[Cascade]

Scoring: MP

(1NT) Pass (Pass) ?

---

Are you worth a bid here?

Partner of course complicated things. EW are playing a variable no trump. After east* opened 1NT North* asks the range and is told "good 11 to 14 - can be offshape". This information had also been prealerted. After this North picks up the opponents convention card and studies it. She then asks again about the range. All of this before passing.

(I was East) - another edit

fixed compass directions i did a bad rotation

This post has been edited by Cascade: 2009-May-24, 18:05

[gwnn]

Something is wrong about your compass.

Anyway, this is a clear pass, especially with partner's annoying mannerisms.

[blackshoe]

Absent the UI, I might bid. I would not be surprised to get a bad board. With the UI, which suggests to me that partner has some values, I'm passing.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't bid in any case, so it's easy for me to not take advantage of the UI.

[MFA]

I would have bid absent this show from partner. I will surely explain to her that I don't fancy her inquirying technique. Politely as always and after the session, of course.

[gnasher]

I think it's normal to bid, assuming I can show both suits. I wouldn't bid if all that was available was a natural 2♠.

What does the UI suggest? The more partner has, the more likely they are to go for 200 in 1NT. Bidding is likely to gain opposite an 8-count, but not opposite 13. If anything, the UI suggests passing over bidding, so you might be obliged to bid even if you don't want to.

[655321]

If I have a way to show spades and a minor I would bid here.

But even after the edit I have no idea who did what. Are we in direct seat (as is indicated by the edited directions), or passout seat (as is indicated by partner's having passed after her 'xxx bridge club' asking bids)?

Partner's asking bid sequence generally shows 10-12 balanced (when I have played at the xxx bridge club), perhaps 12-13 given that she asked 2 questions. It is too difficult for me to tell what this suggests I do, so I would take my normal action (bid), let the director sort it out, and have a serious talk with partner afterwards.

[NickRW]

Well, my CC says bid (X to show spades and another at MP) - so I bid. I'd be more worried about passing - partner's mucking about, if it suggests anything suggests some values and, with opps vul, we might be better defending - but I can't take that option now even if I wanted to.

This is one place where English regs (always announce partners NT range) helps a lot.

Nick

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on May 24 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I think it's normal to bid, assuming I can show both suits. I wouldn't bid if all that was available was a natural 2♠.

What does the UI suggest? The more partner has, the more likely they are to go for 200 in 1NT. Bidding is likely to gain opposite an 8-count, but not opposite 13. If anything, the UI suggests passing over bidding, so you might be obliged to bid even if you don't want to.

I agree the UI suggests bidding.
I would pass without the UI.

[JLOL]

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

gnasher, on May 24 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I think it's normal to bid, assuming I can show both suits.  I wouldn't bid if all that was available was a natural 2♠.

What does the UI suggest?  The more partner has, the more likely they are to go for 200 in 1NT.  Bidding is likely to gain opposite an 8-count, but not opposite 13.  If anything, the UI suggests passing over bidding, so you might be obliged to bid even if you don't want to.

I agree the UI suggests bidding.
I would pass without the UI.

?

[kenrexford]

What methods are/were you playing for pass-out after a weak 1NT?

[MFA]

gnasher, on May 24 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I think it's normal to bid, assuming I can show both suits.  I wouldn't bid if all that was available was a natural 2♠.

What does the UI suggest?  The more partner has, the more likely they are to go for 200 in 1NT.  Bidding is likely to gain opposite an 8-count, but not opposite 13.  If anything, the UI suggests passing over bidding, so you might be obliged to bid even if you don't want to.

I think I like that reasoning about what the BIT implies. I'm however quite sure that an appeals committee very likely won't do so, if bidding turns out right and partner shows up with a good hand for my action.

Interesting situation.

[cherdanno]

JLOL, on May 24 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

gnasher, on May 24 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I think it's normal to bid, assuming I can show both suits.  I wouldn't bid if all that was available was a natural 2♠.

What does the UI suggest?  The more partner has, the more likely they are to go for 200 in 1NT.  Bidding is likely to gain opposite an 8-count, but not opposite 13.  If anything, the UI suggests passing over bidding, so you might be obliged to bid even if you don't want to.

I agree the UI suggests bidding.
I would pass without the UI.

?

I meant to agree with gnasher, that the UI suggest passing over bidding.
It's not so clear-cut though, partner could also have an unbalanced hand that doesn't quite have the strength promised by a bid over a weak NT.
Since we are better placed to guess whether partner tends to act this way with balanced 12 counts or with unbalanced 9-counts, I can't blame an appeals committee for rolling back whatever successful action we took. As a punishment for partner's action that would be very mild anyway.

[Cascade]

Sorry for the confusion.

At the table I was south and partner opened 1NT and east/west competed.

I rotated the hand so that I became east but got myself all confused in the description of the problem. I hope it is edited appropriately now in the opening post.

I think the methods in 4th seat were whatever they played in 2nd seat which i think was 2♣ some weird sort of scramble which some pairs around here play - "i have an opening hand partner and I don't know what to do"; 2♦ Maybe both majors. And 2♥/♠ Natural.

2♠ went down one - we could have beaten it two but forced declarer once too often. 1NT would have made - DF said making one but the director adjusted to making three since it needed some specific switch to keep it to one. That was moot anyway as the matchpoints unbelievably were the same for +90 as +150. (Which would have been the same if we got +100 from beating 2♠ two tricks.)

Anyway I wasn't completely convinced that 2♠ should be disallowed. I wasn't even aware of the misdefense until I saw the hand record later - maybe i thought about it briefly but didn't we didnt discuss it until much later that night or the next morning.

The opponents appealed and they upheld the director's ruling.

[gnasher]

NickRW, on May 25 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

Well, my CC says bid (X to show spades and another at MP) - so I bid.

Playing those methods, the UI suggests doubling, so you probably have to pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would bid, the hand is perfect for our defence against 1NT,
we play Lionel, i.e. X showes contructive values (+11) with
spades + ?, 4-4 or better, facing a passed hand, the hand may
be slightly weaker.

In other words, partners manerism would have no influence.

But that is due to the fact, that we play the above.

If we played something else, things may be different, I would still
think, that 2S is ok, if it would show spades + minor (Capp.), if
it just showed spades, well ... I would tend to think the bid is still
necessary, but it becomes more problematic.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Don't you have to double 1NT?? I mean, pard's pass over the weak NT can go up to 13 or 14, so you have to bid regradless of the UI.

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on May 25 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

Don't you have to double 1NT?? I mean, pard's pass over the weak NT can go up to 13 or 14, so you have to bid regradless of the UI.

Hi,

my answer would be yes, but gnashers remark is certainly valid.
Given that double is the bid that ensures that I catch whatever
partner is holding, it is the most problematic bid, and maybe I
have to pass.
Although I am not sure, if this reason is enough to stop me from
making the clearly indicated system bid.

=> I would make the bid, and would let the TD / AC (if the TD thinks
the apeal has some merrit)s sort it out.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

It is entirely possible that correct bidding could lead to defending 1NT with 24 or even 25 between the hands against a weak notrump. Maybe even 26 sometimes!

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 24 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I wouldn't bid in any case, so it's easy for me to not take advantage of the UI.

I do not grok - what leads you to believe that allowing them to play an unmolested 1N is in your partnerships best interests?

I am not certain it is clear to bid - but I am equally uncertain it is clear to pass.