[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-March-31, 05:36, said:

Further UI was used later.

See there? You did it again!

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-31, 10:32, said:

See there? You did it again!

I should have explained more clearly. When 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, this appears to be the only piece of UI. However, the later auction is affected by the same UI in that the meaning of subsequent bids is different. It would be more correct to state "there was UI, in that a natural 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, and South must continue to bid as though North did not alert, and must attach the meaning to North's bids which he would have done without the alert." This he did not do if he attempted to sign off in 5D opposite what should have been interpreted as three key cards, and his pass of 6D might have used the same UI. To establish whether UI was used we poll peers with the authorised auction.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2014-March-31, 05:57, said:

What if South says that 6♦ always shows the king of diamonds (rather than "something extra"), and thus he knows from his hand that something has gone wrong? I think this is a very common agreement.

It might be a common agreement, but when South infers from his own hand that North does not hold ♦K, there are alternative explanations to a wheel having come off earlier in the auction. For example, 6♦ might be offering an alternative strain, as Paul suggested upthread. The UI demonstrably suggests that a wheel has come off, so Law 73C/16A demand that South bids on the assumption of a different logical explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-March-31, 11:03, said:

I should have explained more clearly. When 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, this appears to be the only piece of UI. However, the later auction is affected by the same UI in that the meaning of subsequent bids is different. It would be more correct to state "there was UI, in that a natural 3NT was alerted and explained as RKCB, and South must continue to bid as though North did not alert, and must attach the meaning to North's bids which he would have done without the alert." This he did not do if he attempted to sign off in 5D opposite what should have been interpreted as three key cards, and his pass of 6D might have used the same UI. To establish whether UI was used we poll peers with the authorised auction.

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine, when partner bids 6♦ he's saying "I have 3 and nothing else" so he expects x, Kxxxx, Axxxxx, A or similar which is no play for more than 6♦. Looking at ♦ KQ himself, 6♦ must be choice of contracts and 6♦ is better than 6♥ if the hearts misbehave as you may have a spade finesse option if they don't lead one.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-31, 20:44, said:

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine, when partner bids 6♦ he's saying "I have 3 and nothing else" so he expects x, Kxxxx, Axxxxx, A or similar which is no play for more than 6♦. Looking at ♦ KQ himself, 6♦ must be choice of contracts and 6♦ is better than 6♥ if the hearts misbehave as you may have a spade finesse option if they don't lead one.

We have a different approach. If we can't tell whether Partner has zero or 3, we should not have been asking the question.

Painful as it may be, I believe Lamford has a point this time. South was doing the correct thing ignoring the UI, then all of a sudden we don't know if 6D was impossible on South's interpretation of their agreements about RKC when hearts are trump OR if he just got tired of continuing the pretense of ignoring the UI.

I don't see where South was asked why he passed 6D. If he said something like Cyber says, or just that the bid was impossible/undiscussed, we should probably believe him based on the reasonableness of the rest of his explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-31, 21:11, said:

We have a different approach. If we can't tell whether Partner has zero or 3, we should not have been asking the question.

Painful as it may be, I believe Lamford has a point this time. South was doing the correct thing ignoring the UI, then all of a sudden we don't know if 6D was impossible on South's interpretation of their agreements about RKC when hearts are trump OR if he just got tired of continuing the pretense of ignoring the UI.

I don't see where South was asked why he passed 6D. If he said something like Cyber says, or just that the bid was impossible/undiscussed, we should probably believe him based on the reasonableness of the rest of his explanation.

It's a different emphasis, we assume partner has 3, but by signing off opposite 0, we give him the chance to show what else he has (which in the context of a precision 1♦ will be only one other card), if he bids 5♠ showing the K, we bid 7N.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-31, 20:44, said:

When he signs off in 5♦ (as we would do, our agreement is that you sign off opposite 0 and partner bids on with 3), this is fine

Here we disagree. 4NT was RKCB for hearts; how can North have 0 keycards yet be 5-6 in the reds? Even if he has ♠K ♥QJxxx ♦Jxxxxx ♣Q, he does not have a 1♦ opener with the stated range. And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-April-01, 10:34, said:

And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

I agree with you, for the sake of getting past that. But, I seriously doubt the answer (6D) is an answer to the question for them. (We could ask, however.)

For instance, over 5D we would bid 5H without -5N with (but no kings)- and cue a king if holding the trump queen. Some of those are not possible with opener's range on this hand, but anyway 6D would not have any agreed meaning and could be considered a suggestion that Diamonds, not hearts be trump (thus lawfully passable).

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-01, 10:34, said:

Here we disagree. 4NT was RKCB for hearts; how can North have 0 keycards yet be 5-6 in the reds? Even if he has ♠K ♥QJxxx ♦Jxxxxx ♣Q, he does not have a 1♦ opener with the stated range. And why would 5♦ not ask for the queen of trumps?

