[VixTD]

Problem 1: Matchpoint pairs, EW vul, dealer S.

---

NS play Benjamin Acol, weak NT.
2♦ = 23+ balanced or any GF (A)
2♥ = relay (A)
2NT = 23-24 balanced
3♥ = transfer to spades (not alerted)

4NT in other circumstances could be quantitative or RKCB, but it's difficult to believe that South would want to make a bid with either of these meanings in this auction, or indeed to make this bid at all. 5♦ would show one keycard in response to RKCB.

What options can North ethically choose here, given South's failure to alert 3♥?

Problem 2: Matchpoint pairs, love all, dealer W.

---

EW play one-of-a-suit openers as natural and forcing (except that 1♣ could be only two cards in a 15+ balanced hand), 5-card majors, always 14+ except that 1M could be 11+ with four cards in the other major. 12-14 NT, opening two-of-a-suit 10-13 natural, at least 5-card suit, unbalanced.
1♥ = 5+ hearts, forcing, either 14+ or 11+ with 4+ spades (A)
2♣ = GF [edit: unless partner rebids 2♦], either natural or strong and balanced or heart support (A)
2♦ = artificial, promising 11+ and 4+ spades (not alerted)
2NT = relay, asking for more information on shape (A)
3♥ = extra length in hearts
3NT = to play

The general agreement here is to ignore the opposition's double, and both players agreed later this was the correct system bid. Can West rebid the heart suit after East failed to alert 2♦?

[billw55]

1. The failure to complete the transfer shows that south forgot, so this is now AI. North is not constrained.

2. Yes, 4♥ is fine. The suit is self sufficient and the hand is not good for NT. The failure to alert suggests only that east does not know that west has four spades. And I don't think passing 3NT is an LA anyway.

[campboy]

1) I don't see how you can deduce anything (helpful) from 4NT. While it is true that it makes no sense if 3♥ was a transfer, that is because it makes no sense whether or not 3♥ was a transfer. But I don't see any LA to 6♠ in any case.

2) If partner has correctly interpreted the auction, he will have a diamond stop. If he thinks 2♦ was natural then he may not. So bidding 4♥ is clearly suggested over pass. I could easily be persuaded that pass isn't an LA though.

[mycroft]

Bill, if partner had bid 4♦ instead of 4NT, would you still believe that South forgot? Or that South had a particularly good hand for spades? What about 3NT instead? Therefore, why not 4NT for spades instead of 4NT for hearts?

I agree, we have information that partner's off the rails somewhere; have I shown any strength whatever (by 2♥, possibly)? If so, then partner might have decided to lie about the 23-24, knowing that he can make a slam try after I make my forced non-pass. If not, who knows?

But I really won't let anyone get away with "he didn't bid 3♠, he's forgotten", unless they are real novices. Even then, it wouldn't surprise me if real novices went "oh, partner's got spades to go with my 5=2=4=2 24-count; we may have slam! I have to make the 'we may have slam' bid!" - Granted, with those, 6♥ would make no sense :-)



On the second one, if partner has quick tricks, we're making the same tricks in NT as in hearts, and I lose by passing. If partner's tricks need any development whatever, hearts will play better. I hate matchpoint pairs - this isn't even a thought in Real Bridge. I'm not passing; but I'm 100% to blame if we lose to the NTers.

[gnasher]

(1) If the partnership believes that one can bid Keycard opposite a natural 3♥, presumably they believe that one can also do it opposite a transfer to spades. Therefore 6♥ is a grand-slam suggestion, promising all the keycards and suggesting that ♥Q would be enough for a grand slam. Something like AQxx AKxxx Ax AK? If that's South's hand, North has enough to accept.

However, I suspect that for this particular player bidding a grand slam is not an LA. That makes the LAs pass and 6♠. It must be an LA to bid a safe 6♠ rather than passing a murky 6♥, so I'd make North bid 6♠.

