[awm]

Scoring: IMP

---

You open 1♠ and partner bids 2♣. The 2♣ bid is natural, shows a good hand, but not (initially) guaranteeing a game force.

You now rebid 2♦, artificial, showing any minimum opening hand without four hearts.

Partner bids 3♦. This is natural and game forcing, and there is some inference of extra shape and/or extra values because partner chose such a space-consuming call.

Now what?

[jtfanclub]

Um, can I bid 3♥ without it being 4th suit forcing?

I've denied 4 hearts, so my hearts are about as good as he could possibly hope.

If not, then I guess I'm bidding 3NT.

[FrancesHinden]

I love the way you say 'spades or NT' when it looks obvious to me to bid 4C.

I play 2D as you describe it, over which 2H is an artificial game force - I assume you do something similar, so partner should have serious shape for the 3D bid.

[jdonn]

4♣ seems right. Raise your partner!

[Halo]

3S

Since I'm not sure that I've shown a 6-card spade suit, I think I will just do that right now.

These are not my methods, but then, so what.

[awm]

Partner's options over 2♦:

2♥ artificial game force
2♠ non-forcing preference, normally doubleton
2NT natural invite
3♣ natural invite
3♦ natural game force
3♥ natural game force, very distributional (i.e. 5♥-6♣)
3♠ natural game force, 3+♠
3NT to play

Also, a direct 3♣ response to 1♠ was available as a strong jump shift, showing a very good six card or longer club suit and game-forcing values, but not necessarily quite the strength that is associated with strong jumps in the Soloway style (i.e. doesn't have to be 17+ hcp).

[benlessard]

4C is tempting but i prefer 3Nt. 66% of my values are soft values outside partner suits, this suggest nt for me.

[whereagles]

Think I'll show my 6 spades instead of raising pard. He should be quite strong with some 54 or better, but my major suit holdings are bad for slam.

3♠

[brianshark]

4♣ for me and keycard over 4♦ or 4♥.

[Apollo81]

I'm not sure how much my opinion counts since I have never played this style after a 2/1, but I would bid 3♠. My second choice is 4♣ since partner should have at least 4-6 minors with most of the values there.

[awm]

The actual hand was an ethical issue from face to face bridge. The 3♦ bidder failed to alert the 2♦ call.

Opener now felt that the UI (3♦ bidder thinks 2♦ shows diamonds and probably doesn't have the degree of shape that 3♦ would normally indicate) implied that 3NT would be the most successful option. After all, it is likely to end the auction when responder has the minimum that he shouldn't really have, and reduces the chance of responder trying to play in diamonds. For this reason, opener felt she could not select 3NT, and chose to bid 3♠.

This was a total disaster when responder bid 4♦ and continued trying to play in diamonds (taking all of opener's calls as cuebids) while opener kept trying to return to clubs. Likely a similar disaster would've ensued from a 4♣ call over 3♦ (but probably 3NT would've been passed). The end result was 7♣X-3 for -800.

In any case, there was some debate after the hand as to what the logical alternatives were and which (if any) was suggested by the unauthorized information from the failure to alert.

[Apollo81]

3NT is certainly suggested by the UI

[jdonn]

I would say 3NT is suggested by the UI and is the only bid that is suggested, because it's so final. Any other bid is at least continuing the investigation.

I guess something like 5♣ is also suggested on the same reasoning.

I think 3♠ 3NT and 4♣ are all clearly logical alternatives, although I personally don't care for all of them.

This hand made me think of something interesting. Lets consider a 6♣ bid by someone whose partner didn't alert 2♦, as some sort of unethical effort to shut partner up. But 6♣ is not a logical alternative. I feel like it's definitely illegal but how do I prove it, since the laws just say you can't choose a suggested LA, not that you can't choose any suggested bid (don't they?).

[TimG]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

This hand made me think of something interesting. Lets consider a 6♣ bid by someone whose partner didn't alert 2♦, as some sort of unethical effort to shut partner up. But 6♣ is not a logical alternative. I feel like it's definitely illegal but how do I prove it, since the laws just say you can't choose a suggested LA, not that you can't choose any suggested bid (don't they?).

Yeah, I used to think along those lines. But, I've been told (and it makes sense) that you can't escape the situation by picking an illogical alternative.

Here is how it was put to me recently by David Stevenson on RGB:

me> If the action taken is DBL, doesn't it matter whether DBL is a logical
me> alternative?

DS> No. This has been discussed many, many times, in forums, on BLML,
DS> and here. There are various different ways to look at the legalities,
DS> but the effect is simple: if you choose A, and B is an LA, and A is
DS> suggested over B by the UI, you adjust. Whether A is an LA is
DS> irrelevant.

[Halo]

Well put I'd say, TimG-Stevenson, there is no fancy escape.

[jdonn]

What is the exact wording of the law? If what he said isn't law it should be, but I think 'technically' it isn't. But I won't say anything definitive till someone shows me (I'm blocked from seeing it at work).

[Halo]

I think you will be caught on 70 something or other. 16 is for TDs

[mikeh]

I hope that everyone concerned applauded opener for her ethics... while I hope that most would be as ethical, we all know that some are not, and, anyway, when an ethical player goes for 800 as a result of her good ethics, recognition helps..

As for the dilemma, I think that a good case can be made for 3♥ as the correct call... wo any suggestion of being influenced by the non-alert. To me, it is the better call anyway... while 4♣ is sound, the hand is definitely NOT particularly slam oriented... compare to Axxxx AJx x Axx... now a strong slam move is mandatory while Axxxxx KQx x Axx is also slam suitable.

3♥ preserves 3N and offers a shot at spades should partner be 2=0=5=6 or such. If he bids 3♠, we bid 4♣ now.