[VixTD]

Problem 1: IMP teams, NS vul, dealer S.

---

2♠ = weak two in spades (announced)
X = takeout
2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted)

What options do you think West can choose here? For most people playing this standard Lebensohl, 3♥ would show a very strong hand, but when asked afterwards it seemed that both East and West thought that it forced a 3♣ rebid, so it was obvious that East had forgotten their agreement. Does this make any difference to what rebids you allow from West?

Problem 2: IMP teams, NS vul, dealer E.

---

2♠ = weak, 5+ spades and 4+ red suit (A)
3♠ = pre-emptive raise

What would you do with the North hand? Would it make any difference if South had asked questions about the EW bidding?

[aguahombre]

Wish there were two threads for two issues, each with different concerns.

1) Advancer's authorized info is that Pard broke their agreement and must have a big hand. Passing or a simple raise to game is not allowable, IMO. Only something which shows a fit and max values should be allowed -- Last Train, or some blast, I guess.

2) Without UI, I might shoot out a pressure 3NT. With UI, I would have to stay fixed.

Edit: on 2), I am not conceding that we have UI with only what the OP stated.

[campboy]

1) It's very easy to convince yourself that a bid means partner "must have forgotten" if you know before it is made that he has. If the player saw the same auction without UI, would he be capable of working out what it must mean? Quite possibly, it depends on the experience of the player I suppose.

Anyway, the UI may not suggest very much. I can't think of any hands which would double and then bid hearts after one meaning of 2NT but not the other.

2) I would bid 3NT. I would not consider anything else, so I don't expect pass to be an LA. Also, if partner merely asked what the bid meant and then passed within 10 seconds I would not feel that I had any meaningful UI.

[nige1]

Problem 1 by VixTD:
"IMP teams, NS vul, dealer S.
2♠ = weak two in spades (announced)
X = takeout
2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted)
What options do you think West can choose here? For most people playing this standard Lebensohl, 3♥ would show a very strong hand, but when asked afterwards it seemed that both East and West thought that it forced a 3♣ rebid, so it was obvious that East had forgotten their agreement. Does this make any difference to what rebids you allow from West?"

---

IMO, Without more evidence of this peculiar agreement, the director may suspect that East-West are rationalising or mistaken that 2N can systemically force a 3♣ rebid. For example, the director could ask West if 3♣ is the systemic rebid with
♠- ♥ K Q J x x x ♦ K J x x ♣ A K Q
If so, then the lack of alert is UI suggesting East does not have the mountain, seemingly advertised, so the director should allow only slam-tries by West.

Problem 2 by VixTD:
"IMP teams, NS vul, dealer E.
2♠ = weak, 5+ spades and 4+ red suit (A)
3♠ = pre-emptive raise
What would you do with the North hand? Would it make any difference if South had asked questions about the EW bidding?"

---

IMO 3N without UI. As I understand EBU rules, In England, partner's question should inhibit you, so you should pass if that is a logical alternative.

[mycroft]

First one: I bet they think it *does* force 3♣. I also bet that with AQ KQJTxxx -- AKQxx, East might have decided "3♥ can be passed out, I'm doubling", and then "3♣ could be passed out, I'm bidding something else" and that something else is almost certainly 3♥. Basically, they don't know how to play this, but would get it right with the right hand. As a result, in that auction I'd bid 3♠ (and pull 3NT, if he bids it, to 4♦, that must be "slam try in hearts", no?)

Second, this is difficult. I don't think North is constrained, especially if partner routinely asks about style, or if style tends to be part of the description in the UK (it certainly isn't here; we ask, and get "weak", we ask about expected suit quality, and get "huh?" (or "well, of course it'll be 2/top 3...", which is basically "huh?" with an actual answer). if South asks about 3♠, or if he's never asked about preempts before, I'm probably thanking partner for constraining me...

I'd be more concerned if I had another soft card and partner flash-passed than this auction.

[gnasher]

(1) Playing normal methods, where 3♥ shows a strong hand, I can't see any LA to 3♠. There might be more of a problem on the next round.

It sounds as though they have simply never considered the possibility that the doubler would bid 3♥, rather than that they've explicitly agreed that it's impossible. For such a pair, there are two possible interpretations of 3♥:
- A strong hand with some number of hearts greater than four.
- A minimum takeout double with five hearts.

The logical alternatives are therefore 3♠, pass and 4♥. 3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble, so that's the only legal action.

