issue is whether there are logical alternatives to 4C, whether 4C is suggested over the alternatives by the UI, whether the 3C bidder *bid* 4C over 3D, and whether the opponents were damaged thereby. That last bit means "whether the opponents got a worse score than they would have obtained had the bid not been 4C. If the diamond bidder bids 4D over 4C, and the argument is that the 4C bidder should bid 4D himself, then there's no damage (assuming the 3D bidder wouldn't bid 5D over 4D).
>
> > > A more interesting question is what the ruling might be if 3C bidder
> > > *passes* 3D and they get a good score. Yeah, I know. 3D is forcing. So?
>
> > That should end up in a hefty PP for flagrant use of UI,
> > in addition to an adjusted score.
>
> > Thomas
>
> If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit.

There is a logical flaw here that a truck will fit through. The person
who bid 3C thought it was a proper bid and also knew that the 3D bid
was forcing. This isn't a case of your being asked to sit down at the
table and live with having made a 3C bid that isn't to your taste. The
person who bid 3C MEANT it.

--
Will in New Haven

[Adam Beneschan]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:45:05 PM UTC-7, Will in New Haven wrote:

> >
> > If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit.

> There is a logical flaw here that a truck will fit through. The person
> who bid 3C thought it was a proper bid and also knew that the 3D bid
> was forcing.

Wait a minute--how do we know the person thought 3D was forcing? Chris has two posts on this thread, and neither one provided any evidence about what the player thought.

-- Adam

[Will in New Haven]

On May 17, 5:19 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:45:05 PM UTC-7, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > > If this is a proper 3C bid in your judgment, there is no way in a natural context that 3D can logically be forcing and Pass is indicated despite the good fit.
> > There is a logical flaw here that a truck will fit through. The person
> > who bid 3C thought it was a proper bid and also knew that the 3D bid
> > was forcing.
>
> Wait a minute--how do we know the person thought 3D was forcing?  Chris has two posts on this thread, and neither one provided any evidence about what the player thought.

I was assuming facts not in evidence. I suppose someone might play the
3C bid as some kind of preempt, because getting to games when the
opponents open a mini-NT isn't all that important, and might play a
new suit by an unpassed hand at the three level isn't forcing. This,
of course, is quite a strong hand for a go-as-you please preempt,
especially in support of Diamonds, but passing would be an LA if
partner's bid isn't forcing. Just a bad one.

[OldPalooka]

I suppose that I should reiterate 3C as a constructive action bears little resemblance to bridge. Hence no further action can be expected to resemble bridge. But if 3C was intended to be a 'normal' constructive overcall, then bidding on over a NF 3D seems a tad optimistic despite the nice fit, yet it is not overly optimistic to believe the opponents will sell. I imagine we are in for a good result for finding the good strain and not defending 3M (if they pass it out) without overstating again my values.

[Will in New Haven]

I don't think a director or a committee should reason that the player
thinks himself an idiot for bidding 3C. If 3C was intended to be
constructive, then 3D is _forcing_ In any situation where the
opponents have opened a mini, doubtful actions are generally
constructive and new suits are forcing.

You think the 3C bid was bad, which it was. What evidence do we have
that the bidder thought the bid was bad? What could partner have bid
with AQXXXX in Diamonds KX in Clubs and some controls in the Majors?
That would have to enter into ones thoughts if the UI didn't exist.

[Thomas Dehn]

In the OP's posting, 3C is described
as the only way to show a C one-suiter over the mini NT.

Regardless of what strength exactly 3C shows,
I see no point whatsoever in
playing 3D as non-forcing and diamonds. Overcaller has at least
six good clubs, and quite possibly seven clubs. Trying to stop on a dime
in 3D when there is no indication of overcaller having anything
in D is simply not a sensible agreement, as holding seven diamonds
and a C stiff opposite the long clubs isn't that likely.



Thomas

[OldPalooka]

Don't you think there is a fallacy in believing that a pair that produces 3C would

It was not that many years ago, no doubt because partners made 'just an overcall' bids, that 90% of the world would have played 3D not forcing. In 50 years of playing I have never felt a big edge over playing a new suit forcing or not, except specifically to play lead directors after our pjo. At matchpoints especially there is no great advantage to forcing advances, because having one in response to a pjo is not that likely either.

Since the expert world played new suit advances as not forcing for a very long time, it is obvious that there is no huge advantage to forcing advances. Maybe it is unlikely to be useful to bid a NF 3D, but when dealt the hand I want to be able to bid it. It is not as though hands with diamonds also good enough to force opposite this collection grow on trees either.

I am roflmao at this tangent. Laughing at the notion that the pair who produced this situation would know or care whether 3D was forcing. Laughing at all the assumptions making up our answers. I can argue effectively for a pass or a splinter depending on what our partnership thinks 3C and 3D mean. So I am laughing that anyone would spend a lot of energy arguing one way or another.

[Will in New Haven]

Why would you think 3C preemptive? It was not possible to bid 2C,
natural, over a mini NT because of their methods and constructive bids
must be more important than preemption over a mini. While it says
nothing about 3D being forcing in the original post, it also doesn't
say 3C is preemptive.

[OldPalooka]

I don't know what 3C was intended to be and probably neither did the person who bid it except it served as boredom relief.

If intended as preemptive and 3D forcing, 4S.

If intended as preemptive and 3D NF constructive, 4D; but Pass is a favorite to win almost as many long run matchpoints and may be indicated by feel.

If intended as constructive and 3D intended as forcing, 4D; but passing 3D without UI rates to do well facing an aggressive partner who was dealt a good suit of diamonds or one who does not go nuts in response to your own insanity.

If intended as constructive and 3D NF, or no agreement, or intended as a correction of contract, Pass.