2♠ was alerted as weak with 5♠ and 4+ in a minor. N-S's agreement is semiforcing 2♠ (five losers). 2NT asked about the minor denying spade fit. North's 4♠ obviously woke South up. What do you rule?
Wrong Alert And UI
#1
Posted 2010-December-28, 15:44
2♠ was alerted as weak with 5♠ and 4+ in a minor. N-S's agreement is semiforcing 2♠ (five losers). 2NT asked about the minor denying spade fit. North's 4♠ obviously woke South up. What do you rule?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#2
Posted 2010-December-28, 15:51
North, on the other hand, has UI from South's alert and explanation. What does 2NT mean in response to their 2♠ opening? Unless 4♠ is the appropriate rebid according to their agreement, I would probably rule that he based his deviation from their system on the mistaken explanation.
#3
Posted 2010-December-28, 17:43
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#4
Posted 2010-December-29, 11:58
RMB1, on 2010-December-28, 17:43, said:
To some extent, it is also quite likely 4♠ is solid suit, in which case it's the normal rebid. It's common to limit this sort of 2♠ to exactly 8 tricks, so this hand is maximum.
Also what is 2N to a semi forcing 2♠, some people will play pass double negative, 3♣ single negative, 2N=♣ positive or possibly balanced positive. If 2N is either of these then 4♠ is a perfectly reasonable and indeed normal bid with basically the hand being the spade suit. If 2N is the single negative, then how many tricks do you think you have in defence ? 4♠ is still not unreasonable, but could be argued about.
What 2N means opposite the major/minor type hand is irrelevant, that is not the agreement they have, what's key is what it should mean opposite the semi forcing version.
#5
Posted 2010-December-29, 12:26
Cyberyeti, on 2010-December-29, 11:58, said:
The meaning of the responses to 2NT opposite a major/minor type hand are relevant if we want to establish the outcome(s) of an auction when we rule than North must respond below 4♠, because that is the system that South thinks he is playing.
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#6
Posted 2010-December-29, 16:06
RMB1, on 2010-December-29, 12:26, said:
Sorry, I don't get this at all. Why should North be forced to respond below 4♠ ? his partner has responded 2N to what N believes is a semi forcing 2♠ but his pard has given an explanation that indicates he's expecting a different hand.
N is playing a semi forcing 2♠ (which is their agreement) and in law hasn't heard his partner's explanation that it means something else, but has heard the 2N response to the semi forcing 2♠.
So surely all that matters to N is what the 2N response means in response to the semi forcing 2♠, but there are several explanations that would make 4♠ the only sensible bid.
What 4♠ means when it comes back to S is another question (does partner have a weak 7-5 or something), but unless there was body language, I don't believe S has any UI and can do what he likes.
#7
Posted 2010-December-29, 17:17
btw, did 6♠ make?
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#8
Posted 2010-December-29, 17:26
mrdct, on 2010-December-29, 17:17, said:
Not necessarily, if you think North is bidding 3S or 3N; most people around here would have some range-ask element to the 2NT, so that 3S might show an upper range hand with diamonds, for example.
We seem to need to know both their agreement about their continuations to the 2N bid, and the agreements that South thought existed (from playing the Lucas 2S previously, or in a different partnership?)
#9
Posted 2010-December-29, 19:34
Cyberyeti, on 2010-December-29, 16:06, said:
Absolutely, and if N/S are playing an agreement which makes 4♠ the only sensible bid we are done. If they are not, though, and North has a logical alternative which is less likely to wake South up then bidding 4♠ is a breach of 16B; in order to determine the likely result without the infraction we then need to know how South would have interpreted the alternative call.
#10
Posted 2010-December-30, 08:05
Having disallowed 4♠ we have to adjust, and now we see why the question of what South is likely to think 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠ means where 2♠ shows a weak hand with spades and a minor, and 2NT asks for the minor.
I play 2♠ something similar with some of my partners: we play 2♠ - 3♣ asking for the minor. So what would I think if one of them rebid 3♠? I would not know, but my first idea would be a weakish freak, with very good spades. With the actual South hand I would now probably pass. So an adjustment to 3♠ making however many has some validity.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2010-December-30, 10:58
bluejak, on 2010-December-30, 08:05, said:
Having disallowed 4♠ we have to adjust, and now we see why the question of what South is likely to think 2♠ - 2NT - 3♠ means where 2♠ shows a weak hand with spades and a minor, and 2NT asks for the minor.
I play 2♠ something similar with some of my partners: we play 2♠ - 3♣ asking for the minor. So what would I think if one of them rebid 3♠? I would not know, but my first idea would be a weakish freak, with very good spades. With the actual South hand I would now probably pass. So an adjustment to 3♠ making however many has some validity.
Yes, but do you play your strong 2s unconditionally forcing ?
If you don't, as appears to be the case with this pair, I'd suggest it's more normal to play them as precisely 8 tricks and to start with 2♣ with 9, so this hand would not necessarily be minimum, as certainly some pairs take a slightly rosy view of what constitutes 8 playing tricks, and this is a pretty much nailed on 8.
#12
Posted 2010-December-30, 14:53
Of course, if a 2NT response is game forcing, that's different, but no-one has suggested that, and the hand looks a minimum to me. Why would a minimum want to go to game, absent the UI?
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#13
Posted 2010-December-30, 18:53
bluejak, on 2010-December-30, 14:53, said:
Of course, if a 2NT response is game forcing, that's different, but no-one has suggested that, and the hand looks a minimum to me. Why would a minimum want to go to game, absent the UI?
A lot of people play herbert negatives, I think I do in the one occasional partnership in which I play strong NF 2Ms. This I don't think has been established in this thread anywhere.
And I might want to bid 4♠ opposite a random 4-7 (presuming you pass most 0-3 without a fit) for a couple of reasons. It might make, and I might have no defence to 4♥ or 5♣ or indeed both sides can make if partner has a lot of diamonds. Also partner can have the same hand with the side suits switched and have no idea whether to bid 4 over 3♠.
#14
Posted 2010-December-31, 08:05
I really do not believe the opponents are going to reach 4♥ or 5♣ after passing as dealer and twice subsequently.
Of course 4♠ might make if partner has the magic hand, but that is true on an awful lot of sequences, such as 1♠ pass 3♠ [limit]: with any opening bid there is always a hand opposite that will make game. But these excuses are reasonable to try to convince partner why you overbid: they are not an adequate excuse for making a bid suggested by UI.
I believe 4♠ was suggested over 3♠ by the UI, and none of these arguments really convince me in any way at all that 3♠ is not an LA. More interesting is what we do if we disallow 4♠.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#15
Posted 2010-December-31, 20:26
I must admit I didn't notice that the 2♠ bid was second in rather than first. Yes that pretty much eliminates the chances of the auction going 2♠-P-2N-P-3♠-P-P-X which was what I was visualising.
#16
Posted 2010-December-31, 21:15