[sathyab]

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error.

Do you agree with the ruling ?

P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

[pran]

sathyab, on 2011-April-03, 02:13, said:

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error.

Do you agree with the ruling ?

P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

Without convincing evidence that you would have bid 3NT in any case I agree with the ruling because the possibility exists that you could have been woken up by the alert to the fact that you had forgotten your agreements. This is sufficient for Law 16B to kick in.

You have to show convincing evidence that after partner bidding 3♣ without any alert you would always (according to the agreements under which you bid 2NT) bid 3NT in this situation.

[1eyedjack]

pran, on 2011-April-03, 02:33, said:

You have to show convincing evidence that after partner bidding 3♣ without any alert you would always (according to the agreements under which you bid 2NT) bid 3NT in this situation.

I would have phrased it slightly differently: Is there any circumstance in which it might have been right to pass 3C if both partners interpreted the 2N as natural and invitational? If the answer is yes then the contract reverts to 3C. Would you, for example, have rolled the contract back to 3C if the OP had held (say) a Club singleton?

[sathyab]

pran, on 2011-April-03, 02:33, said:

Without convincing evidence that you would have bid 3NT in any case I agree with the ruling because the possibility exists that you could have been woken up by the alert to the fact that you had forgotten your agreements. This is sufficient for Law 16B to kick in.

You have to show convincing evidence that after partner bidding 3♣ without any alert you would always (according to the agreements under which you bid 2NT) bid 3NT in this situation.

The only 'evidence' I can offer is this: I expect only two actions opposite an invite, pass or accept. It's really weird for someone to bid 1nt first and then suggest playing in 3♣ when partner asked you if you wanted to bid one higher in NT. Without any UI or disagreement, how many NT invitational sequences end up in 3m ? Very few I'd imagine.

With screens, I'd have realized from the auction, not from partner's alert that I have screwed up. So I'd try to salvage it by bidding 3nt. As for partner, he'd simply play me for a 4144 with a stiff ♣ and pass 3nt. A 4441 hand that passes over 1♥ and then comes back to life is not totally improbable, whereas an auction that ends in 3m after a Notrump invite is very much against the odds.

[campboy]

What does GNT mean?

Anyway, I would do a poll: how many players, if the auction went the same way with screens, would seriously consider passing, and how many of those would do so? I would expect to find that pass was not a logical alternative, and so rule score stands, but I don't really know.

[nigel_k]

pran, on 2011-April-03, 02:33, said:

You have to show convincing evidence that after partner bidding 3♣ without any alert you would always (according to the agreements under which you bid 2NT) bid 3NT in this situation.

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-03, 09:37, said:

I would have phrased it slightly differently: Is there any circumstance in which it might have been right to pass 3C if both partners interpreted the 2N as natural and invitational? If the answer is yes then the contract reverts to 3C. Would you, for example, have rolled the contract back to 3C if the OP had held (say) a Club singleton?

I prefer 1eyedjack's version. The test is whether there is a logical alternative. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. There is no burden of proof on the 3NT bidder, the director may allow the table to result to stand, e.g. based on polling, even if the 3NT bidder offers no reason for his action.

I would phrase the test as follows:

The director should adjust if, without any alert or explanation or other unauthorised information, passing 3♣ is a logical alternative.

You can still act on the basis that there is a system mixup, as long as the authorised information (your hand and the auction) mean that passing 3♣ is illogical. The director should probably take a poll but I would vote that passing 3♣ is illogical and the table result should stand.

[pran]

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-03, 09:37, said:

I would have phrased it slightly differently: Is there any circumstance in which it might have been right to pass 3C if both partners interpreted the 2N as natural and invitational? If the answer is yes then the contract reverts to 3C. Would you, for example, have rolled the contract back to 3C if the OP had held (say) a Club singleton?

In that case I would need a comprehensive description of their agreements in order to understand how he could bid 2NT in the first place.

[pran]

sathyab, on 2011-April-03, 10:06, said:

The only 'evidence' I can offer is this: I expect only two actions opposite an invite, pass or accept. It's really weird for someone to bid 1nt first and then suggest playing in 3♣ when partner asked you if you wanted to bid one higher in NT. Without any UI or disagreement, how many NT invitational sequences end up in 3m ? Very few I'd imagine.

