[AndreSteff]

♠

---

Let's start this one with a poll...

You play in a semi-strong tournament with quite a good partner. You play now and then together and have made no special agreements this time other than 5 card majors, weak two's and common sense.

In first hand, green against red you decide to open this hand with 3♥. The auction:
3♥(dbl) 3♠(pass)
???

Which calls do you seriously consider? Wich do you choose?

[Trinidad]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-15, 12:40, said:

♠

---

Let's start this one with a poll...

You play in a semi-strong tournament with quite a good partner. You play now and then together and have made no special agreements this time other than 5 card majors, weak two's and common sense.

In first hand, green against red you decide to open this hand with 3♥. The auction:
3♥(dbl) 3♠(pass)
???

Which calls do you seriously consider? Wich do you choose?

I would consider:
Pass, assuming that 3♠ is natural and non forcing
4♣, assuming that 3♠ is natural and forcing
4♥, assuming that 3♠ is a lead directing heart raise (if partner is a Mike Lawrence fan)
4♠, assuming that 3♠ is natural, forcing and showing a decent suit.

They all make some sense with me. Which one I actually choose would depend on which one would make sense for partner. After all, we were playing common sense. My guess will be based on my experience with this partner.

Rik

[campboy]

(I'm probably not a peer as I wouldn't have considered opening 3♥).

Since I don't know whether 3♠ was intended as forcing, and passing could well work out best even if it was, I would pass. I wouldn't start considering anything else without good reason to think it was forcing (and then 4♣ and 4♠ are possible).

[bluejak]

I agree entirely with Rik's logic, conclusions and comments.

[gnasher]

If I were going to raise spades, I'd do so by bidding 4♦, which in my world shows support and a singleton, so I'd consider that.

In practice, though, it's very unlikely that partner has a purely natural, forcing 3♠ bid - even if it's a real suit, he will probably have a heart fit. Rather than bury us in 4♠ or 5♥, I'd like to give partner a chance to show his heart fit. 4♦ accomplishes that, so that's what I'd choose.

The other actions I'd consider are pass and 4♥.

[AndreSteff]

Two more pollee's to go

[peachy]

Depends on wwhether we had agreement on what 3S means and whether we had agreed whether the meaning stays the same after a Dbl or not. If on unsure ground as to agreements, I bid 4D.

[gordontd]

I'd pass and not really consider anything else. If partner thinks that 3♠ is forcing after a double and we make an overtrick, I'll apologise - I would have raised if I thought it was forcing.

[AndreSteff]

---

OK, here it is.
3♥was alerted as 'Verdi' a transfer preëmpt. The TD was called when it surfaced that West held hearts in stead of spades. After the play West damned himself by stating that he had deliberately bid 4♥ to wake partner up (and succesfully at that ). Sadly a lot of information is missing, like:

• Why did East pass 4 ♥?
  
• What would the meaning have been of a 3♠ call over a natural 3♥ , or a correct Verdi 3♦?
  
• What options other than 4 ♥ did West have over 3♠?

West misbid, the explanation was correct according to the conventions card, but as this was not a regular partnership in Holland the TD may rule misinformation.

So, what would you probably have done with this?

[gordontd]

Did West misbid or did East misexplain?

[AndreSteff]

gordontd, on 2011-January-16, 12:11, said:

Did West misbid or did East misexplain?

He misbid. I edited my post.

[mr1303]

I would also like to know why North decided to make a (take-out?) double of 3H on a 9 count including the stiff K of hearts, and why South decided he was never worth any sort of bid with a 14 count with Q10xx of spades...

Some sort of split score may be in order here depending on what North & South say to me.

[AlexJonson]

I would bid 4S over 3S, and pass when it is doubled.

There is no signicant probability that a wheel has come off in this auction.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-January-16, 00:55, said:

If I were going to raise spades, I'd do so by bidding 4♦, which in my world shows support and a singleton, so I'd consider that.

In practice, though, it's very unlikely that partner has a purely natural, forcing 3♠ bid - even if it's a real suit, he will probably have a heart fit. Rather than bury us in 4♠ or 5♥, I'd like to give partner a chance to show his heart fit. 4♦ accomplishes that, so that's what I'd choose.