(2) I'd bid 3NT, and not consider any other call.

As for whether partner's question conveyed UI:
- If he asks only when he needs to know, the question conveys UI (and partner is an idiot should rethink his approach).
- If he routinely asks about (or otherwise finds out) the meaning of an alerted 2♠ opening, the question conveys no UI.

(3) Separate threads would be nice.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with gnasher on (1) but find it tough that one forgot the convention and the other didn't own the 2nt bid. Lucky accidents or inexperienced players? Both = trouble, you can't prove body language.

On (2) I would pass on a smooth auction expecting a small plus and maybe lose a couple of imps. Pard has another kick at the can and if they asked with/without needing to know it's another lucky accident waiting to happen (if I bid directly). IMO, that's a habit that needs to be stepped (stomped) on, gently but firmly.

How many times can a pair get the Scottish verdict, not guilty but don't do it again. Again, IMO zero especially if both hands in one thread = the same partnership.

Close enough that I could change my mind depending on what happened next but I doubt it.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-May-14, 11:29, said:

The logical alternatives are therefore 3♠, pass and 4♥. 3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble, so that's the only legal action.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but the way you've put it bothers me. We don't look for the call "most likely to get the partnership into trouble", we look among the logical alternatives for calls which "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the UI. And we don't tell players what they can or cannot call - we tell them their obligation is to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, and that if they do choose an LA which "could demonstrably have been suggested", we may adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2013-May-14, 10:52, said:

As I understand EBU rules, In England, partner's question should inhibit you, so you should pass if that is a logical alternative.

A question may suggest a call or play anywhere, not just in England. When it does, you are constrained by Laws 16B and 73C everywhere. It is also possible, although not, I think, in this case, for pass to be a suggested LA.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 15:56, said:

I think I understand what you're getting at, but the way you've put it bothers me. We don't look for the call "most likely to get the partnership into trouble", we look among the logical alternatives for calls which "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the UI.

I meant, as I'm sure everyone except you understood perfectly well, that "The UI tells us that 3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble, so 3♠ is suggested over the other LAs". If we have to phrase every comment with exactly the same wording as in the Laws, this forum will become rather turgid.

Quote

And we don't tell players what they can or cannot call - we tell them their obligation is to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, and that if they do choose an LA which "could demonstrably have been suggested", we may adjust the score.

Perhaps your copy of the Laws has a page missing? Mine contains the words "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives". That is, we tell players what they cannot call, and consequentially what they can call.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2013-May-14, 16:27, said:

I meant, as I'm sure everyone except you understood perfectly well, that "The UI tells us that 3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble, so 3♠ is suggested over the other LAs". If we have to phrase every comment with exactly the same wording as in the Laws, this forum will become rather turgid.

This forum is intended to help people learn the laws of the game and how rulings are made. Shorthand is fine for those of us who are experienced in that endeavor - it won't help a neophyte. Besides, your conclusion (3♠ is suggested over the other LAs) does not follow from the premise (3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble).

 gnasher, on 2013-May-14, 16:27, said:

Perhaps your copy of the Laws has a page missing? Mine contains the words "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives". That is, we tell players what they cannot call, and consequentially what they can call.

Since when? The way I learned it, we don't tell players what the LAs are during a live auction.

[aguahombre]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-May-14, 13:46, said:

I agree with gnasher on (1) but find it tough that one forgot the convention and the other didn't own the 2nt bid. Lucky accidents or inexperienced players? Both = trouble, you can't prove body language.

Your opinion that 2NT (Leben) was wrong with the given hand is not mine. A direct strain at the 3-level opposite a balancing double should be 12+. We are in a typical add-a-king subtract-a-king scenario.

[Trinidad]

 VixTD, on 2013-May-14, 09:51, said:

Problem 2: IMP teams, NS vul, dealer E.

---

2♠ = weak, 5+ spades and 4+ red suit (A)
3♠ = pre-emptive raise

What would you do with the North hand? Would it make any difference if South had asked questions about the EW bidding?

If partner asked about 2♠, I have UI. The UI is that partner does what he normally does when there is an alert - whether he has an interest in bidding or not.
If partner didn't ask about 2♠, I have UI. The UI is that partner somehow (e.g. convention card) already knew what the 2♠ bid meant.

