[jdonn]

Kx ATx Qxx AQJxx, partner deals, your side vul

Pass 1♠ 1NT 3♠
4♦ Pass ?

Three questions.
1. What do you do? You have no discussion with this partner, who is from Israel if that matters to your decision.
2. If partner took several minutes to bid 4♦, what would the UI suggest?
3. Would that UI change your answer to 1?

[dicklont]

1. I would take a shot at 5♦
2. Transfer to hearts
3. I hope not.
It get's harder when partner continues with 5♥.
Can he have slam interest for diamonds after passing first?
I think I can pass 5♥, not that I think it will make.
Down 1 would be a perfect result, educationwise.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 25 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

Kx ATx Qxx AQJxx, partner deals, your side vul

Pass 1♠ 1NT 3♠
4♦ Pass ?

Three questions.
1. What do you do? You have no discussion with this partner, who is from Israel if that matters to your decision.
2. If partner took several minutes to bid 4♦, what would the UI suggest?
3. Would that UI change your answer to 1?

1. Raise to 5♦

2. That he wasn't sure how 4♦ would be interpreted. I am never sure in these sort of situations what the UI suggests - is partner weak or strong for the bid. In this case we have the additional hindrance of no discussion. Even with discussion in some relatively infrequent auctions I find my tempo slows and I expect partner's to slow too just to be sure that bids have the meaning we intend. This might be more common in an unpracticed partnership.

3. No

For what its worth in my partnership we would play 4♦ as showing a diamond-heart two-suiter that was forcing. The most likely reason for the slowness then would be just checking agreements. A secondary reason would be that we are stretching for 4♦ so the UI would suggest passing. 4♦ would be forcing and unlimited so partner wouldn't be showing too much for her bid.

[Phil]

1. I bid 5♦. I have a pretty good hand.

2. The tank could indicate any of the following:

- pard has other things in mind. Maybe pard has a weak 2 in diamonds (but held four goodish hearts) and was thinking about doubling for takeout. Maybe pard is very close to a 5♦. Maybe pard is close to a pass.

- pard thought 4♦ might be conventional. Maybe the partnership plays Texas and it applies over something this high. 4♥ by me would seem to cover this contingency.

Or possibly pard would have wondered whether or not 4♦ is forcing.

3. No.

[MFA]

5♦ seems like the simple continuation.

I really have no idea what partner was thinking about. He might have considered P, X, 3N, 5D or possibly something else. Perhaps even considering what the agreements are in this situation. When he chose to bid 4♦ after his long huddle, I would say that you are free to act as you see fit.

[Big_Tomato]

1. At pairs I pass and at teams I bid 5D and if he was from Israel.....that wouldn't change my mind, but what I had seen of their dummy play may influence my decision - sometimes even +150 feels like a good score....

2. If only I could have watched his hand flicking over the bidding box, then I would know if he was close to passing or bidding 5D....all I now know if that he thought he had a tough decision - and its never easy going past 3N when you know partner has a stop and you are yet to find your fit...

3. Not a chance

[JLOL]

5D really? I would always bid 4H, what are the odds partner has a natural 4D bid as a passed hand? Even if partner has a natural 4D bid somehow and not a transfer, he will bid 5D over 4H.

[MFA]

JLOL, on May 24 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

5D really? I would always bid 4H, what are the odds partner has a natural 4D bid as a passed hand? Even if partner has a natural 4D bid somehow and not a transfer, he will bid 5D over 4H.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand.
4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite.

[rogerclee]

MFA, on May 24 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

JLOL, on May 24 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

5D really? I would always bid 4H, what are the odds partner has a natural 4D bid as a passed hand? Even if partner has a natural 4D bid somehow and not a transfer, he will bid 5D over 4H.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand.
4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite.

I think it's strange that you think 4♦ showing hearts is partnership terrorism, but 4♥ showing 4♥+m is normal (or that it is even a good agreement with discussion).

[cherdanno]

rogerclee, on May 24 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

MFA, on May 24 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

JLOL, on May 24 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

5D really? I would always bid 4H, what are the odds partner has a natural 4D bid as a passed hand? Even if partner has a natural 4D bid somehow and not a transfer, he will bid 5D over 4H.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand.
4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite.

I think it's strange that you think 4♦ showing hearts is partnership terrorism, but 4♥ showing 4♥+m is normal (or that it is even a good agreement with discussion).

You misunderstood - MFA thinks our 4♥ bid should show 4+ hearts, since partner might have 4 hearts for his 4♦ bid.

[peachy]

Many play systems on over an overcall 1NT, same as an opening 1NT. Did you have an agreement what 4D would be had you opened 1NT and they overcall 3S? I know this is slightly different scenario than after righty has opened 1S, but for example Dbl would be negative, I assume - even without agreements - and that Texas transfers are off because the 4D was not a jump, aand that if Texas transfers were not agreed, then there are no Texas transfers. Also assume that 3S was preemptive.

Anyway, my answers to your questions.