With screens, I'd have realized from the auction, not from partner's alert that I have screwed up. So I'd try to salvage it by bidding 3nt. As for partner, he'd simply play me for a 4144 with a stiff ♣ and pass 3nt. A 4441 hand that passes over 1♥ and then comes back to life is not totally improbable, whereas an auction that ends in 3m after a Notrump invite is very much against the odds.

If 3♣ is a possible bid (alertable or not) with your initial comprehension of your agreements then you have been awoken by the alert as such and should not be allowed to "remember" your actual agreement in the middle of the auction. What calls are then acceptable depends on the relevant agreements.

Only when 3♣ is an impossible call should you be allowed to realize your mistake.

[sathyab]

pran, on 2011-April-03, 15:36, said:

If 3♣ is a possible bid (alertable or not) with your initial comprehension of your agreements then you have been awoken by the alert as such and should not be allowed to "remember" your actual agreement in the middle of the auction. What calls are then acceptable depends on the relevant agreements.

Only when 3♣ is an impossible call should you be allowed to realize your mistake.

I want to make it clear that I was the one who made a mistake in bidding 2nt here. Our agreement is that we play "systems ON" in all such as NT auctions. 2nt would show a ♣bust or 4144 hand with game going values. To invite in NT we have to go through 2♣ first (which incidentally was what caused the problem for me; with some other partners I play 2nt natural). But regardless, in response to an invite we have never discussed or entertained the possibility of anything other than a pass or accept. So 3♣ is a non-existent bid. As I said before, I would have been woken not by partner's alert, but by the odd-sounding (or odd-looking) 3♣ in response to my invite. But unfortunately there's no way to prove it, as I did hear the alert as we were not using screens.

I think the alert procedure is seriously broken as by its very nature it alerts your partner too and he can not use any bridge judgment thereafter at all if he made a mistake. I wish there was some other way.

[sathyab]

campboy, on 2011-April-03, 14:10, said:

What does GNT mean?

Anyway, I would do a poll: how many players, if the auction went the same way with screens, would seriously consider passing, and how many of those would do so? I would expect to find that pass was not a logical alternative, and so rule score stands, but I don't really know.

Oh, sorry for my North American-sentric acronym usage (:- GNT stand for Grand National Teams.

[JLOGIC]

I would argue that 3C is an impossible bid. This is not the same as 1N p 2N p 3C which is possible, because in this auction partner could simply have balanced with 2C on any hand where he might now bid 3C.

[1eyedjack]

Even if 3C is a possible bid opposite a natural 2N, if it is so unusual that its mere surprise factor would wake you up to your own systemic amnesia, would that not itself be AI (in the absence of any alerts and comments)?

[WellSpyder]

If 3♣ is a possible response to a natural 2N, wouldn't you expect it to be forcing? - yes, I'd like to be in game, but maybe ♣ (or even something else) rather than 3N...

[bluejak]

One problem with this - as we have seen several time before when similar rulings have been discussed - is that a lot of people play 1NT - 2NT [invitational] - 3♣ as impossible. Now, if the player himself can convince me it is impossible that is one thing, but polling players who consider the sequence impossible is not helpful.

Let me ask you a question: you play with a simple but good partner who dislikes new-fangled conventions. He opens 1NT: you bid 2NT, invitational, and opponents ask. Your partner describes it as invitational. He then bids 3♣: what has he got?

[1eyedjack]

bluejak, on 2011-April-04, 08:56, said:

Let me ask you a question: you play with a simple but good partner who dislikes new-fangled conventions. He opens 1NT: you bid 2NT, invitational, and opponents ask. Your partner describes it as invitational. He then bids 3♣: what has he got?

I would say that if it is Matchpoints then he has got a screw loose.
If it were IMPS I would rate the bid as to play - showing a minimum off-shape 1N opener, probably with particularly weak majors (opposite a responder who failed to use Stayman). 2-2-3-6 would be a possibility.

If he had not been asked what the 2N bid meant, or if I were properly deaf to his response as I am supposed to be, then I would seriously reappraise whether my 2N was natural now, even if I had meant it as invitational when I bid it. I may still come to the conclusion that it was invitational. But I would certainly rack my brains over it.

