A nice pickle
#21
Posted 2011-December-11, 17:29
2NT: 10-14 balanced or 15+ any distribution.
3H/3NT/4C/4D: 12-14 singleton/void
3♦: 10-11 HCP
3♣: 7-9 HCP
3♠/4♠: very weak
All these points are HCP, and we were strict in that.
Opener could ask singleton/void if he wanted. f.i by bidding 3♦ over 3♣.
With the given system I would bid 3♣...4♠.
...But: It seems that Pass is much more then a LA to 4♠, so contract will be turned back to 3♠ after the BIT.
#22
Posted 2011-December-12, 01:17
#23
Posted 2011-December-12, 01:57
Mbodell, on 2011-December-12, 01:17, said:
That's fine if they have some documentary evidence that that's how they play. Absent that, I don't think we give them the benefit of agreements we're making up for them.
London UK
#24
Posted 2011-December-12, 02:25
gordontd, on 2011-December-12, 01:57, said:
Red, at teams, high level of play? I don't buy that 3♣ showing a 7-9 hand does that hand justice. If the level of play is super low so that the Walrus counts his points and bids like so, ok, it may be different. But red at teams at a high level of play? I don't believe it.
#25
Posted 2011-December-12, 09:26
#26
Posted 2011-December-12, 09:54
phil_20686, on 2011-December-12, 09:26, said:
I don't think that is the way it should work. This person chose NOT to bid game or force to game or invite to game initially; "peers" who would have done so are not relevant. The only thing that would do is narrow the peer group who would have made the initial valuation.
#27
Posted 2011-December-12, 10:20
But since passing 3♠ is not really an LA you might get away with 4♠!
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#29
Posted 2011-December-12, 10:37
gordontd, on 2011-December-12, 01:57, said:
This agreement would have to be rather more complicated too -- for example, if opener rebids 4♠ instead of 3, does responder move on? He has to if 3♣ is 7-9 OR a slam try, and the five level could be too high opposite a normal hand for opener's 4♠.
I did once have a hand which I thought I could describe best with a Bergen raise (higher one) and then raising to game. I was lucky that time -- I hadn't thought about the possibility of partner's 3♠ being slow. I should have done, because not long before that a player lost his deposit after raising under those circumstances.
#30
Posted 2011-December-12, 14:01
In one partnership, I don't exactly play Bergen raises, but we do play 1S - 3C as showing a limit raise with 4-card support. We are also allowed to bid 3C with a hand that wants to raise to game but doesn't have any slam interest and doesn't want to get partner excited by using Jacoby. We think we can play this without UI problems for a number of reasons:
- we alert 3C and explain it in this way
- we always use the stop card properly (not just on this auction) so opener always gets a stop pause to think
- it's rare that opener has anything to think about before signing off in 3S, and we know that we can't think then bid 3S (we also know we can't bid 3S extremely fast, because that would tell partner to change his mind about raising to game)
#31
Posted 2011-December-12, 19:40
What "high level" event was this from?
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#32
Posted 2011-December-13, 11:49
This was partner's hand. Not clear to me what he had to think about after a 3♣ raise...
I was the TD and it seemed a textbook ruling: as 3♣ did only remotely invite game, after a huddle by partner a raise to 4♠ should not be allowed. However...
There were eight pollees:
- None would bid 3 clubs
- two would bid 3 diamonds but would push on to game after a negative 3 spades from partner
- The rest bid either 4 diamonds, or 4 spades
To top it off, the traveller showed 15/15 4♠ contracts.
So, I warned East that he just had had a narrow escape from having his game taken from him and let the result stand.
#33
Posted 2011-December-13, 12:23
AndreSteff, on 2011-December-13, 11:49, said:
There were eight pollees:
- None would bid 3 clubs
- two would bid 3 diamonds but would push on to game after a negative 3 spades from partner
- The rest bid either 4 diamonds, or 4 spades
To top it off, the traveller showed 15/15 4♠ contracts.
So, I warned East that he just had had a narrow escape from having his game taken from him and let the result stand.
So, what diverted you from the "textbook" ruling? Only the first item on your list seems to apply to THIS responder, and the traveller is irrelevant.
#34
Posted 2011-December-13, 13:23
#35
Posted 2011-December-13, 15:30
aguahombre, on 2011-December-13, 12:23, said:
I disagree (about what applied, not about the traveller). If you asked the person who bid 3♣ was he always driving to game you'd get a self serving (but possibly true) answer that yes he would. The evidence to support this is he did drive to game over his partner's 3♠ (over a huddled 3♠ no less, and at a high level you'd assume he knows ethically what he must do). Further, all of his peers would drive to game with his hand (even if they'd all do it a different way then he did). I think from all that you can safely conclude he was always driving to at least game.
#36
Posted 2011-December-13, 15:37
I just can't see any useful Bridge reason to do this - especially since after 1M-3♣; 3M-4M, opener knows that he's looking at shortness opposite one of his suits - but has to go to the 5 level to find out that ♥AK9x ♦xxxx is huge, and the reverse isn't making even 5. But I've seen agreements with even less Bridge use than that in RL!
Barring such an agreement, however, when partner shows a "wish I could go" and we've made a limit bid, deciding now to upgrade our hand shouldn't succeed. It's partner's fault for putting us in that bind, or our fault for not evaluating our hand properly the first time; but not the TDs for "giving" you the zero you bid.
#37
Posted 2011-December-13, 16:43
Mbodell, on 2011-December-13, 15:30, said:
I conclude from the fact that none would have bid 3C that those polled were not peers within the intent of such polls, and that the poll did not mean any more than the travellers about what the ruling should be.
#38
Posted 2011-December-13, 17:04
Surely an LA is as defined by L16 - not just something that "seems logical", but cannot be justified in law.
#39
Posted 2011-December-13, 18:04
#40
Posted 2011-December-13, 20:17
AndreSteff, on 2011-December-13, 11:49, said:
[list]
[*]None would bid 3 clubs
You polled the wrong people.
The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer