[patroclo]

After a 1 c open lho said 2 nt and alert it saying it is D and S. During the play i see that the hand is a 3 suit hand with 4 h 4 s and 5 d. It is a my fault to think tha the hand was a bicolor or the alert with a 3 suit hand was misleading.
Thanks for answer
Gigi
P.s. With 4 card of H i compete in an heart contract with tragical consequences.

[wank]

you are entitled to know what he showed, not what he had. obviously we don't really know what it showed, but there's no evidence his description wasn't an accurate reflection of the methods. after all, he did have both spades and diamonds.

[patroclo]

wank, on 2012-October-07, 08:32, said:

you are entitled to know what he showed, not what he had. obviously we don't really know what it showed, but there's no evidence his description wasn't an accurate reflection of the methods. after all, he did have both spades and diamonds.

With a 3 suited hand what is the rule.One may choose a bid that show 2 suit casually.

[PhilKing]

patroclo, on 2012-October-07, 08:45, said:

With a 3 suited hand what is the rule.One may choose a bid that show 2 suit casually.

He has to tell you what the bid means, not what he has. He can bid 2NT on any hand he wants - that's the rule.

It's basically mostly covered by law 40 (a couple of other laws may sometimes apply as well), which you can find by googling the laws of contract bridge.

If it's any consolation, he will score far more own goals than goals playing like this.

[Vampyr]

patroclo, on 2012-October-07, 08:45, said:

With a 3 suited hand what is the rule.One may choose a bid that show 2 suit casually.

A person with a three-suited hand can certainly choose two of them to show. with three suits excluding the one opened, a takeout double seems more sensible, and making a 2-suited bid forcing to the three level with only nine cards is pretty foolhardy; however, if the description given was correct, it does not seem that the player did anything wrong.

[Vampyr]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-07, 09:19, said:

He has to tell you what the bid means, not what he has. He can bid 2NT on any hand he wants - that's the rule.

That depends. OP does not mention his jurisdiction, but in the ACBL it is not permitted to psyche artificial bids. Perhaps there is such a rule in other places as well.

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 14:04, said:

That depends. OP does not mention his jurisdiction,

This. Local officials know best imo.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 14:04, said:

That depends. OP does not mention his jurisdiction, but in the ACBL it is not permitted to psyche artificial bids. Perhaps there is such a rule in other places as well.

That is not true. Certain artificial opening bids, yes.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 14:58, said:

That is not true. Certain artificial opening bids, yes.

Yes, sorry. I remembered the regulation very poorly:

Quote

[Disallowed]2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than
2NT, to natural openings.

[patroclo]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 14:04, said:

That depends. OP does not mention his jurisdiction, but in the ACBL it is not permitted to psyche artificial bids. Perhaps there is such a rule in other places as well.

I played it in a bbo tourney, and the alert was made by the player that has bid it

[aguahombre]

patroclo, on 2012-October-07, 15:30, said:

I played it in a bbo tourney, and the alert was made by the player that has bid it

That might feel sleezy, but it isn't wrong. With self-alerting (screens or on-line) we still disclose agreements, not what we have in our hands.

[patroclo]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 15:45, said:

That might feel sleezy, but it isn't wrong. With self-alerting (screens or on-line) we still disclose agreements, not what we have in our hands.

I'm not a convention expert but if i bid 2 nt with diamond and spade, Probably there is a bid when i have diamond and heart or heart and spade. With 3 suit what is the way of choice.

[barmar]

patroclo, on 2012-October-07, 15:55, said:

I'm not a convention expert but if i bid 2 nt with diamond and spade, Probably there is a bid when i have diamond and heart or heart and spade. With 3 suit what is the way of choice.

If your hand is strong enough, a takeout double is usually the choice with 3 suits. I'm guessing that in this case his hand wasn't strong enough, so he chose the more preemptive bid.

[aguahombre]

Yes, someone once told me that a double of an opening suit bid suggests support for the other 3 suits. That concept might catch on, some day.

[Vampyr]

patroclo, on 2012-October-07, 15:55, said:

I'm not a convention expert but if i bid 2 nt with diamond and spade, Probably there is a bid when i have diamond and heart or heart and spade. With 3 suit what is the way of choice.

If a person has three suits and has a way to show two, he can show whichever two he wants.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 15:45, said:

That might feel sleezy, but it isn't wrong. With self-alerting (screens or on-line) we still disclose agreements, not what we have in our hands.

Why is it sleazy? Perhaps he promises ten cards, but he has nine and chose to make a two-suited bid. Maybe he even promises only nine.

[barmar]

What people find "sleezy" is making a self-alert that doesn't describe your actual hand. The people who think this just don't understand how disclosure is supposed to work.

[Bbradley62]

The "jurisdiction" is BBO Hornets:

---

E/W is an established partnership who appear to play other two-suited overcalls as well:

---

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 16:27, said:

Why is it sleazy? Perhaps he promises ten cards, but he has nine and chose to make a two-suited bid. Maybe he even promises only nine.

Perhaps a more careful reading of my post would discover that I didn't call it sleezy. I said it might feel sleezy to the poster who brought up the self-alert issue, but that it (disclosing actual agreements) was not wrong.

You and Barmar are actually agreeing with what I wrote.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 16:52, said:

You and Barmar are actually agreeing with what I wrote.

That was my intent.