[Trinidad]

---

IMPs (Butler).
You are playing Switch: Partner's 2♣ bid shows 5+ hearts and about 8+, so that he can show the negative free bid and the forcing bid. 2♥ would have shown clubs.

You took the conservative view on the previous round and bid only 2♥. What is partner doing, what do you do now and why?

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

He's splintering with a decent to good hand, no law against x, AQxxx(x), Axx(x), Axx(x) I bid 4♣ unless 3N means something special for you.

[nige1]

Trinidad "IMPs (Butler).You are playing Switch: Partner's 2♣ bid shows 5+ hearts and about 8+, so that he can show the negative free bid and the forcing bid. 2♥ would have shown clubs.You took the conservative view on the previous round and bid only 2♥. What is partner doing, what do you do now and why?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I rank ...
1. 4N = RKC Macho. Catching up. Partner's 3♠ = SPL S/T. It's hard to imagine I could hold a better hand in the context of my previous effort.
2. 4♣ = CUE Middle-of-the road.
3. 4♥ = NAT Timid but opponents' cards seem to be lying badly for us.

---

[FelicityR]

If partner only bids 2♥ in support on the second round, there's no need to play catch up with RKC straightaway. Answering a splinter with a cue bid will automatically tell partner that the hands are probably fitting well and even though you made a minimum response on the second round, slam is a distinct possibility with the two hands. He's probably going to bid 4♦ next, and then you bid 4♥, etc.

I actually don't like taking charge of the auction with this hand with 4NT RKC, I'd rather the stronger hand make the enquiry. It actually sounds a bit too macho for me, Nigel

You could have signed off with 4♥ instead of 4♣ on the previous round. If partner doesn't get the hint after 4♣ then maybe we should review our slam bidding. A cue bid after a splinter after a minimum response on the previous round is not just making a noise but suggesting slam needs to be investigated, in my humble opinion.

I'm actually really surprised a few of our experienced commentators have opted for signing off in 4♥ in the poll. Maybe they are right. But I wouldn't.

[mikeh]

Time to catch up? You people are looking at some hand other than the one at which I’m looking!

I don’t understand how anyone could think that 2H was an underbid, when responder could hold as few as 8hcp.

Am I missing some Ace others think we have? Or some great distribution?

3S is pretty obviously a splinter. Sure makes my QJ9x look like a source of tricks....not.

Sure makes me happy I have such strong and long diamonds as a trick source...oh, I don’t.

I do have a useful club holding and my hearts are better than partner will be assuming, but this hand is still a 4441 minimum.

Do the good things (good trump, short club) sufficiently offset the negative (no aces, wasted spades in a minimum hand) to warrant a cooperative call?


I think so, just. I confess to being unfamiliar with the implications of my 2H call. I assume that I could have bid 2D with 5+ and short hearts, but I also assume that I might have as few as 2 hearts in a bad hand.....and what should I bid with the same hand as I hold, but with clubs and hearts switched?

If my assumptions are correct, partner holds probably 6 hearts and a stiff spade and has slam interest opposite my minimum.

Something like x Axxxxx Axx Axx makes sense to me, but of course x AQxxxx Ax KJxx also makes sense.

I’m positing useful minimums for him, and he might (and probably does) have even better holdings.

Anyway, not because I think 2H was conservative but because I am drawing inferences from 3S, I think I’m worth one try, and that has to be 4C, assuming we don’t play 3N as artificial (and then it would depend on what it meant.....frivolous 3N would be ok here). Btw, i think 3N is to play, especially if, with say AJ10x xx KQxx QJx my correct call over 2C would be 2H.

So I bid 4C and then 4H over 4D. My 4C shows a willingness to cooperate and my subsequent 4D says I’m still minimum, but a useful minimum. Which is an accurate description of how I feel about this hand.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2020-August-01, 08:13, said:

Time to catch up? You people are looking at some hand other than the one at which I’m looking!