Neither form of UI suggests any action over another. That makes this a problem for the "General Bridge Discussion" forum. I would bid 3NT but it is on the edge.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 VixTD, on 2013-May-14, 09:51, said:

Problem 1: IMP teams, NS vul, dealer S.

---

2♠ = weak two in spades (announced)
X = takeout
2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted)

What options do you think West can choose here? For most people playing this standard Lebensohl, 3♥ would show a very strong hand, but when asked afterwards it seemed that both East and West thought that it forced a 3♣ rebid, so it was obvious that East had forgotten their agreement. Does this make any difference to what rebids you allow from West?

Bridge logic dictates that 3♥ shows a strong hand but not necessarily forcing. If East had a hand that can force to game opposite 3HCP he should find another bid (3♠, 4♥). So, 3♥ shows about 16-22. You need to be a pretty optimistic person to try for slam then. Bidding 4♥ seems obvious. IMO it is the only LA.

It also happens to be the only LA with the UI. If partner thinks that I have a 12-14 NT then 3♥ is forcing to game. I have a subminimum and will sign off in game ASAP.

Rik

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-14, 17:02, said:

This forum is intended to help people learn the laws of the game and how rulings are made. Shorthand is fine for those of us who are experienced in that endeavor - it won't help a neophyte.

The stated purpose of this forum is "discussion of Laws". If you and David intend that it should have some other purpose, I suggest that you change its description. Though if you do make its primary purpose "helping people learn the laws of the game and how rulings are made", I'll probably stop participating.

I realise that a variety of people read and participate in discussions here. If I find myself in a conversation with someone who seems unfamiliar with the rules, I take care to word my comments in a way which refers closely to the rules. In this case, however, the thread was started by an experienced TD, and the other participants were also people with a good understanding of the Laws and how they are applied.

Quote

Besides, your conclusion (3♠ is suggested over the other LAs) does not follow from the premise (3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble).

The conclusion "3♠ is suggested over the other LAs" does follow from the premise "the UI tells us that 3♠ is the most likely to get the partnership into trouble", which is what the other 122 readers of my post understood me to mean.

Quote

Since when? The way I learned it, we don't tell players what the LAs are during a live auction.

If by "we" you mean the director, no of course he doesn't. What on earth makes you think I was suggesting that?

The statement you originally objected to was that 3♠ was "the only legal action". This was in reply to the question "What options do you think West can choose here?" I can't imagine how you concluded from this that I was suggesting that the director participate in the player's decision during the auction.

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-May-14, 23:38, said:

Bridge logic dictates that 3♥ shows a strong hand but not necessarily forcing. If East had a hand that can force to game opposite 3HCP he should find another bid (3♠, 4♥). So, 3♥ shows about 16-22. You need to be a pretty optimistic person to try for slam then. Bidding 4♥ seems obvious. IMO it is the only LA.

Is it optimistic to think partner might have x KJxxxx Kxx AKQ, x KQJxx KJxx AKQ or even A KQxxx KJxx AKx?

Edit: I don't really think West should start constructing hands at this point. All he really needs to think is that he shown nothing; he actually has two aces, four-card support, and a useful queen opposite a strong hand; and he can show this without any risk.

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2013-May-14, 23:38, said:

It also happens to be the only LA with the UI. If partner thinks that I have a 12-14 NT then 3♥ is forcing to game. I have a subminimum and will sign off in game ASAP.
Rik

You have bid 2NT, denying 12-14 ---denying as much as XXX AXXXX AQX XX, (same HCP but at least a trick better than the flat OP hand and worthy of an upgrade to 3H advancing a balancing double). To sign off in 4H would be taking advantage of UI.

3S is the only call I know of to agree hearts and show the nuts for my previous Leben.

[blackshoe]

<sigh> Have it your way, Andy.

[campboy]

What do you think bidding 3♥ over a natural 2NT means? It can't be to play because he would have bid 3♥ last time with any such hand. So it must be strong, and after I have shown values it should be forcing, so in fact it could be stronger than a strong-but-nonforcing 3♥ after lebensohl.

Personally I would not consider 3♠ here, because I don't have a spade control. I'd like to bid 4♦, but that would be suggested by the UI, IMO, since if 2NT is natural 4♦ must be a cue for hearts, which is what I want, but if 2NT is lebensohl 4♦ could be interpreted as natural. So I think I have to bid 4♥ and possibly miss a slam.

[campboy]

Oh, I'm being stupid. I can bid 5♥, which sounds like a better idea.