[CSGibson]

---

Everyone is vul, everyone is bidding, matchpoints.

[bigbenvic]

Double, maybe they run to 4♥ which I'll happily double too.

Does he have 6 for 3♠ or is this just competing for the part score?

These don't always work out but if partner hasn't weak jumped at this vul we should have half the points, hand looks to be a misfit (me holding 4 hearts, North a spade stopper) and I want to let partner know that I have a much better hand than 2♠ could promise.

[the hog]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-29, 00:43, said:

---

Everyone is vul, everyone is bidding, matchpoints.

I bid 2S on this? Really? That is a big underbid; I would have bid 3D. Anyway I double now.

[CSGibson]

the hog, on 2012-October-29, 02:12, said:

I bid 2S on this? Really? That is a big underbid; I would have bid 3D. Anyway I double now.

I realized when I made the 2♠ bid that I had many extra values - but if someone is kidding on this auction, it was likely to be partner making a very light overcall. That, combined with heart values of doubtful value & bad trump made forcing to the 3 level appear unattractive to me.

[ewj]

I'm definitely not doubling. RHO is presumably 5-5, 4S or pass for me and I probably pass. Wish I'd shown some values previously...

[Fluffy]

I can't stand 2♠ sorry. Partner makes a free bid of 3♠? this is unbelievable, partner cannot be joking, spade honnors are onside, but the opps can cash 3 red tricks at least, after that if we are not down yet we need several fineses against LHO, entering this dummy should be possible though since RHO has very few clubs.

Missing 4♠ vul to let the opps play a partscore undoubled would be impossible to explain, I go for 4♠.

[FrancesHinden]

What did 2NT mean?

[CSGibson]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-29, 13:33, said:

What did 2NT mean?

No conventional meaning was given at the table, presumably it was an offer to play/honest description, though the 2N bidder is a low-level pro who is known for eccentric bidding decisions.

[Codo]

I would pass.
I would bet that 4 ♦ makes often and I would bet that 4 ♠ does not.
But who knows, surely at least one player is joking around. So, if my partner is a senior citizen, I would bid 4 ♠.

[rhm]

Codo, on 2012-October-30, 01:25, said:

I would pass.
I would bet that 4 ♦ makes often and I would bet that 4 ♠ does not.
But who knows, surely at least one player is joking around. So, if my partner is a senior citizen, I would bid 4 ♠.

4♠.

It looks like a 50 HCP deal. In such cases at all red and nobody psyched, you can bet on a lot of distribution.
RHO is short in spades, possibly void. He could be 0=6=4=3
I picture my partner with 6-7 spades and shortage in diamonds.
Since he did not jump overcall he should have a decent hand. But the only honor card he can have outside of spades is the king of clubs.
So what can LHO have for his freely bid 2NT?
A spade stopper and a good diamond suit, possibly 3=2=6=2
I would not be surprised to see both 4♦ and 4♠ make!

---

Rainer Herrmann

[bigbenvic]

That would be a brave 2nt bid by north on that hand, possible but not what I'd expect.

[CSGibson]

Double didn't work so well, declarer had KJTx -- KQJT9x xxx, and dummy x ATxxx Axxxx xx. Partner got despirited and allowed 2 overtricks by never leading a club when in with a spade, and pitching 2 spades on the diamonds. First board of the day, ouch.

[rhm]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-30, 18:03, said:

Double didn't work so well, declarer had KJTx -- KQJT9x xxx, and dummy x ATxxx Axxxx xx. Partner got despirited and allowed 2 overtricks by never leading a club when in with a spade, and pitching 2 spades on the diamonds. First board of the day, ouch.

Looks like both 4♠ and 4♦ make

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

It looks to me like your opps have some disclosure issues if North is as you say and their partner has seen this sort of thing before.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-31, 04:09, said:

It looks to me like your opps have some disclosure issues if North is as you say and their partner has seen this sort of thing before.

What about your partner?

If you try to make sense out of the bidding you quickly can deduce that not everybody can have his normal quota of HCP and some imagination must have tainted the bidding.

Sure North's bidding is not to everybody's taste.

However, I am prepared to bet that this precise bidding sequence had not turned up before and how do you want to show "their partner has seen this before".
Anyway, partner's personal idiosyncrasies are hard to disclose even if you are aware of them and without providing UI to your partner.
What are you supposed to alert? "I have an imaginative partner and this time I suspect he could have a flight of fancy".
Did South react in any way suspiciously?

If you take a competitive bidding sequence at face value even though it does not add up and draw the wrong conclusions that's your fault.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

You show "their partner has seen this before" by asking them. Or do you assume all players are dishonest and will only give self-seving answers? You alert what your agreements are, including implicit agreements. Obvious descriptions might be "Spade values without extra values. May contain a void" or "Ostensibly a weak NT with spade stop but frequently offshape, possibly even a void". Do you really think the auction 1♦ - (1♠) - 2♥ - (2♠); 2NT or equivalent is particularly rare? This seems like a normal auction to me, certainly normal enough that many pairs have conventional agreements for it.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-31, 04:54, said:

You show "their partner has seen this before" by asking them. Or do you assume all players are dishonest and will only give self-seving answers? You alert what your agreements are, including implicit agreements. Obvious descriptions might be "Spade values without extra values. May contain a void" or "Ostensibly a weak NT with spade stop but frequently offshape, possibly even a void". Do you really think the auction 1♦ - (1♠) - 2♥ - (2♠); 2NT or equivalent is particularly rare? This seems like a normal auction to me, certainly normal enough that many pairs have conventional agreements for it.

