[arvie]

Teams, district competition (no screens), NS competent players (but nothing special) in an established partnership. EW a little weaker.

3C alerted and explained as inv+ with diamonds (Rubensohl).

---

Start heart, result 3NT C.

Other facts:

• Agreement is Rubensohl (on the convention card). Pair is known to me and I am not aware of any other mix up in this situation.
  
• South: I bid 3NT because I didn't want to tell east which major to start.
  
• East: Because I have the ♦A it is not necessary to start with a spade.

How whould you rule? There is no MI but used South UI and is there a reason to adjust?

[Vampyr]

Why has North signed off in 3♦?

[RMB1]

I assume that 3♣ (Lebensohl) for South was natural and forcing.
Why did North not bid more than 3♦ with a maximum with ♦ support?

The reasons for bidding 3NT are a bit feable, if he was going to punt 3NT he could do so a round earlier.

I think 3NT is suggested over stopper showing/asking bids because if you haven't got a spade stopper then North will try and play in diamonds not clubs. Bidding 3NT means you will play in a normal contract - even if it is off the spade suit.

I think one of 3♥ (showing) or 3♠ (asking) is a logical alternative, having started with 3♣. So I adjust to an auction spiraling out of control when there is no spade stop and NS contest which minor to play in.
5DX-2 (N)

[arvie]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 06:23, said:

Why has North signed off in 3♦?

Without stoppers in both majors North felt that 3♦ was high enough against only an invitational hand. (And maybe he suspected something?)

[Vampyr]

arvie, on 2011-March-09, 06:41, said:

Without stoppers in both majors North felt that 3♦ was high enough against only an invitational hand. (And maybe he suspected something?)

On the other hand, South's diamonds are nowhere near solid, so he must have some cards somewhere.

I like Robin's ideas, but NS may have no agreements over 3♣ (natural and forcing) 3♦ (?). In fact, they certainly don't, since they don't even play this auction this way. So it must be somehow ascetained what they do in analogous situations.

It may end up that the sad truth is that South has no LAs to 3NT.

[arvie]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 07:02, said:

...

I like Robin's ideas, but NS may have no agreements over 3♣ (natural and forcing) 3♦ (?). In fact, they certainly don't, since they don't even play this auction this way. So it must be somehow ascetained what they do in analogous situations.

...

South took it as a positive bid with something (values) in diamonds. Like they do in analogous situations (e.g. inverted minor).

[Vampyr]

arvie, on 2011-March-09, 07:11, said:

South took it as a positive bid with something (values) in diamonds. Like they do in analogous situations (e.g. inverted minor).

Yes; I meant after that. If the partnership will continue to bid suits in which they have values, then 3♥ is certainly a logical alternative to 3NT.

[arvie]

arvie, on 2011-March-09, 07:11, said:

South took it as a positive bid with something (values) in diamonds. Like they do in analogous situations (e.g. inverted minor).

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 08:35, said:

Yes; I meant after that. If the partnership will continue to bid suits in which they have values, then 3♥ is certainly a logical alternative to 3NT.

I thought so. Just to be sure I did a little poll (the match was played on a club evening). After this start 6 out of 7 players would bid 3♥, following with 4♣ after partners 3♠ (looking for a half stopper). After that it seems not illogical to end in 5♣/5♦X-2. (Some of the polled players mentioned that they would bid directly 3NT instead of first bidding clubs.)

So I adjusted accordingly. But south was not too happy with that and found that he had still the right to 'gamble' 3NT. Although in the end he didn't appeal the decision.

So I am just curious if I missed something.

[barmar]

arvie, on 2011-March-09, 08:57, said:

So I adjusted accordingly. But south was not too happy with that and found that he had still the right to 'gamble' 3NT. Although in the end he didn't appeal the decision.

When you're in receipt of UI, it's frequently the case that you lose the right to gamble like that. Probably the only exception is if the UI suggests that the gamble is NOT likely to pay off.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-March-09, 06:29, said:

I assume that 3♣ (Lebensohl) for South was natural and forcing.
Why did North not bid more than 3♦ with a maximum with ♦ support?

The reasons for bidding 3NT are a bit feable, if he was going to punt 3NT he could do so a round earlier.

I think 3NT is suggested over stopper showing/asking bids because if you haven't got a spade stopper then North will try and play in diamonds not clubs. Bidding 3NT means you will play in a normal contract - even if it is off the spade suit.

