[ggwhiz]

kenberg, on 2012-June-07, 09:28, said:

All in all, I don't think I would want the standard for alerts to be that if you can figure out what you think is probably going on in an unusual sequence then you need to alert and explain.

I agree in that in an unusual sequence....

1. If you guess on an explanation and are wrong, you are in jail.

2. If your guess is based on the cards you hold, not subject to disclosure.

3. This kind of action doesn't work very well unless it sandbags partner equally as much as the opponents.

[kenrexford]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-07, 10:21, said:

They bid it first. 4c is technically a cue bid, and it's above 3n. And, to be fair, you do have 1st round club control...all of which adds up to "suck it opps"

Funny you say this, as that was one of my points to the interloper.

By the way, as no one else has come up with a term to describe this call, I will share again my term. In other sequences, I have used a call that I describe as a "Steppingstone Bid." The concept is this. In some sequences (this being an example), a call might be made where the opponents are the ones who are forced. Most calls force partner to bid, invite paretner to bid, do not induce any calls at all from partner, suggest that partner not bid, or demand that partner not bid. The unique situation here is that the OPPONENTS are forced to act. They are "forced" because the situation requires them, for bridge scoring reasons, to either bid or to double, as they cannot afford to defend the contract undoubled.

In that situation, this force on the opponents allows partner to not be forced (he can clearly pass), and it has an advantage of allowing better stacking, For one, as one option for the opponents is to double, this "Steppingstone Bid" often induces pass and redouble as options at your next move. But, it also allows what might normally be a relay to actually be one of the options.

Consider Cappelletti 2♣ (one-suiter). Normally, this forces a 2♦ relay, although an override is possible (pass with long clubs). If Advancer is known to be weak, and Overcaller is known to be weak, such that the opponents have GF strength, and the colors white on red, then playing 2♣ as non-forcing makes some sense. If no one bids, play 2♣, potentially -8 for -400 and a probable top. So, the opponents have to bid. Because they have to bid, you now can show all four suits at the two-level, meaning that you can get out at 2♣. So, the call is a "Steppingstone Bid," because the opponents must cooperate with a double, which then allows you to unwind your hand off of their double. (By the way, this sort of NF Capp 2♣ also allows 2♣ to show any one suit OR any two-suiter, as you can redouble with the two-suiter hands, proving well the value of the Steppingstone Bid as a stacking tool.)

In this actual situation, bidding 4♣ as "diamonds plus either clubs or spades" works as a steppingstone bid. Granted, this was an undiscussed steppingstone bid, but the beauty of steppingstone bids is that they generally are self-executing even without discussion, assuming that a double-enabled later move can be properly interpreted.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-June-07, 09:41, said:

My question is what happens if this auction occurs a SECOND time. If this come up only once a year or so, do you expect him to remember what it was the last time, so he can alert the opponents to the possibility?

Not unless he is Carrie Wells (main character of the TV series "Unforgettable" - she literally cannot forget anything).

[jdeegan]

Thanks for the story. Real bridge is, in part, about a battle of wits. Too many players today are like simpleton robots. They faithfully rely on the opponents' bidding. You have to be careful about psyching in a pairs game that your partner doesn't know more about the situation than the opponents due to past experience. Otherwise, f**k'em if they can't take a joke.

[Quantumcat]

I love it!! Great thinking! Sounds like one of those funny stories on PoorBridge, except not actually poor.

[CSGibson]

So I was thinking of this while brushing my teeth this morning, and here's what I came up with:

In this sequence, you should be able to show specific two-suiters.

Redouble of 4♣ would correspond to hearts, and pulling to 4♦ would correspond to spades

But once you have a systemic agreement, I think it is appropriate to put it on your convention card. For that I suggest "EFA* cue-bids".




*Escaped From Asylum.

[han]

Ken, without going into the bridge merits of your 3D and 4C calls, I think that what you did was not so uncommon.

I think everybody here has seen the following idea: partner opens 1NT weak and RHO doubles for penalty. You have a 4-4-4-1 bust and no agreements. What do you do? You bid 2C, willing to play there undoubled, and if the opponents double you can redouble for rescue. This is a common tactic and the idea applies to many different kinds of scrambling situations. Does that make it a psyche? I don't care and it really shouldn't matter.

[han]

kenberg, on 2012-June-07, 09:28, said:

All in all, I don't think I would want the standard for alerts to be that if you can figure out what you think is probably going on in an unusual sequence then you need to alert and explain.

Absolutely agree.

Your comment reminds of the following hand. In the transnationals last year we had the following auction:

1C - p - p - (Dbl)
Rdbl - (1H) - Dbl

I was in third seat and made this double, thinking that it was for takeout. My reasoning is that I never pass 1C with a 5-card major, nor with a decent 4-card major. My partner hasn't promised anything in hearts, I can't have much in hearts, so how can I possibly have a penalty double?

My partner thought that double was penalty, I guess it does sound like a penalty double to some people's ears. So when he was asked about the meaning of my double, he confidently said "penalty", while we had no agreement. 1HX was passed out and went for 1100. Our opponents were a little upset about the explanations because I had a small doubleton and my partner held AKQJ.

I've said to my partner that when we have no agreement, he should say so, and that when he holds all trump honors, he should consider that my double is not for penalty.

[blackshoe]

han, on 2012-June-20, 06:21, said:

Ken, without going into the bridge merits of your 3D and 4C calls, I think that what you did was not so uncommon.

I think everybody here has seen the following idea: partner opens 1NT weak and RHO doubles for penalty. You have a 4-4-4-1 bust and no agreements. What do you do? You bid 2C, willing to play there undoubled, and if the opponents double you can redouble for rescue. This is a common tactic and the idea applies to many different kinds of scrambling situations. Does that make it a psyche? I don't care and it really shouldn't matter.

It might have made it a psych the first few times somebody tried it. These days I think it's "knowledge generally available to bridge players".

[y66]

If I were advancer, I would take 4C to be clubs and diamonds. If you remove 4CX to 4D, I think it's a stretch to think pard will take this as scrambling when it could have been lead directing, even if lead directing seems too weird. Interesting problem.