[AndreSteff]

Slow 3 spades by partner

---

Teams, high level of play
Your methods after partner's 1 ♠ (11-19HCP, 5+ spades) to show 4 card support are:

• 3 clubs: 7-9 HCP
  
• 3 diamonds: 10-11 HCP
  
• 3 spades: 0-6HCP
  
• 4 diamonds: singleton or void and 11-13 HCP
  
• 4 spades: distributional, no slamgoing values

After partner's 1♠ you know you will not settle for anyting less than 4♠, you do not even exclude a slam yet. You decide to choose a bid that does at least convey your honnour strength correctly and see what partner has to show next.
After partner takes some time to come up with a 3♠ rebid (which is a sign off) you know that you have landed yourself in a nice pickle: to your opponents and the TD it will seem that a 4♠ call is use of unauthorized information.

So, what do you do? Do you think that your opponents and the TD will understand/find out that passing is no logical alternative, or do you resignedly pass?

[AlexJonson]

Assuming that I have to accept your system and that I'm choosing the given bid from your system, then 100% (or more) I will pass 3S.

Why is partner not showing KJxxx,xx,AKx,xx - is that not a hand that generates LAs? Edit: Of course add a non spade card before someone tells me off.

[blackshoe]

using Bergen's evaluation methods, this responding hand has 14 dummy points. Using LTC it has 6 losers. Either way you want to be in game. You don't have enough to make an immediate slam try. It would be a rare hand opposite this that can make a salmi unless opener can make a try himself over the game bid. So I would just bid game on the first round. Having not done that, I'm going to pass the slow 3♠.

[campboy]

I expect the TD to rule that pass is an LA, based on peers of the player needing to agree with 3♣. It is not uncommon in UI situations for someone to claim he was "always going to bid on"; that doesn't stop us ruling that it is an infraction of 16B.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-10, 16:46, said:

using Bergen's evaluation methods, this responding hand has 14 dummy points. Using LTC it has 6 losers. Either way you want to be in game. You don't have enough to make an immediate slam try. It would be a rare hand opposite this that can make a salmi unless opener can make a try himself over the game bid. So I would just bid game on the first round. Having not done that, I'm going to pass the slow 3♠.

Yes, you need to lose the "HCP" descriptors. If you are using a Bergenish style of raises, you should adopt his Dummy Points concepts, as well. 3C doesn't really invite game, 3D does.

Whichever you should have chosen to show the strength of this hand ---unbalanced invite or 4D splinter --- you must now live with it. The hitch before bidding 3S, when you didn't even invite game, is the clincher. You must pass.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-December-10, 17:11, said:

It is not uncommon in UI situations for someone to claim he was "always going to bid on"; that doesn't stop us ruling that it is an infraction of 16B.

Indeed such is the case here, and while I would have bid 4S without a break of tempo, I would have started with a diamond splinter (or 'any void' if I had it available). Not having done so I have made my bed. Partner can easily have a non-minimum hand with four rounded suit losers; Kxxxx xx AKQx Qx for example.

[Jeremy69A]

If I were convinced of my own argument I would bid 4♠ but I would not be surprised to have it ruled back to 3♠. I confess I would not have bid 3♣ on the first round.

[kgr]

Clear 4♠ for me. I would not consider pass a LA Vul at IMPs.
You don't know what partner has in ♦, depending on that 3♠ can go down or 4♠ can make.
If you had no other way to describe your hand then bidding 3♣ followed by 4♠ (Showing 6-9 with distribution) then I would bid 4♠, also after partners BIT.

[aguahombre]

A familiar theme. East created his own pickle by making a call which doesn't have much to do with his holding. This non-partnership bidding comes to roost when something happens (like the B.I.T) to spoil the masterminding plan.

A descriptive response to the opening bid, putting partner in charge, would have eliminated the pickle, and this thread.

[AndreSteff]

 aguahombre, on 2011-December-11, 11:33, said:

A familiar theme. East created his own pickle by making a call which doesn't have much to do with his holding. This non-partnership bidding comes to roost when something happens (like the B.I.T) to spoil the masterminding plan.

A descriptive response to the opening bid, putting partner in charge, would have eliminated the pickle, and this thread.

I think that a TD should refrain from judging the aptness of the calls made The problem is that there is no really good descriptive bid available because the void in diamond is pivotal here, but you cannot show it.

[RMB1]

 AndreSteff, on 2011-December-11, 13:31, said:

I think that a TD should refrain from judging the aptness of the calls made

I think the TD should use the calls made to assess who are the peers of the player with UI; this may involve some judgement of the aptness of the calls made.

[aguahombre]

 AndreSteff, on 2011-December-11, 13:31, said:

I think that a TD should refrain from judging the aptness of the calls made

Quite the contrary. When a player, as in this case, makes a bid which doesn't even invite game, and then bids game later, the TD should use this as evidence that something extraneous caused it.

[kgr]

 aguahombre, on 2011-December-11, 15:05, said:

Quite the contrary. When a player, as in this case, makes a bid which doesn't even invite game, and then bids game later, the TD should use this as evidence that something extraneous caused it.

But 3♣ is forcing and maybe there was no better way to show the hand then 3♣...4♠

[blackshoe]

3♣ is forcing to 3♠, that's all. At least, that's the way I understand Bergen Raises.

[kgr]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:08, said:

3♣ is forcing to 3♠, that's all. At least, that's the way I understand Bergen Raises.

forcing to 3♠, but the 3♣-bidder is still allowed to bid 4♠. And maybe in OP-system the 3♣...4♠ was the best way to show his hand.

[gordontd]

 kgr, on 2011-December-11, 16:35, said:

forcing to 3♠, but the 3♣-bidder is still allowed to bid 4♠. And maybe in OP-system the 3♣...4♠ was the best way to show his hand.

It's not a good way to show this hand if it's going to get ruled back whenever partner thinks before signing off.

If he thought his hand was too strong for 3♣, he could have bid 3♦, 4♦ or 4♠

[blackshoe]

 kgr, on 2011-December-11, 16:35, said:

forcing to 3♠, but the 3♣-bidder is still allowed to bid 4♠. And maybe in OP-system the 3♣...4♠ was the best way to show his hand.

Sure, he's allowed to make whatever call he likes — provided he doesn't have UI. Which he does have. Since most of his peers (in fact most people) would not engineer this unusual use of 3♣ to show a game force, he has an LA — pass. The tank suggests bidding on, so he can't.

[StevenG]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:49, said:

Sure, he's allowed to make whatever call he likes — provided he doesn't have UI. Which he does have. Since most of his peers (in fact most people) would not engineer this unusual use of 3♣ to show a game force, he has an LA — pass. The tank suggests bidding on, so he can't.

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely his LAs are determined only from peers who would bid 3♣.

[c_corgi]

 RMB1, on 2011-December-11, 14:37, said:

I think the TD should use the calls made to assess who are the peers of the player with UI; this may involve some judgement of the aptness of the calls made.

No doubt you are right, but it feels very wrong that a player can make a limit bid and then overrule partner's decision when in receipt of UI if his "peers" are unanimous that there is no LA. Surely it would be better if we only had to poll in unclear cases.

[blackshoe]

 StevenG, on 2011-December-11, 17:03, said:

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely his LAs are determined only from peers who would bid 3♣.

I was, it seems, sloppy when I said "most'. I don't believe there are any.