Stated range is irrelevant here, there are exceptional hands below 11 that everybody would agree are 1♦ openers, I agree that it's well nigh impossible in this case, but if your style is to sign off opposite zero and let partner always bid on with 3 this is a non problem, but as you say, 5♦ should ask for Q♥.

6♦ now tells you a wheel has come off as you're looking at ♦KQ so it's an easy pass.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-01, 11:07, said:

I agree with you, for the sake of getting past that. But, I seriously doubt the answer (6D) is an answer to the question for them. (We could ask, however.)

For instance, over 5D we would bid 5H without -5N with (but no kings)- and cue a king if holding the trump queen. Some of those are not possible with opener's range on this hand, but anyway 6D would not have any agreed meaning and could be considered a suggestion that Diamonds, not hearts be trump (thus lawfully passable).

I agree that one would bid 5♥ over 5♦ without the queen of hearts. Any other bid shows the queen of hearts. I agree entirely that 6♦ as a suggestion to play in diamonds is one probable meaning. However, opposite three key cards and the queen of hearts, 7♦ is almost cold, and more so if partner is suggesting that we play in diamonds. And this answers Cyberyeti's point too. Pass of 6♦ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Bidding 7♦ is an LA which would be selected by a significant number of South's peers (based on a poll of three at my club last night. All bid 7♦). I guess it is complicated enough that we do not impose a PP on South who made a bit of an effort, albeit a feeble one.

And what was the ruling, may I ask?

[aguahombre]

If he had 3 keys and the queen of hearts, suggesting to play in diamonds seems weird. You need "Any bid other than 5H implies the Heart Queen", plus "weird", to bid 7D.

Perhaps a committee could get there with the ruling in this case. But, since 6D is not part of any continuation scheme in response to the queen asking bid AND the usual reason for suggesting an alternate strain is lack of quality fillers in the focus suit -- it seems an adjustment to 7D-1 is a bit overboard.

The fact that 6D is a lucky make appears to be why we are looking to negate rub-of-the-green here. Would we even be talking about 7D-2 if 6D had been down one?

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-02, 07:15, said:

If he had 3 keys and the queen of hearts, suggesting to play in diamonds seems weird.

If he had something like ♠ none ♥ KQxxx ♦ AJTxxxx ♣ A then suggesting to play in diamonds seems completely normal, as playing in hearts might need the suit to break 3-2 while 7♦ might be cold. I think that 6♦ suggests 5-7 if anything, or the king of diamonds, which he cannot have. Also North should not bid 6♥ in case South Blackwooded for hearts intending to bid 6♦ if North had the queen. In essence, 6♥ should not exist, and North will bid something else descriptive other than 5♥ whenever he has the queen of hearts. Given that the above hand might bid 5♠, perhaps x KQxxx AJTxxx A is more likely. Again, from North's point of view, diamonds could be better than hearts.

And I don't think we really look at the score achieved when adjusting. A few matchpoints will still be at stake.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-April-02, 03:56, said:

I guess it is complicated enough that we do not impose a PP on South who made a bit of an effort, albeit a feeble one.

And what was the ruling, may I ask?

And perhaps a feeble effort by the TD, as I must confess I let the score stand. I'm pleased to see there are some people still trying to defend this position, but I'm persuaded by the arguments put forward by Paul and Jeffrey. There was a lot to think about here: Is pass a logical alternative to 4NT? (I definitely think not, but some have argued for this.) I wondered whether 4NT was a safer choice than some other alternative (4♠, perhaps?), but I decided if it was it wasn't demonstrably suggested. I think I missed the implication that 5♦ must be asking for the ♥Q, and just thought that it was a waiting bid in an agreed suit to get more information from North (knowing he cannot possibly pass with the higher number of key cards) and that 6♦ was a strong suggestion (from South's point of view) to play there rather than in hearts. Even if all that's so, there's a strong argument for making South correct the contract to hearts, after which North will presumably bid 7♦.

Thanks for your contributions.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-02, 03:56, said:

I agree that one would bid 5♥ over 5♦ without the queen of hearts. Any other bid shows the queen of hearts. I agree entirely that 6♦ as a suggestion to play in diamonds is one probable meaning. However, opposite three key cards and the queen of hearts, 7♦ is almost cold, and more so if partner is suggesting that we play in diamonds. And this answers Cyberyeti's point too. Pass of 6♦ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Bidding 7♦ is an LA which would be selected by a significant number of South's peers (based on a poll of three at my club last night. All bid 7♦). I guess it is complicated enough that we do not impose a PP on South who made a bit of an effort, albeit a feeble one.

And what was the ruling, may I ask?

Bidding 6♦ does not say that he has the Q♥ - it says he wasn't responding to Blackwood.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-02, 12:16, said:

Bidding 6♦ does not say that he has the Q♥ - it says he wasn't responding to Blackwood.