(2) I don't think pass is an LA. I do think 4♦ is an LA, though: there could easily be a slam, and 4♦ is obviously a cue-bid setting hearts as trumps. It's also the most likely action to get the partnership into trouble, so I think it's the only legal action.

[billw55]

My point is that keycard is not possible by such a narrowly defined hand (23-24 balanced) in particular when north has promised zilch so far.

[CSGibson]

gnasher, on 2013-May-14, 11:46, said:

(2) I don't think pass is an LA. I do think 4♦ is an LA, though: there could easily be a slam, and 4♦ is obviously a cue-bid setting hearts as trumps. It's also the most likely action to get the partnership into trouble, so I think it's the only legal action.

I have promised 11+ HCP, 4 spades, and extra length in hearts, but at this point I think I am unlimited. Partner has suggested wastage in the minors, and is very likely to have a singleton or void in hearts - we probably have a trump loser, and maybe 2.

I am all for self-immolation when the circumstances call for it, but I think bidding 4♦ is poor, and should not be a LA. I cannot imagine that 4♦ would poll out to meet the threshold to be a LA, especially with the double, whatever the meaning - either righty has asked for a club lead, or its take-out, and he has likely spade length/strength, to go with the probable heart loser.

[lamford]

CSGibson, on 2013-May-14, 12:15, said:

I cannot imagine that 4♦ would poll out to meet the threshold to be a LA, especially with the double, whatever the meaning - either righty has asked for a club lead, or its take-out, and he has likely spade length/strength, to go with the probable heart loser.

Double should be takeout, because we would have been told if it was not.

I agree with gnasher that 4♦ is correct. Partner could easily have QJx Ax xxx AKJxx, when 7♥ is a reasonable shot, giving South something like Kxxxx xx AKxxx x

[CSGibson]

lamford, on 2013-May-15, 08:56, said:

Double should be takeout, because we would have been told if it was not.

I agree with gnasher that 4♦ is correct. Partner could easily have QJx Ax xxx AKJxx, when 7♥ is a reasonable shot, giving South something like Kxxxx xx AKxxx x

That's insane. What partner would bid 3N with that after you've shown 6 hearts & 4 spades?

[gnasher]

I agree that Lamford's construction is unlikely, but partner could have something like KJx x KJxx AKxxx, where slam is pretty good.

[VixTD]

I was in the hot seat on both these auctions.

In problem 1 I bid 6♠ and went two off. 6♥ would also have failed by two tricks, so it made little difference. I felt sure that partner assumed that 3♥ showed both hearts and values (why is beyond me), so passing was suggested over 6♠.

I've edited the explanation in problem 2 to explain that 2♣ was not unequivocally game-forcing, but I don't think it changes much.

I felt uncomfortable rebidding 4♥, as I'd already told partner my strength and distribution down to about one card, and although I'd normally not leave 3NT I didn't think the seventh heart was sufficient justification, so I passed.

[CSGibson]

gnasher, on 2013-May-15, 10:41, said:

I agree that Lamford's construction is unlikely, but partner could have something like KJx x KJxx AKxxx, where slam is pretty good.

That you can come up with constructions where slam is ok (not good, mind you - if doubler is coming into a live auction, I think its a good chance he'll have 5 spades & the ace of hearts) is not the key issue. More relevent is this: What does 4♥ show vs 4♦ in an auction where opener is basically unlimited? I think 4H shows this sort of hand - a HCP minimum, good suit, and extra heart length. Partner can move on with your example hand with those wonderful fitting spade honors & controls - though I'm not saying he definitely should, but he should consider it.

I think 4♦ should be the same general hand, but with much more in way of values - throw in the Q or K of spades, and maybe the Q of clubs. Or perhaps a hand with only 6 hearts, but the ace of diamonds also, and some other small extras.

Really, its something that should be polled to determine logical alternatives, but as a player I would bid 4H because I believe that 3N and 4D are not actually logical alternatives.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2013-May-15, 08:56, said:

Double should be takeout, because we would have been told if it was not.

Why? 2C was artificial, so unless we were told otherwise the obvious assumption is that double shows clubs.