[Phil]

---

This is from our monthly Unit Game - in progress now.

EW's cc is marked with a 2♦ opener being Flannery.

2N was not alerted; 3♦ was. 3♥ was a signoff.

An adjustment seems to be in order. But what?

[lamford]

Phil, on 2011-January-16, 17:42, said:

---

This is from our monthly Unit Game - in progress now.

EW's cc is marked with a 2♦ opener being Flannery.

2N was not alerted; 3♦ was. 3♥ was a signoff.

An adjustment seems to be in order. But what?

I presume that 3D shows, typically, 4-5-3-1 and not a maximum, and 3H was terminal. From East's point of view, his partner has made a 2NT Ogust or similar inquiry over a weak two diamonds, and his rather pessimistic 3D showed a minimum. Now 3H would be forcing with a feature there, and East seems to have a normal 3NT. West will correct to the known nine-card fit and South will have a crack at that on the way out. East will be entitled to pull this to 5D - his partner did not force with hearts over 2D. This will be doubled and seems to be -500 losing four tricks in the black suits and a heart. At least that is how I would rule at my club - but I would consult with others first, and, of course, ask E/W some questions.

[barmar]

Both East and West have UI: The alert of 2♦ tells East that he misbid, the non-alert of 2NT tells West that East may have misbid.

First East: What's their agreement on 2NT over a weak 2? Assuming it's feature-asking, East's 3♦ is correct. Do they have an agreement about responder's new suit after the 2NT? Unless this sequence shows a self-sufficient suit and no tolerance for opener's suit, I think East is OK in pulling.

Now West: Since his 3♥ was sign-off, I presume 4♦ was an impossible bid in their system. This exposes the misbid, and West can pass.

However, was the sign-off correct? What does 3♦ show in response to the Flannery inquiry? If it shows a max or ♦ shortness, it seems like West should go to game. Signing off would seem to be catering to the possibility of a misbid, which he shouldn't be able to do. In that case, they should be in 4♥X down a bunch.

[Phil]

Lamford - this is the direction I am leaning, however, it seems we need to (arbitrarily?) piece together some agreements for EW over a weak 2♦. I have no idea how she intended 3♦, much less the follow-ups, except it was clear to me that she is doing everything under the sun to try to extricate herself and run back to diamonds.

[barmar]

If 2NT was Ogust, doesn't East have a 2♠ (good/good) response? His suit is headed by AKT, he has a 9 count, and a stiff. That's practically a 1♦ opener these days!

That's why I guessed they play feature.

[barmar]

The way to find out their agreements over a weak 2♦ is to ask about their agreements over a weak 2♥ and 2♠, and assume consistency there.

If they play Ogust, then East took advantage of the UI by giving an incorrect description of his hand. If they play feature, his response was correct.

[blackshoe]

If you think she's doing that deliberately, Phil, give her a PP.

Seems like you should have asked more questions at the table.

[Cascade]

We need to know:

1. The meaning of 2NT (over an assumed weak two)

2. How east would normally respond to such a 2NT bid

3. Possibly the meanings of other calls over 2♦ that might impact on the meaning of 3♥

Depending on the answers to those questions there could be no adjustment - although I would need quite a bit of convincing - up to some disasterous result like 5♦X.

You need to identify a bid that should not have been made and I would start with 3♦ assuming there was UI (an alert of 2♦) something else showing a maximum would be more normal - 3♠ feature or 3♥ shortage.

From there judge what west would bid probably 4♥ and east would need to assume this is a cue-bid and will therefore bid to at least 5♦.

[bluejak]

I am surprised at the idea that 3♦ is correct if 2NT is a feature ask. I would bid 3♠ if 2NT was a feature ask. Of course 3♦ was 'unauthorised panic'.

If they play Ogust then East has a 3♠ rebid. If 2NT is natural then East has a 3NT rebid.

But one problem with all this is that 3NT will probably make, so we do not want to adjust to 3NT making!

Tell me: in Flannery, what do 3♠ and 3NT rebids show?

Now, if you play weak twos, and partner introduces a new suit [no jump] at the 4-level after asking, what is that? Natural? If so, we rule 4♥ down umpteen and explain the ethics of the situation to East for the future.

