[Cyberyeti]

---

Teams of 8.

4♠x= NS +790

The issue was that S thought that the 1N showed clubs, so 2♣ would not be natural. N didn't. There is no real agreement here. N has no UI, can do what he likes. If 2♣ was natural, would be a pretty big hand, 14+ unless it had alot of clubs, so the 2♠ bid is normal, S passing it isn't consistent with this, N now has a pretty good idea what's going on.

The only bid that I think can be questioned is the final 4♠. I wasn't sure what I should do here. If I pass 3N, partner knows what's going on from when I pass 2♠ and will lead a spade for 3N-2. Since both our EW pairs made 5♣, one of them doubled, we were scoring a huge board whether we get +100 or +790 (and the match was still 20-0) so there was no serious appeal.

Any thoughts ?

[Vampyr]

What was 1♣? Strong?

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-06, 20:25, said:

What was 1♣? Strong?

As indicated on the diagram, American style 2+ cards in a strong no trump 5 card majors context.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-06, 20:46, said:

As indicated on the diagram, American style 2+ cards in a strong no trump 5 card majors context.

Oh, I see, I didn't realise you could click on the yellow bids. Cool.

Anyway, I don't see how South's 2♣ can be natural when West has opened the suit naturally.

[nigel_k]

Did I miss something? You showed majors and partner could only bid 2♠. Surely you have a very obvious pass over 3NT.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-06, 20:06, said:

The issue was that S thought that the 1N showed clubs.

The assumption that East has clubs is reasonable, given that he could not offer a suit at the one-level (although he will often bid 1NT in preference to a poorish diamond suit" but it would be putting too fine a point on it to say that it "shows" clubs.

But 1♣ showed clubs, so it is mainly a matter of whether you and partner always play cue-bids as natural in the sandwich position. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from agreeing that 1♣-1NT is an exception.

[mycroft]

2C= extras, I can see. but T/O? Really? opposite a hand that has explicitly (in the context of my hand) denied an 8-card fit outside of clubs? Takeout of what?

Not that that is at all relevant to the ruling. But as East, I'd be expecting (43)=4=2 for this call, if it really is takeout. And I do think that if it is explicitly takeout (and not just "extras"), that that is the prime reason why 5C was missed.

One question about the system (which you may not be able to answer, not being that pair): is "American style" 2+ traditional "Majors 5, Diamonds 4" or is it "clubs or balanced" (in which case hands like (43)=4=2 are opened 1C)? Again, that makes a difference as to whether 2C might be natural.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-February-07, 10:50, said:

is "American style" 2+ traditional "Majors 5, Diamonds 4" ... Again, that makes a difference as to whether 2C might be natural.

Well, what makes a difference is what the opponents' agreements are.

I have never played a different defense to 1♣ that promises 2 and 1♣ that promises 4, because in the former case they are more likely to have 5 than 2.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 11:17, said:

Well, what makes a difference is what the opponents' agreements are.

I have never played a different defense to 1♣ that promises 2 and 1♣ that promises 4, because in the former case they are more likely to have 5 than 2.

You may not, but we do, although the difference doesn't apply here. The concession we make is that if you pass over 1♣ then bid clubs, it's natural.

[Cyberyeti]

nigel_k, on 2011-February-06, 23:55, said:

Did I miss something? You showed majors and partner could only bid 2♠. Surely you have a very obvious pass over 3NT.

Not sure you did, which is part of the reason I asked the question. When questions were raised, nobody looked at this bid, although there were spurious things raised about many of the others. I only thought about this afterwards. I looked at it that partner probably held some clubs (given the ToX), so could have passed 2♣X, so he had real spades, and any honours he held looked well placed over the opener. I was visualising something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx which will play rather well in spades, but may not beat 3N.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-07, 12:51, said:

Not sure you did, which is part of the reason I asked the question. When questions were raised, nobody looked at this bid, although there were spurious things raised about many of the others. I only thought about this afterwards. I looked at it that partner probably held some clubs (given the ToX), so could have passed 2♣X, so he had real spades, and any honours he held looked well placed over the opener. I was visualising something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx which will play rather well in spades, but may not beat 3N.

Did West or East ask about the 2♣ bid? Do E/W really play double as take-out over a "no agreement" 2♣ bid here?

If South thinks he has shown both majors, wouldn't North work out himself that "something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx will play rather well in spades" and, perhaps, jump to 3♠ or even 4♠ on such a hand? From South's point of view, North's expected spade length over an unalerted 2♣ bid is higher than over an alerted 2♣ bid. Therefore, the 4♠is demonstrably suggested by the UI. As Pass is surely a logical altenative, I would "disallow" the 4♠ bid.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2011-February-07, 14:01, said:

Did West or East ask about the 2♣ bid? Do E/W really play double as take-out over a "no agreement" 2♣ bid here?

If South thinks he has shown both majors, wouldn't North work out himself that "something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx will play rather well in spades" and, perhaps, jump to 3♠ or even 4♠ on such a hand? From South's point of view, North's expected spade length over an unalerted 2♣ bid is higher than over an alerted 2♣ bid. Therefore, the 4♠is demonstrably suggested by the UI. As Pass is surely a logical altenative, I would "disallow" the 4♠ bid.