Nobody, who plays 2NT "natural" in this sequence assumes it shows a void.
The answer you are likely getting is "somewhat balanced with a spade stopper and a point range consistent with whatever their 1NT opening is not."

The type of answer you will get to "has your partner seen this before" is "I took his bid at face value."
At best you will hear, "Sometimes my partner makes bids I do not approve of and I do not suspect".
Honest and self-serving at the same time. That's what you can expect. Now what?

Or do you expect an answer like
"Oh I suspected he had a 4=0=6=3 distribution for his notrump rebid and I simply forgot to alert our opponents to this fact."

You must be dreaming. The world is not black and white and also not naive.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Here is an example of a thread dealing with some similar issues, in this case a 2NT rebid in an uncontested auction. The agreement of E-W on this hand was that the 2NT rebid could be made on extreme distributions. If the actual agreement, whether implicit or explicit, for the N-S pair in the OP is that a 2NT rebid in sequences such as this can be made with extremely unbalanced hands then they are not playing 2NT as natural and should alert it. Note that I do not know what the N-S agreement actually is, only that the OP suggests the North player makes a lot of unusual calls and therefore I am surmising that a regular partner would learn (perhaps implicitly) that such bids are no longer natural.

If the TD asked South whether North had rebid 2NT with a void before and received the answer "Sometimes my partner makes bids I do not approve of and I do not suspect", that would appear to me to be a "Yes". The next question might be along the lines of how often this happens. Making non-systemic calls regularly is precisely how such implicit agreements form. It does not matter whether you approve or not, it matters whether you have reason to suspect that it might happen but the opponents do not. Once the TD has gathered the evidence they need to weigh it as to whether there is an (implicit) agreement. It is not black and white, it is a judgement call. If the judgement is that there is an agreement then they decide if there was misinformation and whether that MI resulted in damage.

Of course you are right in as much as a dishonest player could outright lie about the agreements. I do not think this happens as often as you seem to be suggesting and trust higher quality (non-Club) TDs to be able to get to the bottom of things more often than not. Also that dishonest players will be found out sooner or later and once it is the word tends to get around the bridge grapevine fairly quickly.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-31, 07:05, said:

Here is an example of a thread dealing with some similar issues, in this case a 2NT rebid in an uncontested auction. The agreement of E-W on this hand was that the 2NT rebid could be made on extreme distributions. If the actual agreement, whether implicit or explicit, for the N-S pair in the OP is that a 2NT rebid in sequences such as this can be made with extremely unbalanced hands then they are not playing 2NT as natural and should alert it. Note that I do not know what the N-S agreement actually is, only that the OP suggests the North player makes a lot of unusual calls and therefore I am surmising that a regular partner would learn (perhaps implicitly) that such bids are no longer natural.

If the TD asked South whether North had rebid 2NT with a void before and received the answer "Sometimes my partner makes bids I do not approve of and I do not suspect", that would appear to me to be a "Yes". The next question might be along the lines of how often this happens. Making non-systemic calls regularly is precisely how such implicit agreements form. It does not matter whether you approve or not, it matters whether you have reason to suspect that it might happen but the opponents do not. Once the TD has gathered the evidence they need to weigh it as to whether there is an (implicit) agreement. It is not black and white, it is a judgement call. If the judgement is that there is an agreement then they decide if there was misinformation and whether that MI resulted in damage.

Of course you are right in as much as a dishonest player could outright lie about the agreements. I do not think this happens as often as you seem to be suggesting and trust higher quality (non-Club) TDs to be able to get to the bottom of things more often than not. Also that dishonest players will be found out sooner or later and once it is the word tends to get around the bridge grapevine fairly quickly.

Of course if opponents have an explicit agreement that 2NT may be very unbalanced they should have alerted for sure and failure to alert may be cause for an adjusted score.
However, existence of such an explicit agreement is remote
I know the philosophy behind implicit agreements.
But in my experience implicit agreements are almost impossible to prove unless one partner acts suspiciously thereafter.
The theory is nice but in practice you better forget about them unless they occur three times in a row.
That a player is "imaginative" in the bidding and deviates from standard practice and you as a partner know about it proves nothing.
Otherwise Rosenberg or Hamman playing with Zia would have to "alert" almost any bid Zia made.
Also what should they say in response to an alert. The bid shows such and such but I am not sure whether Zia deviated from our agreements?

This reminds me of an incident I had a couple of years ago.
I played in an international tournament with my wife and the bidding went

(1♦) DBL (1♠) DBL

I doubled 1♦ and my wife doubled 1♠.

I alerted and when asked I explained "This should show spades, but the last 3 times this type of sequence occurred my partner had hearts"
The opponents were puzzled and called the director.
The director told me "I should explain what our agreements are, not what I think my partner has". (Of course she had hearts)

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I think the Director was wrong and your explanation was perfect. You gave the opps the same information that you had. As for playing with Zia, while I have not personally had the chance yet I do understand that his partners alert cue bids in some situations to say that they are sometimes the suit he does not have a control in, a so-called "Zia cue bid". If you deviate often enough then the deviation becomes part of the agreement and is no longer the deviation. That is the whole point of implicit agreements. So you alert and provide the (full) agreement - naturally you do not speculate on a further deviation as that would be a psyche (unless done often enough to become part of the agreement...).