[bluejak]

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-04, 09:40, said:

If he had not been asked what the 2N bid meant, or if I were properly deaf to his response as I am supposed to be, then I would seriously reappraise whether my 2N was natural now, even if I had meant it as invitational when I bid it. I may still come to the conclusion that it was invitational. But I would certainly rack my brains over it.

Of course you would. But the question I whether pass is an LA, not whether you would probably decide that something has gone wrong. Of course, if you would certainly decide something had gone wrong, then pass is presumably not an LA.

Incidentally, back when I played 2NT as invitational, we found that even at MPs +110 outscored -50.

[awm]

I would take 3♣ in this auction as showing a maximum hand with a club suit, but worried about prospects in 3NT. The normal reasoning here is weakness in a major; since a hand without a heart control would/should have balanced 2♣ in the auction given, I think the choice of 3♣ points strongly to spades.

Advancer's hand is a very minimum (arguably sub-minimum) invite and has no help in spades. Despite partner's maximum, passing 3♣ seems logical. Raising to 4♣ might also be logical. Bidding 3NT with two little spades is suggested by the UI...

Obviously you can claim that 3♣ "does not exist" in your system. But since the system doesn't include a natural 2NT at all there will be no documentation of this "fact."

[sathyab]

awm, on 2011-April-04, 11:00, said:

I would take 3♣ in this auction as showing a maximum hand with a club suit, but worried about prospects in 3NT. The normal reasoning here is weakness in a major; since a hand without a heart control would/should have balanced 2♣ in the auction given, I think the choice of 3♣ points strongly to spades.

Advancer's hand is a very minimum (arguably sub-minimum) invite and has no help in spades. Despite partner's maximum, passing 3♣ seems logical. Raising to 4♣ might also be logical. Bidding 3NT with two little spades is suggested by the UI...

Obviously you can claim that 3♣ "does not exist" in your system. But since the system doesn't include a natural 2NT at all there will be no documentation of this "fact."

If the bidding had gone (1♠)-p-(p)-1nt-(p)-2nt-(p), now 3♥ makes sense, as you could easily have balanced with a single ♠ stopper and five-card ♥ suit instead of 2♥. Now that partner has expressed interest in game, you want to explore playing in 4♥ ahead of 3nt.

As for the argument about no help in ♠, invitational sequences can hardly guarantee stoppers in all suits and rarely result in contracts with 96.45% chance of success. You have to assume partner has some help in ♠s and that your long ♣ suit comes home. To want to play in a safe 3♣ contract instead of an aggressive 3nt when partner expresses interest in game is bizarre at the very least.

In all the BBO webcasts I have watched in the last eight or ten years I have never witnessed a situation where someone retreated to 3♣ when partner invited game in Notrump. Neither have seen it in print in the ACBL bulletin or BridgeWorld. Has anyone ever seen such a bidding sequence in real life ?

[awm]

Sure, I've had this kind of sequence in real life.

The issue is that on this particular auction advancer has denied holding four spades. So holding xx in spades opposite a partner who has at most three spades is definitely a danger sign. It's also usually not difficult for opponents to find a spade lead on this sequence when it's right (i.e. opener knows hearts are stopped and partner doesn't have many, so leads his four-card spade suit instead and finds his partner with five).

Again, I understand that you have not had this kind of sequence in real life... but then again, you also don't play 2NT as a natural invite. So your experience with this auction is not really representative. The director will need to consider the experience of other people (particularly those who play 2NT as a natural invite). My guess is that among stronger players, there are relatively few for whom 3♣ is "not a possible bid, automatic indicator of systemic misunderstanding" and relatively more for whom it expresses some sort of doubt about 3NT as a strain while still being interested in further things.

[1eyedjack]

bluejak, on 2011-April-04, 10:01, said:

Of course you would. But the question I whether pass is an LA, not whether you would probably decide that something has gone wrong. Of course, if you would certainly decide something had gone wrong, then pass is presumably not an LA.

My point was that if having racked my brains the sequence has alerted me to the fact that we are playing an artificial method in this situation, then there would be no "probably" about it. It would be one extreme or the other. The only occasion where I might have a judgement call is if having racked my brains I have concluded that all the bidding is natural.