Two ethical problems in a county match (EBU)
#21
Posted 2013-May-15, 07:24
Nothing based on a natural 2NT response to the balancing double is part of what West is allowed to consider.
If you think 3S has to show a spade control rather than LT or general acceptance of hearts and extras, then your 5H bid is pretty much all you have left. 4D would be a long diamond suit.
#22
Posted 2013-May-15, 08:12
aguahombre, on 2013-May-15, 07:24, said:
This is true, of course. But the UI suggests that East might not know it is not a natural 2NT, and West must carefully avoid choosing an action that could be suggested by this UI. How can he do this without giving some thought to what the auction would mean if the UI were valid?
#23
Posted 2013-May-15, 08:24
I then attempted to determine LAs based on the AI. I think that 4♦, 4♥ and 5♥ are the only LAs for me.
#24
Posted 2013-May-15, 08:42
WellSpyder, on 2013-May-15, 08:12, said:
We are beyond that. Any call which does not show slam interest in support of hearts, within the confines of our Leben 2NT advance, could demonstrably be suggested by the failure to alert.
There are other situations where the type of slam try might be a hedge against disaster, but this is not such case.
#25
Posted 2013-May-15, 10:02
blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 00:29, said:
What I think he's saying is that if the UI suggests that A and B are likely to be more successful than C, that is equivalent to saying that C is the one most likely to get you into trouble. Regardles of how you phrase it, the implication is that C is the one that you have to choose when you have this UI.
#26
Posted 2013-May-15, 11:53
EW really did seem to think that 3♥ was an impossible response to Lebensohl.
On problem 2 I was North, and I would normally have bid 3NT without much thought, but I did have a nasty suspicion that pass could be the winning action here, if neither 3♠ nor 3NT are making. Partner's question suggested to me that we were more likely to be making a contract our way.
Partner tends to ask a lot, but not every time the opponents bid. She was aware they were playing some sort of two-suited major suit bids and a multi, as she had asked questions at the start of the round.
I bid 3NT and made ten tricks. I considered calling the director at the end, but the opponents seemed happy, so I didn't.
I'll post problems separately in future.
#27
Posted 2013-May-15, 12:13
aguahombre, on 2013-May-15, 08:42, said:
If it's demonstrable, would you care to demonstrate it? I have explained why I do not think 4♥ is suggested.
#28
Posted 2013-May-15, 15:21
campboy, on 2013-May-15, 12:13, said:
4H is suggested by partner's 3H bid, which if he understood 2NT as artificial and less than a certain strength, would not have been his bid with minimum strength in his own hand. He would have cooperated with 3C, or have balanced 3H instead of doubling.
#29
Posted 2013-May-15, 15:37
aguahombre, on 2013-May-15, 15:21, said:
But he won't have minimum strength even if he has not understood 2NT, since in that case he would have passed 2NT (or bid 3♥ instead of doubling).
#30
Posted 2013-May-15, 17:36
campboy, on 2013-May-15, 15:37, said:
So you are arguing that you should make a bad bid, but it is legal, and you have both AI and UI to tell you it is a bad bid. O.K., but IMO the extremely low-road bid of 4H could only be influenced by doubt from the failure to alert whether partner knew what 2NT meant and the belief that partner thinks we have already shown tenish values with a spade stopper.