[suprgrover]

---

NS are experienced but not brilliant club players, but in a very infrequent partnership. EW are one of the best pairs in the club.

I was called before the final pass and observed the auction. NS made 4♠ and EW claimed damage. North had intended 2♥ as a transfer, but South thought it was natural.

After the hand, North explained that he thought the only explanation possible was that South had forgotten the agreement. My eventual ruling was that the UI suggested bidding 3♠ over pass and over 3♥, and that 4♥ was a likely enough resting spot to be the contract for both sides.

I told NS after the game that if they had been playing superaccepts where 3♥ by South showed spade support and some sort of feature, then I would have allowed 3♠ by North (even though 4♠ would have been a better call), but that the auction would have gone differently if the transfer were alerted and South had made her 2♥ call.

Pretend that I'm polling you now. What would you, as a decent club player in a new partnership, consider for calls at North's second turn, and what call would you actually make?

This post has been edited by suprgrover: 2011-September-27, 11:12

[campboy]

Was the auction actually

---

?

[aguahombre]

nothing makes sense to me. If south did bid 3S as in OP, then the words in the OP do not compute. If south bid 3H as suggested by Campboy, where is the hand he held when he did that?

[suprgrover]

I have corrected the auction in the diagram. Sorry about that.

[Cyberyeti]

This makes no sense, S has bid 3♥ where he could have passed, even if not playing superaccepts in the uncontested auction, he does not have 5 hearts and 2 spades.

He is making some sort of superaccept/game try whether long suit or whatever, he is carrying spades if he bids 3♥ here. I would probably bid 4♠ on the N hand.

Did N alert 3♥ ? Quite frequently players mistakenly don't even if they know they should to avoid waking partner up and allowing partner a chance to sort it out free of UI.

[suprgrover]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-27, 11:25, said:

This makes no sense, S has bid 3♥ where he could have passed, even if not playing superaccepts in the uncontested auction, he does not have 5 hearts and 2 spades.

He is making some sort of superaccept/game try whether long suit or whatever, he is carrying spades if he bids 3♥ here. I would probably bid 4♠ on the N hand.

Did N alert 3♥ ? Quite frequently players mistakenly don't even if they know they should to avoid waking partner up and allowing partner a chance to sort it out free of UI.

North-South did not alert any bids after announcing 1NT as 15-17. After the hand, South said that she thought she was raising hearts. (Although they had different ideas of what 2♥ showed, they agreed that they were not playing any superaccepts in uncontested auctions besides 1NT-2♥-3♠ and 1NT-2♦-3♥.) In turn, North said that he thought there was a misunderstanding and he was free to bid 3♠.

[mrdct]

Are North-South allowed to have a 5-card Major in their 1NT opening? If so, 4♥ by North seems to be a logical alternative. But if South can't have 5♥, I don't think pass is an option for North to choose to play in 4-3 fit in partscore where game is quite likely in NT or ♠ and possibly even ♥ in the moysian fit.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2011-September-27, 10:16, said:

Was the auction actually

---

?

On this auction my logical alternatives at North's second call are 3♠ and 4♠.
In my universe, 3♥ is based on ♠ support.

If considering adjusting on the basis that North is deemed to bid 4♠
then I think South will wake up and pass, so no change.

[lamford]

suprgrover, on 2011-September-27, 10:01, said:

My eventual ruling was that the UI suggested bidding 3♠ over pass and over 3♥, and that 4♥ was a likely enough resting spot to be the contract for both sides.

I am not sure how East-West get to play in 4♥ as they never bid them. And, like RMB1, I cannot find any plausible auction to other than 4♠ for North-South, after South bids 3♥, having (from North's point of view) correctly alerted 2♥. South does not have UI, so his raise to 4S was what he chose at the table. The infraction might be bidding only 3♠ by North as you are worth game.

Did you intend to write "4♥ was an unlikely enough resting spot not to be the contract for either side"?

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-27, 17:58, said:

I am not sure how East-West get to play in 4♥ as they never bid them. And, like RMB1, I cannot find any plausible auction to other than 4♠ for North-South, after South bids 3♥, having (from North's point of view) correctly alerted 2♥. South does not have UI, so his raise to 4S was what he chose at the table. The infraction might be bidding only 3♠ by North as you are worth game.

Did you intend to write "4♥ was an unlikely enough resting spot not to be the contract for either side"?

I assume the OP meant 4♥N for both sides.

We are told that North-South only play superaccepts in uncontested auctions and then so only in the transferor's suit. Accordingly, North can't treat 3♥ as anything other than a ♥ suit and not necessarily with primary ♠ support. I still think we need to know whether or not 1NT can include a 5-card major, as if it can I don't think North can ethically bid anything other than 4♥. I would be interested know what North would think an uncontested auction of 1NT:2♥:3♥ would mean with South having alerted and described 2♥ as a transfer to ♠.

As is usually the case with these sort of rulings, North needs to proceed on the basis that South has alerted and described 2♥ as a transfer to ♠ or that she's playing behind screens. She doesn't have any extra ♠ length or quality, they do not have superaccepts in their repertoire and North doesn't have a ♣ stopper so it's all pointing to a 4♥ bid by North.

[aguahombre]

Not sure if it could ever be proved, but will throw it out there anyway:

Maybe, just maybe, since South's 3H bid is so out in space if North has a natural non-inviting 2H bid ---then, South bid 3H because he was unsure about whether North transfered...yet was sure enough that North would ignore LA's and UI and would bid 3S with Spades.

I can see no other reason for South to bid 3H; but, that's probably just me thinking the worst of people. Hate it when I do that.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-27, 21:36, said:

Maybe, just maybe, since South's 3H bid is so out in space if North has a natural non-inviting 2H bid ---then

In several of my partnerships after intervention such as this, 2♥ would be natural and non-forcing, but there would be a strong expectation that the 1NT opener would courtesy raise with 4 or 5 card support especially in a competitive auction. This type of auction is firmly on planet Earth.

[Vampyr]

In the "legal" auction, South's supperaccept was rejected by North. Why did the former bid again?

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-September-28, 00:26, said:

In several of my partnerships after intervention such as this, 2♥ would be natural and non-forcing, but there would be a strong expectation that the 1NT opener would courtesy raise with 4 or 5 card support especially in a competitive auction. This type of auction is firmly on planet Earth.

Does opener have four or five card support for hearts? I only see QX.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-27, 20:31, said:

they do not have superaccepts in their repertoire

Everyone has superaccepts in their repertoire, even if they have never discussed them. What else can 1NT-transfer-3new (or same for that matter) suit mean? Certainly the meaning "five of my suit, two of yours" is cloud-cuckoo-land. Maybe they play differently in Australia.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2011-September-28, 03:06, said:

Everyone has superaccepts in their repertoire, even if they have never discussed them.

Really? I have played a few club-type games with a multiple European/World champion and when I asked about transfer breaks her response was that the only way to do this was to jump in the suit shown. I was glad I asked! If either of us had bid a new suit in response to a transfer I would certainly have assumed it was showing (at least!) a 5-card suit, with the degree of fit for responder's suit undefined.

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-28, 03:18, said:

Really? I have played a few club-type games with a multiple European/World champion and when I asked about transfer breaks her response was that the only way to do this was to jump in the suit shown. I was glad I asked! If either of us had bid a new suit in response to a transfer I would certainly have assumed it was showing (at least!) a 5-card suit, with the degree of fit for responder's suit undefined.

I sometimes say the same sort of thing as your champion, but by it I mean "bidding a new suit is not permitted" rather than "...does not show support".

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-28, 03:18, said:

Really? I have played a few club-type games with a multiple European/World champion and when I asked about transfer breaks her response was that the only way to do this was to jump in the suit shown. I was glad I asked! If either of us had bid a new suit in response to a transfer I would certainly have assumed it was showing (at least!) a 5-card suit, with the degree of fit for responder's suit undefined.

Assuming we are talking about transfers over 1NT, I would agree that it would be natural if undiscussed, but I would expect it to guarantee at least 3-card support. When I say everyone has a super accept in their repertoire, that is true, whether they elect to use it or not; and indeed my agreement with my regular partner, on Dburn's advice, is to only break by bidding the next suit up. However, if I did bid 3H (after a strong NT and a transfer to spades), my partner would take it as a picture bid, something like AKxx KQJx KJx xx for example. 3H is undiscussed, and therefore bridge players normally assign a logical meaning to it. Having five hearts is fine, but it must also promise three spades. What do you expect partner to do on a 5-1-3-4 one count?

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2011-September-28, 05:27, said:

I sometimes say the same sort of thing as your champion, but by it I mean "bidding a new suit is not permitted" rather than "...does not show support".

Yes I think this was the implication for us, too. But that doesn't mean it can't happen - as Bluejak often points out in discussions about whether you can be woken up to a misunderstanding by partner's "impossible" bid, people do come up with such bids from time to time, and one still has to try to work out what they might be trying to show.

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on 2011-September-28, 07:51, said:

Yes I think this was the implication for us, too. But that doesn't mean it can't happen - as Bluejak often points out in discussions about whether you can be woken up to a misunderstanding by partner's "impossible" bid, people do come up with such bids from time to time, and one still has to try to work out what they might be trying to show.

In that case neither explanation fits with our agreements; since only one of the explanations fits with bridge logic I pick that one.