[han]

Quote

I have to admit it would never occur to me to use the same defence against 2NT as I do against 1NT without discussing it.

Agree

Also, wouldn't you think that the actual auction suggested a psyche? I would. I would suspect my partner had hearts and bid 3D as a joke. I think it is quite a stretch to assume that partner has the majors for this auction.

(Edit: This exact auction did occur not so long ago in a BBO team match I played in, the 3D...3H bidder had a weak hand with long hearts, no second suit.)

[gnasher]

I don't care what my agreements are: even if I had a method to show 5=6=2=0 with an honour in each suit and better spots in spades than in hearts, I still wouldn't bid with this hand. The chances of making anything are remote, and there is a large risk of going for a penalty against a game that isn't making.

[gnasher]

[Duplicate post]

[dburn]

gwnn, on Oct 17 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

That's not what you need to assume. For example if you play that (1NT)-2♦(=majors)-(X)-p asks for the longer/stronger major, it makes 0 sense to think (2NT)-3♦(=majors)-(X)-p wants to play 3♦.

If you can show to the Director's satisfaction that in your methods after (1NT) 2♦ (Dble), pass asks for the longer major, then you can argue that after (2NT) 3♦ (Dble), pass also asks for the longer major.

But if you cannot show this (and it would be rather an odd way to play - what does redouble show? and how does advancer actually get to play in diamonds if this is what he wants to do?) then you must indeed play in 3♦ doubled. After all, what would you do if partner alerted 3♦ and said "That shows at least 5-6 in the majors, and I pass?"

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Oct 17 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

In person.

I see where you're going, but I think that I can successfully argue that, since partner did not preempt and LHO did not make any noise (indicating that partner has some values, at least), that bridge logic indicates that partner didn't understand what I was trying to do, rather than that he wanted to play in 3 diamonds. This is especially true since we didn't make agreements regarding interference over 2N, though I hoped partner would be on the same page, or would get there quickly. (also helps that I haven't psyched with this partner, so it probably wouldn't be part of the logic process).

Anyway, it was moot, partner figured it out, correcting to 3 spades, I left the table so that partner could explain our agreements without giving me the benefit of her thought process, and all was well (going down 1 in 3 spades undoubled was a top, as it would have been if we were doubled, also).

All that being said, I wouldn't argue with a director who ruled against me after hearing what I had to say, either. I would deserve what I got for making up a bid as I went along and hoping that partner understood.

[effervesce]

gnasher, on Oct 17 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

I don't care what my agreements are: even if I had a method to show 5=6=2=0 with an honour in each suit and better spots in spades than in hearts, I still wouldn't bid with this hand. The chances of making anything are remote, and there is a large risk of going for a penalty against a game that isn't making.

Agreed. LHO and partner have at most 12 between them; on average partner will have 6 or so. Given some expected wastage in clubs, it's unlikely he'll have much in your suits. With such poor suits I'm passing - too much of a risk to bid.

If he does have stuff in your suits, 2NT probably will not be fun for RHO...

[CSGibson]

For the record, the hands were as follows:

Scoring: MP

P-(2N)-3♦-(p),
P-(X)-3♥-(p),
3♠-All Pass

---

The defense started Ace of diamonds, Ace of spades, Jack of spades won in dummy,

Ace of hearts by partner, with the 2N opener unblocking a heart honor, heart won by the jack, 3rd trump. Losing 1 spade, 2 diamonds, and 2 hearts when most pairs were in 2N making 2 or 3 on a heart lead.

I think that interfering was not without risk, obviously, or I wouldn't have posted here. The tie breaker in doing so, for me, was the benefit of springing an undiscussed auction on partner while we were playing a club game, instead of anything important. That, along with the fact that partner was a passed hand who didn't preempt, which leads to a slightly greater chance that she has a balanced hand, and thus some fit for one of my majors.

[dburn]

I too was under the impression that 3♦ had been doubled by third hand, not by opener after partner had passed it.

But in the latter case, it is in my view even more serious to remove 3♦ doubled to 3♥. Again, suppose that your LHO had asked what 3♦ meant, and your partner had said "It shows both majors" before passing. Would it occur to you to remove 3♦ in front of partner? After all, for a hand with eleven cards in the majors, you have a pretty good hand for diamonds if that is where partner, knowing you have the majors, wants to play.

It is all very well to say "Partner did not open the bidding, so he can't want to play in diamonds facing this hand, so he must have misremembered or misunderstood 3♦." Again, if you can show incontrovertible evidence that partner would always open the bidding with any hand that wants to play in diamonds facing this, well and good. In that case and that case only, there is no "logical alternative" to 3♥ - you are allowed to infer that partner doesn't know what you're doing if the legal calls and your partnership methods alone admit no other inference.

But you may not - nay, must not - be guided in any way by an alert, or non-alert, or question, or reply to a question, or anything else, as to your partner's actual state of mind. You bid 3♦ intending, or hoping at any rate, to show the majors. You must assume that partner knows that it showed the majors, and you must act accordingly when he passes it.

Apologies if I appear, in stressing this point, to be criticising your behaviour in terms of ethics. That is not my intention in the least - I am sure that you were acting from the best of motives and without any nefarious intent. Moreover, your own comments indicate that you do have some grasp of the issues; if a director had adjusted the score to 3♦ doubled minus lots, you would have had no complaint.

But some of the things that have been said here seem to me to indicate that the legal principle involved is not widely understood, and I am anxious that it should be. That principle I can best state in words I used some time ago:

"When you have unauthorised information, you are no longer allowed to be brilliant."