I don’t understand how anyone could think that 2H was an underbid, when responder could hold as few as 8hcp.

Am I missing some Ace others think we have? Or some great distribution?

3S is pretty obviously a splinter. Sure makes my QJ9x look like a source of tricks....not.

Sure makes me happy I have such strong and long diamonds as a trick source...oh, I don’t.

I do have a useful club holding and my hearts are better than partner will be assuming, but this hand is still a 4441 minimum.

Do the good things (good trump, short club) sufficiently offset the negative (no aces, wasted spades in a minimum hand) to warrant a cooperative call?


I think so, just. I confess to being unfamiliar with the implications of my 2H call. I assume that I could have bid 2D with 5+ and short hearts, but I also assume that I might have as few as 2 hearts in a bad hand.....and what should I bid with the same hand as I hold, but with clubs and hearts switched?

If my assumptions are correct, partner holds probably 6 hearts and a stiff spade and has slam interest opposite my minimum.

Something like x Axxxxx Axx Axx makes sense to me, but of course x AQxxxx Ax KJxx also makes sense.

I’m positing useful minimums for him, and he might (and probably does) have even better holdings.

Anyway, not because I think 2H was conservative but because I am drawing inferences from 3S, I think I’m worth one try, and that has to be 4C, assuming we don’t play 3N as artificial (and then it would depend on what it meant.....frivolous 3N would be ok here). Btw, i think 3N is to play, especially if, with say AJ10x xx KQxx QJx my correct call over 2C would be 2H.

So I bid 4C and then 4H over 4D. My 4C shows a willingness to cooperate and my subsequent 4D says I’m still minimum, but a useful minimum. Which is an accurate description of how I feel about this hand.

I don't think I consider 2♥ an underbid (it's what I'd bid), I think 3♥ makes it less likely you or partner will have an awkward guess later if they were not going to let you play 2♥ and pd was minimum. 3♥ might well end the auction.

Your sample hand would be impossible for me, and yes 3N is prob nat if you play a strong no trump, but you can more easily play it artificial if you play weak.

[Trinidad]

I will let the cat out of the bag. This was an internet game (not BBO) where two fairly strong face to face bridge clubs "merged". This is the full deal and auction:

---

I was the west player on opening lead. The 2♣ bid was not alerted. I needed to find my partner's entry to let him play spades through. The opponents had bid every suit. I reasoned that if the 2♣ bid was forcing, dummy would be stronger, but his suit might be weaker than if 2♣ were a negative free bid. So, I asked North before the opening lead. The conversation went:
"Is 2♣ forcing?"
-"Yes"
♣9 led, dummy comes down
"Thank you"
-"Sorry, we play Switch: it shows 5+ hearts. I should have bid 2♥."

I remembered that we had played this pair one or two months before and the North player had then also forgotten this convention. I was now convinced that declarer had few hearts (otherwise they would have been in a heart game), so I played them at every opportunity I got.
It turned out that declarer had four card heart support. I wondered why he never considered hearts and found the answer: The 2♣ bid had taken about a second to appear. There would have been no time to alert and explain the 2♣ bid. (The mechanism on this site is that you first type your explanation, then alert. You cannot alert without explaining the bid. So, South knew that North had not alerted his 2♣ bid.

When the TD was called, South defended himself by saying that 3♠ asked for a stopper and that he showed it: "What's the problem?".

What would you have ruled as a TD?

