[jillybean]

1♠ :2N no alert
3N :4♠ 3N was alerted and explained in the same breath as "no singleton, void, maximum hand"

The pair play precision, the 2N bidder held Axxx,Axxx,Ax,Qxx. What do you think of the 4♠ bid?

[gwnn]

I don't see what you mean. The 2NT bidder alerted 3NT and explained it. Then he bid 4♠ (a feeble bid). why is this a ruling question? Did the 1♠ opener make an ugly face when he heard the word 'maximum', or some such?

[jillybean]

Nope, no faces.
4♦/3♠ is obvious call playing std, I'm not sure that it is playing precision.

[Trinidad]

Gwnn, I guess the point is that 2NT was not alerted. The 3NT bid probably did mean, max, no shortness according to the system, but the UI is that opener might well have a 15 point hand, accepting the (what opener thought) invitation to 3NT.

IMO, 4♣ is a clear LA to 4♠ and the UI clearly suggests 4♠. So, I would say that there is an infraction.

However, I don't really understand how there would be damage, since a 4♣ rebid by responder after an invitational 2NT simply doesn't exist. I would think that opener would wake up once he sees the 4♣ bid. But it would be helpful to see the full deal to determine whether there was damage.

Edit: I missed that they played Precision. In that case, I don't think that there is an LA to 4♠.

Rik

[wyman]

Not being a precision buff, why bid 2N if you're not going to move over a max? Isn't part of the beauty of precision that you can just bid 4S on hands like this and opps have no idea whether you're strong or weak.

[ArtK78]

Quite frankly, in the context of a Precision opening 1♠ bid, the fact that responder didn't just jump to 4♠ over 1♠ means that he is making a slam try.

[gwnn]

 wyman, on 2012-February-10, 12:20, said:

Not being a precision buff, why bid 2N if you're not going to move over a max?

Because perhaps you only wanted to move over a max with a shortness. Not saying that this hand was bid well, just that it is not inconsistent.

[wyman]

 gwnn, on 2012-February-10, 12:25, said:

Because perhaps you only wanted to move over a max with a shortness. Not saying that this hand was bid well, just that it is not inconsistent.

Sure, sorry. I had this hand in mind when I asked. My question is "why did responder bid 2N if he wasn't going to move over a max?" Was he really going to move over a max w shortness?

It's suspect to me, given the UI. But I am wearing my tinfoil hat atm.

[blackshoe]

If opener has KQxxxx x Kxx AKx, slam is pretty cold. That said, KQxxxx Kxx x AKx kinda sucks, and so does KQxxx Kxx QJxx x. Seems responder was looking for the magic hand. I agree there's no LA to 4♠.

[aguahombre]

East has explained the agreements and placed the contract. There might be a problem, but not yet.

There could be a problem, however, if West actually thought their agreement on 2NT was not J2N and now wakes up ---and does NOT move over 4S.

Back in the day, 2NT in response to 1S was forcing in Precision or most other styles as well.

1S-2N
3N-4S was a quantitative 3-card support slam try. (It still is for some of us old-fashioned types.)

If West did not alert 2NT because he didn't know it was J2N; and, holding a 14 or fifteen point 5-3-3-2 hand uses East's explanation to pass 4S, then there is a problem. We don't have the information to know whether this is the case. All we know is that East properly explained what he thought were the agreements and bid accordingly.

[jillybean]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-10, 13:22, said:

All we know is that East properly explained what he thought were the agreements and bid accordingly.

We didn't ask for an explanation.

& sorry, I don't have openers hand. (no HR's).

[aguahombre]

I was referring to the content of East's explanation, not the timing of it. I don't like the same-breath thing any more than you do, but am not sure if it was intended to wake opener up or what. If it was, and opener did use it, then things get serious.

[bluejak]

Let me make sure what has happened: did responder alert the 3NT bid and explain it without being asked? If so, there are two possibilities: responder is an idiot who often does not follow the rules: responder is deliberately communicating with partner illegally. If there is any possibility of the latter lets give him a half-board PP to make sure it never happens again.

The 4♠ bid also looks like unauthorised panic to me. But if we really believe 4♦ is not an LA I suppose he gets away with it.

As for opener, he has UI from the unsolicited explanation of 3NT. But again it is unlikely he used the UI: in fact it would be far more likely he has used the UI if he went on over 4♠.

[barmar]

There are lots of players who get confused between alerts and announcements, and announce things they shouldn't. They're not idiots, and they're not deliberately breaking the rules, they're just misinformed.

The most common case is transfers to minors after partner opens 1NT -- many players will announce "transfer" rather than simply alert. They simply don't realize that the announcements are only for transfers to the majors. I always point this out to them, but I'll bet it goes in one ear and out the other (I guess that does make them somewhat idiotic).

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-February-11, 22:38, said:

The most common case is transfers to minors after partner opens 1NT -- many players will announce "transfer" rather than simply alert. They simply don't realize that the announcements are only for transfers to the majors. I always point this out to them, but I'll bet it goes in one ear and out the other (I guess that does make them somewhat idiotic).

Especially since "transfer" really isn't a correct announcement or explanation if they alert..for most of them. They have different agreements about transfer to what...or what types of hands are possible.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-11, 22:43, said:

Especially since "transfer" really isn't a correct announcement or explanation if they alert..for most of them. They have different agreements about transfer to what...or what types of hands are possible.

Yeah, at least half of the time when they correctly just alert it, it still takes two questions to find out:

Q: Please explain
A: Transfer
Q: To?

And if it's 2♠->3♣, you may need to ask another question to find out if it specifically shows clubs or it's pass/correct.

Most of them are the usual novices, who simply don't realize that there are multiple transfer conventions. So I usually don't bother asking, I just look at their CC.

[blackshoe]

If they have one, and it's correctly filled out.

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-11, 16:45, said:

Let me make sure what has happened: did responder alert the 3NT bid and explain it without being asked? If so, there are two possibilities: responder is an idiot who often does not follow the rules: responder is deliberately communicating with partner illegally. If there is any possibility of the latter lets give him a half-board PP to make sure it never happens again.

Yes, responder explained the bid without being asked. Responder is not an idiot, but rather a capable, long time player. PP's are very rare, I doubt that I will ever see one issued in a club game.

 barmar, on 2012-February-11, 22:38, said:

There are lots of players who get confused between alerts and announcements, and announce things they shouldn't. They're not idiots, and they're not deliberately breaking the rules, they're just misinformed.

This may be true among inexperienced players but definai(thanks Stephanie)tely untrue in this case.

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2012-February-12, 02:05, said:

Yes, responder explained the bid without being asked. Responder is not an idiot, but rather a capable, long time player.

If this is the case, responder is definitely (correct spelling) up to something. What he hopes to achieve is unclear, but he at least wants to make sure opener realises that the 2NT bid was a spade raise.

[blackshoe]

I get this one:

Me: 1NT, partner: 2NT, me: Alert! Opponent: You're supposed to say 'transfer'.