The other actions I'd consider are pass and 4♥.

I worry a bit about this "very unlikely" principle. If I open 1NT and partner transfers to spades, he is very unlikely to have a six card club suit as well, but so what? He may have, and you do not assume he has not.

When I open 3♥ naturally, it is pretty unlikely, perhaps very unlikely, that partner has a game force, a spade suit and no heart fit, but again so what? He may have, and I see no reason to bid as though he has not because it is very unlikely.

[bluejak]

I believe 4♥ is illegal since I believe he has chosen 4♥ amongst LAs as this poll shows, and 4♥ is suggested over other LAs by the UI.

I believe the pass of 4♥ is illegal since it is a breach of Law 40A3, called a fielded misbid in England/Wales.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:17, said:

I worry a bit about this "very unlikely" principle. If I open 1NT and partner transfers to spades, he is very unlikely to have a six card club suit as well, but so what? He may have, and you do not assume he has not.

When I open 3♥ naturally, it is pretty unlikely, perhaps very unlikely, that partner has a game force, a spade suit and no heart fit, but again so what? He may have, and I see no reason to bid as though he has not because it is very unlikely.

I was told that we have no agreement about 3♠ other than common sense, and asked what I'd do without any UI. In such circumstances I'm allowed to use my judgement and experience without constraint. Both of these tell me that when you are considering how to reply to an undiscussed bid, it's best to cater for the likely before the unlikely, and to cater for many meanings rather than for one.

I didn't say that I'd bid 4♦ if I had the UI that partner thought I'd shown spades - of course I wouldn't.

[karlson]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-16, 14:46, said:

I would bid 4S over 3S, and pass when it is doubled.

There is no signicant probability that a wheel has come off in this auction.

It seems to me the only difference between this auction and the Ghestem case where you were arguing strongly for the opposite is the relative frequency of playing transfer preempts vs Ghestem. If transfer preempts were more common, presumably you would say that 3♠ obviously means that partner (or I) forgot the system.

This is certainly fair knowledge for a bridge player, but it does seem to be a slippery slope for legal rulings.

[AlexJonson]

karlson, on 2011-January-17, 03:44, said:

It seems to me the only difference between this auction and the Ghestem case where you were arguing strongly for the opposite is the relative frequency of playing transfer preempts vs Ghestem. If transfer preempts were more common, presumably you would say that 3♠ obviously means that partner (or I) forgot the system.

This is certainly fair knowledge for a bridge player, but it does seem to be a slippery slope for legal rulings.

You mistake me. I objected on the Ghestem hand to the proposition that I must commit suicide. It seemed clear from the post that everyone at the table knew what was going on. It seemed in fact an example of the particular approach in Holland to misbids - especially Ghestem.

If I ignore lack of alert on that hand, I can still feel concerned about my prospects in 5CX and the size of the risk.

Here, if I ignore the alert, there is no clue that this is not a normal auction.

[AndreSteff]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-17, 04:49, said:

You mistake me. I objected on the Ghestem hand to the proposition that I must commit suicide. It seemed clear from the post that everyone at the table knew what was going on. It seemed in fact an example of the particular approach in Holland to misbids - especially Ghestem.

Everybody knew what was going after the 5♥bid.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-17, 04:49, said:

You mistake me. I objected on the Ghestem hand to the proposition that I must commit suicide. It seemed clear from the post that everyone at the table knew what was going on. It seemed in fact an example of the particular approach in Holland to misbids - especially Ghestem.

If I ignore lack of alert on that hand, I can still feel concerned about my prospects in 5CX and the size of the risk.

Here, if I ignore the alert, there is no clue that this is not a normal auction.

Hey, come on. When my partner bids 5♣ I know what is going on: she has long clubs.

Oh, she failed to alert so I know what she has done? Fine. So what you are recommending is not "committing suicide" but "cheating", and I do not cheat. The reason the Ghestem player "knew what was going on" is the lack of alert, not the 5♣ bid. If you use that because you do not understand UI then it is illegal. If you use that despite understanding UI then you are a cheat.

The fact that 5♣ doubled in the Ghestem case was going to be horrendously expensive is no reason to cheat.