I think one of 3♥ (showing) or 3♠ (asking) is a logical alternative, having started with 3♣. So I adjust to an auction spiraling out of control when there is no spade stop and NS contest which minor to play in.
5DX-2 (N)

Yes, I think we can allow N/S to get out at the five-level. 3H is a game try in diamonds, from North's point of view. As South his believed to have only invitational values, North will just accept, and when he bids 5D, South will know what has happened, as the weak no-trumper going beyond 5C will be enough of a shock. East seems to have an obvious double - he will surely work out what has happened. So 5♦X - 2 seems fine.

And I nearly missed that we must give some percentage of -3 for the fine defence of ♠A for attitude, spade to West, diamond, diamond, and cash the spade. This looks relatively easy to find, so let us go for 75% of -800 and 25% of -500.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-March-09, 17:47, said:

Yes, I think we can allow N/S to get out at the five-level. 3H is a game try in diamonds, from North's point of view. As South his believed to have only invitational values, North will just accept, and when he bids 5D, South will know what has happened, as the weak no-trumper going beyond 5C will be enough of a shock. East seems to have an obvious double - he will surely work out what has happened. So 5♦X - 2 seems fine.

Why is South believed to have only invitational values? In fact, why do you believe that 3♥ isn't game-forcing?

It would be nice to be able to bid sensibly with x AKx AQxxxx Qxx.

[Mbodell]

If I were playing leb, over partner's 3♦ I'd bid 3nt. I've never played stopper sequences over natural and forcing responses, I'd take 3 ♦ as natural fishing for a ♦ fit or nt contract, and thus I'd bid 3nt with confidence. A 3♥ call for me would be showing a second suit looking for 4♥ games.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-10, 03:09, said:

Why is South believed to have only invitational values? In fact, why do you believe that 3♥ isn't game-forcing?

It would be nice to be able to bid sensibly with x AKx AQxxxx Qxx.

Yes, you are right, 3♥ would be game-forcing, and North might well bid 4♣ over it, although he has already decided his hand is minimum over diamonds, so he might not. South might pass this or he might raise to 5♣ - after all AK in both minors is game, and partner has nothing in spades it would seem. East will double 5♣ (but not 4♣) no doubt, and it seems that we have to consider a few weighted scores. Perhaps:
37.5% of 5D*-3
12.5% of 5D*-2
25% of 4C-1
25% of 5C*-2

[arvie]

lamford, on 2011-March-10, 05:24, said:

Yes, you are right, 3♥ would be game-forcing, and North might well bid 4♣ over it, although he has already decided his hand is minimum over diamonds, so he might not. South might pass this or he might raise to 5♣ - after all AK in both minors is game, and partner has nothing in spades it would seem. East will double 5♣ (but not 4♣) no doubt, and it seems that we have to consider a few weighted scores. Perhaps:
37.5% of 5D*-3
12.5% of 5D*-2
25% of 4C-1
25% of 5C*-2

Interesting point. But I think that we must include the chance that North would bid 3♠, looking for a half stopper. Hoping for 2/3♣ + 5♦ + 0/1♥ + 1♠ making 3NT.

[helene_t]

When playing minor suit transfers, many play a new suit as shortness so with a 6322 one can only punt 3NT, or transfer followed by 3NT which somehow gives opener the choice between 5/6m and 3NT although he may face difficulty making the decision without knowing which suits responder stop.

It is vaguely possible that this sequence is similar so that responder can't show a heart stopper. Or maybe 3♥ would show a 4-card suit. Maybe more likely, NS just don't have a defense against Landy so S chose to avoid a 3M bid that could be misunderstood.

But if showing the heart stopper was systematically possible, then it is certainly an LA, and not showing the stopper is clearly suggested by the UI.

[arvie]

helene_t, on 2011-March-11, 04:22, said:

When playing minor suit transfers, many play a new suit as shortness so with a 6322 one can only punt 3NT, or transfer followed by 3NT which somehow gives opener the choice between 5/6m and 3NT although he may face difficulty making the decision without knowing which suits responder stop.

It is vaguely possible that this sequence is similar so that responder can't show a heart stopper. Or maybe 3♥ would show a 4-card suit. Maybe more likely, NS just don't have a defense against Landy so S chose to avoid a 3M bid that could be misunderstood.

But if showing the heart stopper was systematically possible, then it is certainly an LA, and not showing the stopper is clearly suggested by the UI.

I asked at the table why South did not bid 3♥ and he confirmed that it was a possibility within their system (playing stoppers). He bid 3NT because he didn't want to tell East which major to start. He had no (clear) explanation why he didn't gamble 3NT one round earlier.

Based on this information and the fact that an overwhelming majority would bid 3♥ gave me enough evidence to adjust to 5♦X-2. A little lazy. As demonstrated by Lamford and others a weighted score was more appropriate.

NS are a long standing partnership and certainly dealt earlier with Landy (and other interferences over 1NT).