[gnasher]

---

You are certain that 2♥ is systemically natural. Partner alerts 2♥ and explains it as spades and diamonds. Do you think you're allowed to bid (supposing that you wanted to), on the grounds that partner didn't act on the first round, so he can't have a 4♠ bid?

Does it depend on your knowledge of partner's habits?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2011-March-12, 02:42, said:

---

You are certain that 2♥ is systemically natural. Partner alerts 2♥ and explains it as spades and diamonds. Do you think you're allowed to bid (supposing that you wanted to), on the grounds that partner didn't act on the first round, so he can't have a 4♠ bid?

Does it depend on your knowledge of partner's habits?

I think you can act here, partner can't have a real 4♠ bid.

Whether I would act is dependent on the style of my simple/jump overcalls.

[RMB1]

There are some international players and some players I have played with* who have passed 1C with eight spades.

[* These are not mutually exclusive groups: but I don't think any of the internationals I have played with would bid this way.]

Nevertheless, you may know that partner is not such a player (and it may be that your peers know that too). So it may be that even if you "seriously consider" that partner might have bid 4S knowing the system, noone would actually pass (playing with this partner, or this class of partner). In which case, Pass is not a logical alternative and you can bid something.

[mjj29]

I certainly think you can bid here without being in breach of law 73C (which is all the laws ask of players), but you may have to argue your case to the TD and then the appeals committee when they try and adjust under law 16 anyway.

[gordontd]

mjj29, on 2011-March-12, 04:49, said:

I certainly think you can bid here without being in breach of law 73C (which is all the laws ask of players), but you may have to argue your case to the TD and then the appeals committee when they try and adjust under law 16 anyway.

If we accept that pass is not a logical alternative, the question then is what may South bid. 5H certainly seems suggested over 5D or 4NT, and either of the latter two might well bring further bidding.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-March-12, 02:42, said:

You are certain that 2♥ is systemically natural. Partner alerts 2♥ and explains it as spades and diamonds. Do you think you're allowed to bid (supposing that you wanted to), on the grounds that partner didn't act on the first round, so he can't have a 4♠ bid?

Does it depend on your knowledge of partner's habits?

If I were playing with your regular partner, I'd say that there is no logical alternative to concluding that he had forgotten the system.

mjj29, on 2011-March-12, 04:49, said:

I certainly think you can bid here without being in breach of law 73C (which is all the laws ask of players), but you may have to argue your case to the TD and then the appeals committee when they try and adjust under law 16 anyway.

The Laws ask the players to comply with all of the Laws. In this situation, the 2♥ bidder must take care to comply with Laws 16A and 16B as well as Law 73C.

[FrancesHinden]

An international that RMB might have played with once perpetrated an auction something like 1D (1H) P (P) dbl (p) 6S with a 9-card spade suit. However, if this was gnasher's partner then i agree with jallerton that there is no la to him having forgotten the system.

what you can do about it is another matter. There's going to be an enormous penalty here whether we pull or not.

[aguahombre]

Take a poll of peers, but take it across the Pond, where 2♥ is not alerted.

Then see if a portion of players polled would consider that pard had been lying in the bushes with a whole bunch of Spades --and if some of those would pass 4♠ doubled. Even the most straight partners I have ever had have screwed around at one time or another. One even calmly stayed out of an auction until opponents reached the six-level and then tried his spade suit.

If that establishes somewhere near a LA of passing, then removing 4♠ would be demonstrably suggested by the UI. IMO, dismissing the possibility of pard having a lot of spades is too convenient.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-March-12, 08:41, said:

If we accept that pass is not a logical alternative, the question then is what may South bid. 5H certainly seems suggested over 5D or 4NT, and either of the latter two might well bring further bidding.

I would hope 4NT would be likely to bring further bidding, but 5D would not, as we have just been doubled in Four Spades. Partner will think there is a big disparity in our suits, but he is unlikely to go back to spades. I think we are allowed to conclude it is overwhelmingly likely that partner has forgotten the methods, although where the thin line of "any advantage" is drawn I am unsure. But I agree with FrancesHinden that it is unlikely to matter.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2011-March-12, 02:42, said:

Does it depend on your knowledge of partner's habits?

Yes, and it also depends on how clear the partnership agreements are about 2♥.
If this sequence came up with my regular partner then pass to 4♠ would be a LA. Behind screens I would instapass after this bidding. This is because we have played together for 11 years and had this sequence (the 2♥ bid) a lot of times and none of us have ever mentioned anything about playing 2♥ as not natural. So 4♠ would mean that he was sand bagging.

In a different partnership the situation will be different. The problem is that the TD will have a hard time not ruling against a bid over 4♠, since he can't know about the partnership nuances. So even if bidding should be legal for a particular partnership it might well not be allowed by TD.

[aguahombre]

How about if they use Kickback?

[ggwhiz]

To me it's not so much a question of are you allowed to bid. Seems like a close call that may well be going to committee.

But should you bid? I think not.

1. Five of any red wuit is unlikely to fair much (if any) better.
2. Pards forget is causing this, why should I play it?

No one will challenge a pass and everyone will challenge a bid if it works.

[nigel_k]

I'm having trouble envisaging a partnership with enough experience together to know that the 4♠ bidder cannot ever be walking the dog, but not enough to know whether 2♥ is natural.

Otherwise, it may well be that partner having forgotten is the only logical possibility. But there is a difference between knowing this and being able to prove it if required. I don't think you have an ethical obligation to be able to prove it, but in practice I don't think it will be or should be good enough for a director or committee if you just tell them you pulled 4♠ because you just know from experience that partner would never walk the dog here.

[vigfus]

Pass is not LA
Next bid ?

[aguahombre]

now that that is cleared up, we don't need to waste time with the opinions of others who might think it is.

[Jaom]

Well, we don't know much about NS system. Fortunately, it can't be understoob by us as XRKCB ( that's less than unlikely that opponents have 11 spades ).
Taking out is a LA for pas, that's quite obvious (it's hard to believe that with all certainty 4♠ was not a standalone bid), thus IMHO the final result is 4♠x or 5♦ probably doubled (assuming that N would bid it ad nothing horrible would happen).

PS
A a quick example of a card that N can have for his bid:
♠AKDWxxxx
♥ -
♦ -
♣ KWTxx

[TimG]

gnasher, on 2011-March-12, 02:42, said:

You are certain that 2♥ is systemically natural. Partner alerts 2♥ and explains it as spades and diamonds. Do you think you're allowed to bid (supposing that you wanted to), on the grounds that partner didn't act on the first round, so he can't have a 4♠ bid?

I think partner has spades and didn't bid on the first round for whatever reason -- maybe he had some spades in with his clubs, or maybe he was intentionally lying in the weeds.

I think pass is a LA.

[FrancesHinden]

ggwhiz, on 2011-March-12, 16:30, said:

To me it's not so much a question of are you allowed to bid. Seems like a close call that may well be going to committee.

But should you bid? I think not.

1. Five of any red wuit is unlikely to fair much (if any) better.
2. Pards forget is causing this, why should I play it?

No one will challenge a pass and everyone will challenge a bid if it works.

I agree with sentences 1,2,3,4,6 and 7. But on the 'why should I play it?' point, you have teammates as well.

[aguahombre]

Another feeble attempt at humor, this time by GGwhiz: "He screwed it up, let him play it". Tough crowd. We both should keep our day jobs.

[FrancesHinden]

Sorry, been a long day...

(and I was one of the teammates, although sitting out this round of the event)