[PeterAlan]

---

Lead: ♣K

Table result: 4♥+1 (N/S +450)

N's 3♣ was after substantial BIT (sorry, I haven't managed to highlight / tag it in the auction box). It was alerted by S and explained by him before E's 4♣ as "Unassuming Cue Bid; shows good raise in Diamonds" (later qualified to "shows Diamond support"). E raised the BIT at this point and it was agreed at the time. No further information is available on N/S's methods (standard scruffy small SC).

E expressed reservations about the N/S auction both after the final pass (before opening lead) and after dummy went down. S then said that N's new suit at the 4 level was clearly showing 6 or so cards.

This may or may not be referred by E/W's team captain for a formal ruling (there appeared to be no effective ruling mechanism in place at the time, and the match result is not substantially affected by the outcome). I'd nevertheless appreciate the forum's views.

PeterAlan

[Vampyr]

Well, North is in possession of UI from the explanation, but there do not seem to be any logical alternatives to his actions. South, on the other hand...

I think that if 3♣ really promises diamond support, 4♥ can hardly be a suggestion to stop off and play there; it must be some sort of slam try. I suppose it is possible to play that 4♥ shows a 4-card suit and is an attempt to play in the 10-trick game, but there is no suggestion that this is part of the NS methods.

Anyway, if South believes that his agreement is that 3♣ promises diamond support, it seems pretty likely that it was the BIT that planted doubt in his mind. I would adjust to 5♦ -2.

This statement:

Quote

S then said that N's new suit at the 4 level was clearly showing 6 or so cards.

is bizarre and I would attach no credence whatsoever to it. Is North, who has already promised diamond support, required to either bid 5♦ or blast 6, unless he has a 6-card suit of his own?

I realise that South may have had a rethink and realised that his partnership's treatment of the cue-bid is essentially unplayable, but he is not permitted to improve his methods in the middle of an auction during which he has been the recipient of UI.

[bluejak]

I think bizarre is a little OTT. My experience of ordinary players [not top ones] is that most of them have not discussed new suits after UCBs and do not really understand what they show. Furthermore, most people assume a UCB shows a fit but often change their mind if partner bids a new suit.

The whole story is distressing normal to me, I am afraid.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-09, 11:52, said:

I think bizarre is a little OTT. My experience of ordinary players [not top ones] is that most of them have not discussed new suits after UCBs and do not really understand what they show. Furthermore, most people assume a UCB shows a fit but often change their mind if partner bids a new suit.

The whole story is distressing normal to me, I am afraid.

OK, it may be normal, but are you saying that you believe that South is still permitted to change his mind in this case?

[jallerton]

Did South change his mind about the 3♣ bid?

It would be consistent with the explanation for North to hold a hand with both hearts and diamond support. Couldn't North hold something like his actual hand with the minors swapped, for example?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-09, 14:22, said:

Did South change his mind about the 3♣ bid?

It would be consistent with the explanation for North to hold a hand with both hearts and diamond support. Couldn't North hold something like his actual hand with the minors swapped, for example?

Assuming you mean making the minors Kxx and stiff A, that makes sense. Does it not look like North did not want to make a non-forcing 3H bid, and thought that cue-bidding first would work better? I don't see why the BIT makes it easier for South to work out what North has, and South is surely allowed to guess whether 4H is a cue or natural.

[barmar]

The BIT suggests that North has a bidding problem, which makes it more likely that he doesn't have the normal hand for the UCB. This then makes it easier for South to work out that the ♥ bid is natural rather than a cue bid in support of ♦.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-March-09, 15:13, said:

The BIT suggests that North has a bidding problem, which makes it more likely that he doesn't have the normal hand for the UCB. This then makes it easier for South to work out that the ♥ bid is natural rather than a cue bid in support of ♦.

But is "makes it easier" enough to make Pass "demonstrably suggested"? I want to adjust on this hand, but find it hard to justify it. That partner has an awkward hand is probably common to all BITs, but not having diamond support is only one possible awkward hand. Possible meanings of 4H are "offering a place to play", "kickback - not possible for this pair", or "a cue for diamonds" - I would be surprised to see this pair even consider cue bids. There is a possibility that they inadvertently "communicate" by breaks in tempo, and the answer is to boot "demonstrably" into touch, and then we will adjust on all hands like this.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 12:30, said:

OK, it may be normal, but are you saying that you believe that South is still permitted to change his mind in this case?

I did not mean anything I did not say. I merely commented on the likelihood of the events.

[phil_20686]

I am honestly a bit confused by this thread. If north had:
xx
AKxxx
KQxx
xx

Would he not have chosen a fairly normal way to bid this hand? He would have a hand with support (as advertised) and with hearts. If you do not play fit jumps would this not be the normal way to bid this hand type? You are surely better placed if this comes back to you in 5clubs if you bid 3c initially instead of a (Forcing?) 2H bid. At any rate, south would have a normal pass with Qxx hearts.

Even if north actions are terrible, south surely has a normal pass of 4H under any grounds when 4h actually shows hearts, even if he has diamonds too. I am pretty sure that if I produced this auction undiscussed partner would think that I had a slam try with 5 hearts and diamonds and no black suit controls.

There are plenty of difficult hands partner can have when he has diamond support, and would have alternatives to a UCB. For all we know he was thinking about whether his hand qualified for a game or slam try.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2011-March-09, 17:56, said:

But is "makes it easier" enough to make Pass "demonstrably suggested"? I want to adjust on this hand, but find it hard to justify it. That partner has an awkward hand is probably common to all BITs, but not having diamond support is only one possible awkward hand. Possible meanings of 4H are "offering a place to play", "kickback - not possible for this pair", or "a cue for diamonds" - I would be surprised to see this pair even consider cue bids. There is a possibility that they inadvertently "communicate" by breaks in tempo, and the answer is to boot "demonstrably" into touch, and then we will adjust on all hands like this.

Well, since a ♥ game (or just possibly slam) seems to be the only possible alternative to a 5+♦ contract, I'd say "Yes, it is demonstrably suggested."

PS: The ruling wasn't pursued.