Rik

[nige1]

Trinidad 'I will let the cat out of the bag. This was an internet game (not BBO) where two fairly strong face to face bridge clubs "merged". This is the full deal and auction:I was the west player on opening lead. The 2♣ bid was not alerted. I needed to find my partner's entry to let him play spades through. The opponents had bid every suit. I reasoned that if the 2♣ bid was forcing, dummy would be stronger, but his suit might be weaker than if 2♣ were a negative free bid. So, I asked North before the opening lead. The conversation went:"Is 2♣ forcing?" -"Yes" ♣9 led, dummy comes down. "Thank you" -"Sorry, we play Switch: it shows 5+ hearts. I should have bid 2♥." I remembered that we had played this pair one or two months before and the North player had then also forgotten this convention. I was now convinced that declarer had few hearts (otherwise they would have been in a heart game), so I played them at every opportunity I got. It turned out that declarer had four card heart support. I wondered why he never considered hearts and found the answer: The 2♣ bid had taken about a second to appear. There would have been no time to alert and explain the 2♣ bid. (The mechanism on this site is that you first type your explanation, then alert. You cannot alert without explaining the bid. So, South knew that North had not alerted his 2♣ bid. When the TD was called, South defended himself by saying that 3♠ asked for a stopper and that he showed it: "What's the problem?".What would you have ruled as a TD?'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO The TD should
- Inform opponents that they must call the TD, before the opening lead, to confess their MI.
- Rule that the MI damaged Trinidad.
- Consider a DP for N-S's apparent use of UI.
- Adjust the score to 6HXX-5 or somesuch.

---

[dokoko]

IMO it's not that clear that NS did something wrong and what? The following supposes that South couldn't be sure whether North alerted or not. If the non-alert is obvious that's another story (and a serious problem of the site).

South's bidding (having in mind partner may have forgotten the system) is reasonable. As long he has no UI we cannot criticize neither the 2♥ nor the 3NT bid.

In f2f South might alert 2♣ telling the world that North shows hearts but might have clubs instead. Or he might not thinking the damage is smaller then. He will often have UI as to whether partner had forgotten or not.

Online South is in a better position if he realizes it. He should self-alert his 2♥ bid and tell opps that systemically he is accepting a transfer but suspects partner might have forgotten the system. Then opps are not damaged. They will know from North's missing self-alert that the 2♣ bid was meant as natural and they will know South is unsure what to expect. So there is no MI and no UI and nothing to complain about.

As it wasn't mentioned, I guess that South didn't self-alert his 2♥ bid. When North spoke up (if he hadn't the MI would probably have remained unnoticed) South missed the chance to clarify ("I was aware that the system might have been forgotten") which would have cancelled any MI.

The misdefence resulted from the assumption that South was expecting North to have hearts for sure which he obviously wasn't.

I don't think it takes much more time to select "2♣" type "5+♥" and then <Enter> compared to the same procedure without the explanation. But if partner actually is aware of any self-alert made then the procedure is ridiculous.

[Trinidad]

Originally, only the 3♠ bid was alerted.

I don't have much of a problem with the North player. He forgot the system, and because of that, he misinformed us. That is technically an infraction, but, IMO, of the same order as a revoke or an insufficient bid: an infraction that you do not commit intentionally or even knowingly.

I find the 2♥ call by South wimpy. I would have bid 2♥ with my hearts and clubs reversed (though that might have been a 1♣ opening in their system, I don't know). My choice would have been 3♥, with 4♣ as my first alternative. (I usually don't jump to game if slam is still an option and I can splinter, but that is my style.) But sometimes being a wimp is winning bridge and I can easily be wrong about my ideas.

But I have no words for the 3NT call and even less for his "I am showing a stop. I have a stop. What's the problem?" . (If you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing.) I think it would have been merely hilarious if South would have said: "But we don't play that @#$@$# convention anymore, because he keeps forgetting it. And now he forgets that too!". I gladly would have given away a Vul game just to hear that.

The TD ruled 4♥-3 for 300 to EW, no PP. That was 12 IMPs for EW. (3NT made 7 times, of which 6 with an overtrick. There was 2x 5♦ -2 and then the 4♥-3 at our table.) I thanked him for his ruling. I would have given a weighted score based on doubled diamond slam contracts, since North will correct any heart bid by South to the known diamond fit. That would have given us a couple of more IMPs. I would have given a PP too.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2020-August-02, 05:01, said:

I would have given a weighted score based on doubled diamond slam contracts, since North will correct any heart bid by South to the known diamond fit. That would have given us a couple of more IMPs. I would have given a PP too.

