[DarrenE]

The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb.

At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)?

[campboy]

I would think it is obvious from the auction alone that partner didn't understand the 2NT bid. So while there is UI from the failure to alert I don't think it suggests anything in particular, and therefore either call is legal.

[mgoetze]

East might have a bit of UI. He also has LOTS of AI. I won't say that 4♣ is better than pass, but I will say that East can bid whatever he likes, and that I think this belongs in the "simple rulings" forum.

[Gerben42]

What mgoetze said.

[nige1]

DarrenE, on 2011-January-04, 08:28, said:

The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb. At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)?

---

IMO, the affected player (and the director) can perform a simple thought-experiment that may help to decide such cases. Here, over your 2N reply, imagine that partner alerts and explains "A puppet to 3♣. He could have a variety of hands. Some are weak hands that he wants us to play at the three-level. For example, a weak hand with long clubs." (Assuming that this an accurate explanation). Partner persists with 3N. Do you still remove?

[TimG]

What nige1 said.

[lamford]

DarrenE, on 2011-January-04, 08:28, said:

---

The 2N bid was not alerted and clearly East did not know what his system was. Perhaps a confusion with Leb.

At the table East chose 4♣ after the 3N - Was this logical based on the UI (no alert of 2N)?

Why does the auction say "All Pass" then? But I agree that 4C is the only LA, and as an aside I think the right bid was not 2NT but 3C, pre-emptive.
And 2NT should be one of three hand types
a ) Both minors, no game interest, not willing to play 1NTx
b ) Game-forcing two suiter
c ) Single-suited slam try

Partner assumes a) and now:
3H = hearts and not spades
3NT = spades and not clubs
4C = clubs and not diamonds
4D, 4H, 4S, 4NT = natural slam-try (last in clubs)

[hotShot]

Why can't partner have:

---

[bluejak]

Four aces and a king seems just a tad strong for a 12 to 14 no-trump.

[lamford]

hotShot, on 2011-January-04, 10:12, said:

Why can't partner have:

---

Partner could have anything; but hovering over 1NT states that it is 12-14. It is much more likely that partner has misinterpreted 2NT than partner has psyched a weak NT with a 19 count. Where does one draw the line? If East had xx xx xx Jxxxxxx the same hand would make 3NT an even money shot.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-January-04, 10:11, said:

And 2NT should be one of three hand types
a ) Both minors, no game interest, not willing to play 1NTx
b ) Game-forcing two suiter
c ) Single-suited slam try

Out of curiosity, and speaking as someone who has played it as either no agreement or as a two suiter excluding spades in all partnerships for many years, why "should" it be one of your three hand types?

[mfa1010]

I agree with campboy, mgoetze etc.

nige1, on 2011-January-04, 09:44, said:

IMO, the affected player (and the director) can perform a simple thought-experiment that may help to decide such cases. Here, over your 2N reply, imagine that partner alerts and explains "A puppet to 3♣. He could have a variety of hands. Some are weak hands that he wants us to play at the three-level. For example, a weak hand with long clubs." (Assuming that this an accurate explanation). Partner persists with 3N. Do you still remove?

Such a thought-experiment is not necessarily fair.

It is my impression that it is generally accepted that if the bidding looks sufficiently illogical then we are allowed to cater to a misunderstanding in spite of UI. Because of the AI also present.

But with the thought-experiment as you describe it that would not be possible because of the assumption that partner reveals that there is no misinformation (however absurd the bidding may look). And in principle we can always play partner for having found a couple of extra aces or something like that.

[FrancesHinden]

I disagree with the thought experiment. Better is to consider what you would do if (i) you were playing with screens, or (ii) partner alerted 2NT but was not asked to explain it.
Partner's explanations are UI to you, whatever they are. In your simple thought experiment, you have the UI that partner bid 3NT whilst being certain you might have a weak hand with clubs. Without that UI you are on a guess whether partner has miscounted his points, or has forgotten how you play 2NT.

[Trinidad]

And I agree with Frances.

Rik

[nige1]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-04, 15:14, said:

It is my impression that it is generally accepted that if the bidding looks sufficiently illogical then we are allowed to cater to a misunderstanding in spite of UI. Because of the AI also present. But with the thought-experiment as you describe it that would not be possible because of the assumption that partner reveals that there is no misinformation (however absurd the bidding may look). And in principle we can always play partner for having found a couple of extra aces or something like that.

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-04, 15:33, said:

I disagree with the thought experiment. Better is to consider what you would do if (i) you were playing with screens, or (ii) partner alerted 2NT but was not asked to explain it. Partner's explanations are UI to you, whatever they are. In your simple thought experiment, you have the UI that partner bid 3NT whilst being certain you might have a weak hand with clubs. Without that UI you are on a guess whether partner has miscounted his points, or has forgotten how you play 2NT.

Trinidad, on 2011-January-04, 18:08, said:

And I agree with Frances.

My thought experiment is a bit cruel Frances Hinden's
"Partner alerted but was not asked to explain" seems more in keeping with the laws

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-January-04, 10:24, said:

Out of curiosity, and speaking as someone who has played it as either no agreement or as a two suiter excluding spades in all partnerships for many years, why "should" it be one of your three hand types?

Because you have room to show additional hand types without giving up on your preferred method. If you have hearts and clubs, you bid 3H over partner's preference to a minor; if you have both minors, and game-forcing, you have already found your better fit, and if you have hearts and diamonds, you again bid 3H over partner's preference. Partner puppets with 3S and you complete the description. And all six combinations are shown in this way.

And as an aside, I believe the three votes for pass in the poll at the start of this thread breach the second sentence of Law 72A. The voters are hanging partner for being a bit dim.

[hotShot]

bluejak, on 2011-January-04, 10:20, said:

Four aces and a king seems just a tad strong for a 12 to 14 no-trump.

But it can't be much worse than that to make 3NT a serious suggestion if he understood 2NT correctly.

[bluejak]

Sure: but there is no connection between the two, is there?

'Two wrongs do not make a right.'

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-January-05, 06:50, said:

Because you have room to show additional hand types without giving up on your preferred method. If you have hearts and clubs, you bid 3H over partner's preference to a minor; if you have both minors, and game-forcing, you have already found your better fit, and if you have hearts and diamonds, you again bid 3H over partner's preference. Partner puppets with 3S and you complete the description. And all six combinations are shown in this way.

And as an aside, I believe the three votes for pass in the poll at the start of this thread breach the second sentence of Law 72A. The voters are hanging partner for being a bit dim.

That might make it a better method - though I did not quite understand it - but that is nowhere near a sufficient reason to say that "2NT should be one of three hand types" when you are referring to others' methods, rather than your own.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-January-05, 08:53, said:

That might make it a better method - though I did not quite understand it - but that is nowhere near a sufficient reason to say that "2NT should be one of three hand types" when you are referring to others' methods, rather than your own.

I prefaced my recommended treatment of 2NT with: "as an aside I think the right bid was not 2NT but 3C, pre-emptive."
I have no idea what the player's methods were, nor does the "should" refer to their methods. It seems clear that they were not on the same wavelength. I did not say that I was referring to their methods rather than my own, and the context made it absolutely clear that it was the latter.