That is a possibility, but if he did not have the queen of hearts and just wanted to play in diamonds, why did he not pass?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 04:42, said:

That is a possibility, but if he did not have the queen of hearts and just wanted to play in diamonds, why did he not pass?

Because whatever he thought his partner's bidding meant indicated he wanted to play in 6 rather than 5+1 ? I don't understand why N did bid 6♦ at the table on his actual hand, but it's plausible that he could hold one that was suitable. Can he visualise a hand that can blackwood opposite say Q, AJ10x(x), Axxxxx(x), Q and not want to play 6♦ ?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-03, 05:44, said:

Because whatever he thought his partner's bidding meant indicated he wanted to play in 6 rather than 5+1 ? I don't understand why N did bid 6♦ at the table on his actual hand, but it's plausible that he could hold one that was suitable. Can he visualise a hand that can blackwood opposite say Q, AJ10x(x), Axxxxx(x), Q and not want to play 6♦ ?

Something with a black-suit void is more likely. He has to be 6-5, so say he is none AJTxx AJxxxxx A. Now he has shown three-card key cards (he thinks he has) and I agree that he cannot pass 5♦. But on such hands he would just sign off in 5♥, from South's point of view, as he does not have the queen of hearts and South will bid whatever he was going to bid. South only knows that 5♦ has not been interpreted as asking for the queen of hearts from the UI. All hands without the queen of hearts will just bid 5♥. North is being asked a question, not to show judgement. And this thread has gone on too long. I will not comment on it any more. jallerton summed up the situation perfectly in far fewer words than me. The correct ruling was 7♦-1, as I think VixTD realises.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 08:11, said:

Something with a black-suit void is more likely. He has to be 6-5, so say he is none AJTxx AJxxxxx A. Now he has shown three-card key cards (he thinks he has) and I agree that he cannot pass 5♦. But on such hands he would just sign off in 5♥, from South's point of view, as he does not have the queen of hearts and South will bid whatever he was going to bid. South only knows that 5♦ has not been interpreted as asking for the queen of hearts from the UI. All hands without the queen of hearts will just bid 5♥. North is being asked a question, not to show judgement. And this thread has gone on too long. I will not comment on it any more. jallerton summed up the situation perfectly in far fewer words than me. The correct ruling was 7♦-1, as I think VixTD realises.

You are not listening at all.

6♦ is clear cut and unarguably says "I'm in a different auction to you" to S given what he holds for most of the reasons you elaborate. Many pairs will just automatically pass in a situation like this, it's like unopposed P-1N-2red(Xfer)-3N, I don't know what this is, but I'm passing. In this case it could be that N thought he was 5-6 and is actually 4-7, not S's problem.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-01, 12:03, said:

Stated range is irrelevant here, there are exceptional hands below 11 that everybody would agree are 1♦ openers, I agree that it's well nigh impossible in this case, but if your style is to sign off opposite zero and let partner always bid on with 3 this is a non problem, but as you say, 5♦ should ask for Q♥.

6♦ now tells you a wheel has come off as you're looking at ♦KQ so it's an easy pass.

Cyberyeti: this and subsequent posts suggest that you are failing to understand an important principle. Sometimes the authorised information does tell you that wheel has come off, but you cannot use the unauthorised information to infer which wheel has come off.

In this case, just because partner can't hold ♦K, you can't conclude that he must have taken the 3NT bid as ace asking.If you were sure that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ asked for ♥Q, then you would be confident that whatever 6♦ was intended to mean, it must imply a hand holding ♥Q.

Maybe partner has thought about the situation more deeply. Having already shown or implied ♥KQ and both minor suit aces, and having failed to open a strong club, partner knows that you know that he cannot hold ♦K as well. So 6♦ over the Q ask can't be showing ♦K. If they have the agreement than 5NT shows a useful side queen, then perhaps partner has inferred that the only logical meaning for 6♦ is a suggestion of strain (from his point of view the partnership could be missing a key card in theory and 6♦ may be a safer slam than 6♥).

Of course, we don't know that partner has been thinking this way, but when we have UI, we have a responsibility to choose the non-suggested action, not to try to come up with excuses why the demostrably suggested action is 'evident'.

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2014-April-03, 15:41, said:

Cyberyeti: this and subsequent posts suggest that you are failing to understand an important principle. Sometimes the authorised information does tell you that wheel has come off, but you cannot use the unauthorised information to infer which wheel has come off.

Do you really think it can be right to bid grand in the hope that one wheel, rather than another, has come off?

If I have a clear agreement that 6♦ shows ♥Q and ♦K (which I do; admittedly none of us knows whether the pair involved do), and I can see from my hand that partner doesn't have the ♦K, I don't have any confidence that he has the ♥Q either. I'd never guess the actual wheel involved, but the fact that a wheel, any wheel, has come off is good enough reason to get off the motorway.