Rik

Well he would correct heart bids to the known diamond fit, unfortunately he will cue 4♥ and partner will probably pass it.

I would expect the auction to continue 3♠-4♣-4♥ and S would be brave to continue knowing he's off the ♦A and with other potential losers.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-August-02, 09:12, said:

Trinidad, on 2020-August-02, 05:01, said:

I would have given a weighted score based on doubled diamond slam contracts, since North will correct any heart bid by South to the known diamond fit. That would have given us a couple of more IMPs. I would have given a PP too.

Rik

Well he would correct heart bids to the known diamond fit, unfortunately he will cue 4♥ and partner will probably pass it.

I would expect the auction to continue 3♠-4♣-4♥ and S would be brave to continue knowing he's off the ♦A and with other potential losers.

You're absolute correct. Before I started typing, I intended to write that the AS should be weighted, including doubled diamond slams. If South cues 4♣, North will see that as a slam try for clubs and cue the ace of hearts, which South will pass... If South bids 4♥, however, this will lead to doubled diamond slams.

Rik

[helene_t]

I think the TD ruling was OK. AFAIR they don't give weighted rulings so often in the Netherlands.

[msjennifer]

helene_t, on 2020-August-02, 22:05, said:

I think the TD ruling was OK. AFAIR they don't give weighted rulings so often in the Netherlands.

Sir
1))obviously the NS were not experts.(experts do not forget their system etc unless they had 3/4 quicks) " He forgot" is a dubious explanation.
2) My bid as the bidding portrayed was, would be 4C .
3) I do not consider 2♥ bid a good one .The hand has only 6Losers as played in hearts and personally I would have bid 4♥ or may be even 2♠
4)In my personal opinion the ruling was fair enough.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2020-August-02, 09:48, said:

You're absolute correct. Before I started typing, I intended to write that the AS should be weighted, including doubled diamond slams. If South cues 4♣, North will see that as a slam try for clubs and cue the ace of hearts, which South will pass... If South bids 4♥, however, this will lead to doubled diamond slams.

When the SBU first experimented with alerts, before the invention of the STOP card, we dispayed 2 notices on the table

• CPOP: "Compulsory Pause over Pre-empts". So that when an opponent pre-empted, we could take a moment to regroup, without transmitting UI.
• PDA. "Please don't alert".

The latter request would result in the receipt of several telephone-numbers per session. Without clues from alerts and explanations, opponents' misunderstandings would spiral out of control. In cases like the OP, we would find ourselves defending slams, doubled, and sometimes redoubled. Especially welcomed were opponents who played Ghestem. We were disappointed if they didn't gift us a 4 figure penalty. Those were the days, my friend

Nowadays, unfortunately, warned by the well-named Alerts, law-breakers rationalise patently ridiculous recoveries. The so-called "Equity" principle, means that directors rarely award adequate redress to their hapless victims. IMO, some blatant fielding operations deserve a DP rather than a PP. But few directors impose either

[mycroft]

You know, as long as we got to put up our own notice: "Please don't yell at us when we forget", I don't have a problem with that. Even if what you are saying is "we think you cheat", which, you know, illegal.

However, if you did, you'd be the first in my experience.

Alerting becomes automatic, and remembering not to is a distraction - which could also be a cause of those misunderstandings. That is an issue, but you know, if you need those little edges to win, more power to you.

But the absolute indignation when we forgot once was clear evidence that the distraction and the intimidation was the point. As I said, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

Also, I'd love to play a PDA pair with my current system... 1♦-X-p-1♥; AP for -250 into your game (4♥); 1♥-1NT-X-p; p-2♣-whatever you bid from there; 1NT-X-2♣-AP; and all the others that look so normal.

