[pran]

About rebidding after a preempt: I address those who claim that a player who has opened with a preempt should not bid again after and an opponent competes with a bid.

I bet all of you have many times seen players do just that?

We all agree that when preempting one should initially bid as high as the cards can justify so that bidding again should be out of question. Still such rebids happen, and happen relatively often with not so good players.

Therefore it is my opinion that we cannot just deny a player who has received UI to bid again in such situations, we must first carefully judge whether PASS is a logical alternative for him.

Sven

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 27 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer.  It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

I have highlighted what I think is the flaw in your line of reasoning in this particular case, and in general in cases like this where someone preempts then bids again when UI points that direction. You haven't shown a less offensive hand than you hold. If you open 2♠ on this hand, then (unless you can demonstrate otherwise) you have shown exactly this offensive of a hand because 2♠ encompasses the hand on which you bid it. You have no extra offense for a player whose agreement is to open 2♠ on this hand.

Your argument suggests the possibility that the player intentionally misbid earlier in the auction (since if it was unintentional he still wouldn't know on the next round that he misbid). It's a tough sell to make, and rightfully so as it's far too easy to lie about if it's not true.

Disagree.

If you open 2♠ on this hand you have not shown exactly this hand unless you have a partnership agreement to open 2♠ on this hand.

A beginner who agrees to play weak twos - say 6-10 HCP with a six-card suit - does not have that agreement.

It is far from clear to me that the UI points in the direction of bidding 3♠.

If partner has a defensive hand that was considering double then that doesn't suggest that we bid on. We have more spades and fewer clubs than we might have in a weak two so it seems more likely to me that partner has too few spades to raise and or a surprise for the opponent in club than that he has a hand that would suggest bidding on. A hand that is defensively oriented against 3♣ might not be at all useful in 3♠.

The extra offense in the hand (over a standard weak two) points in the direction of 3♠ not any UI.

[jdonn]

The UI argument is another story, I don't intend to address that. I only mentioned it out of necessity. Let's just suppose the UI points to bidding, since if it doesn't then we can agree case closed.

As for what I was addressing which is the LA argument, it all comes down to your statement with which I agree:

Quote

If you open 2♠ on this hand you have not shown exactly this hand unless you have a partnership agreement to open 2♠ on this hand.

So there are three possibilities. It was the player's agreement to open 2♠ on this hand, he unintentionally misbid, or he intentionally misbid.

If it was the player's agreement to open 2♠ on this hand, case closed as pass is clearly a logical alternative with the hand already described.

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

If he intentionally, he must demonstrate that to the director. If he can't do so then the director should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, which in this case means assuming there was no misbid. That brings us back to the first case where passing is a logical alternative with the hand already described.

Theoretically he should only be able to win the LA argument by demonstrating to the director he intentionally misbid. However I really don't know how someone could do that adequately in a case like this since the possibility he unintentionally misbid always remains.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

This is flawed in my opinion.

Even if he unintentionally misbid he still arrives at a situation in which he has the best part of seven tricks offensively and opponents who are bidding passively and therefore a partner who (almost) must have some values some of which we can hope are useful.

Unless partner's values are very defensive then one may well reason that playing 3♠ is likely to be more successful than defending 3♣. In fact I could imagine a beginner who opened 2♠ with this hand even pulling a double of 3♠ - I saw something similar at the club a week or two ago when my opponent opened 4♥ and I bid 5♦ which there partner doubled and they pulled to 5♥ (unsuccessfully) and this was not a beginner. For this sort of player PASS would not be a logical alternative.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 27 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

This is flawed in my opinion.

Even if he unintentionally misbid he still arrives at a situation in which he has the best part of seven tricks offensively and opponents who are bidding passively and therefore a partner who (almost) must have some values some of which we can hope are useful.

"Unintentionally misbid" means he think she has bid correctly. That means in his mind he has already described his hand, his partner knows what he has and has made a decision. I don't accept an argument pertaining to his hand that he has already described. What you are arguing is he should trust his opponents more than his partner. I don't believe it ever fails to be a logical alternative to trust one's partner.

Btw I visited my home town this last weekend, which has a small and very friendly bridge club with a lot of poor players. I had this hand come up against two players I did not know, so untill this occured I didn't realize they were beginners. I was south.

Scoring: MP

2♠ 3♣ P P
P

---

Would you have said it's not a logical alternative for me to pass the hand out, even though my hand is within the range my partner expects, since my partner 'must' have values?

[Cascade]

There is a big difference between your hand and the hand in the opening post.

A logical alternative is not just a function of the auction but also of the hand that you hold.