1. Bid 4H. A flexible bid in uncharted waters, should imply diamond support.
2. It is impossible to determine what the UI from the break in tempo suggests, let alone demonstrably suggests. The only thing which is sure: partner had alternative action in mind. No way to figure what the alternative action could be and there may have been more than one alternative action.
3. Had it been possible to determine what the UI from the hesitation suggested, then it would be wrong to ignore it all and "bid what you always were going to bid" because the Law says one must not do that (ignore it).

[Cascade]

I think it is possible that 4♥ is going out of the way to try to devine what partner was thinking about. I don't think that is legal.

It is possible in some partnerships/locations that you might 4♥ as transfer is likely. But there was no suggestion in the opening post that this is the case. The only evidence is that partner thought for a time.

[Fluffy]

1. Pass, partner obviously holds a broke suit such as ♦KJxxxxx and I have no entry to stablish clubs before they score 1♠, 1♥, 1♦.

2. Yeah, the UI suggest he's got ♦Axxxxxx with another card and was thinking about 3NT. Now 5♦ is a good shot

3. Are you asking if we'd cheat? lol.


EDIT: I've been playing too much MPs, After thinking a bit more and realising vulnerability I think that competing vulnerable at the 4 level actually makes little sense. Partner having a red 2 suiter is actually much more likelly.

[jdonn]

I guess I was in left field. I would have always gotten to 5♦ but was considering whether I should bid 4♥ on the way just in case that's what partner meant. But when he tanked that long I thought he really did have hearts and that I couldn't justify doing that any more, so I just bid 5♦. However his tank in this case just showed a very bad hand, so maybe the UI didn't point the way I thought it did. Or maybe it really is one of those cases when you just can't tell what he was thinking about.

[awm]

It does seem like the slow 4♦ implies something odd is going on, and 4♥ caters to a number of offbeat possibilities (partner has a 5-6 hand, partner thought 4♦ was texas, partner has a slam try). It does seem like the slow tempo makes such a "flexible" call more appealing, and raising to 5♦ is a logical alternative.

[whereagles]

1. Pass. Pard probably won't have AK 6th of diamonds (he didn't pree). If I bid 5, since LHO probably has the spade ace, he's likely to lead a heart instead of spades and that's probably bad.

2. Hesitation suggests, in my opinion, either:
a. a weak hand that could have passed 3♠ instead
b. a shapely hand that was contemplating other bid instead of 4♦

3. Case a. suggests me passing quicker, case b. suggests me bidding. I would therefore NOT adust if I were the Director.

[MFA]

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 07:57 PM, said:

rogerclee, on May 24 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

MFA, on May 24 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

JLOL, on May 24 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

5D really? I would always bid 4H, what are the odds partner has a natural 4D bid as a passed hand? Even if partner has a natural 4D bid somehow and not a transfer, he will bid 5D over 4H.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand.
4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite.

I think it's strange that you think 4♦ showing hearts is partnership terrorism, but 4♥ showing 4♥+m is normal (or that it is even a good agreement with discussion).

You misunderstood - MFA thinks our 4♥ bid should show 4+ hearts, since partner might have 4 hearts for his 4♦ bid.

Right, 1NT-overcaller's 4♥ after 4♦ should be natural. I can see my post was far from clear on this.

[hotShot]

I have shown my strength and shape bidding 1NT, partners 4♦ is natural and final.
A hesitation suggest that he was tempted to bid game, so it suggests bidding.

[Trinidad]

1. I would pass, even at IMPs. If partner has a diamond hand with slam interest, he should have opened the bidding. The same is true if partner holds a weak two in hearts (and he meant 4♦ as a transfer).
2. I would think that partner needed some time to figure out whether 4♦ would be a transfer or natural. After a little while, he found out that with hearts he would bid 4♥, since that cannot be a transfer to spades (since that is their suit). Then it took him some time to convince himself that you would be able to figure out what he had just figured out himself. But there can be other reasons for the break in tempo. I would not state that the UI demonstrably suggested that partner was thinking whether 4♦ was natural or a transfer.
3. No, but I admit that it makes me feel a little more at ease with passing 4♦. But since I think that the UI didnot 'demonstrably suggest' anything, I don't see a problem.

Rik

[peachy]

awm, on May 25 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

It does seem like the slow 4♦ implies something odd is going on, and 4♥ caters to a number of offbeat possibilities (partner has a 5-6 hand, partner thought 4♦ was texas, partner has a slam try). It does seem like the slow tempo makes such a "flexible" call more appealing, and raising to 5♦ is a logical alternative.

"something odd is going on" is much too vague, from the point of law. It is still my (I mean, the player's) responsibility to consider it, figure out what it might mean, and then pick a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. Here, it is impossible to determine what the *something odd* means, just as you yourself listed several possibilities.

Once it is established (IMO) legal to pick any alternative, I think I am legally allowed to pick any call. Perhaps blackshoe reads this thread and comments. I don't consider myself a *top bridge law expert* of course, but pretty knowledgeable.