Partner might well not jump to 3 or 4 spades with that red v green, but otherwise I agree with you.

EW didn't ask at that stage, so made a T/O double over an assumed natural 2♣ as it wasn't alerted.

Waters were even murkier in that we play a 2♣ overcall over 1♣ as ♦/♠ and a 3♣ overcall as ♠/♥, so it's not clear they'd have got the right info even if partner recognised it as a 2 suiter. I just didn't want to go to the 3 level at that vul, and reckoned pulling ♦ to ♥ couldn't be misunderstood as partner probably wan't bidding a lot of ♦.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-06, 20:06, said:

The issue was that S thought that the 1N showed clubs, so 2♣ would not be natural. N didn't. There is no real agreement here. N has no UI, can do what he likes. If 2♣ was natural, would be a pretty big hand, 14+ unless it had alot of clubs, so the 2♠ bid is normal, S passing it isn't consistent with this, N now has a pretty good idea what's going on.

If your partner (North) leads a spade against 3NT, isn't that likely to let the contract through? East will presumably exercise his option under Law 50D2[a] and you may well choose a heart rather than a diamond. Now he has the tempo to knock out ♣A and come to 9 tricks.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-07, 14:53, said:

Partner might well not jump to 3 or 4 spades with that red v green, but otherwise I agree with you.

Many players would expect an intervention to show a better hand at red vs green than at other vulnerabilities. However, it seems that your partner is obviously familiar with your personal style of bidding!

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-07, 14:53, said:

EW didn't ask at that stage, so made a T/O double over an assumed natural 2♣ as it wasn't alerted.

I think you are being naive if you draw such inferences from your opponents' failure to alert doubles, particularly when the meaning you infer is an unusual one.

In fact, even if you knew the opponents to be avid readers of the EBU Orange Book, I'm not sure that you are even technically correct:

EBU Orange Book said:

5 E 2 Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:
(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
[b] Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney minor openings.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
[c] No trump bids.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.
(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable
otherwise.

As there is no agreement about the 2♣ bid showing clubs, I don't think that 2♣ "shows the suit bid" and hence (d) should apply; i.e. a double showing clubs is not alertable.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 11:17, said:

Well, what makes a difference is what the opponents' agreements are.

I have never played a different defense to 1♣ that promises 2 and 1♣ that promises 4, because in the former case they are more likely to have 5 than 2.

Sure, but that is just your opinion. Mine, for what it is worth, is that when someone opens with a call that does not show a suit, confusing interference has benefits. I play canapé overcalls over a short 1♣.

I am not suggesting others should follow my views, but for ruling purposes the fact that you play one way, and find it logical, does not matter: others will not.

[Cyberyeti]

Maybe I wasn't clear, the club holders didn't ask what 2♣ was, but assumed it was natural when we didn't alert it.

We DID ask what the X was (forget exactly when) and were told T/O.

OK, yes, I will lead the K♠, but if partner led a spade he'd do it face down, so it wouldn't be an issue

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 11:17, said:

Well, what makes a difference is what the opponents' agreements are.

I have never played a different defense to 1♣ that promises 2 and 1♣ that promises 4, because in the former case they are more likely to have 5 than 2.

But surely, as an avid reader of the OB, you know that you can play absolutely anything - something like suction for example, or anything completely destructive - against 1C that shows 2, compared with 1C which shows 3 or more, and at any level, other than simple system. Of particular value if partner has passed. Either/or weak jump overcalls are my favourite against a complete beginner having the misfortune to play 5-card majors and a four-card diamond suit.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-07, 14:01, said:

Did West or East ask about the 2♣ bid? Do E/W really play double as take-out over a "no agreement" 2♣ bid here?

If South thinks he has shown both majors, wouldn't North work out himself that "something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx will play rather well in spades" and, perhaps, jump to 3♠ or even 4♠ on such a hand? From South's point of view, North's expected spade length over an unalerted 2♣ bid is higher than over an alerted 2♣ bid. Therefore, the 4♠is demonstrably suggested by the UI. As Pass is surely a logical altenative, I would "disallow" the 4♠ bid.

I agree with this last - and might even impose a PP for the 4S bid, but there is also MI. The TD should assume there was a failure to alert 2C under 21B1b. It would be played as majors by most people, and that is what South has. Now you would need to poll people to see if they would get to 5C without the MI.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-February-08, 08:24, said:

I agree with this last - and might even impose a PP for the 4S bid, but there is also MI. The TD should assume there was a failure to alert 2C under 21B1b. It would be played as majors by most people, and that is what South has. Now you would need to poll people to see if they would get to 5C without the MI.

The failure to alert is not MI. What I didn't know is that the opps had actually only showed 3 or maybe 4 clubs between them, they bid 1N with even a bad 6 card diamond suit that they don't want to repeat and no 4M so could be 3361. I'm not sure whether 1N was alerted. Partner may have known this (he's more familiar with this sort of method than I am), I certainly didn't. If he did, then 2♣ could well have been natural. We were DEFINITELY in no agreement territory.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-08, 11:14, said:

We were DEFINITELY in no agreement territory.

“That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet,” said the King, rubbing his hands; “so now let the jury—” ... decide whether there was an implicit agreement that 2C showed the majors, or at least would be expected to be interpreted as such.