[CSGibson]

dburn, on Oct 17 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

I too was under the impression that 3♦ had been doubled by third hand, not by opener after partner had passed it.

But in the latter case, it is in my view even more serious to remove 3♦ doubled to 3♥. Again, suppose that your LHO had asked what 3♦ meant, and your partner had said "It shows both majors" before passing. Would it occur to you to remove 3♦ in front of partner? After all, for a hand with eleven cards in the majors, you have a pretty good hand for diamonds if that is where partner, knowing you have the majors, wants to play.

It is all very well to say "Partner did not open the bidding, so he can't want to play in diamonds facing this hand, so he must have misremembered or misunderstood 3♦." Again, if you can show incontrovertible evidence that partner would always open the bidding with any hand that wants to play in diamonds facing this, well and good. In that case and that case only, there is no "logical alternative" to 3♥ - you are allowed to infer that partner doesn't know what you're doing if the legal calls and your partnership methods alone admit no other inference.

But you may not - nay, must not - be guided in any way by an alert, or non-alert, or question, or reply to a question, or anything else, as to your partner's actual state of mind. You bid 3♦ intending, or hoping at any rate, to show the majors. You must assume that partner knows that it showed the majors, and you must act accordingly when he passes it.

Apologies if I appear, in stressing this point, to be criticising your behaviour in terms of ethics. That is not my intention in the least - I am sure that you were acting from the best of motives and without any nefarious intent. Moreover, your own comments indicate that you do have some grasp of the issues; if a director had adjusted the score to 3♦ doubled minus lots, you would have had no complaint.

But some of the things that have been said here seem to me to indicate that the legal principle involved is not widely understood, and I am anxious that it should be. That principle I can best state in words I used some time ago:

"When you have unauthorised information, you are no longer allowed to be brilliant."

So it doesn't matter that I know that we have no agreements covering this auction, and that there is a high likelihood that partner doesn't know what I'm doing? I'm just curious.

I thought I might be within my rights, as I had made a plan ahead of time that took into account that 3 diamonds would not likely end the auction, and that partner, who might misunderstand my initial action, would be able to interpret it in context of my later action, but I wasn't 100% sure, so I'm glad you took the time to post such a thorough response.

Edit: Also, gratitude to those who point out that it may not be best, and is in no way assumed undiscussed, to have the same defense to 2N as to 1N.

[cherdano]

CSGibson, on Oct 18 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

dburn, on Oct 17 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

I too was under the impression that 3♦ had been doubled by third hand, not by opener after partner had passed it.

But in the latter case, it is in my view even more serious to remove 3♦ doubled to 3♥. Again, suppose that your LHO had asked what 3♦ meant, and your partner had said "It shows both majors" before passing. Would it occur to you to remove 3♦ in front of partner? After all, for a hand with eleven cards in the majors, you have a pretty good hand for diamonds if that is where partner, knowing you have the majors, wants to play.

It is all very well to say "Partner did not open the bidding, so he can't want to play in diamonds facing this hand, so he must have misremembered or misunderstood 3♦." Again, if you can show incontrovertible evidence that partner would always open the bidding with any hand that wants to play in diamonds facing this, well and good. In that case and that case only, there is no "logical alternative" to 3♥ - you are allowed to infer that partner doesn't know what you're doing if the legal calls and your partnership methods alone admit no other inference.

But you may not - nay, must not - be guided in any way by an alert, or non-alert, or question, or reply to a question, or anything else, as to your partner's actual state of mind. You bid 3♦ intending, or hoping at any rate, to show the majors. You must assume that partner knows that it showed the majors, and you must act accordingly when he passes it.

Apologies if I appear, in stressing this point, to be criticising your behaviour in terms of ethics. That is not my intention in the least - I am sure that you were acting from the best of motives and without any nefarious intent. Moreover, your own comments indicate that you do have some grasp of the issues; if a director had adjusted the score to 3♦ doubled minus lots, you would have had no complaint.

But some of the things that have been said here seem to me to indicate that the legal principle involved is not widely understood, and I am anxious that it should be. That principle I can best state in words I used some time ago:

"When you have unauthorised information, you are no longer allowed to be brilliant."

So it doesn't matter that I know that we have no agreements covering this auction, and that there is a high likelihood that partner doesn't know what I'm doing? I'm just curious.

I thought I might be within my rights, as I had made a plan ahead of time that took into account that 3 diamonds would not likely end the auction, and that partner, who might misunderstand my initial action, would be able to interpret it in context of my later action, but I wasn't 100% sure, so I'm glad you took the time to post such a thorough response.

Edit: Also, gratitude to those who point out that it may not be best, and is in no way assumed undiscussed, to have the same defense to 2N as to 1N.

Just because you made a plan not to pass out 3♦X does not mean it wasn't a logical alternative to do so.
The laws have to apply an objective standard, and thus have to take the latter approach (was passing out 3♦X a logical alternative?). I find it VERY hard to see how passing out 3♦ could not be a logical alternative, if there is a reasonable chance that partner understood your original bid.

[kgr]

Suppose you accept the correction to 3♥...(I find that very reasonable).
What about Easts DBL? Is it a valid argument to say that there was MI for East and without the MI he would not have DBLed and you would have to play 3♦?
(About the MI: You can argue that there was no agreement and therefore no MI, but you knew that 2♦ over 1NT was for the Majors and as a consequence 3♦ over 2NT could also show the majors if you had no other agreements. If East knew all this then he might have passed?)

[skjaeran]

You would never bid 3♦ to show both majors unless you (for some reason) thought that there was a decent or better chance that partner would understand it. And whatever, you've got UI from partnes non-alert. Passing the double is obviously a logical alternative.