[Cyberyeti]

---

All vul teams.

RHO (not LHO as I said originally) bids 2♥ (0-10, 5+ cards), you bid 3♥ michaels. This would be a touch above minimum in your style if it was 5-5 with these high cards. Partner bids 3N, and now ?

Is your action routine ?

Spoiler

What was going on at the table it's clear partner had no clue what 3♥ meant, our man bid 4♠ and was rapidly propelled into a cold 6.

[nigel_k]

I wouldn't pass but it is definitely a logical alternative.

[Cyberyeti]

nigel_k, on 2011-April-15, 17:32, said:

I wouldn't pass but it is definitely a logical alternative.

If you don't pass, do you bid 4♦ to specify your second suit or 4♠ because you have 6 ?

There is the possibility that if 4♦ is bid and partner misinterprets, the contract will be 6♦ (partner has AQ and they're 5-1 so the A♥ lead causes problems). At the table, partner said he thought 3♥ showed a void, so big hand with a long diamond suit and a void is in the frame.

[campboy]

I would seriously consider pass and 4♠. I think the only reason to bid again is the sixth spade, so I wouldn't consider other bids.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2011-April-16, 09:10, said:

I would seriously consider pass and 4♠. I think the only reason to bid again is the sixth spade, so I wouldn't consider other bids.

Yes, that would be the only reason to bid again, if you thought partner knew what 3H meant. If Leaping Mike (4D) had been available, you would not worry about partner thinking you have more strength than you do --just an extra spade.

But, since you know partner is clueless about the 3H bid, I don't think anything other than pass would make you comfortable ethically.

It would be difficult to poll peers on this one, IMO. People might find it difficult imagine themselves in this position --- combination of using 3H as showing spades and an unknown minor and having used it on this hand. Hmm, that sounded nasty, and I didn't intend it that way.

[bluejak]

I don't see the difficulty about the poll. With many partners - not my favourite one, naturally - I play whatever they want. So if a partner says he played a cue-bid over weak twos as Michaels and did not play Leaping I would say fine. Then RHO opens 2♥, I have this hand, I would bid 3♥. Partner alerts, describes it as Michaels, and bids 3NT. Now I have to make a decision. Does not sound impossible to poll people on that basis.

[barmar]

What jurisdiction? In the ACBL, you wouldn't alert 3♥ -- cue bids are not alerted unless they have a highly unusual meaning. So they only potential source of UI would be tempo or demeanor.

[bluejak]

So in the ACBL the story is the same except that the question is asked without the alert.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 19:08, said:

I don't see the difficulty about the poll. With many partners - not my favourite one, naturally - I play whatever they want. So if a partner says he played a cue-bid over weak twos as Michaels and did not play Leaping I would say fine. Then RHO opens 2♥, I have this hand, I would bid 3♥. Partner alerts, describes it as Michaels, and bids 3NT. Now I have to make a decision. Does not sound impossible to poll people on that basis.

But it would be good to get the auction right. The auction has gone 2♥-P-P-3♥. Perhaps it is the same but it might make a difference.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-17, 10:15, said:

But it would be good to get the auction right. The auction has gone 2♥-P-P-3♥. Perhaps it is the same but it might make a difference.

Actually no it hadn't, I meant RHO, adjusting the original post, sorry.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-15, 17:04, said:

RHO bids 2♥ (0-10, 5+ cards), you bid 3♥ michaels.

Vampyr, on 2011-April-17, 10:15, said:

But it would be good to get the auction right. The auction has gone 2♥-P-P-3♥. Perhaps it is the same but it might make a difference.

Please explain.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-April-17, 17:01, said:

Please explain.

If you read the whole thread, I said LHO in error and adjusted it to RHO after vampyr pointed this out

[blackshoe]

People get the OP wrong, the thread goes off on a tangent, the original poster comes back, sees that he messed up, and corrects his OP. Now the thread makes no sense. Which is a better solution: asking posters who make corrections to leave the original error(s) in and indicate the corrections clearly, or asking the moderators (David and I) to delete all the posts except the (now corrected) first one, and let people start over, or something else?

[aguahombre]

I suspect that is why there are a lot of replies which seem to needlessly quote the OP. They are preempting possible edits.

[barmar]

All this confusion would have been avoided if you had used a bidding diagram instead of putting the auction in the text.

Also, when you edit a post, you can put a note in it to say that it was edited and what you changed.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-17, 04:48, said:

So in the ACBL the story is the same except that the question is asked without the alert.

No one is forcing them to ask the question during the auction. You can wait until the auction is over, and then there's no UI.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-15, 17:04, said:

All vul teams.
RHO (not LHO as I said originally) bids 2♥ (0-10, 5+ cards), you bid 3♥ michaels. This would be a touch above minimum in your style if it was 5-5 with these high cards. Partner bids 3N, and now ?
Is your action routine ?

Spoiler

What was going on at the table it's clear partner had no clue what 3♥ meant, our man bid 4♠ and was rapidly propelled into a cold 6.

---

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-15, 23:46, said:

If you don't pass, do you bid 4♦ to specify your second suit or 4♠ because you have 6 ?
There is the possibility that if 4♦ is bid and partner misinterprets, the contract will be 6♦ (partner has AQ and they're 5-1 so the A♥ lead causes problems). At the table, partner said he thought 3♥ showed a void, so big hand with a long diamond suit and a void is in the frame.

If a poll of the player's peers confirms that Pass 4♦ and 4♠ are among North's logical alternatives, then the director should take into account South's explanation in Cyberyeti's second post. Perhaps, 6♦ going down is a possible outcome.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2011-April-18, 02:26, said:

If a poll of the player's peers confirms that Pass 4♦ and 4♠ are among North's logical alternatives, then the director should take into account South's explanation in Cyberyeti's second post. Perhaps, 6♦ going down is a possible outcome.

It's actually even more complicated than that. The hand opposite is:

---

Our opponents are county second team standard which in Norfolk probably translates to decent club standard outside of the top clubs elsewhere.

You can of course discard a club if the A♥ is led and make 6♦, which in an expert game I would consider routine, but how do you assess how likely this declarer is to get it right (poll ?) and if you do, how do you account for the possibility that declarer might well not get it right as often as normal due to being upset by the wheel falling off during the auction.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-April-17, 20:04, said:

No one is forcing them to ask the question during the auction. You can wait until the auction is over, and then there's no UI.

So?

We are discussing a UI problem in England. One way that is often useful to go about it is to take a poll: for the poll we set helpful stipulations.

Of course it is true that if something different had occurred then the ruling might have been unnecessary, but so what?

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-18, 12:00, said:

So?

We are discussing a UI problem in England.

When was that stated? I can't find any references to EBU or England in the thread (except that this is where the OP lives).

I said "If this was in ACBL ...". If not, then my comment doesn't apply.