[jallerton]

campboy, on 2014-April-03, 17:10, said:

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

Of course, it can be right. If I guess right I gain a double digit IMP swing (or avoid losing one), or obtain a decent matchpoint score on the board rather than a poor one.

On this hand, the only reason why South can infer that it would be wrong to guess to bid a grand is because of the UI.

[campboy]

Well South can infer from AI that if he's bidding a grand he's just guessing. Admittedly the UI tells him that the guess is wrong, and the AI doesn't, but the fact that it is a guess is enough to make it not an LA for me.

I don't really know why I'm arguing about this, though, since I do agree it is right to adjust at pairs, just by a different auction: I think 6♥ is an LA and partner will correct it to 7♦.

[JanM]

It's been suggested to me that if 3NT is natural but can be made with a hand as strong as this one, it is probably an alert. If that's correct, there wasn't any UI from the alert (and from the OP I think that no explanation was sought or given until after the auction was over). In the absence of UI, both players bid somewhat reasonably in their own "worlds." North thought that 3NT and 4NT were RKCB and responded to both of them properly. S/he didn't pass 5♦ because S had asked for Kings, which is surely forcing to slam. S/he bid 6♦ to show a minimum with no interest in bidding more. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ was to play if partner had 0 Keycards. S/he passed 6!d because at that point s/he knew that partner was apparently on a different wavelength.

[PeterAlan]

Jan, I don't think that a natural 3NT would be alerted here just on the grounds that it could be very strong, but I'm sure you're right on the mark when you talk of both players being in their own "worlds". I happen to know the couple in question (I was playing at the same event) and, whilst I fully understand the UI ruling process, the idea that the kind of analysis conducted on this thread is going to be found in real time at the table is fantasy. They just aren't going to have thought as clearly and deeply about the hand as, say, jallerton has post hoc. Nor will they have analysed in such depth how to handle any UI.

[VixTD]

JanM, on 2014-April-06, 22:51, said:

It's been suggested to me that if 3NT is natural but can be made with a hand as strong as this one, it is probably an alert. If that's correct, there wasn't any UI from the alert (and from the OP I think that no explanation was sought or given until after the auction was over). In the absence of UI, both players bid somewhat reasonably in their own "worlds." North thought that 3NT and 4NT were RKCB and responded to both of them properly. S/he didn't pass 5♦ because S had asked for Kings, which is surely forcing to slam. S/he bid 6♦ to show a minimum with no interest in bidding more. South thought that 4NT was RKCB for hearts and that 5♦ was to play if partner had 0 Keycards. S/he passed 6!d because at that point s/he knew that partner was apparently on a different wavelength.

I asked South why they had bid 3NT, and they realised it was not a good call, but considered it preferable to making a forcing bid in a major (promising 4+ cards) and in clubs (promising 5+). They didn't have a forcing diamond raise available. I went to some lengths to find out whether there might have been another alertable meaning for 3NT in their system (e.g. a natural bid with a hand very limited in strength and shape), but I couldn't find any.

I think NS bid reasonably in their own worlds, but the law requires more than that when they're in receipt of unauthorized information.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-April-07, 06:55, said:

I asked South why they had bid 3NT, and they realised it was not a good call, but considered it preferable to making a forcing bid in a major (promising 4+ cards) and in clubs (promising 5+). They didn't have a forcing diamond raise available. I went to some lengths to find out whether there might have been another alertable meaning for 3NT in their system (e.g. a natural bid with a hand very limited in strength and shape), but I couldn't find any.

I think NS bid reasonably in their own worlds, but the law requires more than that when they're in receipt of unauthorized information.

I still miss a truthworthy explanation when OP clearly stated that the 1♦ opening bid denies 5(+) cards in either major and that South intended 3NT for play, why he continued the auction, apparently with some assumption that North had shown 5 Hearts (and 6 Diamonds).

Would South have bid anything but PASS if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥ ? ?

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-April-07, 08:00, said:

Would South have bid anything but PASS if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥ ? ?

South would always make a slam try, or bid slam, if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥. If an AC allowed Pass in the UK, I would appeal to the national authority on the basis of a grossly inappropriate hand evaluation.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:33, said:

South would always make a slam try, or bid slam, if North had just explained the 3NT as for play and then bid 4♥. If an AC allowed Pass in the UK, I would appeal to the national authority on the basis of a grossly inappropriate hand evaluation.

Then please explain the 4♥ bid (on the basis that 3NT is understood by North as for play).
(And forget any idea about North showing 5 Hearts, we have specifically been told that the 1♦ opening bid denies any 5 card major.)

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-April-07, 09:22, said:

Then please explain the 4♥ bid (on the basis that 3NT is understood by North as for play).
(And forget any idea about North showing 5 Hearts, we have specifically been told that the 1♦ opening bid denies any 5 card major.)

VixTD admitted that his explanation of 1D was incomplete, and ?-5-6-? with 11-15 was a permitted hand type. It is a bit like people stating that 2C is their "strongest opening bid" or "only strong bid". When I ask the supplementary question, "Stronger than an opening 7NT, eh, we had better not bid!" they agree that their explanation is incomplete. So, I will not forget any idea about North showing 5 hearts. That is what he shows.