And I guarantee you that as a TD, when you complain that you were damaged because you didn't find out about the meaning of the opponents' auction until it was too late to change your call because you required the opponents not to do what they are normally required to do, the sympathy will be measured with calipers...

But at least you get your wish online. How are the misunderstandings piling up these days?

[dokoko]

Trinidad, on 2020-August-02, 05:01, said:

Originally, only the 3♠ bid was alerted.

I don't have much of a problem with the North player. He forgot the system, and because of that, he misinformed us. That is technically an infraction, but, IMO, of the same order as a revoke or an insufficient bid: an infraction that you do not commit intentionally or even knowingly.

I find the 2♥ call by South wimpy. I would have bid 2♥ with my hearts and clubs reversed (though that might have been a 1♣ opening in their system, I don't know). My choice would have been 3♥, with 4♣ as my first alternative. (I usually don't jump to game if slam is still an option and I can splinter, but that is my style.) But sometimes being a wimp is winning bridge and I can easily be wrong about my ideas.

But I have no words for the 3NT call and even less for his "I am showing a stop. I have a stop. What's the problem?" . (If you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing.) I think it would have been merely hilarious if South would have said: "But we don't play that @#$@$# convention anymore, because he keeps forgetting it. And now he forgets that too!". I gladly would have given away a Vul game just to hear that.

The TD ruled 4♥-3 for 300 to EW, no PP. That was 12 IMPs for EW. (3NT made 7 times, of which 6 with an overtrick. There was 2x 5♦ -2 and then the 4♥-3 at our table.) I thanked him for his ruling. I would have given a weighted score based on doubled diamond slam contracts, since North will correct any heart bid by South to the known diamond fit. That would have given us a couple of more IMPs. I would have given a PP too.

Rik

Is it established fact that South had UI when he made his 2♥ bid?

If yes, there is a legal base for a score correction. If no, South may use his knowledge that his partner has forgotten the convention in the past and make bids to cater for it. As I pointed out in my first post he would be well advised to self-alert his bids and tell opps that he caters for partner having either hearts or clubs - in case North remembers the agreement during the round and tells it to the table.

[Vampyr]

dokoko, on 2020-August-08, 09:35, said:

Is it established fact that South had UI when he made his 2♥ bid?

If yes, there is a legal base for a score correction. If no, South may use his knowledge that his partner has forgotten the convention in the past and make bids to cater for it. As I pointed out in my first post he would be well advised to self-alert his bids and tell opps that he caters for partner having either hearts or clubs - in case North remembers the agreement during the round and tells it to the table.

Yes, the bid should be described as ♥ or ♣, and if this is illegal in the jurisdiction the NOS will have to be satisfied with the standard adjusted score when the opponents playing an illegal e system. If it is legal (but not the agreement) I would adjust to a ♥ contract and give a DP for fielding.

I often wonder what proportion of a method being forgotten constitutes it being not the method they are playing.

[Trinidad]

dokoko, on 2020-August-08, 09:35, said:

Is it established fact that South had UI when he made his 2♥ bid?

It seemed to be an established fact. At first, the TD didn't understand that there was UI. When I pointed out to him that the 2♣ response came in a second and, therefore, could not have been alerted by the gentleman in question, he was able to check the timeline. After he did that, it seemed pretty clear to him that there was UI that 2♣ had not been alerted.

Generally speaking, I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out what is going on when playing on this platform. If I look at my typical hand which is something like ♠Kxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Jxx ♣Jx, my LHO passes and my partner takes more than 3 seconds, I know that he is going to open 1♣, because it takes him some time to:

• select the bid
  
• click on the explanation box
  
• type in "2+, not forcing"
  
• click on the "OK + Alert" button

I am pretty sure that I have a better than 90 % success rate.

If he would bid 1♣ in a second, I would send the opponents a message that 1 is "2+♣, non forcing". It hasn't happened yet, since my partner does not forget alerts very often.

Rik