[Trinidad]

One time partnership, cross-IMP scoring

---

Do you agree with your bidding so far?

What do you do now?

(2♥ showed about 16+ and was not forcing.)

Rik

[helene_t]

If all I have shown is 16 points I have a bit extras.

I bid 3♠ as choice of game. If p is on a different wavelength and passes this then it might not be bad.

[P_Marlowe]

I bid game.

2H was NF, partner showed some life, I bid it.

I voted 3C, but overlooked the fact, that partner did bid 1S, 3S is a lot better,
than 3C, although 3C will most of the time have a similar effect.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Trinidad]

I had this hand. I chose to bid 3♣ since I wanted to be in game (3NT, 4♥, 4♠) and wasn't sure whether 3♠ would be forcing. After the hand, my partner said that 3♠ "obviously would have been forcing". He did offer some more wisdom, but let me show you the full hand and auction first:

---

Needless to say that we didn't gain any cross-IMPs on this board.

Partner's "wisdom": "3♣ cannot possibly be asking for a stop in clubs since I have already shown one when I bid 2NT. Therefore, it must be natural." followed by: "You should have bid 3♠. That is obviously forcing." and "I have thought about it a little more... You really should have put in the ♦K against that 4♥ contract 2 rounds ago. After all, you knew I was underleading the ace when I led the 2 (from my known five card suit) since we play fourth best from an honor and second highest from garbage. You really should have figured that one out. I didn't expect that you would misdefend that badly."

For me that is the definition of:

Trinidad, on 2013-February-13, 03:09, said:

One time partnership

Just for the record: Except for telling the opponents that there had been a failure to alert 3♣ (to which they replied: "We already guessed that.") I didn't say a word.

Rik

[ArtK78]

LOL at your partner.

I would guess that 3♠ is forcing in practice, if not in principle. But the idea that 3♣ can be passed is so bizarre that any rational discussion is not possible.

I have no idea what you meant by there was a failure to alert 3♣. Aside from the fact that cue bids are not alertable unless they have some truly unusual and unexpected meaning, there was clearly no partnership understanding about the meaning of 3♣. And if it was just a general game force, which appears to be the case, it is certainly not alertable.

[Zelandakh]

I voted for 3♠ but my second choice would be 3♦, not 3♣. Then 3♠ over 3♥ or 4♠ over 3♠. Some people do play that a bid of their suit (or the 4th suit) after a NT bid that guarantees a stopper is natural but you would not want to gamble on it with a pick-up partner. Even if 3♣ was agreed this way, and for most it would not be, it would still be 100% forcing.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-13, 09:03, said:

I have no idea what you meant by there was a failure to alert 3♣.

This was not in the ACBL. In The Netherlands, 3♣ as artificial does require an alert.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-13, 08:50, said:

You really should have put in the ♦K against that 4♥ contract 2 rounds ago. After all, you knew I was underleading the ace when I led the 2 (from my known five card suit) since we play fourth best from an honor and second highest from garbage.

If partner lead the 2 from a known 5-card suit when playing 4th best I would take it as suit preference. Unless of course it is at all possible that his known 5-card suit is a 4-card suit.

[Free]

Your partner is way too good for you, you're just a simple soul who plays a cuebid as a general force like the rest of the world.