[Phil]

After I posted I had a long inquisition with the West player. Here's the abbreviated version:

Q: Do you play a weak 2♦ with other partners?
A: Of course

Q: What does a 2N response ask?
A: Whether I'm minimum or maximum. But I'm still bidding 3♦.

Q: Are you really calling AK + Q a minimum? (i.e., get real)
A: No, I suppose I'm not.

Q: What would you bid?
A: 3♠ probably

I adjusted to 3N x'd -2.

[Cascade]

Phil, on 2011-January-16, 20:39, said:

After I posted I had a long inquisition with the West player. Here's the abbreviated version:

Q: Do you play a weak 2♦ with other partners?
A: Of course

Q: What does a 2N response ask?
A: Whether I'm minimum or maximum. But I'm still bidding 3♦.

Q: Are you really calling AK + Q a minimum? (i.e., get real)
A: No, I suppose I'm not.

Q: What would you bid?
A: 3♠ probably

I adjusted to 3N x'd -2.

Realistically I don't think they are ever going to get to 3NT. West has four hearts and will pull to 4♥.

Nice discussion though.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:51, said:

I am surprised at the idea that 3♦ is correct if 2NT is a feature ask. I would bid 3♠ if 2NT was a feature ask. Of course 3♦ was 'unauthorised panic'.

AFAIK, most players define a "feature" as a side Ace or King. Qxx is not a feature.

[Phil]

barmar, on 2011-January-17, 19:34, said:

AFAIK, most players define a "feature" as a side Ace or King. Qxx is not a feature.

I think Qxx would be a feature for most. You need to show a maximum, and unless you play 3♣ as some 'artificial feature', its tricky to get across this is a maximum.

[blackshoe]

IME, many people don't have comprehensive agreements in this area, they just do what they've read or heard about: with a maximum and a feature, show the feature. With a minimum, bid 3 of the suit. Other than that, they don't know. And most of the folks I know would agree with barmar: Qxx is not a feature.

[TimG]

barmar, on 2011-January-17, 19:34, said:

AFAIK, most players define a "feature" as a side Ace or King. Qxx is not a feature.

This thread is the first I've ever heard of Qxx being called a feature. I've always thought it was an Ace or King.

[Cascade]

There are people out there who will not open a weak two with a side ace. If they need an ace or king for a feature it would have to be a king.

I have played feature showing almost the entire time I have played bridge. As far as I recall I have never discussed requiring an ace or king for a feature.

With the given hand maximum with good but not great diamonds and only a side queen what do you bid in response to a feature ask?

(As an aside in response to a forcing 2NT over a weak two in diamonds I think that showing a shortage is going to help partner place the contract much more often than some random side card.)

[Cascade]

I should add in respect of a ruling comparing my understanding with TimG's that this emphasises that you need to talk to the players and find out what there understanding and experience is rather than making a judgement based on your own understanding of the auction.

[TimG]

Cascade, on 2011-January-18, 04:36, said:

With the given hand maximum with good but not great diamonds and only a side queen what do you bid in response to a feature ask?

I would rebid 3D, denying a feature...since I don't have one. 2NT is a "feature ask", after all.

I have had discussion to this effect: 2NT is a feature ask, a side Ace or King, not a side shortness. But, I've never had the discussion that a Queen does not qualify as a feature. Perhaps it is a failure of my discussions that has led to my different understanding.

I do not mean to suggest that this is the best way to respond to a weak two-bid. This is just how I generally play when trying to keep it simple. And, assumptions about methods seems germane to this thread.

[bluejak]

TimG, on 2011-January-17, 22:13, said:

This thread is the first I've ever heard of Qxx being called a feature. I've always thought it was an Ace or King.

You folks must miss a lot of good games! Fancy showing a minimum with a maximum hand because Qxx is not a feature!

[kevperk]

Well, whether you or I consider QXX a feature, it seems the player does, from the discussion the OP had with the player, so we all should look at the auction continuing from 3S. With Flannery, that shows 4-5-2-2 with a maximum hand, so west would sign-off at 4H. The question is, would east pass this? I think so and would adjust to 4H. I leave it to others to determine the outcome of that contract.